How Rockets Differ From Jets
tomcat
little bit similiar, but work on somewhat different principles and
perform much differently:
Note: I am writing this because rocket propelled spaceplanes aren't
getting the attention they should be. Everything seems to be focused
on vertical takeoff rockets which are currently in abundance.
* A jet engine uses oxygen in the air as the oxidizer. Therefore, a
jet engine cannot operate in space or near space where oxygen is either
non-existant or negligible.
* Jet engines are fairly 'heavy' because they have metal turbines that
spin on the inside, compressing the air before fuel is added. What the
turbines can take in temperature and centrifugal forces limits the
engine's performance.
* Jet engines economize on fuel relative to a rocket engine. They,
therefore, operate continuously from takeoff to landing. They also
have a much smaller fuel supply which is at best equal to the dry
weight of the jet airplane. The engines work for hours, up to half a
day on our larger commercial jets, without refueling.
* Jet engines are highly refined, smooth running, low maintenance
machines that are used in thousands of aircraft on a daily basis.
When we think of rocket planes, or spaceplanes, we think subconsciously
of them having jets on them because this is what we are used to seeing.
Sure, we know that they have to be scram jets or rockets, but our
experience is with jet aircraft -- not rocketships.
* A rocket engine does not use oxygen from the air. It carries
oxygen, or some form of oxidizer, along with whatever fuel it is using.
This adds significant fuel weight to a rocketplane relative to a jet
aircraft. But it also frees the rocketplane from the Earth's
atmosphere. Space and near space are no longer barriers to combustion.
* Though the fuel weight of a rocketplane is heavy the weight of the
SSME, for example, is about 7,800 pounds. In short, the rocket engine
is much lighter -- per pound of thrust -- than a jet engine. It
becomes possible, therefore, to use additional rocket engines for VTOL,
4 for example, adding only an additional 31,200 pounds. Those same
engines could be used for reverse thrust to rapidly slow reentry speed.
* Vertical rockets are extremely fuel intensive. Rising vertically
with no wings means that fuel and rocket thrust has to counteract the
force of gravity, then additional fuel and rocket thrust has to give
momentum to the vehicle, which by it's very nature is crammed to the
gills with . . . fuel. And, liquid fuels are heavy. Go grab a gallon
of water, milk, or gasoline then figure out what giant tanks of liquid
weigh. No wonder the space shuttle, with about 7.5 million pounds of
thrust, rises so slowly. It weighs nearly 7.5 million pounds!
* The SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engine) is an example of a highly
refined and extremely reliable rocket engine. It is good for about 50
uses. Note: A rocket engine is used once everytime it is turned on
and off. After 50 uses you replace the engine with a new one. This
might work out to about 5 - 10 missions.
* Also, rockets do not burn continuously. Burns are usually specified
in terms of minutes, or seconds, not hours as with jets. The Shuttle's
reentry retrofire, for example, is a 10 second burn. But, rockets have
enormous thrust compared to a jet. They can do more in a couple of
minutes than a jet can do in 10 or 12 hours!
So, are rocketplanes, or spaceplanes if you prefer, different from jet
planes? Yes. In fact there are even more differences to consider.
A rocketplane must endure hypersonic flight -- in the atmosphere --
everytime it goes into space or reenters from space. Hypersonic flight
has one extreme difficulty: blast furnace temperatures. Temperatures
so hot they can melt any known steel in a matter of seconds, as we
learned watching the Columbia breakup in the atmosphere. Is this
insurmountable? No!
Ceramics can take hypersonic skin temperatures -- easily. They can
protect, by reflecting the heat, the materials underneath. Fire brick
is used in blast furnaces. They are used again and again and are
replaced yearly. They (silica tiles) are not only used in blast
furnaces but are used on the Space Shuttle. They are extremely light
and extremely thermal reflective. Perfect, except that they are also
soft and brittle. Not good for a rocketplane in a hypersonic airflow.
The proven material for hypersonic airflow is Corelle ceramic. It was
made for ballistic missile nosecones, tested, and in use for decades.
A spinoff, we use Corelle for dinnerware. Great stuff! It weighs a
little more than fire brick and is not quite as reflective, but it is
tougher, can be cast in larger sections, and can take almost any amount
of heat. Thinly sliced Corelle can give a lot of protection. It could
even cover fire brick, and protect it, creating a ceramic composite of
sorts. So, proven technology, has part of the heating problem solved.
Add the cryogenic cooling of liquid hydrogen as it goes to the engine
and the Shuttle's vacuum bottle design where a vacuum space protects
the inner from the outer hull, and a shirt sleeve environment is
possible. Best to have the astronauts in spacesuits, though, just in
case.
A HTOL (Horizontal Take Off and Land) rocket is more efficient than a
VTOL (Vertical Take Off and Land) tubular rocket. You do not use the
same equations to determine range, because with a waverider body the
weight is being lifted by the shockwave, not by extra fuel. In short,
the vast majority of the fuel is used for forward thrust. The old B-29
could travel thousands of miles at 20,000+ feet with a thrust to weight
of 10%. That's right, the B-29's engines were only 1/10 as powerful as
the aircraft's weight. But it took off again and again loaded with
bombs.
So, you ask, why aren't we already in Outer Space with Spaceplanes?
Answer: I don't know, I really don't know! If anyone knows please
tell me. Please!! (NASA, can you tell me?)
tomcat
Ian Stirling
<snip>
>
> A HTOL (Horizontal Take Off and Land) rocket is more efficient than a
> VTOL (Vertical Take Off and Land) tubular rocket. You do not use the
> same equations to determine range, because with a waverider body the
> weight is being lifted by the shockwave, not by extra fuel. In short,
> the vast majority of the fuel is used for forward thrust. The old B-29
> could travel thousands of miles at 20,000+ feet with a thrust to weight
> of 10%. That's right, the B-29's engines were only 1/10 as powerful as
> the aircraft's weight. But it took off again and again loaded with
> bombs.
>
> So, you ask, why aren't we already in Outer Space with Spaceplanes?
You're glossing over the numbers.
Yes, you only need weight/ (L/D ratio) to push something flying in order
to gain level.
But, the mission of a launcher is NOT to cruise for a long time, it's to
get into orbit.
More thrust with rockets is cheap,
The time you are in the atmosphere is time you are subjected to lots of drag.
This means you need to carry lots of fuel.
tomcat
> You're glossing over the numbers.
> Yes, you only need weight/ (L/D ratio) to push something flying in order
> to gain level.
>
> But, the mission of a launcher is NOT to cruise for a long time, it's to
> get into orbit.
> More thrust with rockets is cheap,
> The time you are in the atmosphere is time you are subjected to lots of drag.
> This means you need to carry lots of fuel.
Yes, achieving level flight is easier than SSTO (Single Stage To
Orbit). Waveriders deal very effectively with drag, however.
There is a little 'trick' to drag as well. Slimming the wings, or at
least lessening the lift by reducing body/wing curvature, lessens drag
as well.
When this is done you also have to decide on the takeoff and landing
speeds that are reasonable and possible. Slimming the wings to a 300
knot takeoff means strong landing gear and a long runway. Ditto for
landings.
Hypersonic waveriding SSTO's have been referred to as 'flying gasoline
cans'. Though the fuel is unlikely to be gasoline, 95+ % of the
dryweight is going to be fuel tanks.
This means designing a SSTO waverider is actually . . . easy! It also
means that you are taking a crew into the hottest blast furnace
imaginable surrounded by and sitting on -- volatile fuel. Not so easy.
So far, preliminary calculations indicate that starting out with a 1:1
thrust to weight is probably best. This should give the takeoff and
early flight performance of a F-15 Eagle.
After a scant minute or so thrust to weight will have climbed to 2:1
giving enough push to slice through the hypersonic speeds and touch
near space. Another 1 to 1 1/2 minutes should put the spaceplane into
orbit. So, we are talking about 3 to 4 minutes of burn time.
It is best to have -- and keep for retrofire or reverse thrust -- an
extra minute of fuel on board. So, all in all it works out to about 5
minutes of fuel. For calculations, with the SSME (Space Shuttle Main
Engine) as engine of choice, figure 1035 pounds of fuel consumed at
full throttle each second.
Now you can figure the necessary wet weight of the spaceplane and add
that to the the dry weight. My ballpark figures, taking into
consideration new lightweight materials, are that 6 minutes of onboard
fuel is possible. Dry weight has to be next to nothing to do this.
This could mean borderline escape velocity. Probably best to think of
high orbit, instead.
tomcat
George Evans
jla...@bellsouth.net wrote on 10/15/05 3:11 PM:
Tomcat, something you are not comprehending is the magnitude of escape
velocity. If the earth were a perfect frictionless sphere with absolutely no
atmosphere so you didn't even have to worry about lift at all you still need
a 3g burn of about 4 1/3 minutes to achieve orbit. Starting from a 1:1
thrust to weight ratio would up that to about 6 3/4 minutes. Time spent in
the atmosphere, especially at hypersonic speeds, will increase this time
significantly so the trick is to get out of it as soon as possible. That's
about what the shuttle does--two minutes up and six minutes sideways.
BTW, the shuttle probably lifts off the ground faster than your car
accelerates horizontally.
George Evans
Mike Dennis
news:BF771BC2.778%geor...@earthlink.net...
lazy to pick up a textbook, I wouldn't waste too much time on Tomcat. We're
not debating (or even discussing, really) the merits of some space
transportation concept or proposal, though Tomcat thinks we are. He tosses
out buzzwords like they're advanced things on the very cutting edge of our
collective knowledge here, not realizing this stuff is decades old news--and
pretty basic at that! But hey, it's you're time, I guess...
GK
>>
>>Tomcat, something you are not comprehending is the magnitude of escape
>>velocity. If the earth were a perfect frictionless sphere with absolutely
>>no
>>atmosphere so you didn't even have to worry about lift at all you still
>>need
>>a 3g burn of about 4 1/3 minutes to achieve orbit. Starting from a 1:1
>>thrust to weight ratio would up that to about 6 3/4 minutes. Time spent in
>>the atmosphere, especially at hypersonic speeds, will increase this time
>>significantly so the trick is to get out of it as soon as possible. That's
>>about what the shuttle does--two minutes up and six minutes sideways.
>>
>>BTW, the shuttle probably lifts off the ground faster than your car
>>accelerates horizontally.
>>
>>
>>
>Unless you feel it is your personal responsibility to educate everyone too
>lazy to pick up a textbook, I wouldn't waste too much time on Tomcat. We're
>not debating (or even discussing, really) the merits of some space
>transportation concept or proposal, though Tomcat thinks we are. He tosses
>out buzzwords like they're advanced things on the very cutting edge of our
>collective knowledge here, not realizing this stuff is decades old news--and
>pretty basic at that! But hey, it's you're time, I guess...
>
>
Still interesting. Good discussion.
George Evans
map...@woh.rr.com wrote on 10/16/05 5:54 AM:
What can I say, I am a teacher. And like a lot of teachers I try to keep
other people from embarrassing themselves too badly.
George Evans
Flypaste Wingnut
"Mike Dennis" <map...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Z3s4f.63992$tD4....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
I flatlined the uneducated punk weeks ago.
tomcat
> Tomcat, something you are not comprehending is the magnitude of escape
> velocity. If the earth were a perfect frictionless sphere with absolutely no
> atmosphere so you didn't even have to worry about lift at all you still need
> a 3g burn of about 4 1/3 minutes to achieve orbit. Starting from a 1:1
> thrust to weight ratio would up that to about 6 3/4 minutes. Time spent in
> the atmosphere, especially at hypersonic speeds, will increase this time
> significantly so the trick is to get out of it as soon as possible. That's
> about what the shuttle does--two minutes up and six minutes sideways.
>
> BTW, the shuttle probably lifts off the ground faster than your car
> accelerates horizontally.
The vertical rocket concept is to minimize drag and heat by minimizing
distance traveled in the atmosphere. The vertical rocket, however,
uses nearly half it's fuel to support it's weight -- which is primarily
fuel weight -- before we can even talk about X number of G's, or escape
velocity.
>If the earth were a perfect frictionless sphere with >absolutely no
> atmosphere so you didn't even have to worry about lift at all >you still need
> a 3g burn of about 4 1/3 minutes to achieve orbit.
Lift is to counteract gravity, not air friction. So, you do have to
worry about lift. Drag can, today, be dealt with quite well by wave
riders.
When mass ratio yields a 2:1 thrust to weight, G force will
significantly exceed 3 G's. If your calculations are different I would
be interested in seeing them. 4 1/3 minutes to orbit sounds about
right.
>Time spent in
> the atmosphere, especially at hypersonic speeds, will >increase this time
> significantly so the trick is to get out of it as soon as >possible.
Again, drag is very minimal with modern designs, including the design
of the Shuttle. Remember, too, that the atmosphere thins rapidly.
You can't breathe at 20,000 feet. 100,000 feet requires vehicles
designed with high altitude in mind. And, at 200,000 feet, about 40
miles high, only the tremendous speed of a hypersonic vehicle will
enable airfoils to work for either lift or control.
A 1:1, increasing ratio, will take you to 20,000 feet in the blink of
an eye, to 100,000 feet in a minute or so. A 30 degree climb seems to
maximize lift/climb for such purposes.
If getting out of the atmosphere 'as soon as possible' means going
tubular/vertical then a trade off has been made. The huge amount of
lift that airfoils give has been negated in favor of a very slow --
fuel expensive -- vertical launch.
>That's
> about what the shuttle does--two minutes up and six minutes >sideways.
And it is spectacular! But the Shuttle is not a 'true SSTO' and
vertical launch does not do away with air friction heat on reentry.
Neither does parachutes.
tomcat
George Evans
jla...@bellsouth.net wrote on 10/16/05 5:15 PM:
> George Evans wrote:
>
>> Tomcat, something you are not comprehending is the magnitude of escape
>> velocity. If the earth were a perfect frictionless sphere with absolutely no
>> atmosphere so you didn't even have to worry about lift at all you still need
>> a 3g burn of about 4 1/3 minutes to achieve orbit. Starting from a 1:1 thrust
>> to weight ratio would up that to about 6 3/4 minutes. Time spent in the
>> atmosphere, especially at hypersonic speeds, will increase this time
>> significantly so the trick is to get out of it as soon as possible. That's
>> about what the shuttle does--two minutes up and six minutes sideways.
>>
>> BTW, the shuttle probably lifts off the ground faster than your car
>> accelerates horizontally.
>>
> The vertical rocket concept is to minimize drag and heat by minimizing
> distance traveled in the atmosphere. The vertical rocket, however, uses
> nearly half it's fuel to support it's weight -- which is primarily fuel weight
> -- before we can even talk about X number of G's, or escape velocity.
You aren't think correctly. You have to expend the same energy to raise a
given weight whether in climbing flight or straight vertical lift. So the
best way to do it is as straight up as practical. Toodling around in the
atmosphere is just going increase your starting fuel weight.
>> If the earth were a perfect frictionless sphere with absolutely no atmosphere
>> so you didn't even have to worry about lift at all you still need a 3g burn
>> of about 4 1/3 minutes to achieve orbit.
>>
> Lift is to counteract gravity, not air friction. So, you do have to worry
> about lift. Drag can, today, be dealt with quite well by wave riders.
You don't need to worry about lift if there is no atmosphere, as in this
hypothetical situation. You would just slide on the frictionless surface
until kinetic energy exceeded the energy of a circular orbit of height 0.
> When mass ratio yields a 2:1 thrust to weight, G force will significantly
> exceed 3 G's. If your calculations are different I would be interested in
> seeing them. 4 1/3 minutes to orbit sounds about right.
A thrust to weight ratio of 2:1 will give an acceleration of 2 G's. That's
what the 2 means in the ratio. There is no way you can "exceed 3 G's". And
notice that the 4 1/3 minutes assume a constant 3 G acceleration.
>> Time spent in the atmosphere, especially at hypersonic speeds, will increase
>> this time significantly so the trick is to get out of it as soon as possible.
>>
> Again, drag is very minimal with modern designs, including the design of the
> Shuttle. Remember, too, that the atmosphere thins rapidly.
>
> You can't breathe at 20,000 feet. 100,000 feet requires vehicles designed
> with high altitude in mind. And, at 200,000 feet, about 40 miles high, only
> the tremendous speed of a hypersonic vehicle will enable airfoils to work for
> either lift or control.
>
> A 1:1, increasing ratio, will take you to 20,000 feet in the blink of an eye,
> to 100,000 feet in a minute or so. A 30 degree climb seems to maximize
> lift/climb for such purposes.
>
> If getting out of the atmosphere 'as soon as possible' means going
> tubular/vertical then a trade off has been made. The huge amount of lift that
> airfoils give has been negated in favor of a very slow -- fuel expensive --
> vertical launch.
Airfoils don't magically create energy. The only source of energy are the
motors. A good airfoil can *minimize* the added energy necessary to achieve
orbit over that necessary for a vertical launch. But flying to orbit is
still going to cost you more.
<snip>
George Evans
tomcat
George Evans wrote:
> Airfoils don't magically create energy. The only source of energy are the
> motors. A good airfoil can *minimize* the added energy necessary to achieve
> orbit over that necessary for a vertical launch. But flying to orbit is
> still going to cost you more.
Your 'frictionless surface' though experiment is interesting and I
shall give it some thought. And, yes, nothing magically creates
energy.
Yet, I am still intrigued by the B-29 that won WWII.
With an engine thrust of 1/10 it's takeoff weight it could fly
thousands of miles, drop tons of bombs, and return. It's thrust to
weight ratio only increased a little when it dropped the bombs, but
with substantially less than a 1:1 thrust to weight it would fly it's
mission again and again.
Nothing magically creates energy but far less thrust than weight could
take this plane to 20,000 feet and hold it there for hours. This is
'interesting' too.
tomcat
George Evans
jla...@bellsouth.net wrote on 10/17/05 2:39 AM:
All of the energy from the engines of the cruising B-29 went to counteract
drag. When the engines are throttled up, the extra energy goes into
increasing height. The climb is very slow compared to a rocket launch but
the amount of extra energy necessary to climb to 20,000 feet is the same
used to lift the vehicle vertically to that height.
The reason it seems confusing is that a B-29 flying at 350 mph at 20,000
feet has a very very small energy compared to orbital energy.
George Evans
tomcat
> All of the energy from the engines of the cruising B-29 went to counteract
> drag. When the engines are throttled up, the extra energy goes into
> increasing height. The climb is very slow compared to a rocket launch but
> the amount of extra energy necessary to climb to 20,000 feet is the same
> used to lift the vehicle vertically to that height.
>
> The reason it seems confusing is that a B-29 flying at 350 mph at 20,000
> feet has a very very small energy compared to orbital energy.
The climb of a B-29 is slow. The 'amount' of energy necessary to climb
to 20,000 feet is the same used to lift the vehicle vertically to that
height. So far we are in agreement.
> The reason it seems confusing is that a B-29 flying at 350 mph at 20,000
> feet has a very very small energy compared to orbital energy.
The reason it seems confusing, however, has nothing to do with the
B-29's altitude or speed.
To get a vertical/tubular rocket to 20,000 feet requires a thrust to
weight ratio in excess of 1:1. Otherwise, the rocket would simply sit
on it's pad spouting flames and smoke.
The reason the B-29 can get above the ground at all is it's wings,
i.e., airfoil lift.
=====
It starts out speeding down the runway until it reaches takeoff speed.
Speed of air under the wings has now reached 'lift' for the B-29
weight.
The 1:1 vertical/tubular rocket is still sitting on the pad spouting
flames and smoke.
At 2 minutes into the flight the B-29 is at 1000 feet, where the
cornfields start looking like a patchwork quilt.
The 1:1 vertical/tubular rocket is still sitting on the pad spouting
flames and smoke.
At 6 minutes into the flight the B-29 is punching it's way through some
low lying clouds.
The 1:1 vertical/tubular rocket is still sitting on the pad spouting
flames and smoke.
At 30 minutes into the flight the B-29 is at 20,000 feet approaching
the enemy border.
The 1:1 vertical/tubular rocket is still sitting on the pad --
completely out of fuel.
=====
What is being confused here is 'total energy' and 'ability to do a
given task'. The vertical/tubular rocket probably burned more energy
than the B-29. But it didn't go anyplace.
The B-29 flew to target, dropped it's bombs, and is now heading home
some 7 hours later.
The configuration of the vertical/tubular rocket could not utilize it's
energy as effectively as the B-29. Why? It didn't have . . . wings.
Much is the same between rocket spaceplanes and the vertical/tubular
rockets of today. This is because equations lie. They say two things
are the same -- because of numerical oversimplification -- when they
are not the same at all.
It isn't numbers that do the flying. It is the carefully designed and
constructed, solid object, vehicle that does the flying. The HTOL
(Horizontal Take Off and Land) spaceplane is not anything like a
vertical/tubular rocket. They don't look the same. They don't act the
same.
Yes, X amount of energy gets an object -- any object -- into orbit.
And, X is a constant, an exact figure.
In the case of a spaceplane we are closer to a 'apples to apples'
calculation than with the B-29 example.
Given that both have a 1:1 thrust to weight ratio. And, once again,
the spaceplane goes into orbit and the vertical/tubular rocket . . .
sits on the pad. Guaranteed, check it out.
/// "Hint": This will not happen as described above in a weightless
vacuum. They will both go the same distance in exactly the same amount
of time using exactly the same flight path. ///
The only change is that one took place in a gravity/air environment and
the other took place in a weightless vacuum. Wings use air to help
push the plane up. Air can push upward. Really!
As the spaceplane speeds forward on the runway, air is compressed
underneath it and begins to push upward. As the air becomes denser
because of compression due to speed, the lift increases dramatically.
(Updrafts can send a light plane hurtling upward with no energy of it's
own being used to climb. Earth is surround by air with 1 atmosphere of
pressure. Fantastic stuff!)
With increase of speed this pressure increases and increases until the
ability to lift objects is incredible. A gaseous mass that becomes
increasing solid because of compression (due to speed) forms a 'hard as
rock' groove supporting the weight of the spaceplane as it climbs. The
engines don't have to do anything but push the spaceplane up a 30
degree incline, not a 90 degree vertical 100% overcoming of Earth's
gravity like the vertical/tubular rocket.
Five strong men could push a car up a 30 degree hill to the top even it
were 100 feet above the surrounding land. Five strong men will never,
never throw the car up to a 100 foot high ledge.
Conclusion: Gavity is partially overcome by . . . wings -- using the
molecular energy of a gas (air), hardened by speed, to make a 30 degree
'road' to the top. And, you can 'kick it up a notch' with wing
curvature, creating rarifaction (suction) on top, and get the air to
work for you twice over, lightening your weight at the same time it
holds you up!
It is true that the 30 degree climb makes a longer distance to orbit,
but the more rapid increase in vehicle speed more than compensates for
this.
(60 miles to space vertical is about 120 miles at 30 degrees. 60 miles
at an average speed of mach 3 is 4 1/2 minutes. 120 miles at an
average speed of mach 12 is 2 1/4 minutes. Half the time to space.)
tomcat
George Evans
jla...@bellsouth.net wrote on 10/17/05 5:51 PM:
<snip>
> The only change is that one took place in a gravity/air environment and
> the other took place in a weightless vacuum. Wings use air to help
> push the plane up. Air can push upward. Really!
>
> As the spaceplane speeds forward on the runway, air is compressed
> underneath it and begins to push upward. As the air becomes denser
> because of compression due to speed, the lift increases dramatically.
>
> (Updrafts can send a light plane hurtling upward with no energy of it's
> own being used to climb. Earth is surround by air with 1 atmosphere of
> pressure. Fantastic stuff!)
>
> With increase of speed this pressure increases and increases until the
> ability to lift objects is incredible. A gaseous mass that becomes
> increasing solid because of compression (due to speed) forms a 'hard as
> rock' groove supporting the weight of the spaceplane as it climbs. The
> engines don't have to do anything but push the spaceplane up a 30
> degree incline, not a 90 degree vertical 100% overcoming of Earth's
> gravity like the vertical/tubular rocket.
I thought we would uncover some flaw in your reasoning and here is one. The
engines have to do a lot more than push the plane up the incline. They have
to create the speed which creates the compression which creates the incline.
> Five strong men could push a car up a 30 degree hill to the top even it
> were 100 feet above the surrounding land. Five strong men will never,
> never throw the car up to a 100 foot high ledge.
But 10 strong men can hoist a car up a 100 foot cliff a lot easier than they
can build a 30 degree ramp to the top of the cliff and *then* pull it up.
> Conclusion: Gavity is partially overcome by . . . wings -- using the
> molecular energy of a gas (air), hardened by speed, to make a 30 degree
> 'road' to the top. And, you can 'kick it up a notch' with wing
> curvature, creating rarifaction (suction) on top, and get the air to
> work for you twice over, lightening your weight at the same time it
> holds you up!
>
> It is true that the 30 degree climb makes a longer distance to orbit,
> but the more rapid increase in vehicle speed more than compensates for
> this.
>
> (60 miles to space vertical is about 120 miles at 30 degrees. 60 miles
> at an average speed of mach 3 is 4 1/2 minutes. 120 miles at an
> average speed of mach 12 is 2 1/4 minutes. Half the time to space.)
I like wings too. And they are great for floating around in the atmosphere
if that's what you need to do. But going into orbit is another thing.
George Evans
Brad Guth
With some of my usual math corrections that only seems to have turned
out as offering a bit more fantastic than before, with each applied MJ
worth of Radon ions suggesting KE = 158e6 Kgf is getting this method
into a level of nuclear thrust if enough Radon(Rn222) gas can be
supplied into the ion generating arrays of such thrusters without
everything melting down upon the tarmac. Although this is still purely
mad-science speculation as based upon obtaining a theoretical ion exit
velocity of 150e3 km/s, though doing the math on just 150 km/s isn't
entirely without merit at delivering 158 Kgf/MJ.
As before, I'll still have to totally agree that going bigger is
better. Because you're absolutely right about what's new and always
getting improved about CNT fabrics, rocket engines and of the fuel they
burn, and even SBRs have been getting into delivering more reliable
bang for their tonnage. Per usable volume of shuttle-like interior, the
CNT spaceplanes of the future should outperform the existing usable
volume as currently provided by our NASA shuttle, I'm thinking by at
least a good 2:1 if not 4:1 seems doable if it's a whole-body form of
flying spaceplane (what the hell do we need wings for?)
Here's another improvement upon what a Radon ion thruster array might
have to offer. I must say that it's actually getting a little
embarrassingly super terrific as compared to wossy Xenon, but that may
be entirely related to my math running amuck as suggesting far more ion
velocity capability than what's actually obtainable. But even if I'm
only 0.1% right, it's still going to offer an impressive number. First
look at the proven Xenon/ion method;
Xenon - Atomic Mass: 131.29 Amu
Xenon ION thrust exit velocity @30 km/s
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/X/XIPS.html
"These investigations showed that xenon offered the highest thrust of
any non-reactive gas; Ions ejected by XIPS travel in a stream at a
speed of 30 km/s (62,900 mph), nearly 10 times that of a conventional
chemical thruster."
Unlike the non-reactive(dead) aspects of Xenon, obviously Radon(Rn222)
might otherwise be considered as a highly reactive form of gas, as such
it seems entirely possible that Radon ions should become those as
nearly photon ejected at half 'c', thus conceivably 150e3 km/s could be
suggesting a 5000:1 exit velocity improvement, of which V2(velocity
squared) should therefore represent a rather impressive 25e6:1
improvement in the KE worth of thrust potential and, whereas Radon
having the Amu of 222 is certainly much denser than any Xenon Amu worth
of 131.3, so as to start off with being worth another 1.69:1 advantage.
No matters what, besides the factor of Xe having to be just as
artificially obtained, sub-frozen and then highly insulated as a
sequestered into a sub-frozen mass of Xe, and of whatever mass of this
Xe is eventually going to vaporise and/or simply run out from being
consumed, whereas accommodating a sufficient cash of Radium(Ra226)
that's creating Radon(Rn222) on the fly is good for a half life of 1600
years.
Boeing 702: 25 centimeters in diameter = 165 mN of thrust
"Boeing Electron Dynamic Devices (702 Thruster), XIPS is 10 times more
efficient than conventional liquid fuel systems." The 702 offers an
individual range of power consumption up to 4.5 kW that obtains 3500
seconds/kg worth of Xenon ISP for creating 165 mN of thrust.
I'm certainly not the Radon(Rn222) ion thruster wizard but, I'm
thinking the amount of required energy as to ionize Rn222 that's
already somewhat on the go isn't going to be nearly as great as per the
none-reactive and thus passive Xenon. Therefore, the auxiliary power
source of electrons as being derived via PV cells, tether dipole or
that of an onboard reactor might be relatively slight on behalf of
energising ions from Radon.
See if my reverse engineering and not so great math is worth yet
another bad example:
Xenon ION thrust at 165e-3/4.5e3 = 36.666e-6 N per J
Based upon a 5000:1 increase in ion exit velocity represents a KE
mutiplier factor of 25e6
At good vacuum, Radon ion thrust = 36.666e-6 * 25e6 * 1.69 = 1549 N per
J
Thus a MJ applied for creating a Radon ion flow as thrust might become
good for 1549e6 N
The thrust per MJ in terms of Kgf becomes 1549e6 * 0.101972 = 157.95e6
Kgf
Obviously 158e6 Kgf of ION thrust per MJ of applied auxiliary energy
seems a bit much. Therefore perhaps the actual improvement in Ra222 ion
exit velocity isn't going to ever become worth the 5000:1 over the
velocity of Xenon ions, that is unless it somehow turns into a laser
cannon form of ion thruster, in which case the radon ion velocity
improvement could reach 10,000:1. Otherwise if achieving just a
conservative 150 km/s of ion thrust would cut the results down to 158
Kgf/MJ, which still isn't all that bad.
This radon/ion notion still represents having a rather sizable cash of
Radium(Ra226) which the spaceplane is having to haul about, perhaps
several tonnes worth unless there's some viable method of expediting
the rate of decay into becoming Rn222. Possibly forcing the decay of
Ra226 within a power reactor might suggest upon one method of
generating the onboard auxiliary energy at the same time as per
expediting the production of Rn222.
Otherwise having a continuously usable ISP of 3500 * 1600 years = 5.6e6
seems rather interesting. Not that using the basis of any kg worth of
Xenon under continuous usage is going to be good for more than an
hour/kg, therefore the actual Radium(Ra226)-->Radon(Rn222) ISP
half-life gets this way further past the mark of 5.6e6 * 8.736e3 =
48.9e9
Of course, as per the added mass of the external basalt composite
shield which need not come and go from Earth, as equally for the cash
of Radium(Ra226) tonnage need not be onboard for the launch or reentry
phase. Having robotically pre-launched the Radium and whatever
containment reactor and/or Radon(Rn222) extractor into orbit is the
same logic as to having created the basalt composite shielding as
pre-established in orbit, thus is why the spaceplane need not
physically carry the added mass upon launch or reentry. However, since
there's no apparent shortage of Radon(Rn222) to being had upon Earth,
this is why a good amount of that element as a frozen gas (possibly as
a liquid or solid) could become utilized as a portion of their launch
thrusting energy via ion thrusters, although I'd expect that in
addition to whatever terrestrial heavy lift aerodynamic transporter as
was utilized in the SS1 case, a few SBRs would remain the norm if the
large spaceplane launch mass is essentially representing several
hundred tonnes in need of exiting Earth's gravity at 8 km/s.
If the LSE-CM/ISS were established, as then parking the spaceplane
along side this 50e6 tonne CM(counter mass) as having the 1e6 m3 ISS
within is just the best ever spaceplane depot/pitstop you can imagine,
providing a good 50t/m2 worth of physical and radiation shielding that
should take whatever the sun has to offer without measurably impacting
the spaceplane crew and passengers that would simply vacate their
moderately shielded ride and wait it out within that relative safety of
the CM/ISS.
In closing, I may not have fully considered the ultimate ramifications
of actually using such large amounts of Radon within our terrestrial
environment, as I'm re-thinking this Radon(Rn222) ion thruster might
somehow represent a situation that's somewhat like pumping out a whole
lot nastier density than lead at 150,000 km/s, whereas the down-wind of
thruster exhaust might become a wee bit lethal until the final decay of
whatever's lost volumes of Rn222 becomes actual lead, as for then
whomever's still alive gets to prematurely die from lead poising.
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; WAR is WAR, thus "in war there are
no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of having to deal
with the likes of others that haven't been playing by whatever rules,
such as GW Bush.
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
Brad Guth
With regard to what's potentially obtainable via large CNT Spaceplane
as undergoing R&D by "Scaled & SS2/WK2"
>So, you ask, why aren't we already in Outer Space with Spaceplanes?
If MI6/NSA needed a Spaceplane as to further perpetuate their
perpetrated cold-war, as such they'd have it.
Since we can't honestly go back to the moon (at least not safely upon
the solar illuminated lunar surface) for even the first time, as such
the LEO limitations of their Shuttle has been perfectly sufficient for
accommodating all of their cloak and dagger spookology and cold-war
perpetration to boot. Of whatever energy/thrust efficiency wasn't then
and isn't now any MI6/NSA factor.
Even with the usual anti-everything under the sun flak as contributed
from this typically anti-sharing and otherwise stick-in-the-mud
mindset;
>Marko Horvat; Yes it's wonderful, magnificent and inspiring, but...
>they still haven't achieved 7.9 km/sec - the 1st orbital speed.
Once a sufficient Spaceplane as a flying airfoil-body exist, thus
minimal if any wings other than a couple of retractable semi-vertical
(V) tail-fins, therefore having a nearly 100% usable interior for fuel,
systems, tonnes of commercial payloads and perhaps 100+ passengers is
doable for the reasons of aerodynamics getting by far the most
do-everything bang per kg, as well as per buck. Everything you say
about using purely rocket engines and the likes of LH2/LOX or 98~99%
H2O2/C12H26 instead of consuming atmosphere that's mostly N2 anyway, is
the truth and nothing but the truth. However just in case, a few
disposable SBRs for quickly achieving the first 100,000' might come in
real handy, although Radon(Rn222) ion thruster just migh otherwise take
the final edge off their getting into and well past LEO.
As per usual, Scaled & SS2/WK2 are certainly outside the mainstream
box, as in not on the receiving end of their obtaining any viable
support from our warm and fuzzy MI6/NSA~NASA, instead only the usual
lack of sharing rocket-science and otherwise kept on a need-to-know
info basis as to so much other science which is simply MOS "high
standards and accountability" of our infomercial NASA status quo of
essentially excluding evidence as well as banishing outsiders. This is
why private ventures have to tough it out, by way of their making due
with far less cloak and dagger spookology (meaning you can't operate
upon the cloaked advantage of having three sets of the usual Arthur
Andersen cooked books). Perhaps China, Russia or India might spare a
few affordably honest SBRs, that plus helping to create their
CNT/Basalt composite spaceplane for ten cents on the dollar, and if
made large enough may become just as commercially doable as the C380
R&D required. If using a similar two-step(SS1) launch method like
before, I'm thinking it'll involve at least 100+ billion for
accomplishing something that'll accommodate the likes of hundreds of
folks per flight for achieving those multiple extended LEOs (possibly 7
days and nights spent aloft) and safely back to Earth.
In this case, I believe that bigger is better (something C380 w/o
conventional wings). Thus an extremely large CNT Spaceplane as touted
by "tomcat" and others is most likely the best do-everything and
all-around ticket to ride. If going a bit further out than LEO, once in
orbit is where the massive outer protective shell of a mostly basalt
composite layer of interlocking armor can be re-attached and, then it's
off they safely go into the wild black yonder. I see no insurmountable
payloads of their easily achieving 200,000 lbs, although the initial
launch phase of getting the entire spaceplane along with it's full
payload to an initial cruising altitude of getting past 47,000' is
going to be impressive by itself, if not pushing a good many known
limits well past the red-line.
Once going past LEO and of the point of no return, thus obviously
having sped through the Van Allen badlands, of their having to slow
down into going merely 1+ km/s is somewhat of a coasting velocity
that's slightly better off than a parallel parking speed. Whereas
certainly from that point on the likes of Radium(Ra226)-->Radon(Rn222)
ion thrusters should get real interesting, with possibly a Xenon/Radon
ion cocktail that might offer a little more push per MJ.
Our moon is only making 1.023+/- km/s, whereas of the ME-L1/EM-L2 zone
of our mutual gravity-well is getting the velocity requirement down to
less than 860 m/s, thus chasing after the moon is more or less about
putting on the breaks, and especially once having somewhat coasted
(retro-thrusting) into being reasonably situated within the interactive
nullification zone, as this is where next to hardly any energy/tonne
can keep that interactive status quo until it's time to return home for
their banked bone marrow injections.
The ME-L1 station-keeping zone should be relatively safe enough of and
external environment (averaging an extra 5 mr/day up to 5 rem/day as
secondary/recoil radiation derived off the solar impacted moon) for
more than a year at a time unless the sun gets seriously nasty along
with whatever pico-flak/m3 within those 1200~2400 km/s winds, in which
case advanced warnings should permit the option of returning home which
should not take but 12 hours at averaging 27 km/s by way of using the
moon itself as a near-miss flyby of having first thrusted nearly
directly down towards the moon and plan-A being thrust diverted just
enough off to the lunar horizon of this spaceplane becoming less than
10 km off the deck should make for the gravity assisted phase of going
extremely fast a rather simple and energy efficient task (not to
mention quite a second by second thrill), as otherwise the Spaceplane
could simply ion thrust itself out of the comfort zone of ME-L1 in
order to temporarily relocate to the solar backside of the moon for a
little timely safe keeping until the worse of the solar flak plus
primary and secondary worth of TBI threat gets past. Then maneuvering
itself back into the relatively safe and sane Earth-side pocket, as
well as being the most energy efficient zone, as this mode of
station-keeping within the ME-L1 sweet-spot should do quite nicely
untill it's time to return to Earth.
Since some of the lunar terrain could be worthy of 8 km, permitting
their speed-runs of cruising this extremely large spaceplane twice past
the lunar surface at perhaps 10 km off the nasty deck might get a
little testy, but that's where computers and TOP-GUN piloting along
with those powerful Radon(Rn222) ion thrusters and full usage of the
onboard multi-hundred MJ energy resources gets to accomplish their
thing. Either that or having ductaped a few spare SBRs onboard just in
case.
I'll have to offer that I'm not entirely sure that most folks even
remotely appreciate the truly horrific importance and primo relevance
of utilizing the mutual gravity-well/nullification zone that's always
situated between Earth and our moon, supposedly at roughly 84% the
distance towards the moon or 16% the distance towards Earth (+/- the
monthly solar gravity factors and just a wee bit of extra influence
from Venus every 18 months). Thus perhaps all of what I'm suggesting is
simply going way over thy head and clean through thy legs. I've
attempted many a time as to getting such a topic regarding this
ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot into this Usenet and many other forums, with
essentially a zero return factor, other than my having to take MOS
mainstream status quo flak. So, I guess this is another one of those
taboo/nondisclosure and/or need-to-know facets that's lethally enforced
by those MI6/NSA (aka Skull and Bones) MEN-in-BLACK.
I might as well add that the likes of Einstein was nearly always being
ludicrous about something, and if he wasn't so well backed by the
almighty mainstream might and supreme power of the Jewish religion (I
believe he even had the Pope on his side of that BIG-BANG theory, of
which he never actually endorsed), plus a few extremely wealthy and
thus powerful Jewish banks as having been continually involved with
American interest, as such Einstein probably wouldn't have amounted to
squat. What if Einstein was a Muslim; as then what?
If Einstein were Muslim, as such I don't believe we'd even have pop-up
books by his doing.
-
As per the usual, each and every day (as soon as my I get my PC
reconnected to this Usenet of disinformation cesspool that sucks and
blows, as such it's been getting worse off than ever, as I seem to have
attracted more than my fair share of the almighty GOOGLE/NOVA V-Chip of
automated seek and destroy via spermware/malware as a gauntlet that's
having been specifically associated with my MI6/NSA Usenet
interactions, thus nearly always I'm having to frequently reboot
because of their ongoing efforts as to damage and/or eliminate my
existence as far as my having any public Usenet access or even so much
as a working PC. This is still the absolute ongoing truth and nothing
but the truth that's easily 100% provable, which seems only to further
demonstrate that I'm essentially right about most everything, thus
apparently I'm worth targeting on behalf of mainstream damage-control.
The typical excuses that it's all my fault, in that GOOGLE/NOVA and
their partners of MI6/NSA in crimes against humanity can't possibly
avoid nor otherwise track a given source of such spermware/malware,
much less block it, is yet another LLPOF proof-positive that I'm right
about something that's apparently not supposed to be public knowledge.
tomcat
> As before, I'll still have to totally agree that going bigger is
> better. Because you're absolutely right about what's new and always
> getting improved about CNT fabrics, rocket engines and of the fuel they
> burn, and even SBRs have been getting into delivering more reliable
> bang for their tonnage. Per usable volume of shuttle-like interior, the
> CNT spaceplanes of the future should outperform the existing usable
> volume as currently provided by our NASA shuttle, I'm thinking by at
> least a good 2:1 if not 4:1 seems doable if it's a whole-body form of
> flying spaceplane (what the hell do we need wings for?)
> within is just the best ever spaceplane depot/pitstop you can imagine,
> providing a good 50t/m2 worth of physical and radiation shielding that
> should take whatever the sun has to offer without measurably impacting
> the spaceplane crew and passengers that would simply vacate their
> moderately shielded ride and wait it out within that relative safety of
> the CM/ISS.
Ion engines are useful for two purposes.
One, to increase speed, greatly shortening the length of voyages to the
planets. It also provides a backup propulsion system for emergencies
capable of getting a crew back into the vicinity of Earth. Substantial
extra supplies should be provided in case of emergencies as well.
Two, to provide a substitute for gravity on long voyages. It is not
necessary that they provide 1 G, since .1 G will give astronauts a up
and down orientation and keep their feet on the deck. A Bowflex type
of exercise machine would keep them fit as well and limit bone loss.
I am glad that Brad Guth brought up the radiation danger of Outer Space
because it is easy to ignore it.
The crew compartments should be the inner most part of the ship.
Research should be done into forcefields capable of bending
electromagnetic radiation. Remember that Beryllium Steel can stop
neutrons. They are some plastics that have radiation stopping
properties.
I am leaning away from any 'thick' sheath of rock like substances
because of the complexity of putting them on and taking them off,
producing them in the first place, and the expense and difficulty of
placing them in the predetermined positions or orbits for assembly.
Since, however, I advocate a cargo load capacity of considerable
poundage there should be -- on a cargo hauler sized spaceplane --
enough capacity to bring along plenty of food, oxygen, and water, with
extra for emergency situations.
As pointed out, water could serve a double purpose along with hydrogen
fuel, namely, to shield against radiation because the crew compartment
would be in between the tanks. Add to that, a stainless steel,
beryllium steel, composite liner to the crew compartment and much of
the radiation problem should be in hand.
Also, fuel cells produce drinkable water. Quite pure, from what I
understand. This is used on the Space Shuttle. All of this
reprocessing of urine and feces is for the . . . well, you know who.
As I have mentioned before Co2 lasers (Infra-red) could be used, with
an automated fire control system, to vaporize meteors up to a certain
size. Anything larger would have to maneuvered around, which should be
automated as well so that an autopilot can be used by the crew as
necessary.
Space doesn't weigh much so spacious crew quarters should be possible.
The crew could be as small as 2 or as large as 6, but more than that
should not be necessary.
I think some believe that I am joking about having to tether down the
'dry' cargo hauler because it would be so light. This, however, is not
the case.
Everything hollow should be vacuumed. This will stop heat convection
and greatly lighten whatever is so vacuumed. The net result, along
with the use of very light weight materials such as composite and
titanium, should yield a ship weighing no more than 100,000 pounds
despite gargantian proportions and a 200,000 pound cargo capacity.
All of the technology I have mention is within our grasp. Much of it,
in fact, already exists. Once again, one of the reason for using
SSME's for main propulsion is that they consume liquid hydrogen which
is also the best air conditioning agent around that can deal with the
blast furnace temperatures of hypersonic transit through an atmosphere.
The SSME is also highly reliable. Very important.
tomcat
Brad Guth
>I am glad that Brad Guth brought up the radiation danger of Outer Space
>because it is easy to ignore it.
radiation in LEO, that is unless you and your passengers encounter the
SAA or manage to locate a speck of sand along the way, or having
encountered another ABL test firing that's being orchestrated by our
crack DoD village idiots.
>I am leaning away from any 'thick' sheath of rock like substances
>because of the complexity of putting them on and taking them off,
>producing them in the first place, and the expense and difficulty of
>placing them in the predetermined positions or orbits for assembly.
Don't lean too far because, basalt is only a rock like substance in the
raw form. You obviously need to learn more and do far less leaning away
from what really works.
The potentially "thick" and good composite density of what basalt and
JB-WELD can be fabricated, as into suiting whatever density and
thickness you'd care to create. This composite is already ten fold
better off than the CNT that's becoming available. Eventually the
spendy CNT should develop into outperforming the 4.84 GPa and EM of 89
Gpa of basalt by a good 10:1, but that's spending billions more and
taking perhaps an extra decade to boot.
Basalt Continuous Fiber Mechanical Properties
http://www.albarrie.com/Process%20Engineering/pro-basalt.html
Raw Basalt fiber 2.7~2.8 g/cm3 or 2700~2800 kg/m3
Tensile strength MPa 4840 (4.84 GPa)
Elastic modulus: GPa 89
Elongation at break 3.15 %
JB WELD (epoxy) Properties in lbs/psi (MPa)
http://www.jbweld.net/coldweld.html
Tensile Strength: 3960 (27.3 MPa)
Adhesion: 1800 (12.4 MPa)
Flex Strength 7320 (50.5 MPa)
Tensile Lap Shear 1040 (7.2 MPa)
Thermal Resistant to 500ºF / 260ºC
Density: 15.8lb/gal (1.87 gm cm3)
Basalt/JB-WELD(30%) matrix/composite = 2486 kg/m3
Basalt/JB-WELD(25%) matrix/composite = 2530 kg/m3
Basalt/JB-WELD(20%) matrix/composite = 2574 kg/m3
Basalt/JB-WELD(15%) matrix/composite = 2618 kg/m3
Basalt/JB-WELD(10%) matrix/composite = 2662 kg/m3
Of course, using micro-balloons or perhaps rather milli-balloons of
basalt are offering an entirely different group of solutions, as to
creating extremely low mass composites of R-1024/m insulation value to
boot. Thus a blend of as little as 10% fiber and 90% balloons seems
perfectly doable. Filling those balloons with the likes of H2 or just
accommodating a near vacuum (such as if having been manufactured upon
the moon) and the spaceplane might float away all by itself (especially
if ever situated upon Venus). I mean, how embarrassing would that be?
>Since, however, I advocate a cargo load capacity of considerable
>poundage there should be -- on a cargo hauler sized spaceplane --
>enough capacity to bring along plenty of food, oxygen, and water, with
>extra for emergency situations.
Keep thinking C380 big or even bigger, though obviously no wings, just
an aerodynamically flying Spaceplane body of at least 100 meters in
LOA, perhaps 10 meters thick and perhaps 30 meters wide.
>Space doesn't weigh much so spacious crew quarters should be possible.
>The crew could be as small as 2 or as large as 6, but more than that
>should not be necessary.
In which case, double all of my previous dimentions. Have passenger
accommodations for 200+.
>The net result, along with the use of very light weight materials such
>as composite and titanium, should yield a ship weighing no more than
>100,000 pounds despite gargantian proportions and a 200,000 pound cargo
>capacity.
A 100% airfoil configured Spaceplane shell should be impressive and
functional. The shuttle like servace/payload compartment doors should
be configured for accommodating at least twice the volume of whatever
the shuttle now provides. Again, bigger is better. Go for a 200t
payload capacity and a GVW of 300t. Reusable massive auxiliary H2O2 and
C12H26 fuel tanks can be ductaped to the Spaceplane, then cut lose
(bombs away) once anywhere near LEO.
>The SSME is also highly reliable. Very important.
No kidding.
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
. . . basalt is only a rock like substance in the
> raw form. You obviously need to learn more and do far less leaning away
> from what really works.
The basalt 'fabric' is interesting. Nowhere on the site listed did I
see a meltpoint figure, however. Rock is usually good to about 3000
deg. F. One possibility might be to put a thin layer of nanotube
fabric over a thicker layer of basalt fabric, because nanotubes can
really take the heat.
> The potentially "thick" and good composite density of what basalt and
> JB-WELD can be fabricated, as into suiting whatever density and
> thickness you'd care to create. This composite is already ten fold
> better off than the CNT that's becoming available. Eventually the
> spendy CNT should develop into outperforming the 4.84 GPa and EM of 89
> Gpa of basalt by a good 10:1, but that's spending billions more and
> taking perhaps an extra decade to boot.
JB-WELD is a 500 deg. F. cement. Not capable of thousands of deg. F.
Check out graphite epoxy instead. Basalt fabric laminated with
graphite epoxy might be capable of 3000 deg. F., a reasonable figure if
coated with nanotubes which are, in turn, protected by Corelle ceramic.
Believe me, it really gets hot in hypersonic air travel, whether for
orbit insertion or reentry. Hot, hot, hot! An emergency reentry at
100,000 mph without enough fuel for reverse thrust -- which also cuts
off the liquid hydrogen cooling system -- can result in temperatures of
20,000+ deg. F.!
tomcat
Brad Guth
>The basalt 'fabric' is interesting. Nowhere on the site listed did I
>see a meltpoint figure, however. Rock is usually good to about 3000
>deg. F. One possibility might be to put a thin layer of nanotube
>fabric over a thicker layer of basalt fabric, because nanotubes can
>really take the heat.
spendy CNT, as providing an outer layer of extreme thermal resistance.
However, spray on ceramic micro-balloons might outperform the CNT
thermally as well as in being perhaps 0.1% the cost per effective
usage. Whatever goes on that final outside layer needs to be highly
serviceable, meaning reparable and/or replaceable.
I'd save the CNT as primarily for the most critical structural
attributes, used sparingly because of it's cost and certainly
complexities in binder/sealer applications, whereas the composites of
basalt can be configured to suit the job/task at hand are going to be
easily field reparable (in space if need be) and eventually somewhat
moon-rock cheap.
>JB-WELD is a 500 deg. F. cement. Not capable of thousands of deg. F.
>Check out graphite epoxy instead. Basalt fabric laminated with
>graphite epoxy might be capable of 3000 deg. F., a reasonable figure if
>coated with nanotubes which are, in turn, protected by Corelle ceramic.
STOP IT RIGHT NOW!
You keep insisting upon draging the entire Spaceplane shell along with
it's massive outer shield/armor up and down until it all burns up. I
suppose that you'd insist upon dragging the fairly massive
Radium(RA226)-->Radon(Rn222) reactor up and down as well. Good grief,
what a horrific wast of energy.
Think outside the box. Think about getting the seriously heavy stuff
into LEO and keeping it there. What goes up should (if at all possible)
stay up.
BTW; JB-WELD is just one of my suggestions that would work perfectly
fine and dandy as the composite binder for the all-essential physical
and radiation shield attributes, that which again need NOT go up and
down with each and every flight. A form fitting outer composite shell
of a relatively thick and if need be as massive as nearly 3 g/cm3
shouldn't have to go up more than once.
>Believe me, it really gets hot in hypersonic air travel, whether for
>orbit insertion or reentry. Hot, hot, hot! An emergency reentry at
>100,000 mph without enough fuel for reverse thrust -- which also cuts
>off the liquid hydrogen cooling system -- can result in temperatures of
>20,000+ deg. F.!
A really good Space plane's aerodynamic body (w/o wings) is going to
create a fairly uniform pressure wave and subsequent vacuum drag
coefficient that'll act somewhat like creating an extremely large
friction buffer zone. Lots of sizable stuff arrives onto the surface of
Earth without all that much thermal damage, the trick being to keep the
mass per/m3 down to a dull roar. Besides, the outer-most layer of
composite basalt would merely fuse back together and intentionally
sluff off. Your "20,000+ deg. F.!" seems a wee bit on the high side,
although obviously ceramic tiles and/or spray-on coatings of ceramics
having a sufficient amount of CNT fibers involved should do quite
nicely (perhaps a CNT fabric of ceramic beads, as beads having been
cross threaded onto those spendy CNT fibers could be interesting).
How many minutes each way do you plan upon being the the "hypersonic
air travel" hot, hot, hot! mode?
You can also use nearly frozen H2O2, which has a great deal more
volumetric density and thus more thermal transfer capability than LH2.
You could also sprey out an invisible cloud of Radon(Rn222) as per
creating an extremely terrific refrigerant, thus creating a sub-frozen
artificial atmospheric surround (just don't breath the stuff).
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
> A really good Space plane's aerodynamic body (w/o wings) is going to
> create a fairly uniform pressure wave and subsequent vacuum drag
> coefficient that'll act somewhat like creating an extremely large
> friction buffer zone. Lots of sizable stuff arrives onto the surface of
> Earth without all that much thermal damage, the trick being to keep the
> mass per/m3 down to a dull roar. Besides, the outer-most layer of
> composite basalt would merely fuse back together and intentionally
> sluff off. Your "20,000+ deg. F.!" seems a wee bit on the high side,
> although obviously ceramic tiles and/or spray-on coatings of ceramics
> having a sufficient amount of CNT fibers involved should do quite
> nicely (perhaps a CNT fabric of ceramic beads, as beads having been
> cross threaded onto those spendy CNT fibers could be interesting).
>
> How many minutes each way do you plan upon being the the "hypersonic
> air travel" hot, hot, hot! mode?
>
> You can also use nearly frozen H2O2, which has a great deal more
> volumetric density and thus more thermal transfer capability than LH2.
> You could also sprey out an invisible cloud of Radon(Rn222) as per
> creating an extremely terrific refrigerant, thus creating a sub-frozen
> artificial atmospheric surround (just don't breath the stuff).
A reentry at 17,500 mph results in a maximum of about 7000 deg. F. A
reentry at 100,000+ deg. F. results in about 20,000+ deg. F.
Only ceramic can hold up at these temperatures. Corelle is tough and
can be cast in large thin sheets. Silica tiles are brittle and
delicate but can reflect heat better than anything. They are also very
light weight.
Very recently developed laser spraying of ceramic on to metal surfaces
is a real boost to the space industry. It came from the Department of
Atomic Energy. They are attempting to sell it to the steel industry
for blast furnaces.
The ceramic sprayed on metal is probably not thick enough to protect
the metal underneath against full reentry heat. But it does greatly
increase the metal's ability to withstand heat.
I see this ceramic spray as an added protection and it may help to get
the larger ceramic sheets to adhere. Ceramic on ceramic is probably an
easier cementing process than ceramic on metal. That was the purpose
of the laser spray in the first place. Cementing ceramic on metal
doesn't work too well. Ask NASA. The Shuttle tiles keep falling off
despite their best cements.
The hypersonic temperature problem is the greatest challenge to space
flight. Don't count on 'special' shockwaves or even air spikes to
bring air friction heat significantly down.
There is one trick, though, and that is to use air brakes made of solid
ceramic. Simply stick 3 large ovals into the bottom air flow and they
will take most of the heat sparing the rest of the bottom. Flying
saucers use this. I have seen them in the UFO pictures.
A more powerful air brake would be to stick a ceramic slab up into and
another slab down into the air flow. A lot of pressure on the slabs
but it would protect metal on the other side and slow the ship down
rapidly.
Reverse thrust with subsequent hydrogen cooling of the hull and
interior is great as long as the returning spaceship has a supply of
fuel left. Used with air brakes this should be the best solution of
all. Rapid slowing using a safe reverse thrust/air brake method would
stop the metal melting heat in a minute or so.
You would still need a super thermal capable hull anyway. Even 3 or 4
thousand degrees F. is enough to melt most things.
tomcat
Brad Guth
>The hypersonic temperature problem is the greatest challenge to space
>flight. Don't count on 'special' shockwaves or even air spikes to
>bring air friction heat significantly down.
with a bright phosphorescence from its own radioactivity, turning
yellow through orange to red as it is further cooled and/or compressed.
Thus radon can be compressed into an extremely dense liquid form,
obviously cooled by merely radiating the compressed heat into the near
vacuum of space (especially while cruising over the backside of Earth).
Then merely venting said extreme-frozen radon as need be, as a vapor
phase change (refrigerant) into becoming an extremely sub-frozen cloud
or worthy artificial atmospheric barrier of a gas that should react on
behalf of cooling the critical external surface areas of your
Spaceplane.
>A more powerful air brake would be to stick a ceramic slab up into and
>another slab down into the air flow. A lot of pressure on the slabs
>but it would protect metal on the other side and slow the ship down
>rapidly.
I like the notion of using extremely large surface area ceramic
air-breaks, as perhaps trailing edge fold-ups and fold-down flaps or
whatever formula of providing V-expanding surfaces. Then how about
plan-B of creating a disposable ceramic parachute, using that nifty CNT
fiber as the chute tether lines?
How about using a disposable composite ball of basalt, of an extremely
large enough sphere (artificial meteor) so that your Spaceplane could
just safely follow it in (perhaps as somewhat in-tow by a CNT tether)
as per getting safely through the upper atmosphere, then allowing the
remains of that disposable and relatively cheap Spaceball to land
directly on top of GW Bush and Dick Cheney, as now you'd be killing off
more than those usual two birds with one stone.
>Reverse thrust with subsequent hydrogen cooling of the hull and
>interior is great as long as the returning spaceship has a supply of
>fuel left.
I believe this could in a big and powerful way easily replaced with
those retro-radon-->ion thrusters as powered via the onboard Radium
reactor/radon generator (or He3 fusion if possible). The same
sub-frozen radon liquid could also be discharged for accomplishing the
necessary external surface cooling, or just evaporated within the hot
skin of the Spaceplane and then as a nicely warmed gas be fully
utilized as ion fuel, thus no wastage or other harmful discharges
whatsoever.
Learn more about Radon(Rn-222) before you become another GW Bush and
Dick Cheney environmental fiasco partner in crimes against humanity by
using up our limited terrestrial energy resources and otherwise having
polluted by way of getting those other forms of conventional rocket
fuels safely created, stored, transported and delivered to your
Spaceplane, only to being 100% consumed and thus depositing their
remains for the rest of us to live with. Whereas Radon should not be
such a problem, as you'd be doing the environment and humanity a big
favor by getting that nasty Radium(Ra226) away from Earth, and then as
for the Rn222 as the Radon gas shouldn't be depositing anything but
harmless ions of perhaps polonium-214. Of whatever raw radon is
released (if any) upon reentry should be quite dispersed and/or nearly
dead by the time it reaches the ground, soon transforming into the form
of lead (which would have been here to start with anyway). What's worse
off; the radiation or the relatively small amounts of lead?
How much Spaceplane energy per tonnage (say per 200 metric tonnes
worth) for getting into LEO?
tomcat
>Brad Guth wrote:
> I like the notion of using extremely large surface area ceramic
> air-breaks, as perhaps trailing edge fold-ups and fold-down flaps or
> whatever formula of providing V-expanding surfaces. Then how about
> plan-B of creating a disposable ceramic parachute, using that nifty CNT
> fiber as the chute tether lines?
Air brakes can effectively bring speed to 'low friction', say mach 20,
in about 1 minute. So, air brakes can defeat the worst of the reentry
heat, taking a seeminly insolvable thermodynamic problem down to size.
And, yes, trailing edge fold-ups/downs can be used. The Shuttle has
them and they work, but were not designed for maximum reentry braking
but, rather, for braking prior to landing. They tiled them, however,
allowing their use sooner than they were originally designed for. They
work.
They should have been used on the last flight of Columbia, but it was
not protocol, and no one thought of it. You just pump them a bit.
This gives your body a chance to recover from high G load, and it gives
the trailing edge flaps a chance to recover from the high thermal.
Disposable parachute is a bit extreme and does not take into account
the enormous G forces generated by slowing down . . . instantly. It
will take a shovel to remove the astronauts.
> How about using a disposable composite ball of basalt, of an extremely
> large enough sphere (artificial meteor) so that your Spaceplane could
> just safely follow it in (perhaps as somewhat in-tow by a CNT tether)
> as per getting safely through the upper atmosphere, then allowing the
> remains of that disposable and relatively cheap Spaceball to land
> directly on top of GW Bush and Dick Cheney, as now you'd be killing off
> more than those usual two birds with one stone.
The Administration won't go for it. And, following a giant ball of
basalt would cause your spaceplane to slam into the back of it. Sorry,
no funding for this one.
> >Reverse thrust with subsequent hydrogen cooling of the hull and
> >interior is great as long as the returning spaceship has a supply of
> >fuel left.
> I believe this could in a big and powerful way easily replaced with
> those retro-radon-->ion thrusters as powered via the onboard Radium
> reactor/radon generator (or He3 fusion if possible). The same
> sub-frozen radon liquid could also be discharged for accomplishing the
> necessary external surface cooling, or just evaporated within the hot
> skin of the Spaceplane and then as a nicely warmed gas be fully
> utilized as ion fuel, thus no wastage or other harmful discharges
> whatsoever.
The cooling from the hydrogen fuel is essential for both the hull and
interior. Unless, of course, you like a 1000 deg. F. cockpit with only
your nomex flight suit between you and . . . cremation. That is what I
meant when I said: hot, hot, hot.
If, however, you had no hydrogen fuel the ion thrusters could be
designed in such a way that they would reverse thrust. This would help
some, but 'air brakes' and a 20,000 deg. F. certified hull made of
nanotubes and Corelle is what would mainly save your skin.
Nanotubes are extremely thermally conductive and this prevents 'hot
spots' on the hull, like on the leading edges. Corelle has been tested
to 20,000 deg. F. Great stuff.
Once possibility is to have 'air brakes' with fold down/up trailing
edge flaps and have an 'emergency air brake' with the two big slabs of
Corelle sticking up into the airflow.
This would help a lot returning from Venus at 200,000 mph because of a
good slingshot, finding out you had a hydrogen leak, and enable you to
stop quick in the atmosphere so you don't have to listen to your face
bubble and fry like bacon in hot grease.
tomcat
Brad Guth
One minute worth of had aerobreaking doesn't seem all that
insurmountable, as I was thinking of your CNT covered basalt composite
Spaceplane taking 10 minutes for this transition.
>Disposable parachute is a bit extreme and does not take into account
>the enormous G forces generated by slowing down . . . instantly. It
>will take a shovel to remove the astronauts.
I like the part about using a "shovel to remove the astronauts".
However, I wasn't exactly thinking about deploying a 10,000 m2 worth of
aerobreaking ceramic parachute, more like a 100 m2 for a given 300
tonne Spaceplane that should get the astronaut removal tool down to
using a fork and spoon rather than a shovel. The parachute need not be
parachute shaped, rather more or less a sphere or that of a reverse
teardrop form of a ceramic aerobreaking drag inducing anchor.
>The cooling from the hydrogen fuel is essential for both the hull and
>interior. Unless, of course, you like a 1000 deg. F. cockpit with only
>your nomex flight suit between you and . . . cremation. That is what I
>meant when I said: hot, hot, hot.
Even 10 minutes worth of being within the externally "hot, hot, hot"
mode isn't going to get the interior of your CNT and Corelle coated
Spaceplane at more than a dry 50 deg. F rise (it's called
thermaldynamics of energy-in = energy-out), meaning it takes time for
thermal energy to transfer. Of course the greater the mass that's
situated between whatever's hot and what's not is working in your
favor. If systems and the crew and passengers can't take that sort of a
dry-heat licking and keep on ticking, then what's the point?
There's no such thing as achieving a zero thermal rise within the
Spaceplane interior. Thus why are you insisting upon achieving that
goal via the brute force and extremely volumetric inefficient method of
using LH2?
BTW; what's the other point in using such a low density product such as
Hydrogen?
Even LH2 is wossy density and, it'll take up 75% of the Spaceplane
interior in order to safely store enough of it to do any good. Between
your LH2, LO2 plus accommodating a great deal of systems, you'll be
lucky to having 10% usable interior. Is less than 10% usable volume
your goal? How about if there's only 5% remaining for the crew,
apssengers and whatever other payload, is that still going to fly?
If that Spaceplane core structure was of the basalt composite, along
with a few outer layers of CNT and as then having the brute-force
firewall as being your primary thermal shield of that Corelle should do
just fine and dandy without extra cooling. Remember it there's
artificially induced cooling involved, the a great dela of differential
will have to be within spec of one part geets extremely hot while the
other connecting part(s) remain extremely cold.
A Radium(Ra226) reactor at extreme pressure is already providing a
viable resource of easily refrigerated Radon. Do you not appreciate the
terrific density and thermal dynamics of Radon phase change and thus
thermal transfer that Rn222 can provide?
An accumulator/reactor cell of such highly pressurised radon is going
to be capable of supplying more viable heat transfer than even your
imagination can imagine. Then whatever's pre-heated Radon gets utilized
within fairly powerful ION thrusters. What's not to like?
>This would help a lot returning from Venus at 200,000 mph because of a
>good slingshot, finding out you had a hydrogen leak, and enable you to
>stop quick in the atmosphere so you don't have to listen to your face
>bubble and fry like bacon in hot grease.
Why "slingshot"?
If going to Venus is to orbit and get into rigid-airship mode of
efficiently cruising just below the cloud deck for months on end (say
35~45 km off the deck), thus being somewhat rather coolish (less than
400 K) and nicely protected from solar and cosmic radiation to boot.
Coming home would be a snap from within that thick soup of the day, or
rather best as from being within their nighttime season, whereas
aerodynamics of what your Spaceplane needs is that of an extremely cool
nighttime environment that's supposedly good for better than 1 mb at 85
km if not still flyable as great as 150 km off the deck, whereas from
that point on it's thrusters nearly all the way home. Because of the
solar gravity being generally opposed to letting your Spaceplane come
home via coasting (no slingshot of any moon either), I believe that's
where the continuous Radium-->Radon-->ion thrusting comes effectively
into play.
BTW; what hard-science and regular laws of physics has yourself and
certainly having most others convinced as to the Venus nighttime season
being insurmountably hot and nasty (key word being "insurmountably")?
Geothermal heat isn't everywhere, at least it's not everywhere as here
upon Earth, or as having been detected upon any other planet or moon.
So, why would the Venus season of nighttime be "insurmountably" hot,
much less "insurmountably" nasty?
I could help redesign your Spaceplane into being a multitasking
rigid-airship, or I could give the payload a viable rigid-airshelp that
could be quite easily deployed as you slingshot yourself about Venus in
order to head back towards mother Earth ASAP, that which if all goes
well could still be within 100e6 km of Venus by the time your high
velocity Spaceplane touches down upon your home tarmac. Of course, if
you're insisting upon waiting around untill the entire Spaceplane can
be affordably constructed out of CNT, in which case decades from now
you'll still be in R&D and bankrupt to boot, as either China, Russia or
perhaps even India/ESA are going to have established their one and only
LSE-CM/ISS, as well as having been there and done the Venus thing.
~
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; War is War, thus "in war there are
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
> tomcat (aka "How Rockets Differ From Jets"),
> One minute worth of had aerobreaking doesn't seem all that
> insurmountable, as I was thinking of your CNT covered basalt composite
> Spaceplane taking 10 minutes for this transition.
>From orbit (17,500 mph) 1 minute of aerobreaking should be all that is
needed. From a 'slingshot' planetary return (100,000 mph) 2 minutes of
hard (emergency breaking) will be needed.
The 'emergency breaking' consisting of the Corelle slabs that jut up
and the top of the spaceplane and down on the bottom, as well as normal
air brakes, split rudder and split ailerons.
If enough fuel remains then a retrofire should be used. In 'retrofire'
the spaceplane, still outside the atmosphere, turns around and gives
full thrust for a given amount of time, then it turns around again for
reentry.
Another option is 'reverse thrust' where the ship uses thrust vectoring
or auxiliary engines, bottom thrusters with thrust vectoring or ion
engines with thrust vectoring, to thrust after entering the atmosphere.
Engines could even be mounted in the front for the sole purpose of
'reverse thrust' or a 'retrofire' where the spaceplane doesn't have to
do the turn around maneuver.
> >Disposable parachute is a bit extreme and does not take into account
> >the enormous G forces generated by slowing down . . . instantly. It
> >will take a shovel to remove the astronauts.
> I like the part about using a "shovel to remove the astronauts".
> However, I wasn't exactly thinking about deploying a 10,000 m2 worth of
> aerobreaking ceramic parachute, more like a 100 m2 for a given 300
> tonne Spaceplane that should get the astronaut removal tool down to
> using a fork and spoon rather than a shovel. The parachute need not be
> parachute shaped, rather more or less a sphere or that of a reverse
> teardrop form of a ceramic aerobreaking drag inducing anchor.
The simpler the spaceplane the better. Remember 'Murphy's Law'. It
works overtime on complex, Rube Goldberg, contraptions. If a hatch has
to open, it might fail. If 'something' has to deploy, it might fail.
If a rendevouz is necessary, it might fail. If exploding bolts are
used, they might fail.
In 1969 they had to go Rube Goldberg on the Apollo missions because of
limited and marginal technology.
Today we don't have to do: 'docking', 'separation', 'deployments',
'jettisons', 'EVA's', 'rotations', 'orbits', 'checklists', 'telemetry',
'landers', etc. Just build one nice simple spaceplane.
> >The cooling from the hydrogen fuel is essential for both the hull and
> >interior. Unless, of course, you like a 1000 deg. F. cockpit with only
> >your nomex flight suit between you and . . . cremation. That is what I
> >meant when I said: hot, hot, hot.
> Even 10 minutes worth of being within the externally "hot, hot, hot"
> mode isn't going to get the interior of your CNT and Corelle coated
> Spaceplane at more than a dry 50 deg. F rise (it's called
> thermaldynamics of energy-in = energy-out), meaning it takes time for
> thermal energy to transfer. Of course the greater the mass that's
> situated between whatever's hot and what's not is working in your
> favor. If systems and the crew and passengers can't take that sort of a
> dry-heat licking and keep on ticking, then what's the point?
>
> There's no such thing as achieving a zero thermal rise within the
> Spaceplane interior. Thus why are you insisting upon achieving that
> goal via the brute force and extremely volumetric inefficient method of
> using LH2?
You are wrong about thermal. There are calculations on hypersonic air
friction heating. Back in the 70's the predicted heat was so high they
thought the calculations were in error. They were not. If anything,
the heat is worse than predicted.
This might explain the use of aluminum (approx. 1000 deg. F. meltpoint)
on the shuttle instead of spending more and using titanium (approx.
2000 deg. F. meltpoint).
The Shuttle can experience as much as 7000 deg. F. on it's skin during
reentry from orbit. This is not just a little 'plasma' heat, nor is it
a quick pass the hand through the candle trick. It is turn metal into
watery liquid, in seconds, kind of heat. It is a 'melt the interior'
kind of heat. It is barbeque the pilot kind of heat. Take it
seriously.
> BTW; what's the other point in using such a low density product such as
> Hydrogen?
> Even LH2 is wossy density and, it'll take up 75% of the Spaceplane
> interior in order to safely store enough of it to do any good. Between
> your LH2, LO2 plus accommodating a great deal of systems, you'll be
> lucky to having 10% usable interior. Is less than 10% usable volume
> your goal? How about if there's only 5% remaining for the crew,
> apssengers and whatever other payload, is that still going to fly?
The spaceplane is a 'flying gas can'. About 95% of it's wet GLOW
(Gross Lift Off Weight) will be fuel. The 'dry weight' of the
spaceplane must be so light you have to tether it down.
The spaceplane must be big enough so that 10% usable interior is large
enough for cargo and crew.
The new 'slush' tanks where liquid hydrogen is super compressed to a
slush-like state will allow twice as much hydrogen in the tanks than
before. This fairly new technology is one of the main reasons I am
supporting the building of a SSTO and SSTP immediately.
> If that Spaceplane core structure was of the basalt composite, along
> with a few outer layers of CNT and as then having the brute-force
> firewall as being your primary thermal shield of that Corelle should do
> just fine and dandy without extra cooling. Remember it there's
> artificially induced cooling involved, the a great dela of differential
> will have to be within spec of one part geets extremely hot while the
> other connecting part(s) remain extremely cold.
See my remarks above on hypersonic thermal heat. Read my lips: you
will need cryogenic liquids to keep you cool during hypersonic
atmospheric flight.
The only exception would be if 'air spikes', electronic gizmos that can
knock air molecules away from the hull, are perfected to the point that
they really work. Then you would have the spaceplane surrounded by a
vacuum even when moving at hypersonic velocity in the atmosphere.
> A Radium(Ra226) reactor at extreme pressure is already providing a
> viable resource of easily refrigerated Radon. Do you not appreciate the
> terrific density and thermal dynamics of Radon phase change and thus
> thermal transfer that Rn222 can provide?
>
> An accumulator/reactor cell of such highly pressurised radon is going
> to be capable of supplying more viable heat transfer than even your
> imagination can imagine. Then whatever's pre-heated Radon gets utilized
> within fairly powerful ION thrusters. What's not to like?
I 'like' the idea of ion thrusters. And, you have just pointed out
that they could help with a 'retrofire' and 'reverse thrust' which are
very important.
Remember, however, that stopping a spaceplane going 200,000+ mph takes
a lot of stopping. Even if you slow to 50,000 mph or less the reentry
air friction heat will be . . . tremendous.
>
> >This would help a lot returning from Venus at 200,000 mph because of a
> >good slingshot, finding out you had a hydrogen leak, and enable you to
> >stop quick in the atmosphere so you don't have to listen to your face
> >bubble and fry like bacon in hot grease.
> Why "slingshot"?
Slingshots enable you to 'borrow' energy from a planetary body for
greatly increased speed. You use the gravity of the body to do a
twirl, turning you around without braking, and using the forward motion
of that body to boost you many thousands of mph.
> I could help redesign your Spaceplane into being a multitasking
> rigid-airship, or I could give the payload a viable rigid-airshelp that
> could be quite easily deployed as you slingshot yourself about Venus in
> order to head back towards mother Earth ASAP, that which if all goes
> well could still be within 100e6 km of Venus by the time your high
> velocity Spaceplane touches down upon your home tarmac. Of course, if
> you're insisting upon waiting around untill the entire Spaceplane can
> be affordably constructed out of CNT, in which case decades from now
> you'll still be in R&D and bankrupt to boot, as either China, Russia or
> perhaps even India/ESA are going to have established their one and only
> LSE-CM/ISS, as well as having been there and done the Venus thing.
A ridgid airship is precisely what a well built spaceplane is. Our
'design engineers' don't seem to understand that. If you don't have to
tether down the dry weight vehicle so it doesn't float off, then those
engineers haven't done their jobs.
You and I know this, but you can't get it through some people's thick
heads that you have to lighten the load on aeronautical and space
vehicles. They haven't heard of lighter elements or vacuum, either
one. They insist on using steel which is too heavy and aluminum which
melts.
Believe me, you and I know that spaceplanes have to be ridgid airships,
but we are the only ones that know this. The others haven't figured it
out.
This is why 'they' scream and shout "impossible!", "it can't be done!",
"you're anti-NASA!", "you don't know what you are saying", "Oh no, this
is crazy!", "we need parachutes!", "only capsules will work!", "it will
take 12 years!".
Actually it will take them -- forever -- because they don't know how
to build a 'simple' ridgid airship spaceplane designed to take the
heat.
Think light and think hot, hot, hot. Also, think SSME's because . . .
they work. I like things that work.
tomcat
Brad Guth
I fully appreciated your honest desires as to not roasting yet another
batch of astronauts, much less passengers, as that could represent a
rather serious PR situation and subsequent loss of financial investors.
>See my remarks above on hypersonic thermal heat. Read my lips: you
>will need cryogenic liquids to keep you cool during hypersonic
>atmospheric flight.
as yourself, so I might need a bit more than mere lips to go by.
The shuttle doesn't use such slush cooling of it's hull and, if all
goes sufficiently well because nothing gets broken or they're not being
utilized as a handy thermal feedback drone on behalf of yet another
DoD/ABL star-wars field test, it seems that of all other such things
being most pathetic about our shuttle is that it's primary inner
structural foundation of their hull is made extensively of aluminum,
that damn near melts just by looking cross-eyed at it.
Surely the 1000°C sustainable capacity of basalt fibers, microballoons
and of ceramic binders that can be further embellished with
internal/external layers of spendy CNT and then Corelle/ceramic coated
is worth looking into, that plus if still necessary the cryogenic value
of utilizing the fluid radon as phase-changing into a vapor/gas instead
of taking to much slush hydrogen along for the ride might seem
advantageous, especially since the Radium-->Radon breeder reactor needs
some place to temporarily store the produced liquid radon byproduct
anyway, before it's subsequently phased into a gas and utilized as
powerful ion thrusting.
>Think light and think hot, hot, hot. Also, think SSME's because . . .
>they work. I like things that work.
You're giving me the strong impression that your CNT Spaceplane as
having to be mostly that of a flying cryogenic tank of slush hydrogen,
and otherwise as a nifty rigid-airship as having a pathetic R factor of
4, or perhaps just R-2. Apparently you simply can't appreciate the
R-1024/m that's doable as a multi-task structural and insulative
composite of perhaps at most 128 kg/m3, which really isn't all that
heavy for a structural basalt composite worth of a tough inner/primary
shell which can take as much as a 1000°C thermal licking and keep on
ticking. As applied down to an average hull thickness equivalence of
0.25 m would represent 32 kg/m2 at the R Factor of 256, of which this
isn't even including whatever added benefits from the applied layers of
CNT, plus having an outer serviceable coating of Corelle/ceramics, of
which you'd think should only push the R-Factor a bit higher. Thus I
can't imagine the overall shell along with having the outer layers of
CNT and Corelle/ceramics getting this tally up to more than 48 kg/m2
(that's being all inclusive of internal bulkheads,
honeycomb/microballoon decks and all other framing considerations that
should be entirely of fire-proof and highly structural CNT/basalt, that
which shouldn't individually amount to greater than 32 kg/m3).
CNT question; Can you make microballoons out of CNT?
If you can't make CNT microballoons, then what's the CNT composite
R-Factor per meter, per cm or even per mm?
I actually believe that with good R&D is where a basalt composite of
fibers and mostly microballoons and of ceramic binders could get the
structural density, along with better than R-1024/m, down to less than
64 kg/m3.
>I 'like' the idea of ion thrusters. And, you have just pointed out
>that they could help with a 'retrofire' and 'reverse thrust' which are
>very important.
>Remember, however, that stopping a spaceplane going 200,000+ mph takes
>a lot of stopping. Even if you slow to 50,000 mph or less the reentry
>air friction heat will be . . . tremendous.
Obviously you'll have to slow down to something less than 7.8 km/s (say
17,400 mph), as otherwise you're not ever coming down. Thus how much
energy is that "slowing down" going to take per tonne?
BTW; by the time reaching Earth as arriving from the direction of the
sun, why the heck would the Spaceplane still be doing 200,000 mph (89.4
km/s)?
I would have thought it would be somewhat costing up-hill by having to
pull away from the likes of Venus and that other little pesky gravity
sucking item called THE SUN, thus getting slower until being sucked in
by the nearby gravity influence of Earth, which isn't going to
significantly happen as coming away from the sun until you're within
16r or less distance from Earth. With just the right amount of Venus
slingshot utilized should get the arrival back at mother Earth as per
arriving at whatever remaining velocity you'd think best manageable.
>The only exception would be if 'air spikes', electronic gizmos that can
>knock air molecules away from the hull, are perfected to the point that
>they really work. Then you would have the spaceplane surrounded by a
>vacuum even when moving at hypersonic velocity in the atmosphere.
Here's another SWAG(scientific wild ass guess):
Speaking about "air spikes"; What if the leading edges (most critical
reentry surfaces) were essentially 100% radon-->ion thrusters or
perhaps even just radon discharge accommodated?
Wouldn't such fast moving ions of such terrific mass and thereby
terrific KE worth of ion thrust react as somewhat fending off the
atmosphere, as well as providing their nearly continuous and thus soft
retro-thrust?
>A ridgid airship is precisely what a well built spaceplane is. Our
>'design engineers' don't seem to understand that. If you don't have to
>tether down the dry weight vehicle so it doesn't float off, then those
>engineers haven't done their jobs.
I agree. However floating off in Earth's thin and relatively low
density atmosphere plus rather substantial gravity isn't likely, unless
displacing all of the available interior volume with H2.
Spaceplane air conditioning via nuclear reactor; namely a small
multi-MJ U238/U239-->Radium-->Radon Breeder Reactor.
Pressurised radon gas as having been created within a high pressure
cooker of a Radium-->Radon Breeder Reactor, as a highly pressurized
decay containment cell of providing liquid phase Radon, which is then
routed through external heat-radiating cooling plates and, basically
short-term stored within high pressure receiver tanks as a liquid cash
that's 452 fold denser than Radon gas that's been cooled by whatever
the nighttime/shaded environment of space can manage to provide, from
which the refrigeration phase-shift into gas should represent quite a
bit of thermal energy transferring capacity.
Essentially your Spaceplane is in serious need of being as much nuclear
powered as possible, at least as being supplemented with the byproduct
of Rn222 that'll be utilized as Spaceplane shell cooling as well as
fuel for accommodating all of those ion thrusters. I'm thinking this
ion thrusting process could require several hundred MJ worth of applied
energy, as there should be dozens of these fairly large (0.1~1.0 m2)
Radon-->ion thrusters involved, and that's going to take a good supply
of Rn222 plus the neceaasey MJ worth of applied electrons for creating
all of those fast moving ions.
BTW; Airbus A380 supposedly carries 30 metric tonnes worth of
structural composites, with a gross empty/dry mass of nearly 280
tonnes, and a gross takeoff mass that'll soon exceed their original
design limit of 590 tonnes (slush C12H26 fuel could easily add 10
tonnes).
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; WAR is WAR, thus "in war there are
no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of having to deal
with the likes of others that haven't been playing by whatever rules,
such as GW Bush.
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
> The shuttle doesn't use such slush cooling of it's hull and, if all
> goes sufficiently well because nothing gets broken or they're not being
> utilized as a handy thermal feedback drone on behalf of yet another
> DoD/ABL star-wars field test, it seems that of all other such things
> being most pathetic about our shuttle is that it's primary inner
> structural foundation of their hull is made extensively of aluminum,
> that damn near melts just by looking cross-eyed at it.
>
> Surely the 1000°C sustainable capacity of basalt fibers, microballoons
> and of ceramic binders that can be further embellished with
> internal/external layers of spendy CNT and then Corelle/ceramic coated
> is worth looking into, that plus if still necessary the cryogenic value
> of utilizing the fluid radon as phase-changing into a vapor/gas instead
> of taking to much slush hydrogen along for the ride might seem
> advantageous, especially since the Radium-->Radon breeder reactor needs
> some place to temporarily store the produced liquid radon byproduct
> anyway, before it's subsequently phased into a gas and utilized as
> powerful ion thrusting.
The Shuttle uses a vacuum bottle design to stop heat penetration of the
hull. It is the R factor of vacuum that I have regarded as the best
way to insulate the outer hull from the inner.
> >Remember, however, that stopping a spaceplane going 200,000+ mph takes
> >a lot of stopping. Even if you slow to 50,000 mph or less the reentry
> >air friction heat will be . . . tremendous.
> Obviously you'll have to slow down to something less than 7.8 km/s (say
> 17,400 mph), as otherwise you're not ever coming down. Thus how much
> energy is that "slowing down" going to take per tonne?
The exact same amount of energy it would take to get the spaceplane
going that fast, in an airless vacuum, to begin with.
> BTW; by the time reaching Earth as arriving from the direction of the
> sun, why the heck would the Spaceplane still be doing 200,000 mph (89.4
> km/s)?
> I would have thought it would be somewhat costing up-hill by having to
> pull away from the likes of Venus and that other little pesky gravity
> sucking item called THE SUN, thus getting slower until being sucked in
> by the nearby gravity influence of Earth, which isn't going to
> significantly happen as coming away from the sun until you're within
> 16r or less distance from Earth.
You are already in the Sun's gravity well to begin with so it is
neutral with regard to Venus Earth transit. Get too close to the Sun
and it is a different matter.
With just the right amount of Venus
> slingshot utilized should get the arrival back at mother Earth as per
> arriving at whatever remaining velocity you'd think best manageable.
This is absolutely correct. Either Venus, itself, or it's moons could
be used for a slingshot. You can also do a 'gravity-free' burn by
waiting until you are some distance from Venus before you do a final
burn of 1 minute or so.
> Speaking about "air spikes"; What if the leading edges (most critical
> reentry surfaces) were essentially 100% radon-->ion thrusters or
> perhaps even just radon discharge accommodated?
> Wouldn't such fast moving ions of such terrific mass and thereby
> terrific KE worth of ion thrust react as somewhat fending off the
> atmosphere, as well as providing their nearly continuous and thus soft
> retro-thrust?
Reverse thrusting ion engines might work -- brilliant!
> >If you don't have to
> >tether down the dry weight vehicle so it doesn't float off, then those
> >engineers haven't done their jobs.
> I agree. However floating off in Earth's thin and relatively low
> density atmosphere plus rather substantial gravity isn't likely, unless
> displacing all of the available interior volume with H2.
Negative! Use vacuum. Vacuum is much lighter than H2. If you don't
believe me check it out. Compare the weight of H2 with . . . 0!
> Spaceplane air conditioning via nuclear reactor; namely a small
> multi-MJ U238/U239-->Radium-->Radon Breeder Reactor.
>
> Pressurised radon gas as having been created within a high pressure
> cooker of a Radium-->Radon Breeder Reactor, as a highly pressurized
> decay containment cell of providing liquid phase Radon, which is then
> routed through external heat-radiating cooling plates and, basically
> short-term stored within high pressure receiver tanks as a liquid cash
> that's 452 fold denser than Radon gas that's been cooled by whatever
> the nighttime/shaded environment of space can manage to provide, from
> which the refrigeration phase-shift into gas should represent quite a
> bit of thermal energy transferring capacity.
>
> Essentially your Spaceplane is in serious need of being as much nuclear
> powered as possible, at least as being supplemented with the byproduct
> of Rn222 that'll be utilized as Spaceplane shell cooling as well as
> fuel for accommodating all of those ion thrusters. I'm thinking this
> ion thrusting process could require several hundred MJ worth of applied
> energy, as there should be dozens of these fairly large (0.1~1.0 m2)
> Radon-->ion thrusters involved, and that's going to take a good supply
> of Rn222 plus the neceaasey MJ worth of applied electrons for creating
> all of those fast moving ions.
Sounds great if it works. Don't know much about Radon reactors. How
much will it weigh. That is a very important factor for a spaceplane.
> BTW; Airbus A380 supposedly carries 30 metric tonnes worth of
> structural composites, with a gross empty/dry mass of nearly 280
> tonnes, and a gross takeoff mass that'll soon exceed their original
> design limit of 590 tonnes (slush C12H26 fuel could easily add 10
> tonnes).
The airbus A380 was made to be . . . economical. Not 'state of the
art' with regard to it's weight. Not in the 'spaceplane' ballpark.
tomcat
Glenn Shaw
> This is absolutely correct. Either Venus, itself, or it's moons could
> be used for a slingshot.
Um, Venus has moons?
--
Glenn Shaw • Indianapolis, IN USA
To reply by e-mail, remove "nospam" and swap "cast" and "net"
Brad Guth
> Um, Venus has moons?
That's OK because, I have a mad-scientist plan of action that's
intended for giving Venus an icy proto-moon, namely Sedna.
It's perfectly understandable that truly smart individuals like
"tomcat" that are actually focused upon real objectives that matter,
such as his R&D and honest learning curve and a willingness to share on
behalf of his Spaceplane notions, that he might otherwise slip on a few
of the truly unimportant sub-topic facts that are not Spaceplane
related, that which folks like yourself that are basically topic/author
stalking for the sport and intentions of bashing at the drop of the hat
seem always ready and willing to pounce, whereas otherwise you might
try to contribute something that's actually on-topic, as possibly
doable and thus worth further investigating. That is unless you'd like
to discuss the daunting task of moving Sedna into orbiting Venus?
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <Xns96F8669287F92...@216.196.97.136>):
> tomcat wrote in sci.space.shuttle:
>
>> This is absolutely correct. Either Venus, itself, or it's moons could
>> be used for a slingshot.
>
> Um, Venus has moons?
>
>
Just like tomcat has brains. ;-)
--
"Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever." ~Anonymous
"I believe as little as possible and know as much as I can."
~Todd Stuart Phillips
<www.angryherb.net>
Fred J. McCall
:tomcat wrote in sci.space.shuttle:
:
:> This is absolutely correct. Either Venus, itself, or it's moons could
:> be used for a slingshot.
:
:Um, Venus has moons?
It does in Tomcat's universe.
Oh, the proper question to his formulation above is actually:
Um, Venus is moons?
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Paul F. Dietz
:tomcat wrote in sci.space.shuttle:
:
:> This is absolutely correct. Either Venus, itself, or it's moons could
:> be used for a slingshot.
:
:Um, Venus has moons?
Surely you've heard of the 'moons veneris'?
Or maybe he's refering to something on the torso.
Paul
;)
tomcat
> tomcat wrote in sci.space.shuttle:
>
> > This is absolutely correct. Either Venus, itself, or it's moons could
> > be used for a slingshot.
>
> Um, Venus has moons?
I thought every respectable planet had at least one moon.
Venus would be a great place to take a rigid airship, however. It's
gravity is .88 that of Earths and it has atmospheric pressure 90 times
that of Earth.
This was Brad Guth's suggestion and I think it might work. In fact,
almost any fairly light spaceship could float around in the atmosphere
on Venus.
tomcat
Fred J. McCall
:Glenn Shaw wrote:
:> tomcat wrote in sci.space.shuttle:
:>
:> > This is absolutely correct. Either Venus, itself, or it's moons could
:> > be used for a slingshot.
:>
:> Um, Venus has moons?
:
:I thought every respectable planet had at least one moon.
It would appear that reality just doesn't comply much with what you
think.
:Venus would be a great place to take a rigid airship, however. It's
:gravity is .88 that of Earths and it has atmospheric pressure 90 times
:that of Earth.
:
:This was Brad Guth's suggestion and I think it might work. In fact,
:almost any fairly light spaceship could float around in the atmosphere
:on Venus.
If it didn't get smashed to bits and crumpled up by the winds. Uh,
you did realize the atmosphere on Venus doesn't just quietly sit there
like a pond, right?
--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
tomcat
Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
> If it didn't get smashed to bits and crumpled up by the winds. Uh,
> you did realize the atmosphere on Venus doesn't just quietly sit there
> like a pond, right?
One of the nice things about a hypersonic plane is that winds have
little affect on it. A mach 15 airflow is so much greater than a
measly 200 knot wind that it is scarcely felt.
Not to mention the 5 million pounds of thrust an 11 SSME engine
spaceplane would have.
Military jet pilots rarely feel the weather in the newer fighter
aircraft. The one exception is when they are flying slow to land or
takeoff.
tomcat
Brad Guth
>The Shuttle uses a vacuum bottle design to stop heat penetration of the
>hull. It is the R factor of vacuum that I have regarded as the best
>way to insulate the outer hull from the inner.
horsepucky!
Actually, a pure vacuum is in fact a relatively good conduction mode
barrier but, it's rather piss-poor at stopping radiated energy, which
is going to be the greatest threat to whatever any void(s) between the
inner to outer hulls are going to transfer thermal energy.
Having a layer of phase changing Radon as a circulated gas situated
between the inner and outer hull, or just as a backplane feed of
extremely cold Radon gas to the just porous enough external ceramic
coating and/or tiles could become one of the best thermal transfer
solutions, although Radon is a bit volumetric heavy even though
otherwise capable of bulk/mass cooling by way of conducting heat away
from the reentry and/or hyper-speed heated zones, being effectively
cooled by way of transferring such thermal energy to the cool half of
the Spaceplane or if need be just freon like vented on the spot.
Actually, one of the best all around do-everything worth of insulation
comes from using small hallow spheres of containing a dry gas such as
H2, Ar, N2 or whatever, as even that of a good vacuum becomes doable,
whereas now you've introduced a terrific combination barrier of
micro-shells stopping conduction as well as radiant mode transfers.
This is why the basalt composite of being mostly comprised of basalt
microspheres of essentially hallow balloons mixed in with a relatively
small amount of fibers, all glued together with a suitably high
temperature rated binder is what gets the structural performance of
this substance down to 64 kg/m3 without having lost it's structural
capabilities, as is the case of purely insulative products such as
aerogels and obviously of any purely vacuum sustained void(s) is the
best example of having zilch worth of structural integrity. In fact,
creating and maintaining such a vacuum void is fairly complex, as it'll
require even more structural mass in order to pull it off and it'll be
continually complex and costly to maintain.
Draw two thick parallel lines roughly 4" (100 mm) apart (representing
your inner/outer hull shells)
Fill the entire void that's between with lots of small circles
(representing basalt or silica balloons)
Toss a few random fibers into and throughout the mix of those spheres
(somewhat interconnecting the inner/outer hulls via those cheap 4.84
GPa fibers of elastic modulus being worth a GPa 89)
Fill the remaining voids with whatever's your favorite glue or ceramic
binders
Apply a few layers of you horrifically spendy CNT upon the shell of the
external hull
Apply your Corelle/ceramic tiles or whatever coating as upon the
previous layers of CNT
Now measure the R-Factor for the given overall thickness
If it's not achieving a whole lot better off than R-256 w/o
structurally failing under maximum duress, then the problem is entirely
with your CNT and of that Corelle/ceramic stuff that isn't doing it's
part.
>You can also do a 'gravity-free' burn by waiting until you are some
>distance from Venus before you do a final burn of 1 minute or so.
You keep harping upon using up a massive rocket thrust instead of a
more continuous ion thrust. Why is that?
>Negative! Use vacuum. Vacuum is much lighter than H2. If you don't
>believe me check it out. Compare the weight of H2 with . . . 0!
Again, that's exactly what I used to think, but it's not exactly all
that simple because, firstly there's no such thing as any affordably
sustainable and thus artificial "0" vacuum, and it'll take a bit more
composite substance in order to create the required infrastructure on
behalf of any Spaceplane/airship shell that'll take the added stress of
containing and having to sustain a vacuum upon Earth, that which
obviously you and I can not butt-naked survive within. Thus add
whatever extra structural attributes plus a manageable degree of life
support per crew and passengers and you're looking at adding quite a
bit of mass. Although, non occupied portions of the Spaceplane
interior, or that volume situated between the inner/outer hulls
(perhaps representing 10%) certainly could be kept under a nearly full
vacuum. But I thought you wanted to keep it simple, whereas a vacuum is
never simple unless you're already cruising in a vacuum, and then
what's the point?
For attenuating radiation and certainly for fending off whatever debris
is where having mass is a good thing, especially if the mass is within
a microballoon and fiber composite matrix that's all nicely glued
together.
Worth understanding, is that under terrific pressure (the more pressure
the better) is where greater than 99% H2 and therefore less than 1% O2
becomes survivable, thus if need be in the format of a rigid-airship as
cruising along efficiently below them cool nighttime season clouds of
Venus might as well utilize the ambient pressure as being
equalized/displaced via H2 and a slight bit of O2 (as long as the O2
stays less than 5% is safe, and thus 1% O2 is extremely safe). The
mostly H2 displaced interior makes the 300 tonne
Spaceplane/rigid-airship of an internal gross volume that's worth
240,000 m3 and perhaps offering a net usable volume of 128,000 m3 way
lighter than Venus air without having the least bit compromised the
survivable needs of the crew and especially on behalf of those
passengers that paid all those big bucks for the ultimate trip of a
lifetime. Even if using merely 10 kg/m3 worth of Venus high altitude
cruising density is worth 1.28e6 kg (1,280 tonnes) which represents
that you'd never sink into that soup unless taking on a good amount of
the ambient CO2 as ballast.
>Don't know much about Radon reactors. How much will it weigh.
>That is a very important factor for a spaceplane.
I'm not at all sure about reactor mass. However, I don't think that
weight is nearly as much of a factor as per the benefit of having
achieved a usable volume of Spaceplane interior. As otherwise keeping
such things down to the dull roar of their being purely robotic is
about all that a conventionally rocket fuel and rocket engine powered
Spaceplane is ever going to achieve, with hardly enough payload
capacity to spare. Whereas using a good initial supply of sub-frozen
and/or compressed Radon(Rn222) as ion fuel seems a whole lot more
doable. Once above LEO (especially once getting past the Van Allan
badlands) is where not all that much continuous re-supply or make-up of
Radon should be required. Thus a relatively small Radium-->Radon
breeder reactor that'll from time to time (say per hour or at least
once per day) provide the necessary Rn222 fuel for all that those
powerful ion engines require is what really matters.
>The airbus A380 was made to be . . . economical. Not 'state of the
>art' with regard to it's weight. Not in the 'spaceplane' ballpark.
I never said nor even remotely suggested it was in the "ballpark". I
just utilized that item so as to appreciate some of the associations
that we village idiots might bother to further appreciate, such as the
required 300,000+lbs worth of engine thrust for getting a 1.2 million
pound machine effectively up to cruising along at 40,000', which is
just the starting-off point for where your Spaceplane needs to put that
ion thruster peddle to metal in order to escape mother Earth. The A380
is roughly a terrestrial mass/thrust ratio of 4:1, perhaps suggesting
that a 300 tonne Space plane is going to likely require at least 150
tonnes of sustainable thrust, plus having a few SBRs for the last jump
from the barely aerodynamic 150,000' cruising mode of being so gosh
darn "hot, hot, hot" to where those nifty ion thrusters manage to
achieve/exceed 7.8 km/s and thereby hopefully accomplishing something a
bit greater than the minimal LEO status quo, whereas the 100 tonne
commercial payload of whatever gets deployed or further delivered to
the ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot of a mutual nullification zone (the one and
only nearby location that really matters).
As per my usual outside-the-box thinking; If this isn't a perfectly
good place for having an onboard nuclear based breeder reactor of
expediting Radium-->Radon-->ions, then I don't know where else you'd be
thinking about applying such technology, especially since there's no
practical way of any Spaceplane containing enough internal volumes of
conventional rocket fuels, and that's even if having been refueled at
40,000'. Perhaps along with a massive ET and MOS SBRs like our shuttle
is where the large and spacious interior of your composite Spaceplane
has a shot in the dark, as otherwise I'm thinking that going mostly
nuclear is about the one and only viable option.
At least while upon Earth or even as per getting refueled at 40,000'
with a fresh breeder reactor baked and compressed supply of liquid
Radon(Rn222) (as well as sub-frozen if need be) stands a chance of
delivering the sorts of energy density that arrays of relatively
powerful ion thrusters could put to great use. Secondly, I don't see
any insurmountable problem with housing a multi-MJ nuclear reactor
within the Spaceplane at a fraction the volume requirements and
certainly less mass than of conventional rocket fuels. Even the
Rn222-->ion engines are not likely 10% the volumetric nor added mass
requirement of those conventional rocket engines, although you'd
certainly need a great many more of them, and with ions you'd ever
obtain the short KE burst deliverance of horrific thrust per minute.
However, per hour upon hour, upon day after day and so forth for a
half-life of 1600 years you'd certainly have the ISP of those rocket
engines and of their massive volumes of fuel consumption beat by
thousands if not long-haul millions to one.
Thus perhaps count your blessing upon having just a few of these
reliable SBRs from China that should not cost 10 cents on the dollar.
If sufficiently ductaped to the aerodynamic body of this wingless
composite Spaceplane is all that's necessary for achieving the ground
to nearly LEO phase, whereas from there on the remaining ion thrusters
should manage quite nicely.
Call it a "Nuclear/ion Spaceplane on a stick", or rather with having
several SBR sticks plus an extra few tonnes worth of liquid/sub-frozen
Radon to start off with, plus the Radon(Rn222) breeder reactor to boot.
Is it even necessary to ask; What could possibly go wrong?
Here's another SWAG as to external surface cooling;
What if we re-invent ceramic tiles that are somewhat acting as
electrically conductive membranes, whereas as these tiles get hot is
when the available electrons start to flow even better because of the
dropping of the zirconium resistance/cm3. Then piping a continuous
supply of the Rn222 gas to the under/back side of each of these
external surface tiles and lo and behold, each and every tile becomes a
small patchwork of a total farm that's emitting ions, discharging those
ions in proportion to the available heat and applied voltage and
amperage potential that's obviously combined along with the horrific
influx of external ionising energy caused by the friction of external
atmosphere, that's essentially hardly if ever directly touching the
tile surface that's kept a little too busy emitting those Radon ions.
Brad Guth
>I thought every respectable planet had at least one moon.
waiting for a little nudge in the right direction at the right time,
and lo and behold, with any dumb-luck Venus gets an icy proto-moon.
>almost any fairly light spaceship could float around in the atmosphere
>on Venus.
BTW; An airship made of iron would float in that thick (65+kg/m3) soup.
Fred J. McCall (aka Mr. Negative about everything under the sun),
>If it didn't get smashed to bits and crumpled up by the winds. Uh,
>you did realize the atmosphere on Venus doesn't just quietly sit there
>like a pond, right?
What winds, as in hardly any once getting through those thick clouds
(roughly 25 km worth of pure hell), of which any sort of half-assed
composite Spaceplane shouldn't be all that bothered, especially of one
without wings and otherwise built like a ceramic brick.
Arriving upon and power-diving (full 300 MJ worth of ion thrusting)
your composite and ceramic coated Spaceplane through those nasty clouds
at 2.5 km/s (4860 knots) means holding on for dear God for all of 10
seconds worth. I can even count that far, how about yourself?
Once through them cool nighttime clouds is when our cute flight
attendants, as having been sponsored by HOOTERS, serve us ice cold beer
and pizza.
tomcat
I am beginning to like your "balloon" idea. But, use vacuum inside the
balloons, not . . . gas. And, especially not H2 gas. If 'gas' was to
be used then use helium, because it is not potentially explosive.
Vacuum is best, though. It is true, however, that radiated heat can
pass through a vacuum. And, some will, because of the enormous heat of
air friction at hypersonic speed. This is why the inner hull has to be
very good at dealing with heat too, with a final layer of nomex to stop
the last 1000 deg. F.
> Worth understanding, is that under terrific pressure (the more pressure
> the better) is where greater than 99% H2 and therefore less than 1% O2
> becomes survivable, thus if need be in the format of a rigid-airship as
> cruising along efficiently below them cool nighttime season clouds of
> Venus might as well utilize the ambient pressure as being
> equalized/displaced via H2 and a slight bit of O2 (as long as the O2
> stays less than 5% is safe, and thus 1% O2 is extremely safe). The
> mostly H2 displaced interior makes the 300 tonne
> Spaceplane/rigid-airship of an internal gross volume that's worth
> 240,000 m3 and perhaps offering a net usable volume of 128,000 m3 way
> lighter than Venus air without having the least bit compromised the
> survivable needs of the crew and especially on behalf of those
> passengers that paid all those big bucks for the ultimate trip of a
> lifetime. Even if using merely 10 kg/m3 worth of Venus high altitude
> cruising density is worth 1.28e6 kg (1,280 tonnes) which represents
> that you'd never sink into that soup unless taking on a good amount of
> the ambient CO2 as ballast.
Spaceplane hulls have to be strong. Crew quarters and cockpit must be
1 atmosphere (Earth atmosphere), 75% nitrogen with 25% oxygen. For
extra weight savings the nitrogen can be replaced with helium, but
everyone will sound like 'Donald Duck'. I recommend staying with the
nitrogen. It is an inert, fairly safe, gas in high temperature
situations.
> I'm not at all sure about reactor mass. However, I don't think that
> weight is nearly as much of a factor as per the benefit of having
> achieved a usable volume of Spaceplane interior. As otherwise keeping
> such things down to the dull roar of their being purely robotic is
> about all that a conventionally rocket fuel and rocket engine powered
> Spaceplane is ever going to achieve, with hardly enough payload
> capacity to spare. Whereas using a good initial supply of sub-frozen
> and/or compressed Radon(Rn222) as ion fuel seems a whole lot more
> doable. Once above LEO (especially once getting past the Van Allan
> badlands) is where not all that much continuous re-supply or make-up of
> Radon should be required. Thus a relatively small Radium-->Radon
> breeder reactor that'll from time to time (say per hour or at least
> once per day) provide the necessary Rn222 fuel for all that those
> powerful ion engines require is what really matters.
My understanding is that the most powerful ion engines cannot compare
with chemical rockets in terms of 'pounds of thrust'. I believe that
ion engines are a good add on, but cannot replace chemical rockets. I
am especially interested in the possibility that they might act as
reverse thrusters that actually remove hypersonic air from hull
contact.
> required 300,000+lbs worth of engine thrust for getting a 1.2 million
> pound machine effectively up to cruising along at 40,000', which is
> just the starting-off point for where your Spaceplane needs to put that
> ion thruster peddle to metal in order to escape mother Earth. The A380
> is roughly a terrestrial mass/thrust ratio of 4:1 . . .
No. That is 1:4, vice 4:1. You underestimate the 450,000 pounds of
thrust of a SSME. A spaceplane will start out with about 1:1 then,
within a minute, go to 2:1, another minute or so and it will be 3:1.
Any additional thrust will be at 4:1 or higher.
You need at least 2:1 to break the bonds of gravity with a rocket, and
it has to be 3:1 or better to do it with a few minutes.
> As per my usual outside-the-box thinking; If this isn't a perfectly
> good place for having an onboard nuclear based breeder reactor of
> expediting Radium-->Radon-->ions, then I don't know where else you'd be
> thinking about applying such technology, especially since there's no
> practical way of any Spaceplane containing enough internal volumes of
> conventional rocket fuels, and that's even if having been refueled at
> 40,000'.
Incorrect. The calculations have been done. The SSME spaceplane can
achieve escape velocity and even, with a large size version, visit the
planets. Slush tanks, however, must be used to get sufficient fuel
volume. 6 minutes of burn time could do it, but not support a
planetary landing.
> Call it a "Nuclear/ion Spaceplane on a stick", or rather with having
> several SBR sticks plus an extra few tonnes worth of liquid/sub-frozen
> Radon to start off with, plus the Radon(Rn222) breeder reactor to boot.
>
> Is it even necessary to ask; What could possibly go wrong?
>
> Here's another SWAG as to external surface cooling;
> What if we re-invent ceramic tiles that are somewhat acting as
> electrically conductive membranes, whereas as these tiles get hot is
> when the available electrons start to flow even better because of the
> dropping of the zirconium resistance/cm3. Then piping a continuous
> supply of the Rn222 gas to the under/back side of each of these
> external surface tiles and lo and behold, each and every tile becomes a
> small patchwork of a total farm that's emitting ions, discharging those
> ions in proportion to the available heat and applied voltage and
> amperage potential that's obviously combined along with the horrific
> influx of external ionising energy caused by the friction of external
> atmosphere, that's essentially hardly if ever directly touching the
> tile surface that's kept a little too busy emitting those Radon ions.
Anything that cold hitting ceramic that is thousands of degrees hot,
would probably crack and break it.
tomcat
Fred J. McCall
:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:>
:> If it didn't get smashed to bits and crumpled up by the winds. Uh,
:> you did realize the atmosphere on Venus doesn't just quietly sit there
:> like a pond, right?
:
:One of the nice things about a hypersonic plane is that winds have
:little affect on it. A mach 15 airflow is so much greater than a
:measly 200 knot wind that it is scarcely felt.
There is a big difference between 'rigid airship' and 'hypersonic
plane'. Pick one.
:Not to mention the 5 million pounds of thrust an 11 SSME engine
:spaceplane would have.
And I'm sure the magic would be a big helper, too.
:Military jet pilots rarely feel the weather in the newer fighter
:aircraft. The one exception is when they are flying slow to land or
:takeoff.
Know a lot of military jet pilots, do you? I do and they worry a LOT
about winds aloft.
--
"Then tomorrow we may all be dead. But how is that different
from every other day?"
-- Morpheus
tomcat
> :One of the nice things about a hypersonic plane is that winds have
> :little affect on it. A mach 15 airflow is so much greater than a
> :measly 200 knot wind that it is scarcely felt.
>
> There is a big difference between 'rigid airship' and 'hypersonic
> plane'. Pick one.
>
> :Not to mention the 5 million pounds of thrust an 11 SSME engine
> :spaceplane would have.
>
> And I'm sure the magic would be a big helper, too.
>
> :Military jet pilots rarely feel the weather in the newer fighter
> :aircraft. The one exception is when they are flying slow to land or
> :takeoff.
>
> Know a lot of military jet pilots, do you? I do and they worry a LOT
> about winds aloft.
Nothing magical about a SSME. Rocketdyne makes them. They work. They
produce 450,000 pounds of thrust each at sea level, 500,000 pounds of
thrust each in Space.
They call me "pedal to the metal" for a reason. I don't slow down for
thunderheads, or try to go around them. Sometimes I'm referred to as
the "what me worry? guy". I don't worry much.
A good spaceplane would be a combination of extremely light materials,
like carbon nanotube fabric, and . . . vacuum. It just might float.
tomcat
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> :One of the nice things about a hypersonic plane is that winds have
:> :little affect on it. A mach 15 airflow is so much greater than a
:> :measly 200 knot wind that it is scarcely felt.
:>
:> There is a big difference between 'rigid airship' and 'hypersonic
:> plane'. Pick one.
:>
:> :Not to mention the 5 million pounds of thrust an 11 SSME engine
:> :spaceplane would have.
:>
:> And I'm sure the magic would be a big helper, too.
:>
:> :Military jet pilots rarely feel the weather in the newer fighter
:> :aircraft. The one exception is when they are flying slow to land or
:> :takeoff.
:>
:> Know a lot of military jet pilots, do you? I do and they worry a LOT
:> about winds aloft.
:
:Nothing magical about a SSME. Rocketdyne makes them. They work. They
:produce 450,000 pounds of thrust each at sea level, 500,000 pounds of
:thrust each in Space.
I don't see any spaceplanes using 11 of them flying to Venus today.
Perhaps you do?
:They call me "pedal to the metal" for a reason. I don't slow down for
:thunderheads, or try to go around them. Sometimes I'm referred to as
:the "what me worry? guy". I don't worry much.
"There are old pilots and there are bold pilots. There are no old
bold pilots."
:A good spaceplane would be a combination of extremely light materials,
:like carbon nanotube fabric, and . . . vacuum. It just might float.
In which case it is not acting as a spaceplane and will be in pieces
from forces hitting it from the wrong directions.
Engineering ain't magic, Tomcat.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
Brad Guth
>I am beginning to like your "balloon" idea. But, use vacuum inside the
>balloons, not . . . gas. And, especially not H2 gas. If 'gas' was to
>be used then use helium, because it is not potentially explosive.
basalt, silica or even ceramics, and I'd have to agree that a vacuum
core per microballoon is perfectly good. Although, there's nothing
unreasonable nor the least bit unsafe about using 100% H2, which if
having been produced upon the moon would already be essentially a good
vacuum of perhaps 3e-6 bar (certainly not the 3e-15 bar as NASA/Apollo
touted) as heavely contanimated with Radon that'll soon become lead,
Argon, possibly a touch of Xenon, and there should be absolute loads of
CO2 plus great amounts of Sodium, and even some degree of O2. The
underlying problem with the moon atmosphere is that we really do not
have any viable hard-science as to the surface environment, thus it's
another SWAG at best.
Even if these spheres were getting created in nearby space, there
should still be a few (100~1000) atoms of mostly hydrogen per cm3,
along with the raw processed basalt element itself would soon react
with something cosmic or solar that'll leach/create some degree of
other atoms from the following list of primary basalt elements:
SiO2 58.7
Al2O3 17.2
Fe2O3 10.3
MgO 3.82
CaO 8.04
Na2O 3.34
K2O 0.82
TiO2 1.16
P2O5 0.28
MnO 0.16
Cr2O3 0.06
Keeping even a micro void of any near-perfect vacuum is a whole lot
easier said than done. At best, I'd have to believe the ME-L1 zone
might be worth the 100+ atoms/cm3, and supposedly that's a fairly good
vacuum which is unfortunately being continually contaminated with the
solar wind that's capable at times of packing several thousand
atoms/cm3 as trekking through most any given zone of our nearby
outer-space at velocities reaching 2400 km/s, not to mention hosting a
little picogram worth of actual flak/m3. Therefore, it's much easier
allowing something to occupy the micro-balloon core, even if it's at a
slight pressure, and that's even if it's H2 is being perfectly safe and
sane within this format.
>Crew quarters and cockpit must be 1 atmosphere (Earth atmosphere),
>75% nitrogen with 25% oxygen. For extra weight savings the nitrogen
>can be replaced with helium, but everyone will sound like 'Donald Duck'.
Some day you'll learn the forbidden truth and nothing but the truth.
Until then, I'll allow yourself to entertain others with all the status
quo superstitions of the disinformation era that suits the mindset
end-product of our perpetrated cold-war ruse/sting that's still every
bit as cloak and dagger hot and as nasty as ever, taking so much of our
best talents and resources that we can't even afford to take care of
our own kind.
>My understanding is that the most powerful ion engines cannot compare
>with chemical rockets in terms of 'pounds of thrust'. I believe that
>ion engines are a good add on, but cannot replace chemical rockets.
I totally agree about needing to strap on a few of those SBRs, however
I'm not all that in favor of those conventional rocket engines and of
their massive space consuming and fairly heavy and that's not to
mention damn risky amounts of slush fuel and slush oxidiser that's
worth one giant leap for blowing thy self to kingdom come, and then
some. However, the ion thrusters that you're talking about are most
likely Xenon ions that are extremely wossy compared to the Rn222 ions
that might very nicely exit at better than 1000 fold more velocity (do
the math of KE=.5MV2). Thus multiply the Xenon/ion thrust per joule by
a factor of at least 1e6.
Xenon ion thrust at 165e-3/4.5e3 = 36.666e-6 N/J
My initial SWAG on Radon(Rn222) ion thrust = 36.666e-6 * 1e6 = 37 N/J
Without calculating for the added ion mass of Rn222 as opposed to Xe
ions, it's looking like 37 newton/joule isn't all that unlikely. That's
3.773 kg per applied joule.
Radon is already in a high state of flux, having a half life of 92
hours means that it's already in motion and simply waiting briefly
around for a little incentive in the right direction before it turns
itseld into lead.
Info that I'd previously found within these couple of interesting
tidbits on Radon(Rn222)
http://proliberty.com/observer/20020205.htm
4. It takes seven tons of uranium ore to produce 1 gram of radium
(radium is radon's parent)
5. One gram of radium will emanate 0.0001 ml. (1 ten-millionth of a
liter) of radon per day
6. One square mile of soil six inches deep contains approx. 1 gram of
radium
7. Radium emits alpha and beta particles as well as gamma rays.
8. Radon emits alpha particles only
-
As I've said before; I'm not exactly convinced about all of what this
next link has to say but, it certainly seems to suggest somewhat
interesting values as to what radon(Rn222) is worth contributing, as
perhaps offering 1.5e9 calories per gram.
note; 1 cal/g = 4.1868 joule/g, thus Rn222 @1.5e9 cal/g = 6.28e9
joules/g
http://www.nuenergy.org/alt/statement99.htm
When radium transforms, a great deal of energy is liberated
continuously as heat. The amount of stored energy in this
transformation is of a very high magnitude. One gram of radium evolves
about 134 calories per hour, and the total heat available is over
2,000,000,000 calories. One quarter of the generated energy comes from
the decay of radium into radon gas. The remaining three quarters comes
from the decay of the radon gas. One gram of radon, therefore
represents 1,500,000,000 calories per gram. This translates into 5,944
BTUs per gram. Therefore, one pound will generate 2,698,825,592 BTUs.
The radioactive fuel in a nuclear power plant generates 200,000,000
BTUs per pound. This means that radon gas generates 13.5 times more
BTUs than nuclear reactors pound for pound of material.
-
This is where your spaceplane = shuttle
>You underestimate the 450,000 pounds of thrust of a SSME.
>A spaceplane will start out with about 1:1 then, within a
>minute, go to 2:1, another minute or so and it will be 3:1.
>Any additional thrust will be at 4:1 or higher.
I've certainly underestamated many such things, and I've even made more
than my fair share of mistakes. However, I'm NOT underestimating the
enoumous volumes of fuel and oxidiser that your plan of action is
suggesting as the supposed cuutting edge of what's doable. Unlike
yourself, I believe that Radon-->ion thrusting is next to being the
best all around bang for the almighty buck of a ticket to ride.
>You need at least 2:1 to break the bonds of gravity with a rocket,
>and it has to be 3:1 or better to do it with a few minutes.
OK. OK already, no matters what you've been advised, regardless you're
starting off with 95% of your 100+billion $ CNT Spaceplane as involved
with using massive rocket engines plus slush fuel and slush oxidiser
that's all perfectly reliable, safe and efficient to deal with, leaving
enough room for a crew of 4 to 6 as crammed into the remaining space of
a telephone booth, and having a viable payload of perhaps a few kg to
spare. Actually, since so much of the CNT Spaceplane is dependent upon
extremely well insulated slush fuel and slush oxidiser, the last minute
of using up that cash of frozen liquid energy should offer a 10:1
thrust per mass ratio. Have you actually calculated the best effort as
to the new and improved fuel consumption, as in tonnes of fuel and
oxidiser per second?
>The calculations have been done. The SSME spaceplane can achieve
>escape velocity and even, with a large size version, visit the
>planets. Slush tanks, however, must be used to get sufficient fuel
>volume. 6 minutes of burn time could do it, but not support a
>planetary landing.
In other words, you're into redoing the inefficient and extremely
polluting shuttle as an all in one spaceplane?
So what's terrific about having the shuttle cloaked within a new and
improved outer shell, and at best not accommodating a tenth the hauling
capacity?
A 300t direct lift requires an initial anti-gravitational applied force
of 2.942e6 Joules, times the reciprocal of the overall energy transfer
efficiency as well as a good deal of friction that becomes somewhat
substantial at extreme velocities. The advantages of the Spaceplane
method over the direct vertical lift are entirely dependent upon
getting to the maximum of atmospheric cruising mode without using up
any of the onboard fuel. Thus if a Spaceplane could be SBR accommodated
to perhaps at least 150,000' and having obtained at least half of the
required escape velocity w/o taking away any of their internal energy
of what the spaceplane has to work with, as from then on it's entirely
possible to obtain your goal of using such convention rocket thrust
methods.
BTW; I believe our magnetosphere accomplishes more good than merely
cutting the radiation dosage by 100:1, whereas our existing shuttle
along with another full ET supply of fuel and oxidiser can't safely
visit the moon w/o taking on too much radiation before ever
accomplishing any smoke and mirrors worth of fly-by-rocket vertical
landing, not to mention having to defend itself from any speck of sand
that's doing 3 km/s, much less one of 30 km/s. Therefore, your
extremely light weight CNT Spaceplane by it's naked self isn't gong to
be good enough unless you've got the extra shielding and the nuclear
energy resource that's breeding Radon like there's no tomorrow.
However, with that same resupply of energy, and of going for Venus when
it's merely 100 fold the distance to our moon, and of going where
there's a nifty thick soup of the less hot and somewhat less nasty
nighttime season to float within, plus having the existing tarmac upon
which to conventionally land seems quite doable with the new and
improved CNT Spaceplane. Personally, I'd rather send robotics at less
than 0.1% the cost and in less than 10% the time.
>Anything that cold hitting ceramic that is thousands of degrees hot,
>would probably crack and break it.
I totally agree. Thus having a continuous supply of a Radon gas of
whatever initial temperature you'd like to introduce that's ideally
being converted into ions before exiting around or through those tiles
shouldn't represent such a total thermal differential shock. However,
if the next improved generation of those outer most surface tiles could
represent the first R-6 or better (say R 0.25/mm), whereas the primary
CNT covered hull of a mostly basalt composite that's providing such a
tough as nails structural integrity, plus a thermal insulation worth
better than 1 R/mm. I'm also into re-thinking that the outer layer of
those Corelle/ceramic tiles could be a little mechanically attached
rather than glued
Brad Guth
:Nothing magical about a SSME. Rocketdyne makes them. They work.
They
:produce 450,000 pounds of thrust each at sea level, 500,000 pounds of
:thrust each in Space.
Fred J. McCall;
>I don't see any spaceplanes using 11 of them flying to Venus today.
>Perhaps you do?
:tomcat;
:A good spaceplane would be a combination of extremely light materials,
:like carbon nanotube fabric, and . . . vacuum. It just might float.
Fred J. McCall;
>In which case it is not acting as a spaceplane and will be in pieces
>from forces hitting it from the wrong directions.
A composite basalt/CNT and Corelle/ceramic coated spaceplane isn't
going to fall apart so easily.
I agree totally that a shuttle made into a bigger and considerably
spendier CNT spaceplane, requiring MOS conventional rocket engines and
a soon to be TBI or perforated dead crew isn't exactly creating good PR
for recruiting astronauts, although Muslims seem to have evolved their
DNA into a profound death wish that perhaps NASA should capitalize
upon. Is "tomcat" Muslim?
I've tried to suggest that whatever goes up should if at all possible
stay up, and otherwise I've somewhat insisted upon using robotics at
less than 0.1% the cost and of achieving the task within less than 10%
the time. Even my TRACE-VL2 suggestion is merely a halo-orbiting form
of a station-keeping robotic platform, from which interplanetary
communications and science could be efficiently accommodated, w/o such
involving the likely collateral damage and premature termination of
astronaut life as we know it.
The exception to the rule of going robotically where no robot has gone
before being;
Radium-->Radon-->ion thrusters as fueled along by a 1600 year half-life
worth of a Radium(Ra226)-->Radon(Rn222) breeder reactor seems like the
one and only viable alternative, short of He3/fusion energy.
Of course, having first established the LSE-CM/ISS seems rather obvious
no matters which other planet or even that of accomplishing our own
moon gets into being safely visited by other than robotics.
>Engineering ain't magic, Tomcat.
This should apply to many that claim that w/o documented engineering
we've managed to fly-by-rocket landed upon and EVA/moonsuit walked upon
the moon, while forgetting six times out of six to honestly photograph
anything, forgetting to bring back any of that extremely thin,
colorless and highly retro-reflective layer of "magic" clumping
moon-dust, and even 6 times out of 6 expeditions forgetting to bring
back any moon atmospheric samples which should have been loaded with
the likes of sodium, radon and argon, as well as a touch of O2 and
dozens of other viable elements to boot. Christ almighty, MESSENGER
can't even include an honest look-see at the natural dark colour of our
own moon in their Earth flyby. Is all of this MOS pathetic engineering
magic or what?
tomcat
Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :Nothing magical about a SSME. Rocketdyne makes them. They work. They
> :produce 450,000 pounds of thrust each at sea level, 500,000 pounds of
> :thrust each in Space.
>
> I don't see any spaceplanes using 11 of them flying to Venus today.
> Perhaps you do?
Such a spaceplane is getting discussed here precisely because it hasn't
been built yet. It is the future of Space Engineering.
A spaceplane with 11 SSME's would have 5.5 million pounds of thrust at
full throttle in space. That is a lot of thrust. Combined with a very
light dry weight it just about could work 'magic'.
> :A good spaceplane would be a combination of extremely light materials,
> :like carbon nanotube fabric, and . . . vacuum. It just might float.
>
> In which case it is not acting as a spaceplane and will be in pieces
> from forces hitting it from the wrong directions.
>
> Engineering ain't magic, Tomcat.
We are not talking about 'bailing wire and bubble gum' here.
Both basalt fabric and nanotube fabric have enormous toughness and
strength. Nanotube fabric -- recently developed at the University of
Texas -- is not only 600 times stronger than steel for a given amount
of weight, but can take many thousands of degrees of heat.
tomcat
George Evans
jla...@bellsouth.net wrote on 10/24/05 2:27 PM:
<snip>
> A spaceplane with 11 SSME's would have 5.5 million pounds of thrust at
> full throttle in space. That is a lot of thrust. Combined with a very
> light dry weight it just about could work 'magic'.
Unless your craft weighs more than one million lbs full throttle will likely
kill everyone on board.
<snip>
George Evans
tomcat
> Unless your craft weighs more than one million lbs full throttle will likely
> kill everyone on board.
Rocket sled experiments proved that the body can take upward to 40 G's.
A 4:1 thrust to weight ratio shouldn't exceed about 10 G's. This
ratio would only exist at the end of the fuel supply and then only for
a half minute or so.
The initial thrust to weight ratio would be 1:1 or, perhaps, a little
less. A spaceplane is a 'flying gas can'. As the fuel is used the
thrust to weight ratio increases rapidly. A 6 minute supply of fuel
means only 6 minutes of increased G force.
Taking a spaceplane into orbit should require a 4 minute burn at most.
During this burn peak G's should not exceed 5 or 6.
At takeoff the GLOW (Gross Lift Off Weight) should be around 6 million
pounds. A F-15 Eagle has about a 1:1 thrust to weight. So, we are
talking about a fighter jet kind of force at takeoff.
tomcat
Fred J. McCall
:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> :Nothing magical about a SSME. Rocketdyne makes them. They work. They
:> :produce 450,000 pounds of thrust each at sea level, 500,000 pounds of
:> :thrust each in Space.
:>
:> I don't see any spaceplanes using 11 of them flying to Venus today.
:> Perhaps you do?
:
:Such a spaceplane is getting discussed here precisely because it hasn't
:been built yet. It is the future of Space Engineering.
:
:A spaceplane with 11 SSME's would have 5.5 million pounds of thrust at
:full throttle in space. That is a lot of thrust. Combined with a very
:light dry weight it just about could work 'magic'.
<snicker>
:> :A good spaceplane would be a combination of extremely light materials,
:> :like carbon nanotube fabric, and . . . vacuum. It just might float.
:>
:> In which case it is not acting as a spaceplane and will be in pieces
:> from forces hitting it from the wrong directions.
:>
:> Engineering ain't magic, Tomcat.
:
:We are not talking about 'bailing wire and bubble gum' here.
Well, when you start looking at the magnitude of forces exerted by
Venus' atmosphere, yeah, you are.
:Both basalt fabric and nanotube fabric have enormous toughness and
:strength. Nanotube fabric -- recently developed at the University of
:Texas -- is not only 600 times stronger than steel for a given amount
:of weight, but can take many thousands of degrees of heat.
Which is still irrelevant. Strength per weight is a lousy measure of
your vehicle being 'stronger' unless you're looking at using something
close to comparable weights as you would steel.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Brad Guth
You've certainly got great CNT Spaceplane ideas and good intentions.
However, I'm not some village idiot suggesting that I'm some
all-knowing wizard, or that all forms of conventional SBRs and slush
liquid whatever worth of rocket fuels and of their complex as well as
massive engines along with all of the testy and not to mention well
documented lethal consequences should be abandoned. I'm just imposing
my limited exposure as to what others have had to say about using
Radon(Rn222) for what it is, whereas putting 2 and 2 together is
somewhat like my observationology of connecting those 8-bit and 36-look
per pixel dots into suggesting upon their representing a whole lot more
artificial patterns than not.
A Single Stage Reusable Ballistic Space Shuttle Concept, by Dietrich E
Koelle;
The conventional methods are by the numbers doable, though somewhat
energy inefficient, not all that reusable and, birth to grave highly
polluting for the humanity that's sequestered upon this already badly
polluted and thus global-warming and ocean rising planet that's running
itself out of affordable fossil fuel alternatives faster than either of
us can shake a fist full of flaming sticks at.
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/beta_a_single_stage_reusable_ballistic_space_shuttle_concept.shtml
There are numbers associated as to what Radon energy can contribute as
much as 6.28e9 joules/g.
Taking 50% conversion efficiency into account; ion thrust = 3.14e9 per
gram of Radon usage per second.
Adding in the plasma energy influx of a few megajoules seems to suggest
upon creating an ion thrust velocity that's only going to become worth
a whole lot greater than 3.14e9 joules/gram/second.
Supposedly Xenon-->ion thrust is being accomplished at 165e-3/4.5e3 =
36.666e-6 N/J
If my initial SWAG on Radon(Rn222)-->ion thrust is 1e6 fold better =
36.666e-6 * 1e6 = 37 N/J
Without calculating for the added ion mass of Rn222 ions as opposed to
those wossy Xe ions, it's looking like 37 newton/joule isn't all that
unlikely. That's certainly an impressive 3.773 Kgf per applied joule.
Radon is already in a high state of flux, having a half life of roughly
92 hours means that it's already in motion and simply waiting somewhat
briefly around for a little incentive in the right direction before it
turns itself into lead, perhaps in the form of hefty ions leaving the
thruster at a thousand fold greater velocity than of those relatively
passive Xe ions.
There's certainly no shortage of Radon(Rn222) upon Earth. It's oozing
out of just about everything that's decaying, including as a nasty
byproduct of most forms extracting and consuming fossil fuel and most
certainly from that of our utilizing unclear energy.
Obtaining a substantial on-demand inventory of either sub-frozen and/or
highly pressurized Radon isn't one of those insurmountable nor
otherwise horrific energy consuming problems. Storing Radon as a
sub-frozen liquid phase isn't the least bit complex nor unsafe. Radon
is one of those use-it or lose-it resources that for the most part
we've been ignoring and thus wasting.
http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/rn.html
Name: Radon
Symbol: Rn
Atomic Number: 86
Atomic Mass: (222.0) amu
Melting Point: -71.0 °C (202.15 K, -95.8 °F)
Boiling Point: -61.8 °C (211.35 K, -79.24 °F)
Number of Protons/Electrons: 86
Number of Neutrons: 136
Classification: Noble Gas
Crystal Structure: Cubic
? Density @ 293 K: 9.73 g/cm3 (? = 9.73 t/m3)
Color: colorless
Density/kg m3: n.a. [solid]; 4400 [liquid at boiling point]; 9.73 [gas,
273 K]
Radon(Rn222) liquid/gas density ratio of 4400/9.73 = 452:1
http://www.atral.com/ElementsRadon1.html
Ionization enthalpies
1st: 1037
2nd: 1930
3rd: 2890
4th: 4250
5th: 5310
According to this link and most any other you'd like to review:
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:IaOK3EGLZ64J:www.crcpd.org/Radon/Reno/10-29-02_0835_Burkhardt.ppt+polonium-214&hl=en
Radon(Rn222) changes into polonium-218. Polonium-218 is the first of
four relatively short-lived "radon decay products". Polonium-218
turns into lead-214. Lead-214, in turn, becomes bismuth-214.
Bismuth-214 then becomes polonium-214. When polonium-218 becomes
polonium-214, "bang", there goes another alpha particle.
Thus without having introduced external electron excitement as to
taking advantage by way of creating a highly directed and accelerated
plasma flow of ions from all that's transpiring naturally, it seems
that freshly made Radon is prime energy, that in most cases is just
going to waste somewhat like so much natural gas being burned off at a
given oil wellhead or refinery that has no other viable alternative for
dealing with all of the surplus natural gas, which btw is highly
radioactive (including loads of Radon). In either case, what a pathetic
unconscionable waste of natural energy resources.
The 452:1 increase in Radon density as a fluid phase as opposed to a
gas phase seems like another nifty win-win for packing a great deal of
such energy into a relatively small space, thus leaving whatever
Spaceplane/shuttle with volumes of interior available for the crew,
hundreds of passengers and perhaps 100+tonnes of cargo/payload to boot.
I'm certain that my SWAG worth of info isn't the last word nor is my
dyslexic math of any importance. What's important is that we're
underestimating the worth of Radon by a very large extent. Possibly a
Radium-->Radon breeder reactor can become the onboard solution as to
creating a continuous supply of Radon on the fly, thus once
sufficiently beyond the gravity influence of mother Earth there's no
limits as per at least robotically going where no robot has gone
before. There's not much sense sending actual humans along for the ride
because, we simply can't possibly live long enough to matter
(especially with the likes of GW Bush in office), not to mention making
each and every interplanetary and especially inter stellar exploration
effort at least a thousand fold more costly and perhaps a million fold
more complex while also cutting the potential mission velocity by a
good 10:1 if not 100:1. At most visiting Mars and Venus via human
expeditions is about as dumb and dumber than we mere humans ever need
to understand about such other worlds. Although, if having to pick
between Mars and Venus, there's no contest as to which of those two
worlds I'd select.
tomcat
> Strength per weight is a lousy measure of
> your vehicle being 'stronger' unless you're looking at using something
> close to comparable weights as you would steel.
Strength per weight is simply a formula. You can see it as 600 times
lighter than steel on an equal strength basis, or as being 600 times
stronger than steel on an equal weight basis.
By comparison, Kevlar is 5 times stronger than steel on an equal weight
basis. Nanotube fabric can take more heat than Kevlar as well.
Laminate nanotube fabric with graphite epoxy and an almost 'magical'
hull material is born. This laminated fabric could be used throughout
the spaceplane to strengthen and lighten the spaceplane beyond any
other material known.
tomcat
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"tomcat" <jla...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1130102403....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Glenn Shaw wrote:
>
> I thought every respectable planet had at least one moon.
Venus is far from respectable.
Brad Guth
There's nothing unimpressive about our existing shuttles, nor about
your proposed Spaceplane. They're certainly big items, extremely
complex and at least our shuttles remain relatively heavy for their
usable volume even when bone dry, not to mention spendy as all get out
to have been created in the first place, as well as damn near as spendy
to keep reusing, especially spendy if you'd care to put any price tag
on human life as well as for their horrific environmental impact upon
mother Earth that goes far beyond that which is launch contributed. The
biggest technical problem remains their rate of LH2/fuel and
O2/oxidiser consumption is so horrific that the ET needs to be several
times the volume of the entire shuttle itself, and even then it needs
those two extremely powerful SRBs/SBRs to boot. Therefore, short of
using an H-Bomb as a method of getting yourself into space, the shuttle
is next in line to being nearly as spendy per kg and damn near as
lethal as any form of metro transportation gets.
Here's what seemingly everybody already knows, although topic newcomers
might be amused to learn;
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/srb.html
The two SRBs provide the main thrust to lift the space shuttle off the
pad and up to an altitude of about 150,000 feet, or 24 nautical miles
(28 statute miles). Each booster has a thrust (sea level) of
approximately 3,300,000 pounds at launch. The two SRBs provide 71.4
percent of the thrust at lift- off and during first-stage ascent.
Seventy five seconds after SRB separation, SRB apogee occurs at an
altitude of approximately 220,000 feet, or 35 nautical miles (41
statute miles). SRB impact occurs in the ocean approximately 122
nautical miles (141 statute miles) downrange.
Each SRB weighs approximately 1,300,000 pounds at launch. The
propellant for each solid rocket motor weighs approximately 1,100,000
pounds. The inert weight of each SRB is approximately 192,000 pounds.
Rocketdyne SSME @~500,000 lbs thrust (Vacuum)
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/propul/SSMEamaz.html
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/propul/SSME.html
SSME can attain a maximum thrust level (in vacuum) of 512,950 pounds
which is equivalent to greater than 12,000,000 horsepower.
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/military/read.main/37552/
Each SSME burns 920 lbs/s(417 kg/s) of LOX and 155 lb/s(70 kg/s) of
LH2. At 100% power, that's per each and every second per engine.
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts-mps.html
The main engines can be throttled over a range of 65 to 109 percent of
their rated power level in 1-percent increments. A value of 100 percent
corresponds to a thrust level of 375,000 pounds at sea level and
470,000 pounds in a vacuum. A value of 104 percent corresponds to
393,800 pounds at sea level and 488,800 pounds in a vacuum; 109 percent
corresponds to 417,300 pounds at sea level and 513,250 pounds in a
vacuum.
The 17-inch-diameter feed line permits liquid oxygen to flow at
approximately 2,787 pounds (1264 kg) per second with the SSMEs
operating at 104 percent or permits a maximum flow of 17,592 gallons
per minute. The liquid oxygen tank's double-wedge nose cone reduces
drag and heating, contains the vehicle's ascent air data system (for
nine tanks only) and serves as a lightning rod. The liquid oxygen
tank's volume is 19,563 cubic feet. It is 331 inches in diameter, 592
inches long and weighs 12,000 pounds empty.
The liquid hydrogen feed line flow rate is 465 pounds (211 kg) per
second with the SSMEs at 104 percent or a maximum flow of 47,365
gallons per minute. The liquid hydrogen tank is 331 inches in diameter,
1,160 inches long, and has a volume of 53,518 cubic feet and a dry
weight of 29,000 pounds.
-
Overall, a space shuttle main engine weighs in at approximately 7,000
pounds, but it also requires a great deal of extra structural
spacecraft attributes and loads of secondary/external related circuitry
and elements in order to accommodate each engine, such as the massive
ET interface plus the Helium/LXO internal tankage, thus perhaps a tally
of 10,000 pounds each represents 3X 10,000 = 30,000 lbs(13,608 kg), and
obviously a good deal of sheer volume is allocated.
Any good sized (new and improved) Spaceplane/shuttle would likely need
at least 6 if not an interplanetary dozen of these SSMEs, plus at least
4 of those SBRs for getting past the first 150,000', thus 2~4 times the
ET volumes of LH2/LXO unless the SBRs contribute a whole lot more than
75% of the total package thrust. The only alternative is to construct
everything as much as possible out of basalt and CNT composites, so
that we might get the entire package back into the realm of using just
two SRBs/SBRs and perhaps not more than the original 3 SSMEs, which
might then enable a payload of 100 tonnes getting delivered to a
greater than LEO altitude of 350+km. Unfortunately, the existing
cargo-bay design needs to be half again as wide and nearly twice as
long, meaning less room for accommodating those conventional SSMEs.
Just cutting the SRB inert mass in half should more than do the trick,
tossing in another similar reduction in shuttle and ET inert mass by
50% is just icing on the cake that'll get whatever delivered in style
with margin to spare, perhaps even enough margin for a lunar mission
involving our establishing the LSE-CM/ISS before China, Russia or
ESA/India beats us to the punch. Of course, these lighter weight SRBs
and even the ET might not be quite as reusable, but then reusing such
items as before has created come rather serious compromises that have
more than cost as much as going with the 100% disposable plan of
action.
LRn222, use it or lose it
on the other hand, if the Radium-->Radon-->ION can accomplish what I'm
thinking it can, in which case the massive ET can be replaced with
something that's not even 10% the volume. The shuttle itself would have
an array of ion thrusters that I'm wishful thinking together shouldn't
weigh half as much as one SSME, but even if at 10,000 lbs worth and yet
affording the same if not greater net thrust as 3 SSMEs is still 3:1
better off. Therefore, an internal capacity of spare LRn plus having an
onboard Radium-->Radon breeder reactor for creating a fresh supply of
Radon on the fly that isn't going to take up all that much volume, nor
demanding the degree of containment and thus greatly improving the
overall safety while making all such things as Spaceplanes lighter as
well as simpler to own and operate, as well as a whole lot less
polluting.
George Evans
jla...@bellsouth.net wrote on 10/25/05 2:54 AM:
> George Evans wrote:
>
>> Unless your craft weighs more than one million lbs full throttle will likely
>> kill everyone on board.
>>
> Rocket sled experiments proved that the body can take upward to 40 G's. A 4:1
> thrust to weight ratio shouldn't exceed about 10 G's. This ratio would only
> exist at the end of the fuel supply and then only for a half minute or so.
Here is a little physics lesson. A thrust to weight ratio is equal to the
g's. A burn at a ratio of 4:1 will cause 4 g's of acceleration. Rocket sled
tests showed that a person will sustain injuries at 40 g's and that is with
a very brief exposure not a long burn.
> The initial thrust to weight ratio would be 1:1 or, perhaps, a little less. A
> spaceplane is a 'flying gas can'. As the fuel is used the thrust to weight
> ratio increases rapidly. A 6 minute supply of fuel means only 6 minutes of
> increased G force.
>
> Taking a spaceplane into orbit should require a 4 minute burn at most. During
> this burn peak G's should not exceed 5 or 6.
>
> At takeoff the GLOW (Gross Lift Off Weight) should be around 6 million pounds.
> A F-15 Eagle has about a 1:1 thrust to weight. So, we are talking about a
> fighter jet kind of force at takeoff.
You better forget about passengers.
George Evans
Jonathan Silverlight
D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> writes
I'll leave the jokes for Pat, but Mercury is quite respectable.
Brad Guth
Again, what's with all the well used LLPOF worth of mainstream status
quo toilet-paper?
What's the matter this time; can't you borgs honestly converse about
Venus or event that of our moon, without all of those nondisclosure
men-in-black showing up?
Brad Guth
There's no question that tough composites of basalt and CNT can beat
the pants and socks clean off alloy steel. Obviously our NASA isn't
interested in saving weight, saving lives nor in saving money, and they
sure as hell don't give a tinkers damn about the environment.
Those arguing against your CNT Spaceplane are the incest cloned and
extremely brown-nosed minions that I've been telling you about from the
very get go. They're not going away and they're not about to help your
focus one damn bit. It's a game that they've been winning since WW-II,
and they intend to win WW-III to boot.
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
> tomcat,
> There's no question that tough composites of basalt and CNT can beat
> the pants and socks clean off alloy steel. Obviously our NASA isn't
> interested in saving weight, saving lives nor in saving money, and they
> sure as hell don't give a tinkers damn about the environment.
>
> Those arguing against your CNT Spaceplane are the incest cloned and
> extremely brown-nosed minions that I've been telling you about from the
> very get go. They're not going away and they're not about to help your
> focus one damn bit. It's a game that they've been winning since WW-II,
> and they intend to win WW-III to boot.
Yes, they are a little like that. It explains why the U.S. went
downhill after WWII.
To me your thoughts on the basalt fabric, ion thrusters, nuclear
reactors, ionic hull vacuum for hypersonic air flow, and even the need
for dealing with radiation and meteors, are obviously good ideas. They
are 'productive' ideas seriously presented.
My thoughts on laminated carbon nanotube fabric, proper thrust to
weight ratios using SSME's, slush tanks (which exist), using vacuum for
weight reduction and thermal insulation, equilateral triangle hull,
SSTP (Single Stage To the Planets), liquid hydrogen cooling for both
hull and interior, using Corelle ceramic for the outer skin, are
obviously good ideas. They are 'productive' ideas seriously presented.
Our discussion is resulting in the formation of ideas necessary for the
construction of a true SSTP the likes of which NASA hasn't the
slightest glimmer. In fact, NASA, is dreaming of the Apollo capsule
with a parachute return . . . which is going to take them 12 years?
>Obviously our NASA isn't
> interested in saving weight, saving lives nor in saving money, and they
> sure as hell don't give a tinkers damn about the environment.
What are they up to?
And these 'people' that say nasty things in these posts, are they
sincere or poorly educated and uninformed, or are they "incest cloned
and extremely brown-nosed minions" or, perhaps, honest decent people
that lack . . . proper focus and the ability to do so.
Strangly, I like NASA. Over the years they are the organization that
has provided the United States with Space know how. They are the
genesis of so much off-the-shelf equipment that stands ready to make a
SSTP work. I enjoy the JPL rover pictures of Mars. The Shuttle was a
brilliant design for 70's technology. And, I applaud the astronauts
that have bravely gone where no man has gone before.
But what has happened? Why the . . . step backwards?
tomcat
Fred J. McCall
And just what holds it all together, Tomcat? Elmers?
Engineering isn't magic. Get some training.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Brad Guth
>Our discussion is resulting in the formation of ideas necessary for the
>construction of a true SSTP the likes of which NASA hasn't the
>slightest glimmer. In fact, NASA, is dreaming of the Apollo capsule
>with a parachute return . . . which is going to take them 12 years?
lander, having sufficient energy reserves and sufficient shielding bulk
that'll take a serious licking and keep on ticking. More of the folks
that profitted from our mutually perpetrated cold-war(s) need to get
retired and/or dead so that there's no viable recourse. It's called "so
what's the difference" without a stitch of remorse, and Catholics as
well as Jews have certainly used this tactic since the very beginnings
of recorded time.
>> bg; Obviously our NASA isn't interested
>> in saving weight, saving lives nor in saving money, and they
>> sure as hell don't give a tinkers damn about the environment.
>What are they up to?
Obviously they're up to no damn good, except as for MOS DoD and MI6/NSA
cloak and dagger crapolla and, above all covering thy sorry butts while
continuing to brown-nose their commander in chief warlord(GW Bush) as
well as that of his incest cloned partner in crimes against humanity
being good old Muslim blood and guts sucking Dick Cheney.
>And these 'people' that say nasty things in these posts, are they
>sincere or poorly educated and uninformed, or are they "incest cloned
>and extremely brown-nosed minions" or, perhaps, honest decent people
>that lack . . . proper focus and the ability to do so.
The usenet is absolutely chuck full of disinformation-R-us bastards,
the worse possible Third Reich sort of perverts and status quo cops (E
men-in-black) that'll just as soom exterminate the likes of JFK as not.
>But what has happened? Why the . . . step backwards?
It's no stepping backwards because, we've not been going but back and
forth sideways ever since our WW-II pillaging and plundering of
Germany. Once you've lied your incest cloned butt off, especially as to
the perpetrated cold-war buttology as having been applied to you name
it, there's only to be liars telling us another lie upon lie that
begets MOS until hell freezes over and/or a few of those NASA/Apollo
cows come home.
Your CNT Spaceplane makes far too much good sense. I honestly think the
overall usage of CNT/basalt composites could easily contribute to
cutting the raw empty/inert mass of those two massive SRBs, of their ET
and the shuttle it self by half, thus becoming stronger, certainly a
whole lot tougher and thereby capable of delivering 100+t well past the
400 km mark. Although, it's like much of what yourself and I've had to
offer is lacking sufficient polish (spiffy 3D animations and textbook
pop-up publications plus those spendy NOVA infomercials to boot) and
we're obviously lacking formal acclaim to being otherwise respected.
Checking throughout years worth of usenet tit for tats of many such
viable topics reveals that little if anything gets resolved and much
less published on behalf of the truth and nothing but the truth. Way
too many examples to give for this analogy of what absolutely sucks and
blows about this usenet.
Posting links to your own external web-pages is perhaps the best
alternative. As otherwise expecting any honest science of much of
anything being shared and shared alike isn't what the MI6/NSA spooks
and mainstream brown-nose spooks and via their freelance status quo
usenet fools are going to allow without another good fight (WW-III if
need be). Obviously the Iraq war is 100% perpetrated as based upon such
liars telling us lies.
With regard to my SWAG on the LRn222-->ion thrusters becoming a darn
good energy density thing. It's entirely possible that such thrusters
could become an LRn pumped laser cannon, thus the exit velocity of
their LRn-->ion-->photons is making nearly the speed of light, whereas
doing the KE=.5MV2 formula as to potential thrust energy gets downright
interesting. However, expecting any sharing of viable ideas and
hard-science is unlikely to transpire within this primarily
disinformation-R-us cesspool of a usenet that the likes of Einstein
wouldn't dare utilize as toilet paper, out of fear of being terminally
infected with the sorts of incest cloned spermware/malware that servers
like GOOGLE know damn good and well as to exactly where it's derived
from, and thus specifically by whom is encharge of administering such
usenet AIDS that mutates in order to suit their ongoing damage-control.
Haven't you realized that GOOGLE and NOVA are now officially one and
the same partners in crimes against humanity?
Right now my PC has been hit with yet another typical tonne worth of
their spermware bricks, slowing me down and imparing mouse
functionality. If I percist they'll remotely shut my PC entirely off by
way of accomplishing a remote PC RESET, and I can easily prove it any
day you'd like to stop by for a little education as to the extent by
which these sicko freaks have been attempting to terminate my ability
as to sharing in what's otherwise taboo/nondisclosure. I believe this
intellectual and biological incest of disinformation and bigotry is far
more effective than anything Hitler dreamed up, and if you're Muslim
(of which I'm not) your ass is grass.
tomcat
> :Laminate nanotube fabric with graphite epoxy and an almost 'magical'
> :hull material is born. This laminated fabric could be used throughout
> :the spaceplane to strengthen and lighten the spaceplane beyond any
> :other material known.
>
> And just what holds it all together, Tomcat? Elmers?
>
> Engineering isn't magic. Get some training.
When a fiberglass boat is made using fiberglass and resin one big
section can be merged into another section making a single piece. This
merging of fiberglass and resin is terrifically strong. The same can
be done with graphite epoxy and basalt fabric, or graphite epoxy and
nanotube fabric.
I like the nice simple and quick. Make it too complicated, take too
long, and it either won't get done or it won't work.
tomcat
Brad Guth
These folks are not actually fools, they just pretend as being unable
to understand whatever it is that you or I have to say. It's what liars
do best, lie their stinking butts off at the drop of another hat.
There's absolutely no possible question that a CNT/basalt composite of
SRBs, ET and even the entire shuttle/spaceplane could have been
replaced by now at less than half the dry mass of what our existing
format has to deal with.
Remember that these usenet folks have never been here to share and
share alike, as in not here to assist anyone no matters what unless
you're a certified Skull and Bones member in good standing. They're
here to know thy enemy and to continually snooker thy humanity for all
it's worth.
Checking back throughout as much of this usenet that sucks and blows as
you'd like and lo and behold, you'll not uncover one potentially
critical outsider getting their two cents worth of help or even the
likes of any positive moral support. It's actually that simple. It's
also the same reason why some of the biggest hauls of WW-II Jewish loot
has only recently been uncovered as being held by other Jews.
Therefore, these are not nice folks, not even to their own kind.
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
> tomcat,
> These folks are not actually fools, they just pretend as being unable
> to understand whatever it is that you or I have to say. It's what liars
> do best, lie their stinking butts off at the drop of another hat.
>
> There's absolutely no possible question that a CNT/basalt composite of
> SRBs, ET and even the entire shuttle/spaceplane could have been
> replaced by now at less than half the dry mass of what our existing
> format has to deal with.
I just wish they would ask 'real' questions regarding the
engineering/construction of a spaceplane, not jeer, leer, and carry on.
Perhaps, their educations are so limited they can't ask the 'right'
questions. Perhaps, they are paid to jeer, leer, and carry on.
Maybe their real 'location' is . . . certain portions of the Middle
East. Their names could have been made to look European.
To me a gigantic gleaming white spaceplane would be a sight to behold.
With 11 SSME's generating 5.5 million pounds of thrust and a cargo hold
filled with 200,000 pounds of satellites, lunar modules and the like.
The Mojave Desert would shake a little with the take off of such a
space vehicle. It would be larger than anything Edwards AFB ever had
take off.
It might even be heading for Venus, where only a composite hull of
basalt/CNT could survive. The 4 SSME's on the bottom would allow for a
VTOL landing. Or, maybe, it would drop a 200,000 pound nuke on an
asteroid heading for Earth. Or, maybe, it would be on a 2 month
journey to Pluto to establish a military outpost.
This is what is important, not jeering, leering, and carrying on.
tomcat
Brad Guth
better words to offer; here's the replacement/update as to what I'd
just posted.
>tomcat; I just wish they would ask 'real' questions regarding the
>engineering/construction of a spaceplane, not jeer, leer, and carry on.
until pigs fly, hell freezes over and a few of them NASA/Apollo cows
come home. Thus it's up to the few and far between folks like us to
accomplish as much as possible in spite of all their topic/author
stalking, bashing and/or banishment (not to mention their GOOGLE/NOVA
sponsored PC terminating spermware attacks).
>To me a gigantic gleaming white spaceplane would be a sight to behold.
>With 11 SSME's generating 5.5 million pounds of thrust and a cargo hold
>filled with 200,000 pounds of satellites, lunar modules and the like.
At less than half the combined inert mass and being of everything
that's going to become new and improved as per your CNT/basalt
composite spaceplane, in which case just three (not eleven) of those
SSMEs is good enough for the next generation of do-everything
spaceplanes. Remember as to the vast consumption rate of even the three
SSMEs is still rather impressive, thus an extremely large although
fully composite ET may have to go into orbiting the likes of Venus on
behalf of getting our folks headed back toward Earth, although assuming
our having the U238-->Ra226-->Rn222 breeder reactor onboard for
providing lots of spare energy and thus a sufficient long-term supply
of LRn to ionize, thereby accomplishing CO2-->CO/O2 while on the fly
seems perfectly doable as a viable method of filling up the onboard
tanks with CO and O2 and possibly even obtaining a little H2 as
extracted and processed into LH2 from out of those thick clouds before
entirely exiting the Venus atmosphere, which BTW according to team KECK
and of others before having already established the presents of a
perfectly good layer of O2 existing just above them cool nighttime
clouds.
Remember that any such viable composite spaceplane having to venture
itself below them relatively cool nighttime clouds of Venus is going to
have a rather tough time of opposing that much buoyancy, thus damn
little applied energy should get the craft safely through those fast
moving thick clouds and into a safe and energy efficient rigid-airship
mode of cruising along via LRn222-->ion thrust at roughly 25 km off the
geothermally hot and nasty deck, thereby saving the SSMEs and of their
liquid/slush fuel & oxidiser for accomplishing the exit phase and
establishing their essential return home flight path that's going to
need all of the SSME and LRn-->ION thrust you've got to spare.
Here's a wee bit more of my usual dyslexic/Klingon encrypted thoughts
as to our efforts having to continually oppose and/or recover from all
of the mainstream of "jeering, leering, and carrying on", with our best
efforts of returning the favor with just as much warm and fuzzy love as
we can muster.
Venus Express, Lunar Space Elevator and anything of CNT/basalt
composite spaceplanes get nothing but usenet flak and spermware.
Members of this usenet which claim to NOT understand and/or appreciate
as to what the few of us non-mainstreamers are sharing about the most
likely truth(s), as to what these two extremely nearby orbs of our moon
and that of Venus have to offer, are only doing such because of their
inbred arrogance, hatreds and intellectual as well as biological
bigotry that's within the very DNA/RNA of their soul that's keeping the
disinformation-R-us walls up and thereby the rest of us and the vast
bulk of humanity as far away from the rest of the truth as possible by
way of using conditional laws of physics, soft-science and as much
hocus pocus of evidence exclusions that would make the likes of OJ
Simpson extremely envious.
There's nothing that's all that technically misunderstandable about the
Lunar Space Elevator and of it's eventual 1.28 km diameter of a Counter
Mass and 1e9 m3 of International Space Station within. The LSE-CM/ISS
and of it's tethers to/from the moon as well as for the tether dipole
element that's headed directly towards Earth, for reaching to within
50,000 km of mother Earth (25,000 km if you'd dare), that is nothing
but the utmost win-win for moon/Earth sciences as well as for extreme
astronomy and the all around salvation on behalf of the environment of
Earth, and thereby on behalf of the sequestered humanity upon planet
Earth. Of what's not understandable is so much more than the following
list of interesting sub-topics that are seemingly taboo/nondisclosure;
What's the average and interactive range of the mutual nullification
point?
What's the final impact velocity of deploying an item away from the
ME-L1 zone?
What's the profile of the daytime lunar atmosphere being mostly of
radon, argon and sodium?
What's the profile of the nighttime lunar atmosphere being mostly of
radon, argon and sodium?
What's the average daytime surface TBI dosage and spectrum profile of
secondary/recoil photons?
What's the average nighttime surface TBI dosage and spectrum profile of
secondary/recoil photons?
What's a typical day (per 24 hours) of receiving micro whatever impacts
per square meter?
How much of the solar wind is getting deflected/moderated by the
14,000+km lunar atmosphere?
What's the depth and surface tension of a composite dust of meteorites
and impact related shards?
What's available in the way of hallow rilles and/or of potentially
accessible geode pockets?
Why is there so little honestly known about our once upon a time icy
proto-moon?
Why are the CEV teams having to reinvent their fly-by-rocket
moon-lander wheel?
What are all the usenet MI6/NSA moles and spooks so afraid of?
Why is topic/author stalking, bashing and/or banishment along with
delivering spermware their status quo?
There's certainly another worthy list of related sub-topics as to the
observationology and honestly deductive 2+2 worth of humanly subjective
reasoning, as to what simply looks far more artificial than not about
Venus, meaning that Venus locals or ETs must have been there (could
even still be there) as having accomplished a great deal upon Venus
right under the very best of our extremely brown noses. Of course, it's
fairly hard to appreciate what's so nearby and so easily obtainable as
compared to our moon or even Mars, and so much harder yet when most of
our best talents and resources have gone into a mutually perpetrated
fiasco of cold-wars that has sucked most of the life out of humanity
and that of our global energy resources taken nearly bone dry, badly
polluting our environment in the process of creating our very own
artificially induced global-warming thermal imbalance via albedo
reduction. We seem only further diverted and at the ongoing demise of
accomplishing so much collateral damage and carnage of the innocent, so
much so that it's truly amazing we can even devote another honest
dollar and much less talent to anything other than surviving our own
terrestrial doings.
Those of us like "tomcat" and myself suggesting upon improvements
and/or replacements of using composite SRBs, a composite ET as well as
per creating most of the entire shuttle/spaceplane, that even though
being of larger volume and of better capability in more ways than our
existing fleet of two antique shuttles, whereas their replacement as
becoming a combined SRBs, ET and spaceplane composite package should
have half the dry inert mass, while at the same time manage larger and
essentially better than twice the payload tonnage that's capable of
getting such payloads safely deployed to 400+km is seemingly every bit
as topic/author bad off as per discussing the viable relocation of ISS,
or even that of the Radium(Ra226)-->LRn222-->ion thrusters that could
only improve upon the way such things are accomplished. Whereas instead
of receiving positive influx of similar and/or better notions, thus
better math as associated with the available hard-science that's usable
as is, instead all that's coming along this usenet path of
self-destruction and demise upon humanity is more of the same old
mainstream flak and PC terminating spermware, that which usenet servers
like GOOGLE/NOVA have known about and certainly know of exactly where
such spermware code is originating and in most cases they'd know
specifically by whom because, server computers are not nearly as dumb
and dumber than those encharge which continually claim to know all
there is to know, yet somehow can't find it in their black-hearts to
share and share alike.
Brad Guth
spaceplane having less than half the dry mass per volume isn't going to
require more than the three SSMEs, especially once deploying the 100t
payload should get their thrust requirements down to using just one of
the three SSMEs.
George Evans
jla...@bellsouth.net wrote on 10/27/05 5:51 AM:
<snip>
> I just wish they would ask 'real' questions regarding the
> engineering/construction of a spaceplane, not jeer, leer, and carry on.
If I might make a suggestion, you might try dishing out your ideas is bite
size pieces instead of coming across like you have the blue prints all drawn
up for the whole project.
For example, nanotube technology is cool so you might ask if incorporating
nanotube cloth instead of rayon in the construction of RCC panels would be
worth the cost. Ask something that we can chew on instead of immediately
jumping to light speed.
George Evans
tomcat
> Members of this usenet which claim to NOT understand and/or appreciate
> as to what the few of us non-mainstreamers are sharing about the most
> likely truth(s), as to what these two extremely nearby orbs of our moon
> and that of Venus have to offer, are only doing such because of their
> inbred arrogance, hatreds and intellectual as well as biological
> bigotry that's within the very DNA/RNA of their soul that's keeping the
> disinformation-R-us walls up and thereby the rest of us and the vast
> bulk of humanity as far away from the rest of the truth as possible by
> way of using conditional laws of physics, soft-science and as much
> hocus pocus of evidence exclusions that would make the likes of OJ
> Simpson extremely envious.
Why is the making of a SSTP regarded by the uneducated as so difficult?
It may have something to do with 'equations' that purport to show that
bigger means -- nothing -- because the DV and Mass Ratios are the same
as smaller ones. This is false.
A 1 inch perfect replica of a Saturn V will never, ever make it to the
Moon. By the same token, a 1000 mile high perfect replica of a Saturn
V could probably send a payload beyond the Moon -- maybe even to Mars.
It may have something to do with 'X amount of energy requirement for a
200 mile high orbit'. Wings or not you have to have 'X amount of
energy', they say.
Of course, in one sense they a correct. But a winged vehicle takes
energy from gravity to assist it in pushing up against gravity.
How so? Gravity pushes against the air causing 1 atmosphere of
pressure. A fair amount of pressure, by the way, capable of crushing
cans. Just remove the compensating air from inside a can and it will
crush flat.
A waverider puts dense, compressed, air underneath of it and rarifies
the air on top by making it travel farther than the air underneath.
Thus, the waveriding spaceplane is pushed from underneath and pulled
from on top by gravity/air atmospheric pressure.
With speed increase the air becomes denser so the push becomes harder
and the pull becomes greater. Mixed with the energy from gravity's
pushing the air molecules is the 'drag' energy being taken from the
spaceplane's engines. This complicates things but does not stop
gravity from giving a lot of assistance to the spaceplane.
Rocket equations take drag into consideration, but not gravity's
assistance. While vertical/tubular rockets have drag too, it doesn't
apply to them, because they don't have wings for using atmospheric
energy.
This is why it is true that it takes 'X amount of energy' to do a given
amount of work for whatever vehicle is chosen. And, it explains why a
'winged rocket' does so much better than a vertical/tubular rocket.
Wings draw energy from gravity itself through the medium of air
molecules that are being 'squeezed' to the Earth.
So, all in all it means that success will come by making one gigantic
monster of a waverider: tomcat's huge gleaming white triangular
spaceplane.
tomcat
tomcat
Nanotube fabric is so new that I have to back off a bit. It is still
unknown when it will be in mass production, though many of the details
have been worked out, or how expensive it will be when mass produced.
Reference: University of Texas at Dallas.
Brad Guth has pointed out that basalt fabric is very strong and fairly
heat resistant as well. Burt Rutan used graphite epoxy and carbon
fiber in his Spaceship One.
Graphite epoxy is a very good 'cement' because it is stiff, don't want
to flex the ceramic on top of it, and strong, and extremely heat
resistant. The Shuttle used a gap filler between the silica tiles.
How heat resistant this gap filler was I don't know. Trying to avoid
using gap filler.
Clamps fastened to a hard stiff body may allow ceramic interlocking of
large thin Corelle sections. There would be no body flexing so no need
of gap filler.
If carbon nanotube cloth lives up to expectations it would certainly be
a good replacement for rayon in RCC. Nanotubes are inherently very
strong, light, almost indestructible nanoscale tubes of carbon.
Current reports are 100 times stronger than steel at 1/6th the weight.
BTW, CNT fabric is extremely electrically and thermally conductive.
I envision creating LH2 fuel tanks by having them fabricated out of
titanium by a subcontractor. Then nanotube fabric could be laminated
onto the titanium tanks using graphite epoxy, greatly increasing the
tanks strength. In turn, this would allow for the slushing of LH2 in
the huge tanks putting double or triple the amount of hydrogen into the
tanks than otherwise would be possible.
The outer hull, however, should be composite only. Titanium, despite
it's 2000 deg. F. meltpoint, is just too meltable. RCC might be a good
way to get strength and rigidity to prevent ceramic flexing and
breaking.
I hope this explains why I am anxiously awaiting CNT. Though, Brad
Guth's basalt idea is good too. A single swath of basalt fabric can
withstand 82,000 pounds per square inch of pressure. If this outdoes
CNT then it might become a combination lamination composite. In any
event, slush tanks are in and they are necessary for the SSTO and SSTP
capability.
tomcat
George Evans
jla...@bellsouth.net wrote on 10/27/05 3:10 PM:
> George Evans wrote:
>
>> in article 1130417515.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com, tomcat at
>> jla...@bellsouth.net wrote on 10/27/05 5:51 AM:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I just wish they would ask 'real' questions regarding the
>>> engineering/construction of a spaceplane, not jeer, leer, and carry on.
>>>
>> If I might make a suggestion, you might try dishing out your ideas is bite
>> size pieces instead of coming across like you have the blue prints all drawn
>> up for the whole project.
>>
>> For example, nanotube technology is cool so you might ask if incorporating
>> nanotube cloth instead of rayon in the construction of RCC panels would be
>> worth the cost. Ask something that we can chew on instead of immediately
>> jumping to light speed.
>
> Nanotube fabric is so new that I have to back off a bit. It is still unknown
> when it will be in mass production, though many of the details have been
> worked out, or how expensive it will be when mass produced. Reference:
> University of Texas at Dallas.
And there are so many other questions like how does it behave in a composite
matrix? It's always being compared with steel, but how does it compare with
2422 Aluminum or whatever is the strongest alloy?
> Brad Guth has pointed out that basalt fabric is very strong and fairly heat
> resistant as well. Burt Rutan used graphite epoxy and carbon fiber in his
> Spaceship One.
I don't pay much attention to Guth but I do to Rutan. My dad built a Long EZ
and we are both working on a Lancair IV, not a Rutan but carbon fiber
construction. I am curious how much strength improvement nanotube fibers
provide over regular carbon fiber. I'm assuming, since they are just
differently arranged carbon atoms, that they would be similar and that they
could be used the same in composite materials.
<snip>
> If carbon nanotube cloth lives up to expectations it would certainly be a good
> replacement for rayon in RCC. Nanotubes are inherently very strong, light,
> almost indestructible nanoscale tubes of carbon. Current reports are 100 times
> stronger than steel at 1/6th the weight. BTW, CNT fabric is extremely
> electrically and thermally conductive.
Is that 100 times stronger in tensile strength for an equal cross section?
And is that 1/6th the density of steel? Remember a pound of feathers isn't
1/6th the weight of a pound of lead. So how do those figures stack up to
carbon fiber? I would build an aircraft out of steel.
> I envision creating LH2 fuel tanks by having them fabricated out of titanium
> by a subcontractor. Then nanotube fabric could be laminated onto the titanium
> tanks using graphite epoxy, greatly increasing the tanks strength. In turn,
> this would allow for the slushing of LH2 in the huge tanks putting double or
> triple the amount of hydrogen into the tanks than otherwise would be possible.
LH2 slush means solid hydrogen in liquid He. This is *very* cold stuff, so
how does Titanium do at those temperatures, and how would a nanotube/
graphite epoxy composite? Also it is quite a trick to bond to metal, no
doubt even more so at the temperature of liquid He. Have you done any
testing?
I notice you said that CNT is extremely thermally conductive. This doesn't
seem conducive to keeping things cold.
> The outer hull, however, should be composite only. Titanium, despite it's
> 2000 deg. F. meltpoint, is just too meltable. RCC might be a good way to get
> strength and rigidity to prevent ceramic flexing and breaking.
Here again, the extreme thermal conductivity of CNT is a drawback. Everybody
mocks the TPS tiles on the shuttle but they really are amazing. If they are
banded to a CNT/graphite epoxy composite structure, those fillers you are
concerned about probably wouldn't be necessary.
You will notice I snipped out some other things that got stuck to the bite
sized piece. It's just like spaghetti with you isn't it? :-)
George Evans
Brad Guth
>requirement for a 200 mile high orbit'. Wings or not you have
>to have 'X amount of energy', they say.
gravity-well/nullification zone between us and the moon is roughly 84%
of the distance towards the moon, and thereby we're talking 16% of the
distance away from the moon. "They say" we've walked upon the moon but,
somehow managed to lose all of their related fly-by-rocket lander R&D
as well as having lost their Kodak conditional laws of photon and film
physics that apparently only applies to our moon.
16% of 384,400 km is 61,504 km away from the center of the moon and
thereby 59,766 km off the gravitational center portion of the lunar
deck that's always nicely aligned with the gravitational center of
mother Earth (actually the Earth CG somewhat moves about as Earth
rotates and the moon doesn't seem to budge so much as a micro-degree
with respect to the whole of Earth, suggesting that the moon in fact
has a slushy core that's somewhat self aligning to the well certified
variable CG alignment of mother Earth.
With regards to spaceplane wings or perhaps that of one massive
aerodynamic foil worth of a waverider spaceplane body, thus affording
far more usable interior than any tile covered wing outfitted body as
suggested by your "huge gleaming white triangular spaceplane";
>Rocket equations take drag into consideration, but not gravity's
>assistance. While vertical/tubular rockets have drag too, it doesn't
>apply to them, because they don't have wings for using atmospheric
>energy.
>This is why it is true that it takes 'X amount of energy' to do a given
>amount of work for whatever vehicle is chosen. And, it explains why a
>'winged rocket' does so much better than a vertical/tubular rocket.
>Wings draw energy from gravity itself through the medium of air
>molecules that are being 'squeezed' to the Earth.
>So, all in all it means that success will come by making one gigantic
>monster of a waverider: tomcat's huge gleaming white triangular
>spaceplane.
I see no problem with your bigger is better. Of course folks like
"George Evans" seem to think small by way of continually thinking
inside the box, as well as having those pesky ulterior motives of
saying one thing while acting upon getting something entirely different
across.
Just wondering a bit; Are you thinking of a 45 degree final atmospheric
assent?
The composites of what basalt fibers and basalt microballoons as having
a degree of CNT involved seems likely of what should eventually become
doable. However, of what I've already provided upon existing basalt is
just the iceberg tip of what that composite alone can achieve as a
structurally insulative material that need not exceed 64 kg/m3 unless
the added mass of using more fibers and less balloons becomes a
priority.
Too bad that what I have to suggest is much like what you have to offer
as a plate full of the first, second and third helping, all of which
should more than have the inert mass of what any SRB assisted
spaceplane and of it's massive ET should amount to. Thus a replacement
shuttle as in the form of your "bigger is better" spaceplane should
have any problem whatsoever achieving those 100t deployments at 400+km,
with energy to spare.
Of course, if my Ra226-->LRn222-->ION thruster arrays become the
alternative to those SSMEs that are worth a 10t investment plus fuel
and the vast volumes necessary for accommodating such fuel per each
fully integrated SSME and, no matters what these SSMEs should still
suck LH2 and LO2 like there's no tomorrow, whereas without SSMEs but
instead LRn-->ION thrusters might represent payloads that can become
half again or roughly 50/50 of the spaceplane package. Meaning a 150t
spaceplane that's still having to be SRB assisted (possibly two-stage
SRBs) past 250,000'(76 km) could thus manage to safely deploy a 150t
item or that of multiple items that amount to 150t past the 400 km
mark.
Unfortunately the ulterior motivated likes of "George Evans" being
rather mindset upon carbon fibers that are extremely frail and spendy
as all get out compared to basalt fibers, whereas as far as I know of
there are no such things as carbon microballoons, nor for that matter a
CNT microballoon. There are however terrific insulative and combined
structural capability per cm3 of basalt, along with those existing
graphite epoxy as binders is still the overall king of the hill that's
not one cent on the dollar per carbon fibers and, perhaps not .001 cent
on the CNT dollar that's still another good decade down the winding R&D
road.
>George Evans; Here again, the extreme thermal conductivity of CNT is a
>drawback. Everybody mocks the TPS tiles on the shuttle but they really
>are amazing. If they are banded to a CNT/graphite epoxy composite
>structure, those fillers you are concerned about probably wouldn't be
>necessary.
George is another all or nothing sort of guy by way of his thinking
100% CNT or bust. Whats' so hard about thinking a little outside the
box, such as incorporating the CNT fibers as a fabric layer or perhaps
that of a wise matrix of CNT/basalt fibers representing the outer
structural composite layer that's containing the bulk of basalt
microballoons?
In inner most hull layer and certainly the likes of stringers, ribs,
decks and bulkheads could be 100% structural basalt composite that
could range anywhere from 32 kg/m3 to 2560 kg/m3. Purely insulative
basalt microballoons might easily represent less than 1 kg/m3 if those
little basalt suckers are full of H2 or even He. Christ almighty folks,
what more can you or the likes of lord/wizard "George Evans" possibly
ask for that has been doable for the past several decades?
I'd actually think that a little extra thermal conductivity for what's
directly below the Corelle/ceramic tiles or whatever spray-on ceramic
microballoon coating would be highly desirable, as possibly performing
a similar thermal rate of expansion by which this CNT/basalt outer
shell could best match the rate of ceramic expansion. I do agree with
"George Evans" that tile fillers need not be incorporated unless no
other thermal expansion alternative becomes available.
BTW; I'm not exactly sure how LH2 and slush LH2 differ in energy
density by all that much. In either case, a terribly insulative
containment of the likes of LH2 (slush or not) and the same goes for
LO2 could each be accommodated by way of using a composite of basalt
fibers and those highly insulative balloons along with the graphite
epoxy binders if not in some cases just utilizing good old end-user
friendly JB-WELD. A metallic internal coating via plasma spray could
make for quite another weight saving improvement. In fact, there could
be two or three viable containment layers of plasma applied metallic
coatings at less weight impact than a conventional tank that's
composite wrapped.
Monte Davis
>I am curious how much strength improvement nanotube fibers
>provide over regular carbon fiber. I'm assuming, since they are just
>differently arranged carbon atoms, that they would be similar and that they
>could be used the same in composite materials.
"Carbon fiber" describes a variety of materials identified since the
late 1950s, not all of them all-carbon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fiber
Their strength (high end ~~5 gigaPascals, the same range as Kevlar,
Spectra, Zylon etc.) comes from more or less extensive micro-regions
of graphene -- carbon atoms bonded in a hexagonal grid like chicken
wire, by the sp2 C-C bond (one of the strongest inateratomic bonds
known). Other regions are irregular clumps, with an occasional
micro-region of diamond (tetrahedral, sp3 bonding).
What sets carbon nanotubes apart is that they're nothing *but*
graphene, rolled up into cylindrical molecules that can be billions of
times longer than their diameter, with essentially no carbon atoms
"out of place." Different methods of synthesis yield varying
proportions of single-walled CNTs and multi-walled types with nested
tubes.
Depending on how you combine theory and measurements ( :-), a bulk
fiber of indefinitely long single-walled CNTs, all parallel in a
lengthwise orientation -- which nobody yet knows how to make -- has
been projected at 25-50 times the tensile strength of the best drawn
steel wire, at about 1/6 the density. Those figures are often combined
to describe it as 150-300 times stronger than steel. A fiber of
shorter overlapping CNTs bound by friction, or a composite with
shorter CNTs adhering in a matrix of plastic material, would be
weaker. Either could be a *lot* stronger than the carbon fibers we're
familiar with (or than any other bulk material known), because the
strength of the interatomic bonds extends over macroscopic distances,
instead of being a patchwork of graphenes and less ordered regions.
CNTs have very useful electrical and thermal properties, too, which is
where most current R&D is focused (e.g. nano-wires for next-generation
chips, or the light, high-capacity wiring NASA has asked Rice to demo
for potential use in the CEV instead of Cu or Al). Many challenges in
yield/cost, purity, length and orientation would have to be solved for
ultra-high-strength bulk materials -- but some big industrial players
with deep pockets, as well as many academic labs, are working on it.
Right now, nobody knows whether CNTs will turn out to be an expensive,
hard-to-work-with niche product like existing carbon fibers and their
composites... or a cheap, abundant miracle product that could
revolutionize engineering and construction.
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <BF86DBFE.E04%geor...@earthlink.net>):
> I would build an aircraft out of steel.
I'd build it out of structural aluminum.
--
"Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever." ~Anonymous
"I believe as little as possible and know as much as I can."
~Todd Stuart Phillips
<www.angryherb.net>
tomcat
> And there are so many other questions like how does it behave in a composite
> matrix? It's always being compared with steel, but how does it compare with
> 2422 Aluminum or whatever is the strongest alloy?
The comparison you ask for is beyond me. Metals, however, have low
meltpoints. A fatal flaw in a vehicle designed for hypersonic speed.
There is a tungsten alloy that hits an incredible 6000 deg. F. for it's
meltpoint. Warning: tungsten generates enormous quantities of X-rays
when conducting electricity. Tungsten is also very expensive and
difficult to work with. Find a torch that can cut at 6000+ deg. F.!
Tungsten can, today, be worked and machined but it is 'state of the
art'.
The R&D being accomplished across the country, with the University of
Texas at Dallas being one of the primary, has not even begun to answer
all of the question about CNT. They have, however, turned it into a
long strip of fabric, a fabric so thin it looks more like a shadow than
a substance.
They spoke of making it 18 ply with the ply's angled in different
directions.
One problem with CNT is that it may 'soak up' or be 'dissolved' by LH2.
Hence, the titanium liner. The liner would give you both the form and
something solid to laminate.
The insulative properties, as mentioned by Brad Guth, of basalt fabric
may make it an excellent first layer, or perhaps the best laminate for
the LH2 fuel tanks. The 82kpsi rating of basalt fabric is 'eye
popping' as well.
> I don't pay much attention to Guth but I do to Rutan. My dad built a Long EZ
> and we are both working on a Lancair IV, not a Rutan but carbon fiber
> construction. I am curious how much strength improvement nanotube fibers
> provide over regular carbon fiber. I'm assuming, since they are just
> differently arranged carbon atoms, that they would be similar and that they
> could be used the same in composite materials.
I suspect there would be improvement. I have been watching nanotube
research since they were called 'buckytubes' after the 'buckyballs'
that preceeded them. In their nanoscale state they are almost . . .
magical.
If there is a long gap of time before they are in manufacture then
carbon fiber and/or basalt fabric may become desirable alternatives.
> Is that 100 times stronger in tensile strength for an equal cross section?
> And is that 1/6th the density of steel? Remember a pound of feathers isn't
> 1/6th the weight of a pound of lead. So how do those figures stack up to
> carbon fiber?
I have read -- mostly from University of Texas at Dallas -- of figures
of 100 times the strength at 1/6th the weight. Then of 50 times the
strength of steel (this may have been a comparison to a super strong
steel alloy wire).
I know little of carbon fiber except that it was/is used in missile
nose cones under the Corelle ceramic. A lot of the strength of a
composite comes from the binder. Graphite epoxy is expensive, stiff,
and very strong. Note: some binders have proven so strong, etc., that
they have been cast into plates.
I would build an aircraft out of steel.
The graphite epoxy/carbon fiber of Spaceship One would probably be a
superior material, and lighter to boot. But if you really want steel
then use titanium.
Titanium was used in the SR-71 as well as the F-15 and F-14, and has
proven very, very good as long as it's 2000 deg. F. meltpoint isn't
approached too closely. Today, titanium can be worked with easily.
Not true in the 70's. And, it is non-corrosive. It is stronger than
aluminum so can be made a little thinner saving weight, unless you have
need of the extra strength.
> LH2 slush means solid hydrogen in liquid He. This is *very* cold stuff, so
> how does Titanium do at those temperatures, and how would a nanotube/
> graphite epoxy composite? Also it is quite a trick to bond to metal, no
> doubt even more so at the temperature of liquid He. Have you done any
> testing?
Testing of various materials at near absolute zero cold is very
important for two reasons. Handling cryogenic fuels as you suggested.
And, because Outer Space is extremely cold, especially as you go
farther from the Sun, as in a trip to Mars.
I 'seem to remember' seeing something on CNT being very resistant to
the effects of extreme cold. The danger is that a brittle spaceplane
hull might take a meteor hit -- probably will on a long voyage -- and
shatter like glass.
This is why a spaceplane hull has to be 'state of the art'. It has to
be strong, tough, and capable of extreme heat as well as extreme cold.
> I notice you said that CNT is extremely thermally conductive. This doesn't
> seem conducive to keeping things cold.
It is not. An insulator will need to be used. Nomex is a possibility.
Possibly a nomex/kevlar blanket, though that might add unnecessary
weight.
Also, the vacuuming of the space around the fuel tanks will help both
to lighten the spaceplane and provide excellent insulation.
> > The outer hull, however, should be composite only. Titanium, despite it's
> > 2000 deg. F. meltpoint, is just too meltable. RCC might be a good way to get
> > strength and rigidity to prevent ceramic flexing and breaking.
> Here again, the extreme thermal conductivity of CNT is a drawback.
Not really. Extreme thermal conductivity will be an asset on the hull.
The ability to rapidly spread out thermal pockets, especially in the
leading edge areas, will be a blessing. A CNT hull would form a
massive heatsink.
> Everybody
> mocks the TPS tiles on the shuttle but they really are amazing. If they are
> banded to a CNT/graphite epoxy composite structure, those fillers you are
> concerned about probably wouldn't be necessary.
I wonder about the filler's heat resistance. Not to mention the extra
weight. If the filler is 'that good' then why the tiles in the first
place?
tomcat
tomcat
> "They say" a lot of things. "They say" the mutual
> gravity-well/nullification zone between us and the moon is roughly 84%
> of the distance towards the moon, and thereby we're talking 16% of the
> distance away from the moon.
I regard many of 'their' calculations/equations as . . . suspect. When
you start taking averages the other horse wins every time.
All of a sudden 'they' decide that Moon gravity takes effect. The fact
is the Moon's gravity travels all the way to the Earth, hence the
tides.
The pilot of a spaceplane should 'aim' at the Moon or, actually, lead
it a little to get full benefit of the Moon's gravity which, by the
way, changes all the 'equations'. You don't actually have to follow a
preprogrammed course!
'Their' mathematically 'perfect' equations leave me a little worried
about whether or not they actually . . . work. Properly 'set up'
mathematics should do a fine job, but the laziness of taking averages
like 32'/per second squared divided by 2 -- and not taking into account
the Moon's gravity -- is a little upsetting.
> With regards to spaceplane wings or perhaps that of one massive
> aerodynamic foil worth of a waverider spaceplane body, thus affording
> far more usable interior than any tile covered wing outfitted body as
> suggested by your "huge gleaming white triangular spaceplane";
> >Rocket equations take drag into consideration, but not gravity's
> >assistance.
Tomcat's 'huge gleaming white triangular spaceplane' does not have
wings. It is a blended wing body that is thicker than a B-2 blended
wing body. It has to be to carry lots and lots of LH2.
> I see no problem with your bigger is better. Of course folks like
> "George Evans" seem to think small by way of continually thinking
> inside the box, as well as having those pesky ulterior motives of
> saying one thing while acting upon getting something entirely different
> across.
George does think in 'detail', however, and that is an ameliorating
factor. Us 'spaghetti' types notice things like that.
> Just wondering a bit; Are you thinking of a 45 degree final atmospheric
> assent?
Interesting question. Once above the atmosphere -- 300,000 feet
approx. -- it makes little sense to stay at 30 deg. climb. Because the
Earth is a sphere, however, it also makes little difference if you
change your climb unless there is some specific place you are going.
It is possible, therefore, to alter to a full 90 deg., straight up,
attitude. A lot depends on whether you are going for orbital insertion
or escape velocity to the planets.
In most cases a planetary mission will require a Moon slingshot and
therefore the Moon's position and your initial takeoff climb have to be
coordinated for best gravity.
What is that best gravity climb? Wait for the Moon to just be poking
it's face above the horizon. Then takeoff like a 'bat out of hell' and
lead the Moon a little, like a hunter leads a buck with his rifle.
> The composites of what basalt fibers and basalt microballoons as having
> a degree of CNT involved seems likely of what should eventually become
> doable. However, of what I've already provided upon existing basalt is
> just the iceberg tip of what that composite alone can achieve as a
> structurally insulative material that need not exceed 64 kg/m3 unless
> the added mass of using more fibers and less balloons becomes a
> priority.
Two things really impress me about basalt fabric: it's insulative
properties and it's psi.
> Too bad that what I have to suggest is much like what you have to offer
> as a plate full of the first, second and third helping, all of which
> should more than have the inert mass of what any SRB assisted
> spaceplane and of it's massive ET should amount to. Thus a replacement
> shuttle as in the form of your "bigger is better" spaceplane should
> have any problem whatsoever achieving those 100t deployments at 400+km,
> with energy to spare.
I believe that new materials and slush tanks enable us to go beyond
just a 'replacement shuttle'. True SSTO is really possible now and,
with some work, a SSTP.
> Of course, if my Ra226-->LRn222-->ION thruster arrays become the
> alternative to those SSMEs that are worth a 10t investment plus fuel
> and the vast volumes necessary for accommodating such fuel per each
> fully integrated SSME and, no matters what these SSMEs should still
> suck LH2 and LO2 like there's no tomorrow, whereas without SSMEs but
> instead LRn-->ION thrusters might represent payloads that can become
> half again or roughly 50/50 of the spaceplane package. Meaning a 150t
> spaceplane that's still having to be SRB assisted (possibly two-stage
> SRBs) past 250,000'(76 km) could thus manage to safely deploy a 150t
> item or that of multiple items that amount to 150t past the 400 km
> mark.
What -- exactly -- is the thrust, in pounds, of your Radon ion engines?
And, how big does the reactor have to be that drives them. If it is
the size of a nuclear power plane, requiring containment domes, then it
might be a little . . . impractical.
> Unfortunately the ulterior motivated likes of "George Evans" being
> rather mindset upon carbon fibers that are extremely frail and spendy
> as all get out compared to basalt fibers, whereas as far as I know of
> there are no such things as carbon microballoons, nor for that matter a
> CNT microballoon. There are however terrific insulative and combined
> structural capability per cm3 of basalt, along with those existing
> graphite epoxy as binders is still the overall king of the hill that's
> not one cent on the dollar per carbon fibers and, perhaps not .001 cent
> on the CNT dollar that's still another good decade down the winding R&D
> road.
CNT might not be a "good decade down the road." DARPA funded the
University of Texas and at least one other CNT project, the Argonne
National Laboratory, I believe. Argonne developed CNT with embedded
diamonds. DARPA's got bucks and DARPA gets what it wants.
> I'd actually think that a little extra thermal conductivity for what's
> directly below the Corelle/ceramic tiles or whatever spray-on ceramic
> microballoon coating would be highly desirable, as possibly performing
> a similar thermal rate of expansion by which this CNT/basalt outer
> shell could best match the rate of ceramic expansion. I do agree with
> "George Evans" that tile fillers need not be incorporated unless no
> other thermal expansion alternative becomes available.
> BTW; I'm not exactly sure how LH2 and slush LH2 differ in energy
> density by all that much.
I don't think the energy density is affect at all. A 'slush tank' just
hold a lot more LH2 than a regular tank.
You might be thinking of the new 'atomic hydrogen' fuel. That is
different, however, than a simple slush tank. The 'atomic hydrogen'
fuel probably needs some additional R&D.
In either case, a terribly insulative
> containment of the likes of LH2 (slush or not) and the same goes for
> LO2 could each be accommodated by way of using a composite of basalt
> fibers and those highly insulative balloons along with the graphite
> epoxy binders if not in some cases just utilizing good old end-user
> friendly JB-WELD.
JB-WELD can only take 500 deg. F. It should not be considered for a
spaceplane, though it might be terrific for many other things where
temperature is not a factor.
A metallic internal coating via plasma spray could
> make for quite another weight saving improvement. In fact, there could
> be two or three viable containment layers of plasma applied metallic
> coatings at less weight impact than a conventional tank that's
> composite wrapped.
Remember, that the meltpoint of metal is dismally low. The exception
if tungsten and if it gets hit with an electrical short or a bolt of
lightning you will get . . . fried by X-rays.
tomcat
Damon Hill
news:8a44m1t0gnipq0p1s...@4ax.com:
Thanks for the rational reality check, as opposed to the babbling
nonsense of certain badly informed parties. I'm more interested
in CNT as a conductor rather than a structural material.
It will be interesting to see if it develops into something
real and useful.
--Damon
George Evans
jla...@bellsouth.net wrote on 10/28/05 8:43 AM:
> George Evans wrote:
>
>> And there are so many other questions like how does it behave in a composite
>> matrix? It's always being compared with steel, but how does it compare with
>> 2422 Aluminum or whatever is the strongest alloy?
>>
> The comparison you ask for is beyond me. Metals, however, have low
> meltpoints. A fatal flaw in a vehicle designed for hypersonic speed.
You still have to keep the inner parts cool, so don't be too quick to rule
out Aluminum for the frame. If the inside of the hull gets hot enough to
melt Aluminum alloy, the mission is over.
<snip>
> The R&D being accomplished across the country, with the University of Texas at
> Dallas being one of the primary, has not even begun to answer all of the
> question about CNT. They have, however, turned it into a long strip of
> fabric, a fabric so thin it looks more like a shadow than a substance.
>
> They spoke of making it 18 ply with the ply's angled in different directions.
>
> One problem with CNT is that it may 'soak up' or be 'dissolved' by LH2. Hence,
> the titanium liner. The liner would give you both the form and something
> solid to laminate.
If you are looking to store H2 slush then you're looking at solid H2 and
liquid Helium. So your tank needs to retain He which is a very trick little
atom.
<snip>
>> LH2 slush means solid hydrogen in liquid He. This is *very* cold stuff, so
>> how does Titanium do at those temperatures, and how would a nanotube/
>> graphite epoxy composite? Also it is quite a trick to bond to metal, no doubt
>> even more so at the temperature of liquid He. Have you done any testing?
>>
> Testing of various materials at near absolute zero cold is very important for
> two reasons. Handling cryogenic fuels as you suggested. And, because Outer
> Space is extremely cold, especially as you go farther from the Sun, as in a
> trip to Mars.
As you go farther from the sun as in just around a corner into the shade.
> I 'seem to remember' seeing something on CNT being very resistant to
> the effects of extreme cold. The danger is that a brittle spaceplane
> hull might take a meteor hit -- probably will on a long voyage -- and
> shatter like glass.
The beauty of a composite material is that is resists shattering. A metal
can shatter at low temperatures because, being amorphous, there is nothing
to interrupt cracks. So maybe your idea of a metal tank surrounded by some
kind of composite is a good one.
<snip>
>>> The outer hull, however, should be composite only. Titanium, despite it's
>>> 2000 deg. F. meltpoint, is just too meltable. RCC might be a good way to
>>> get strength and rigidity to prevent ceramic flexing and breaking.
>>>
>> Here again, the extreme thermal conductivity of CNT is a drawback.
>>
> Not really. Extreme thermal conductivity will be an asset on the hull. The
> ability to rapidly spread out thermal pockets, especially in the leading edge
> areas, will be a blessing. A CNT hull would form a massive heatsink.
I was thinking more about heat conduction into the interior. You don't want
passenger becoming a part of the heat sink.
>> Everybody mocks the TPS tiles on the shuttle but they really are amazing. If
>> they are banded to a CNT/graphite epoxy composite structure, those fillers
>> you are concerned about probably wouldn't be necessary.
>>
> I wonder about the filler's heat resistance. Not to mention the extra weight.
> If the filler is 'that good' then why the tiles in the first place?
Like I said, bond the tiles to a much more rigid composite frame and the
tiles won't move around and you won't need fillers.
George Evans
Fred J. McCall
Slap it together without thought and it'll get done, won't work, and
will sour everyone on doing anything at all.
I'd suggest you might want to look into strength of materials insofar
as unbuttressed construction goes.
Your Venus probe is so much drifting trash in short order, given this
type of "nice simple and quick" construction.
"Things should be kept as simple as possible, but no simpler."
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
Fred J. McCall
:Brad Guth wrote:
:> Members of this usenet which claim to NOT understand and/or appreciate
:> as to what the few of us non-mainstreamers are sharing about the most
:> likely truth(s), as to what these two extremely nearby orbs of our moon
:> and that of Venus have to offer, are only doing such because of their
:> inbred arrogance, hatreds and intellectual as well as biological
:> bigotry that's within the very DNA/RNA of their soul that's keeping the
:> disinformation-R-us walls up and thereby the rest of us and the vast
:> bulk of humanity as far away from the rest of the truth as possible by
:> way of using conditional laws of physics, soft-science and as much
:> hocus pocus of evidence exclusions that would make the likes of OJ
:> Simpson extremely envious.
:
:Why is the making of a SSTP regarded by the uneducated as so difficult?
Wrong question. Only the uneducated think it is simple.
:It may have something to do with 'equations' that purport to show that
:bigger means -- nothing -- because the DV and Mass Ratios are the same
:as smaller ones. This is false.
:
:A 1 inch perfect replica of a Saturn V will never, ever make it to the
:Moon. By the same token, a 1000 mile high perfect replica of a Saturn
:V could probably send a payload beyond the Moon -- maybe even to Mars.
Except it would crumple into garbage from its own weight.
:It may have something to do with 'X amount of energy requirement for a
:200 mile high orbit'. Wings or not you have to have 'X amount of
:energy', they say.
:
:Of course, in one sense they a correct. But a winged vehicle takes
:energy from gravity to assist it in pushing up against gravity.
Good Lord! It does no such thing. Add aerodynamics to the education
you lack.
:How so? Gravity pushes against the air causing 1 atmosphere of
:pressure. A fair amount of pressure, by the way, capable of crushing
:cans. Just remove the compensating air from inside a can and it will
:crush flat.
:
:A waverider puts dense, compressed, air underneath of it and rarifies
:the air on top by making it travel farther than the air underneath.
:Thus, the waveriding spaceplane is pushed from underneath and pulled
:from on top by gravity/air atmospheric pressure.
:
:With speed increase the air becomes denser so the push becomes harder
:and the pull becomes greater. Mixed with the energy from gravity's
:pushing the air molecules is the 'drag' energy being taken from the
:spaceplane's engines. This complicates things but does not stop
:gravity from giving a lot of assistance to the spaceplane.
No, gravity is the enemy. It doesn't "give a lot of assistance" at
all.
:Rocket equations take drag into consideration, but not gravity's
:assistance. While vertical/tubular rockets have drag too, it doesn't
:apply to them, because they don't have wings for using atmospheric
:energy.
Wings don't "use atmospheric energy". You trade lift for drag. You
want more lift, you have to put up with more drag.
:This is why it is true that it takes 'X amount of energy' to do a given
:amount of work for whatever vehicle is chosen. And, it explains why a
:'winged rocket' does so much better than a vertical/tubular rocket.
:Wings draw energy from gravity itself through the medium of air
:molecules that are being 'squeezed' to the Earth.
Magic. It's all done with Lift Demons, I tell you!
:So, all in all it means that success will come by making one gigantic
:monster of a waverider: tomcat's huge gleaming white triangular
:spaceplane.
Gods, this place seems overrun by loons (Guthballs, if you will).
What happened while I was away?
You know, I remember a time when people who were interested in space
were actually motivated and went out and got an education so that they
could take part. Seems like now what we get are loons who are too
lazy to actually acquire the knowledge and do the work to understand
things, so they think that 'magic technology' will somehow all make it
work out.
tomcat
> You still have to keep the inner parts cool, so don't be too quick to rule
> out Aluminum for the frame. If the inside of the hull gets hot enough to
> melt Aluminum alloy, the mission is over.
Nomex flight suits can take up to -- and just barely -- 1000 deg. F.
Aluminum is liquid at this temperature. The possibility of a 'worst
case scenario' means that aluminum is unsatisfactory, even for the
cockpit.
Titanium is nearly as light as aluminum by quantity, and can be made
lighter because it is a stronger metal that can be reduced in size
somewhat. Just a little more expensive, which matters little to a
vehicle costing 3 to 8 billion dollars per copy.
> If you are looking to store H2 slush then you're looking at solid H2 and
> liquid Helium. So your tank needs to retain He which is a very trick little
> atom.
The basalt fabric might work on the tanks. It has a high insulative
factor and can take 82 kpsi.
> As you go farther from the sun as in just around a corner into the shade.
Yes, the Earth's penumbra does freeze things.
> The beauty of a composite material is that is resists shattering. A metal
> can shatter at low temperatures because, being amorphous, there is nothing
> to interrupt cracks. So maybe your idea of a metal tank surrounded by some
> kind of composite is a good one.
Well, they have had trouble with aluminum tanks, and they have had
trouble with pure composite tanks, so a combination of titanium and
composite might work.
> I was thinking more about heat conduction into the interior. You don't want
> passenger becoming a part of the heat sink.
The Shuttle uses 'vacuum bottle' to protect the cockpit. This seems to
work as long as the tiles hold up.
It may be possible to use a double hull for 'air flow' as well. The
use of small computer control orfices in the leading edge surfaces to
allow compressed air to -- expand -- inside the double hull and flow
through picking up heat may be a possible solution.
The ultimate solution is to remove the hypersonic air from the hull in
the first place. 'Air spikes' were supposed to do this but were, I
believe, only moderately successful. Brad Guth proposes forward firing
ion engines that could force air molecules out of the way while
providing reverse thrust for reentry.
Another way of removing air flow is to use 'special' flanged leading
sections of the air frame to take the heat, shielding other parts.
Protruding Corelle discs, oversized Corelle leading edge surfaces,
and/or ablatives may be the answer here.
> >> Everybody mocks the TPS tiles on the shuttle but they really are amazing. If
> >> they are banded to a CNT/graphite epoxy composite structure, those fillers
> >> you are concerned about probably wouldn't be necessary.
Silica tiles are amazing, and work, as long as they remain structurally
sound. They are the most reflective ceramic known, cooling almost
instantly after exposure to extreme heat.
Hence, my proposals that silca tile be placed under Corelle tile so
that the Corelle 'protects' the silica tiles. I have also proposed a
Corelle/Silica tile composite. It should, in fact, be possible to
'embed' silica tiles into the Corelle prior to firing (curing) the
ceramic, making for a tight bond of the two materials.
tomcat
Brad Guth
Unfortunately, because I'm sufficiently right about our cloak and
dagger NASA, our once upon a time icy proto-moon and about other life
upon Venus, and lo and behold as apparently I'm getting myself just as
right about the Rn-->ion thrusters, whereas such my PC has been and is
currently under usenet attack via the gauntlet of spermware/malware as
having been accommodated by the servers of whatever's GOOGLE/NOVA, and
from their freelance warm and fuzzy (mostly Jewish and thus
anti-Muslim) MI6/NSA spooks. Therefore it's taking myself a bit longer
to accomplish just about anything. You don't suppose they'd be making
the effort as to sperming and otherwise topic/author stalking, bashing
and/or applying banishment for no other good reasons, do you?
>What -- exactly -- is the thrust, in pounds, of your Radon ion engines?
>And, how big does the reactor have to be that drives them. If it is
>the size of a nuclear power plane, requiring containment domes, then it
>might be a little . . . impractical.
Besides my being on a need to know basis, I'm still using a good amount
of my famuos SWAG(scientific wild ass guessing) as to the Rn222-->ion
thrust potential.
There have been a few numbers associated as to what Radon energy can
contribute as much as 6.28e9 joules/g. Taking a conservative 50%
conversion efficiency into account; Raw Rn energy that's available for
creating ions = 3.14e9 per gram of Radon usage per second.
Rn-->ION THRUST PIE IN THE SKY
Adding the applied plasma and highly directional (nearly laser)
producing energy influx of perhaps a few megajoules seems to only imply
upon creating an ion thrust velocity that's going to eventually become
worth something a bit greater than 3.14e9 joules/gram/second.
Supposedly the likes of Xenon-->ion thrust is currently accomplished at
165e-3/4.5e3 = 36.666e-6 N/J
If my initial SWAG(scientific wild ass guess) on LRn as
Radon(Rn222)-->ion thrust is jazzed up to accomplishing 1e3 fold better
ion exit velocity means that the Rn-->ion KE = 36.666e-6 * 1e6 = 37 N/J
Calculating upon a bit extra for the added ion mass of those extremely
fast moving and highly reactive Rn222 atoms-->ions as opposed to those
wossy and slow moving passive Xe atoms-->ions (222/131.3 = 1.69:1),
it's looking as though better than 50 newton/joule isn't all that
unlikely. That's certainly an impressive 5 Kgf per externally applied
joule if the Rn-->ion exit velocity reaches 30,000 km/s.
Therefore, launching a spaceplane of 1,000,000 kg / 5 could require as
little as 200,000 joules, which seems a little too good to be true.
Though how about just going for a Crispy Cream doughnut instead of a
full blown pie in the sky, thus instead of achieving the 30,000 km/s of
such ions exiting each thrust-emitter, let us try a less ambitious 300
km/s as merely a 100 fold thrust improvement over Xe ions, as an
improvement that unless my math is running amuck is suggesting we
should achieve 0.005 Kgf/joule.
Therefore, pushing a spaceplane at 90 deg. of 1,000,000 kg / 0.005 will
require a good terrestrial supply of LRn and a reliable energy resource
worth 200 MJ.
200 MJ can certainly be conventionally generated via rocket powered
turbine and/or via the U238-->Ra-->Rn breeder reactor that I'd
mentioned a few hundred times before. The advantage of the Rn breeder
reactor is that it's good for a 1600 year half-life, whereas the
conventional rocket powered turbine driven generator needs that
horrific supply of all that liquified and thus usually testy cryogenic
inventory of fuels that'll take up a great deal of valuable space, plus
demanding integration infrastructure and thus representing a great deal
of mass, not to mention their ability to uncontrollably explode for
most any one of a thousand reasons.
No matters what the outcome, the Rn-->ion thrust will offer loads
greater performance than wossy Xenon-->ions that are barely moving out
of their chamber at 30 km/s. I believe I've uncovered another old
Xenon-->ion thrust velocity potential that's capable of 50 km/s, which
is still way too damn slow, thus Xe ions are offering darn little
thrust/joule. Of course ion thrusters hardly weigh anything compared to
the 10,000 Lb/SSME and required infrastructure that's not to mention
their horrific volumes of LH2 and LO2 per second that's required of
their turbo pumps and each of these main engines. Therefore whatever
ion thrust infrastructure needs to be given the benefit of hardly
weighing anything other than the reactor and/or conventional aspects of
generating sufficient electrons.
As interpreted from these following links;
http://www.braeunig.us/space/specs/shuttle.htm
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/military/read.main/37552/
Each SSME at 104% burns 920 lbs/s(417 kg/s) of LOX and 155 lb/s(70
kg/s) of LH2. At 104% power (393,000 lbs / 488,800 lbs thrust in
vacuum), that's a continuous rate of consumption per each and every
second per engine. If giving a 1000 second worth of inventory (16.7
minutes worth) and lo and behold there's a need for housing 70,000 kg
of LH2 and 417,000 kg of LO2 per SSME, which amounts to 487 tonnes X 3
and that's not even including the required energy for the auxiliary
turbine pumps, electrical power and hydraulic energy generators and of
the highly insulative composite tankage and enormous plumbing/manifold
attributes that could easily amount to another 54 tonnes involved with
safely accommodating such horrific volumes. Seems 1000 seconds would be
about as good as it's going to get for your fully loaded + multiple
SRM/SRB spaceplane. Is 1000 seconds going enough time to get everything
to 400+km with sufficient energy reserves to spare?
Other SSME info:
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts-mps.html
"The main engines can be throttled over a range of 65 to 109 percent of
their rated power level in 1-percent increments. A value of 100 percent
corresponds to a thrust level of 375,000 pounds at sea level and
470,000 pounds in a vacuum. A value of 104 percent corresponds to
393,800 pounds at sea level and 488,800 pounds in a vacuum; 109 percent
corresponds to 417,300 pounds at sea level and 513,250 pounds in a
vacuum."
I'm not suggesting of using 4 or perhaps 6 of those massive SRM/SRBs
isn't going to work on behalf of lifting that much mass to a sufficient
altitude and achieving better than half escape velocity in the process
(say 4+ km/s at 76+km) but, good grief folks, that's certainly a lot of
artificial pollution for us humans and the global environment of mother
Earth per launch.
However, it seems if your spaceplane can so easily accommodate such
horrific volumes and of the subsequent initial 1500~2000 tonnes worth
for having to accommodate even 3 of those SSMEs, that's serious tonnage
(not including the extra amount of the enormous composite shell
surrounding the much larger spaceplane infrastructure), whereas
considering upon the nuclear provided energy that should involve a good
amount of Ra226 as performing as breeder of the highly reactive
LRn222-->Rn-->ion alternatives seems like the direction we should be
going.
>requiring containment domes
What stinking containment domes, and while you're at it; what planet
are you from?
Why all of the sudden are you digging yourself back into mainstream
cesspool box thinking?
Nuclear reactors have been made considerably smaller and safer than
ever, and Radium(Ra226) is an extremely safe element. I'd say that
plain old wind and especially water has been year after year
responsible for killing off at least a million to one more innocent
folks over that of natural and artificially concentrated Radium and
subsequent Radon, thus where's your protesting as to eliminating wind
and water?
Life as we know it is a damn risk. So, get over with all of your
conditional mainstream status quo paranoia over whatever you could
possibly (key word being "possibly") get involved with what you might
(key word being "might") prematurely die from.
This time around "read my lips"
Ra226 is just about everywhere upon Earth, as being continually created
within Earth, upon and within our moon, incoming as cosmic dust each
and every hour upon hour of each and every day, week, month, year,
century and so forth. That's sort of why there's so much existing and
replacement Radon(Rb222) being made available if we use it or not.
However, Radon is certainly a use-it or lose-it element, of which as
I've said this many times before that we've been continually loosing
out upon the energy potential of what Radon represents because
apparently the very best of us humans are just way too dumb and dumber
than can be imagined (too busy at keeping perpetrated cold-wars alive
and kicking while otherwise trying to devise new and improved methods
of killing off one another as to give a hoot about using Rn222).
First of all, as far as the last time I'd checked, there were no
anti-nuke-energy protestors in space, and besides all of their
anti-advancement crapolla (similar to those anti stem-cell and thus
anti-life, anti-God freaks), of anything DoD/star-wars has been getting
launched no matters what. Now that our "high standards and
accountability" of our born again resident warlord's "so what's the
difference" policy that sucks and blows big-time if you're a Muslim,
has been enforced (without a stitch of remorse) so much that not even
God is standing in our heathen ways.
The high energy density of a nuclear reactor onboard your spaceplane is
more than doable, it's somewhat required if you truly intend to cut the
overall mass and affordably manage to deliver those 100+tonnes worth of
payloads past the 400 km mark. If not for creating a bit more of the
Rn222 on the fly so much because, a fresh and highly economical batch
of commercially produced LRn can be taken from the surface into
whatever orbit within minutes. Although I'd suppose if any surplus of
that LRn were unused and brought back to Earth, as such within a short
time thereafter it would simply have reverted/decayed into becoming
plain old lead. Thus once again I'll move my lips on behalf of
repeating that LRn222 is an extremely powerful (6.28e9 joules/g) use-it
or lose-it element.
Obviously you can't obtain the likes of any LRn-->Rn-->ION thruster
from Sears, though I'd bet my bottom dollar that from German mad
scientist and/or from them tricky Russians could. This country and of
it's cloak and dagger mindset upon global energy domination has
sequestered itself and a good part of humanity way too deep into the
nearest space-toilet of arrogance, greed plus intellectual as well as
biological bigotry to matter.
Good grief almighty Christ on a stick 'tomcat'; there's been other
significant life upon Venus, and our moon badly needs the likes of my
LSE-CM/ISS, yet you're mindset is stuck firmly upon continually
consuming the global energy resources in a manner that'll only continue
to pollute mother Earth as well as insuring that an all-or-nothing
WW-III becomes our only viable option.
I'm trying to suggest upon much cleaner and considerably more
energy-->thrust efficient alternatives, while you're still stuck in the
mainstream status quo muck of looking for whatever's off-the-shelf and
yet still having to count upon having spendy and thus energy consuming
CNT to save the day. Whereas common basalt composites that'll vary
anywhere from less than a kg/m3 to perhaps as great a 2.75 t/m3, having
extreme thermal range as well as many other quality attributes,
including as being more than sufficient as-is for the LSE-CM/ISS
tethers seems like a rather big freaking gift-horse to me.
I have a few questions as to what's the actual problem here?
Are you simply too dumbfounded and otherwise summarily snookered by
whatever the mainstream status quo has to say?
Where's the rest of your open minded spaceplane imagination?
If you can't independently think for yourself, then why bother thinking
at all?
>I don't think the energy density is affect at all. A 'slush tank' just
>hold a lot more LH2 than a regular tank.
Exactly how much more slush LH2 as opposed to regular LH2?
>You might be thinking of the new 'atomic hydrogen' fuel. That is
>different, however, than a simple slush tank. The 'atomic hydrogen'
>fuel probably needs some additional R&D.
No, I wasn't at all thinking "atomic hydrogen".
As I'd previously stipulated that in either case, a terribly insulative
and structurally foormulated containment is priority No.1. In which
case the structural composite worth of what's basically of basalt and
binders contributing towards R-1024/m seems like just the best
insulation ticket to ride. In fact, purely insulative basalt balloons
are likely going to exceed R-2048/m (that's suggesting R-2/mm).
Please do share by telling us what your CNT or even carbon ballon
R-factor/mm is worth.
>JB-WELD can only take 500 deg. F. It should not be considered for a
>spaceplane, though it might be terrific for many other things where
>temperature is not a factor.
Actually it's 600 deg. F, but there you go again, assuming upon the all
or nothing worse possible application. Gee whiz 'tomcat', I didn't
realize that the structural insulation between the inner and outer skin
was going to be so piss poor, plus all of the interior structural
features are having to operate continuously at 500+deg. F. Tell me Sir
all-knowing wizard 'tomcat'; how is your crew and passengers going to
survive that sort of continuous 500+deg.F environment and, why does the
hull insulation of the outer skin plus whatever ceramic tiles of your
spaceplane have such an absolutely pathetic near zero R-Factor?
I suppose if every stinking square inch of whatever's within or outside
of your spaceplane has to withstand the very same continuous 20,000
deg. F. hyper-speed torment with zero degrade, as I suppose that even
includes those massive cryogenic fuel storage tanks that are taking up
better than 95% of the spaceplane volume, then perhaps what's the
point?
Once again, might I ask; what the sam freaking hell is the actual
insurmountable problem here?
You know! not every product under the sun is suited to every possible
application, and though I'd once thought you already knew that but,
apparently not. Sorry I'd bothered to mention upon the sorts of
anything that was viably doable, commercially cheap, well proven but
didn't meet and/or exceed your 20,000 deg. F. (all or nothing) flaming
exit/reentry requirements. Perhaps you'd best plan upon making your
entire spaceplane which apparently involves a nearly zero R-factor out
of ceramics, including the need to clone off a few of those all-ceramic
hybrid astronauts while you're at it.
And here I'd thought Venus was just a little geothermally toasty but
otherwise entirely surmountable within the known realms of what we've
had to work with, which is nothing compared to your continuous extreme
fireball of spaceplane standards from worse than hell, of which there's
absolutely nothing remotely available that's even in think-tank mode of
getting R&D resolved. Thanks but no thanks, I'll take my chances upon
an exploding space shuttle any day of the week before giving your
all-or-nothing 2,000,000 kg worth of composite spaceplane + requiring 4
of those 569,879 kg SME/SRBs(2,279,516 kg) worth of global pollution
generating sticks a try.
I suppose that you do not care to honestly appreciate that the actual
launch phase is just a portion of the total energy consuming and
subsequent birth to grave global pollution impact factor. That's why
you're focused upon mineral and fossil fuel derived energy
alternatives, that which tens of thousands of innocent folks per year
are specifically dead and or soon becoming dead as a result of such
mass energy consumptions that contribute wealth and power to the upper
most 0.1% of humanity, leaving the lower 99.9% to fend for ourselves.
If we can't accomplish future space travel in a very nuclear/LRn or
He3/fusion way, and if we can't even manage to establish the
LSE-CM/ISS, then chances are that within the century is where the few
that manage to survive WW-III, WW-IV and WW-V are going to have to make
due with MOS incest cloning along with the construction of vast walls
in order to defend themselves from those of us non Skull and Bones
folks on the outside that for decades have had nothing to lose.
BTW; specifically due to the anti-Muslim and thus pro-Jewish actions of
our resident warlord(GW Bush), no one that's on our pro-side of space
exploration and still alive has any spare 100+ billions laying around
as to R&D your composite do-everything spaceplane. We can't even keep
what we've got up to snuff. All that we've managed to accomplish thus
far is getting half the population of Earth to hate our stinking LLPOF
guts. Thus any spaceplane is going to have to be R&D and put into usage
by those few nations having the mineral and fossil fuel reserves to
spare, as well as to export at the soon to be $100+/barrel along with
everthing else accordingly made expensive a hell (gee whiz 'tomcat',
that should go over really terrific with those nations and of their
populations having to make due with far less than the most basics
already). Therefore, why don't we enslave them before thay all die off
anyway?
George Evans
jla...@bellsouth.net wrote on 10/29/05 7:52 AM:
> George Evans wrote:
>
>> You still have to keep the inner parts cool, so don't be too quick to rule
>> out Aluminum for the frame. If the inside of the hull gets hot enough to melt
>> Aluminum alloy, the mission is over.
>>
> Nomex flight suits can take up to -- and just barely -- 1000 deg. F. Aluminum
> is liquid at this temperature. The possibility of a 'worst case scenario'
> means that aluminum is unsatisfactory, even for the cockpit.
>
> Titanium is nearly as light as aluminum by quantity, and can be made lighter
> because it is a stronger metal that can be reduced in size somewhat. Just a
> little more expensive, which matters little to a vehicle costing 3 to 8
> billion dollars per copy.
I don't think you want to plan for the cabin to get 1000 deg. F. You would
have to wrap all your sandwiches in nomex. Better to surround the occupants
with an Aluminum frame and then try and keep it solid. Is there some
unspoken reason you don't want to use Aluminum?
<snip>
>> I was thinking more about heat conduction into the interior. You don't want
>> passenger becoming a part of the heat sink.
>>
> The Shuttle uses 'vacuum bottle' to protect the cockpit. This seems to work
> as long as the tiles hold up.
Remember, bottles with vacuums inside, collapse. This seems to add
structural problems that are unnecessary.
> It may be possible to use a double hull for 'air flow' as well. The use of
> small computer control orfices in the leading edge surfaces to allow
> compressed air to -- expand -- inside the double hull and flow through picking
> up heat may be a possible solution.
I'd have to hear more about this. At first it seemed like an interesting
idea--like refrigeration. But if the gas is 7000 degrees before expansion,
maybe not.
> The ultimate solution is to remove the hypersonic air from the hull in the
> first place. 'Air spikes' were supposed to do this but were, I believe, only
> moderately successful. Brad Guth proposes forward firing ion engines that
> could force air molecules out of the way while providing reverse thrust for
> reentry.
>
> Another way of removing air flow is to use 'special' flanged leading sections
> of the air frame to take the heat, shielding other parts. Protruding Corelle
> discs, oversized Corelle leading edge surfaces, and/or ablatives may be the
> answer here.
NASA is way ahead of you guys on this point. The TPS system is designed to
keep hot gasses away right now. That's why they were anxious to get those
protruding gap fillers out. They didn't want them mix the layers.
>>>> Everybody mocks the TPS tiles on the shuttle but they really are amazing.
>>>> If they are banded to a CNT/graphite epoxy composite structure, those
>>>> fillers you are concerned about probably wouldn't be necessary.
>
> Silica tiles are amazing, and work, as long as they remain structurally sound.
> They are the most reflective ceramic known, cooling almost instantly after
> exposure to extreme heat.
>
> Hence, my proposals that silca tile be placed under Corelle tile so that the
> Corelle 'protects' the silica tiles. I have also proposed a Corelle/Silica
> tile composite. It should, in fact, be possible to 'embed' silica tiles into
> the Corelle prior to firing (curing) the ceramic, making for a tight bond of
> the two materials.
Tiles are good for maintenance. Are you thinking of a silica tile with kind
of a Corelle frosting on the outside?
George Evans
Brad Guth
>it's insulative properties and it's psi.
That's but two good points. Here's a few more;
3) it's thermal range isn't anything to sneeze at.
4) it can be made into large(cm3), medium(0.1 cm3), small(1 mm3), sub
mm3 sizes and even nearly micro sized spheres of less than 0.001 mm
balloons that'll can contain just about anything from a vacuum to good
old and 100% safe H2.
5) it's rock cheap, and as such can be found just about anywhere,
including upon the moon.
6) did I mention being essentially fire-proof and non-toxic, at least
up to the point of melting.
7) it offers damn low density potential, as it can get down to less
than 1 kg/m3 if need be.
If the outer skin of the shuttle were of a basalt composite (which
could also include titanium or tungsten fibers), chances are fairly
good that if unprotected it would have been badly damaged but otherwise
a whole lot more survivable for the crew, especially if there was a
reasonable thickness and subsequent degree of R-factor involved.
Brad Guth
>idea--like refrigeration. But if the gas is 7000 degrees before expansion,
>maybe not.
Airfoil refrigeration via LRn-->Rn can become whatever you'd like the
thermal influx to be.
How many btu or joules per m2 are we talking about removing?
How about just sustaining a cloud as a surface layer of LRn-->Rn
between the outer hull and all of that hot but extremely thin air?
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
>materials insofar as unbuttressed construction goes.
>Your Venus probe is so much drifting trash in short order, given this
>type of "nice simple and quick" construction.
>"Things should be kept as simple as possible, but no simpler."
I happen to like what "tomcat" has been proposing. However, I also
appreciate the reality of what's known to work as opposed to what
spendy carbon fibers and especially of what CNT might some day provide
for us at perhaps just a million $/kg of what a new and improved
spaceplane is likely to cost us.
It seems the creative solution is to cut further weight from the
existing formula of shuttle, ET and SRBs, thus increasing payload and
range at the same time as hopefully improving crew safety.
Questions;
Can SRBs be configuted for their assisting past 250,000'?
What's the typical thrust velocity of these SME/SRBs?
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
> >tomcat; Two things really impress me about basalt fabric:
> >it's insulative properties and it's psi.
>
> That's but two good points. Here's a few more;
>
> 3) it's thermal range isn't anything to sneeze at.
>
> 4) it can be made into large(cm3), medium(0.1 cm3), small(1 mm3), sub
> mm3 sizes and even nearly micro sized spheres of less than 0.001 mm
> balloons that'll can contain just about anything from a vacuum to good
> old and 100% safe H2.
>
> 5) it's rock cheap, and as such can be found just about anywhere,
> including upon the moon.
>
> 6) did I mention being essentially fire-proof and non-toxic, at least
> up to the point of melting.
>
> 7) it offers damn low density potential, as it can get down to less
> than 1 kg/m3 if need be.
>
> If the outer skin of the shuttle were of a basalt composite (which
> could also include titanium or tungsten fibers), chances are fairly
> good that if unprotected it would have been badly damaged but otherwise
> a whole lot more survivable for the crew, especially if there was a
> reasonable thickness and subsequent degree of R-factor involved.
Aluminum, which the Shuttle has for it's inner skin, is a very bad
material for anything that has to undergo the blast furnace
temperatures of hypersonic flight.
Most metals are meltable and flexible, two poor properties for a
waverider's skin. Ceramics can take the heat. Composite can be made
very stiff and strong.
Since ceramics are brittle and they must form the outer portion of the
skin, stiffness and strength are very important for the inner skin, to
prevent skin flexing. It also means that the internal ribs and
backbone of the spaceplane must be very strong as well.
Both CNT and basalt fabrics meet these needs. CNT falls a little short
on the thermal conductivity scale. While 'thermal conductivity' is
great for moving heat from the leading edges and forming the hull into
a heatsink, it is bad for stopping heat flow into the ship itself.
Best then, for the outer hull, would be a layer of basalt fabric,
followed by several layers of CNT/basalt composite, finished off by a
layer of CNT. Then, on top of that, Corelle/silica tile composite
ceramic clamped and cemented to the skin.
The binder should, in all cases, be graphite epoxy because it is stiff
and can take the heat.
The internal ribs and backbone could be hollow titanium tubes laminated
with basalt fabric. Again, the use of graphite and/or boron epoxy
would add the necessary stiffness and heat resistance.
tomcat
tomcat
George Evans wrote:
> >> You still have to keep the inner parts cool, so don't be too quick to rule
> >> out Aluminum for the frame. If the inside of the hull gets hot enough to melt
> >> Aluminum alloy, the mission is over.
You don't want to tempt fate. Everything has to be built for a 'worse
possible case scenario'. And, why use aluminum when titanium will do
as well. They are both about the same in weight and density. Titanium
is stronger so it can be thinned a little making it, acutally, a little
lighter.
> >> I was thinking more about heat conduction into the interior. You don't want
> >> passenger becoming a part of the heat sink.
> >>
> > The Shuttle uses 'vacuum bottle' to protect the cockpit. This seems to work
> > as long as the tiles hold up.
>
> Remember, bottles with vacuums inside, collapse. This seems to add
> structural problems that are unnecessary.
Vacuum weighs 'nothing' so use as much as possible. A vacuum bottle
might be a good addition to other methods. Remember it adds no weight.
Brad Guth's idea to use 'bubbles' that could be filled with vacuum
makes sense too. This would eliminate the weakness of vacuum tugging
on the walls.
> > It may be possible to use a double hull for 'air flow' as well. The use of
> > small computer control orfices in the leading edge surfaces to allow
> > compressed air to -- expand -- inside the double hull and flow through picking
> > up heat may be a possible solution.
>
> I'd have to hear more about this. At first it seemed like an interesting
> idea--like refrigeration. But if the gas is 7000 degrees before expansion,
> maybe not.
The atmosphere outside the reentry spaceplane is extremely cold. Only
'air friction' instantly heats it into a plasma. Air, then, hitting
the outer portions of a hole will heat but air entering the center will
be ice cold. Then, rapid expansion of the air should dramatically
reduce the temperature even more.
With this 'air flow' idea, the key would be about a 300 mph air flow
between the inner and outer hulls. Even if the air heats to 500 deg.
F. it would still be cool compared to the inner part of the outer
hull's 1000 deg. F.
The inner hull might be in two parts as well, with Brad Guth's
'bubbles' stopping any further heat convection. The final barrier
would be a layer of nomex on the inner part of the inner hull.
> NASA is way ahead of you guys on this point. The TPS system is designed to
> keep hot gasses away right now. That's why they were anxious to get those
> protruding gap fillers out. They didn't want them mix the layers.
>
> >>>> Everybody mocks the TPS tiles on the shuttle but they really are amazing.
> >>>> If they are banded to a CNT/graphite epoxy composite structure, those
> >>>> fillers you are concerned about probably wouldn't be necessary.
>
> Tiles are good for maintenance. Are you thinking of a silica tile with kind
> of a Corelle frosting on the outside?
Either that or a composite of Corelle and silica tile.
BTW, the Dept. of Energy as developed an ability to spray ceramic onto
metal that bonds at the molecular level. They use lasers and are
recommending it for the steel industry.
Spraying ceramic on titanium would increase it's thermal capabilities
and add very little weight. This could be used on any titanium used on
the inside.
Hollow titanium tubes 'frosted' with ceramic might be the ribs and
backbone of choice. You can stiffen the ribs by adding air pressure,
500 psi, to the hollow portion.
tomcat
Brad Guth
I have some tile attachment ideas that'll remain reasonably flexible,
allowing for a great deal of thermal expansion and somewhat self
aligning as to help spread whatever thermal and physical stress, loaded
upon the outer composite skin as somewhat Fish-Scale like applications,
using a mechanical attachment method rather than some fancy bathtub
cement that's hardly good enough for cooking a roast.
>tomcat; While 'thermal conductivity' is great for moving heat
from the leading edges and forming the hull into a heatsink, it
>is bad for stopping heat flow into the ship itself.
But that's actually a perfect good thing to appreciate about CNT, as
providing the thermal heatsink should help to transfer/redistribute the
thermal energy rather than allowing a horrific buildup at any one
point.
>tomcat; Best then, for the outer hull, would be a layer of basalt fabric,
>followed by several layers of CNT/basalt composite, finished off by a
>layer of CNT. Then, on top of that, Corelle/silica tile composite
>ceramic clamped and cemented to the skin.
I totally agree with this composite matrix approach, and don't worry
about tile breakage if using my fish-scale method of application.
>tomcat; The binder should, in all cases, be graphite epoxy because
>it is stiff and can take the heat.
Isn't there such a thing as being too stiff?
How much heat can graphite and/or boron epoxy withstand?
Here's a little more info coming our way, at least I'm hoping others
will share and share alike without going into their usual need-to-know
and/or taboo/nondisclosure mode. Just as well if you can provide some
SME/SRB exhaust velocity and burn-time info would help us village
idiots to understand a bit more of what's reasonably SME/SRB
obtainable.
GRAVITY AND THE PHOTON
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/b5e032911e7b1aea/8ff196f1c9b35f0f?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=1&hl=en#8ff196f1c9b35f0f
Brad Guth
>'bubbles' stopping any further heat convection. The final barrier
>would be a layer of nomex on the inner part of the inner hull.
thermal transfers, but they're also extremely effective at stoping
radiant thermal transfers.
>tomcat; Hollow titanium tubes 'frosted' with ceramic might be the ribs
>and backbone of choice. You can stiffen the ribs by adding air pressure,
>500 psi, to the hollow portion.
How about instead of wasting air pressure, try Rn because it'll not
leak nearly as easily and it'll certainly transfer a great deal more
thermal energy, especially if going from LRn-->Rn.
BTW; I totally agree with your "You don't want to tempt fate.
Everything has to be built for a 'worse
possible case scenario'". Too bad that consideration wasn't taken
seriously enough into account before we summarily roasted our last
batch of astronauts. Perhaps the bottom of the shuttle/spaceplane will
need an extra effective ABL shield to boot.
George Evans
jla...@bellsouth.net wrote on 10/30/05 12:41 PM:
> George Evans wrote:
>
>>>> You still have to keep the inner parts cool, so don't be too quick to rule
>>>> out Aluminum for the frame. If the inside of the hull gets hot enough to
>>>> melt Aluminum alloy, the mission is over.
>
> You don't want to tempt fate. Everything has to be built for a 'worse
> possible case scenario'. And, why use aluminum when titanium will do as well.
> They are both about the same in weight and density. Titanium is stronger so
> it can be thinned a little making it, acutally, a little lighter.
Worst case scenario isn't a very precise specification. I know you're
talking about passenger and they aren't going to want to experience more
than a couple of g's sustained. The shuttle is strong enough but rigidity is
what needs to be improved. Then, much more precisely fitting tiles can be
used on exterior surfaces.
I don't see an advantage for Titanium over Aluminum for interior framework,
since thinner can mean less rigid.
>>>> I was thinking more about heat conduction into the interior. You don't want
>>>> passenger becoming a part of the heat sink.
>>>>
>>> The Shuttle uses 'vacuum bottle' to protect the cockpit. This seems to work
>>> as long as the tiles hold up.
>>>
>> Remember, bottles with vacuums inside, collapse. This seems to add structural
>> problems that are unnecessary.
>>
> Vacuum weighs 'nothing' so use as much as possible. A vacuum bottle might be
> a good addition to other methods. Remember it adds no weight. Brad Guth's
> idea to use 'bubbles' that could be filled with vacuum makes sense too. This
> would eliminate the weakness of vacuum tugging on the walls.
I still think the weight savings will be nearly cancelled by the increased
structural elements needed to prevent collapse.
>>> It may be possible to use a double hull for 'air flow' as well. The use of
>>> small computer control orfices in the leading edge surfaces to allow
>>> compressed air to -- expand -- inside the double hull and flow through
>>> picking up heat may be a possible solution.
>>>
>> I'd have to hear more about this. At first it seemed like an interesting
>> idea--like refrigeration. But if the gas is 7000 degrees before expansion,
>> maybe not.
>
> The atmosphere outside the reentry spaceplane is extremely cold. Only 'air
> friction' instantly heats it into a plasma. Air, then, hitting the outer
> portions of a hole will heat but air entering the center will be ice cold.
> Then, rapid expansion of the air should dramatically reduce the temperature
> even more.
This doesn't right. That sounds like a magical hole.
<snip>
>> Tiles are good for maintenance. Are you thinking of a silica tile with kind
>> of a Corelle frosting on the outside?
>
> Either that or a composite of Corelle and silica tile.
>
> BTW, the Dept. of Energy as developed an ability to spray ceramic onto
> metal that bonds at the molecular level. They use lasers and are
> recommending it for the steel industry.
>
> Spraying ceramic on titanium would increase it's thermal capabilities
> and add very little weight. This could be used on any titanium used on
> the inside.
Is there some reason for coating inside surfaces with ceramic?
George Evans
Brad Guth
>I still think the weight savings will be nearly cancelled by the increased
>structural elements needed to prevent collapse.
as for one thing they can safely contain almost any gas/element (at
good pressure if need be) that you can think of, of anything from Rn to
H2, thus otherwise having a vacuum within isn't anything but a viable
notion of enclosing the fewest possible atoms per balloon in order to
obtain the greatest possible buoyancy that'll matter the most for the
terrestrial applications. Once in orbit the amount of buoyancy isn't
much of a factor, other than for stoping thermal transfers of
conduction as well as blocking radiant mode transfers, of which you
can't accomplish either with your carbon nor CNT composites.
A basalt composite can even become bonded with itself, which would
likely happen upon the extreme velocity of exiting the atmosphere or
most likely upon reentry if the outer tiles or sprayed on ceramic
coatings in some way failed. Although, due to the rather terrific
R-Factor of the basalt composites of fibers and those low density
balloons situated between the outter and inner shell, it'll take a
little time before burn-through. At least I'm thinking of 100 mm worth
of such structural insulation that'll take a great deal of punishment
before losing the entire farm, whereas I'm shure that you're thinking
about using at most 10 mm which might not be sufficient, nor wise.
>Is there some reason for coating inside surfaces with ceramic?
This is a good argument, whereas apparently "tomcat" is insisting upon
the capability of roasting the interior to a fairlywell, and then
perhaps robotically recovering his spaceplane once all onboard are
fried beyond charcoal. Therefore I agree that the use of Titanium over
Aluminum for the interior isn't warranted unless there's some extreme
stress related zone that's combined along with some degree of heat, in
which case the Titanium alloy seems likely to being best suited.
Although, wherever aluminum can be utilized is also where the basalt
composites or even those Carbon and CNT composites can often be
utilized at nearly half the weight.
tomcat
> tomcat,
> I have some tile attachment ideas that'll remain reasonably flexible,
> allowing for a great deal of thermal expansion and somewhat self
> aligning as to help spread whatever thermal and physical stress, loaded
> upon the outer composite skin as somewhat Fish-Scale like applications,
> using a mechanical attachment method rather than some fancy bathtub
> cement that's hardly good enough for cooking a roast.
One of the reasons I am reluctant to include metal in the outer hull is
thermal expansion. Metals expand quite a bit, while composite does
not. Composite might expand some, however, and just how much I don't
know.
Your "fish scale" idea is interesting. There might be a problem with
'drag', however. It is also possible that it might help drag too. It
would introduce a turbulance into the airflow.
The fish scales would create, at least some, drag at the end of each
scale. The scales might, however, break loose the mach 1 shock wave as
well. Curved surfaces aid in shedding the 'sound barrier' shock wave.
Thermally speaking, your 'fish scale' idea would be good. It would put
most of the heat on the forward plates, shielding the plates behind
from a good deal of the heat, and air shock. And it would, as you
suggested, allow for thermal expansion.
Best might be a 'feathered scale' that only raises up slightly on the
overlap. Raises up so little that it would be scarcely noticable even
on close inspection. This fish scale concept would 'lock' the plates,
one on top of the other, strengthening the tile surface skin of the
spaceplane.
Fish swim through the water using -- fish scales -- for their outer
layer. It works for them. Water, by the way, is a lot like air under
intense pressure. Shake a scuba tank filled with compressed air and
you will hear it slosh about as if it were water. So, what works for
fish may work for man.
> I totally agree with this composite matrix approach, and don't worry
> about tile breakage if using my fish-scale method of application.
> Isn't there such a thing as being too stiff?
> How much heat can graphite and/or boron epoxy withstand?
Flexibility helps absorb shock. In this sense flexibility adds
strength. Because of an outer skin of brittle and breakable tile,
however, flexibility should be minimized.
Graphite epoxy is very stiff and hard when it hardens. If the material
it laminates is extremely strong and it is backed by stiff ribbing and
spine, then a minimal flexing of the hull should be possible.
> Here's a little more info coming our way, at least I'm hoping others
> will share and share alike without going into their usual need-to-know
> and/or taboo/nondisclosure mode. Just as well if you can provide some
> SME/SRB exhaust velocity and burn-time info would help us village
> idiots to understand a bit more of what's reasonably SME/SRB
> obtainable.
The spaceplane as I have described it shouldn't need a SRB. But every
little bit helps so to make it SRB capable from it's inception would be
a wise move.
The exhaust velocity of a SSME is roughly 450 ISP, which rates well
with most rocket engines of massive thrust. The burn time of a SSME is
almost unlimited except by it's fuel requirement of 1035 pounds per
second at full throttle. The spaceplane has to be a 'flying gas can'.
Burn time for orbital insertion of a spaceplane starting out with
roughly thrust to weight of 1:1 is, roughly, 4 minutes. Add 2 minutes
to that for the Moon and beyond. To add enough speed to get to Venus
or Mars in a couple of weeks, vice forever, add yet another 1 to 2
minutes of burn time.
I am certain that a 6 minute supply of fuel is possible with slush
tanks, though I have yet to work through the complex math of it for a
given spaceplane design. For one thing, I am not sure of just how much
extra the slush tanks hold, or the exact weight of the hydrogen per
gallon. Or, for that matter, the exact number of gallons per cubic
foot, or yard, or meter, or whatever.
So, the upshot is that I am supremely confident of SSTO, and still
groping a little with SSTP. This is why I would need an extra 3 years
to build a SSTP. Fuel requirements as well as radiation protection
would have to be solved.
There is no need, however, as certain 'groups' believe, that astronauts
will have to drink and eat their green and brown stuff. A 'well
designed', and plenty big, cargo hauler spaceplane could bring more
than an adequate supply of water, food, oxygen, and misc. supplies for
both the voyage and have room left over for an emergency supply in case
of maroonment.
tomcat
Brad Guth
I agree that CNT/basalt composites should easily outperform metallic
alloys as for the outer skin and of whatever's interfacing that outer
skin to the internal infrastructure of your spaceplane.
As per ceramic fish scales:
>It is also possible that it might help drag too. It
>would introduce a turbulance into the airflow.
It's scientifically called the 'golf ball effect', whereas being all
nice an smooth isn't worth squat.
>Flexibility helps absorb shock. In this sense flexibility adds
>strength. Because of an outer skin of brittle and breakable tile,
>however, flexibility should be minimized.
If the fish scale tiles as individual conforming elements can take it
(which they should) then let the spaceplane flex all it wants.
>I am certain that a 6 minute supply of fuel is possible with slush
>tanks, though I have yet to work through the complex math of it for a
>given spaceplane design. For one thing, I am not sure of just how much
>extra the slush tanks hold, or the exact weight of the hydrogen per
>gallon. Or, for that matter, the exact number of gallons per cubic
>foot, or yard, or meter, or whatever.
I'm fairly certain that even with 4 SMEs/SRBs and one hell of an
accelleration factor for the first 76 km it's going to take all of 6
minutes if going for the 400 km mark, especially as having that 100t
payload, and then some. Perhaps you should plan on 16 minutes worth of
SSME fuel reserves if using just two of the new and composite improved
SMEs/SRBs.
At 470 kg/s/SSME, that's 1410 kg/s x 960 = 1.3536e6 kg (1,353.6 metric
tonnes) of which no three SSMEs are getting that amount of extra mass
off the ground unless it's in airfoil mode which will take seemingly
forever getting that massive spaceplane up to the 12 km refueling
altitude where the highly modified A380 that's running itself on
H2O2/C12H26 as your 650+mph of slush LH2/LO2 super-air-tanker gets to
top off the tanks with perhaps 250t(551,000 lbs) before your spaceplane
goes for orbit. Of course, what could possibly go wrong with that plan
of action?
I think you'll need to stick with the SMEs/SRBs no matters what, and
perhaps at least four of them suckers at that.
>in case of maroonment.
This catchy phrase "in case of maroonment" doesn't sound good. At least
I wouldn't use it within any future infomercials, or as any part of the
flight attendant speech. Are you sure that plan-B or plan-C isn't
somewhere in the cards?
Here's some more confusing info on Radium and of creating a little
extra Radon (besides launch phase LRn that's all terrestrial provided)
on the fly for feeding those ion thrusters and possibly for outer shell
cooling.
Radium alloy
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-80900
One gram of radium-226 undergoes 3.7e10 disintegrations per second,
producing energy equivalent to 6.8e-3 calories, sufficient to raise the
temperature of a well-insulated sample at the rate of 1° C every 10
seconds. The practical energy release is even greater than this, due to
the production of a large number of short-lived radioactive decay
products. The alpha particles emitted by radium may be used to initiate
nuclear reactions; a mixture of beryllium (see above Beryllium) and
radium is used as a neutron source. Radium mixed with a phosphor that
could be excited by the alpha particles was widely used in the
manufacture of luminous paints for watch and instrument dials until the
early 1950s, but less hazardous alpha emitters have largely replaced
it. Although radium-226 is not a very intense gamma emitter, its decay
products are; thus radium has been used in medicine as a source of
gamma rays for the irradiation of tumours. One of the products of
radium decay is radon, the heaviest noble gas; this decay process is
the chief source of that element.
If my math adequately serves on behalf of extrapolating notions from
this information
1 g of Ra226 = 0.0068 cal/s
0.068 * 3600 = 24.48 cal/hr
24.48 * 365 = 214,444.8 cal/year
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0840951.html
Radium decreases in radioactivity about 1% in 25 years.
In its radioactive decay radium emits alpha, beta, and gamma rays and
also produces heat (about 1,000 calories per gram per year).
If my math adequately serves on behalf of extrapolating notions from
this information
1,000 cal/g/yr is roughly 4.187 kj/g/yr
Thus a kg of Ra226 becomes worth 4.187 mj/kg/yr
Per tonne of Ra226 = 4.187 gj/t/yr = 478 kj/hr
Supposedly each gram of radium naturally emanates 0.0001 ml of radon
per day
Therefore... a tonne(1e6 grams) of Radium(Ra226) should emanate 100 ml
of radon(Rn222) day, a full liter every 10 days of Ra226 decay.
Although, I don't see why there wouldn't be an accelerated rate of
decay into becoming Rn222 as within a U238-->Ra226-->Rn222 breeder
reactor mode. If that reactor were under sufficient pressure, you'd
think that a nifty byproduct of LRn would become available nearly
as-is, easily cooled via radiant surfaces upon the night-side of the
spaceplane and then temporarily stored for subsequent ion thrusting and
a little extra re-entry cooling usage that's similar to direct freon
usage.
LRn-->Rn is still a highly use-it or lose-it byproduct of nuclear
energy.
According to http://www.nuenergy.org/alt/statement99.htm (aka Nu Energy
Horizons)
Supposedly a gram of radium, as via I'm assuming forced reactor mode,
is capable of evolving itself into as much as 134 calories per gram/hr,
thus suggesting 1,173,840:1 greater energy/gram than the passive form
of Ra226 that's offering a mere 1,000 cal/g/yr. If in fact this is even
remotely true (not another of my unintentional misinterpretation or
math running amuck), then the supply of Ra226-->LRn222-->Rn222 gas as a
reactor byproduct = 134 * 0.75 = 100.5 cal/g/hr isn't hardly in
question of becoming a sufficient resource of Rn and subsequent ion
energy potential.
Obviously none of these three examples are even remotely close to
agreeing with one another:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-80900
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0840951.html
http://www.nuenergy.org/alt/statement99.htm
Thus apparently the extent of smoke and mirrors obscuring the truth and
nothing but the Ra226 truth, and thus sharing expectations as to the
Rn222 potential is perhaps somewhere in between.
NASA He3 infomercial
http://www.nuenergy.org/video/helium3.rm
Of course using He3/fusion as a spaceplane energy on behalf of
whatever-->ion resource might suggest a good method of affordably using
just about any element as a viable source of ions.
Again the ion thruster advantage is one of being considerably safer and
extremely light weight, even though not offering nearly as much thrust
density as per H2O2/C12H26 or LH2/LO2 simply means establishing larger
base or platform of arrays so that a sufficient surface area can
accommodate the necessary numbers of ion thrusters that'll involve
merely electrical wires and a small Rn feeder tube per ion generating
chamber, along with a relatively small inventory volume of LRn plus
breeder reactor that shouldn't take up 1% the volumes of LH2/LO2.
Brad Guth
I can't speak for whatever's your spaceplane obsession of devising upon
a new and improved yet conventional SSME powered craft for somewhat
conventional airport usage that'll make commercial orbits and
deployments affordably common place (key word "affordably" meaning
something a whole lot less spendy than $100,000/kg), as without a few
of those SMEs/SRBs there's no viable way of getting that much mass to
even a spendy and complex refueling altitude. However, my obsession or
mindset with utilizing basalt as a nearly do-everything composite is
similar to the nearly do-everything aspects of utilizing H2O2, whereas
H2O2 isn't the most rocket exhaust velocity for the buck. However
H2O2/Aluminum is certainly offering us one heck of a battery energy/kg,
and H2O2/C12H26 is offering a terrific density of extremely powerful
rocket elements, that which provides a great deal of thrust potential
that isn't requiring nearly the complexities and extra volumes of space
as per slush LH2/LO2, nor is the process of creating and subsequently
storing the H2O2 and C12H26 nearly as energy and infrastructure
consuming as per artificially creating LH2/LO2.
In other words, those German rocket scientist and aerodynamic engineers
still seem to know ten fold more about the benefits of using H2O2 than
we'll ever realize. We're even too dumb and dumber to realize what a
sadistic pervert we have as our commander in chief warlord(GW Bush),
that's about to push the ultimate 'do-not-push' button of WW-III simply
because we're too dumbfounded to figure out how to safely extract clean
renewable energy from a solar-stirling/wind and PV tower footprint
that's been good for as much as 25 kw/m2. Instead we'd rather lie our
butts off while causing so much collateral damage and carnage of the
innocent, thus making enemies of Muslims in the process. Gee whiz
folks, what could possibly go wrong with that approach?
If we're still alive to benefit from what's been doable, such as
creating basalt composites upon or preferably well above the surface of
the moon (such as safely within the massive CM/ISS sphere that's
offering a tethered abode of 1e9 m3) is an absolute win-win for that
sort of technology, whereas the process of creating basalt fibers and
of those extremely nifty basalt balloons (especially if we wanted those
little hollow spheres to have a vacuum within) needs a clean resource
of energy by which to melt and process the raw basalt, of which 1.4
kw/m2 is certainly more than sufficient from the standpoint of a solar
farm as established for a lunar surface or LSE-CM/ISS basalt processing
plant that would obviously work best if this basalt and solar farm were
situated in such a near vacuum to start with.
Of course, we could just through away all of the other viable secondary
process elements, such as lunar Titanium, Aluminum, Radium, U238 and
He3. Here's that same old NASA infomercial video that was created when
Oil was hardly $10/barrel, big aircraft weren't smashing into tall
buildings, stingers weren't taking out 747s, ABLs weren't taking
practice shots at incoming shuttles and we weren't at war with Muslims
that are sitting on most of the affordably accessible oil:
NASA He3 infomercial: http://www.nuenergy.org/video/helium3.rm
Of course using He3/fusion as a spaceplane energy on behalf of
whatever-->ion thrust might suggest a good method of affordably using
just about any element as a viable source of ions.
Wherever the composite application temperature is less than 500°F
(intermittently 600°F) is where the likes of JB-WELD might be
considered as a sufficient binder (key words "likes of JB-WELD"
suggesting upon fairly common epoxy form of binder). However, I'm
certain that others and yourself can find a 10+fold if not a 100 fold
spendier/kg worth of an exotic epoxy that'll do a bit better, as well
as being nearly impossible to apply under anything but the most ideal
environment, meaning that your replacement super-whatever-epoxy may not
be nearly as field reparable as JB-WELD, although it will not likely be
your bank account nor your sorry butt that's on the line, so what's the
difference?
I'm willing to explore the spaceplane notions even though I'm not
entirely convinced that such a very large scale spaceplane (especially
of an airfoil body and thus without wings and as based upon
conventional SSMEs) as having built-in deployable aerobreaking is even
going to get itself as hot and nasty upon exit/reentry as per what's
being suggested, at least not for very long at any one application.
Using a spray-on ceramic and/or those scale like ceramic tiles, plus if
need be introducing LRn as an extreme refrigerant or merely as a freon
like thermal conductor, and/or perhaps for creating a high density
boundary layer between the reentry plasma gas and that of the outer
hull seems somewhat doable as long as the volumes of released LRn are
not too excessive. The option of implementing outer skin cooling via a
circulated matrix of fully enclosed LRn-->Rn that'll then become fully
utilized as ion retro-thrusting form of Rn-->ions is simply my way of
suggesting upon a more advanced method (though obviously unproven) of
essentially taking advantage of the available thermal heat-exchanging
dynamics LRn without actually wasting a kg of Rn that needs to go into
making those ions.
BTW; as long as you're the one excluding nuclear thrust derived energy,
my previous notions of a highly modified A380 super-air-tanker that's
H2O2/C12H26 assisted is simply stating that such a modification
wouldn't require 50% the engine and fuel mass as would conventional
engines and fuel, allowing the A380SAT to cruise much higher and faster
with a greater payload of LH2/LO2 for your thirsty spaceplane that'll
need every last tonne of fuel it can get, and then some.
BTW No.2; I'm still getting way more than my fair share of my PC being
hit with a tonne of GOOGLE/NOVA accommodated spermware/malware, thus
the MI6/NSA~CIA spooks and their extremely brown-nosed freelance
supporters are still hard at it, applying as much damage control
without spilling any more of those perpetrated cold-war beans than they
have to. You don't suppose that I'm on to anything?
tomcat
> As per ceramic fish scales:
> >It is also possible that it might help drag too. It
> >would introduce a turbulance into the airflow.
> It's scientifically called the 'golf ball effect', whereas being all
> nice an smooth isn't worth squat.
> If the fish scale tiles as individual conforming elements can take it
> (which they should) then let the spaceplane flex all it wants.
Your 'fish scale' idea may have solved one of the problems regarding
hull flexibility. The leading edge fish scale plates could be thicker
than the rest giving extra protection for the leading edges and
protecting the plates behind.
> I'm fairly certain that even with 4 SMEs/SRBs and one hell of an
> accelleration factor for the first 76 km it's going to take all of 6
> minutes if going for the 400 km mark, especially as having that 100t
> payload, and then some. Perhaps you should plan on 16 minutes worth of
> SSME fuel reserves if using just two of the new and composite improved
> SMEs/SRBs.
Four or five minutes should be all that is necessary for orbit.
Remember that because of rapid fuel consumption and the fact that a
spaceplane is a flying gas can, 1:1 quickly becomes 2:1, and then 3:1.
Acceleration at 2:1 and 3:1 is enormous. It is beyond jet fighter
acceleration.
> At 470 kg/s/SSME, that's 1410 kg/s x 960 = 1.3536e6 kg (1,353.6 metric
> tonnes) of which no three SSMEs are getting that amount of extra mass
> off the ground unless it's in airfoil mode which will take seemingly
> forever getting that massive spaceplane up to the 12 km refueling
> altitude where the highly modified A380 that's running itself on
> H2O2/C12H26 as your 650+mph of slush LH2/LO2 super-air-tanker gets to
> top off the tanks with perhaps 250t(551,000 lbs) before your spaceplane
> goes for orbit. Of course, what could possibly go wrong with that plan
> of action?
Forget about refueling a spaceplane in the air. Inflight refueling
takes too long for rocket engines with each gulping 1035 pounds per
second. Also, the minimum thrust of an SSME is 50%. Your airplane
will never catch up!
The only 'inflight' refueling I can think of is the use of 'snap in'
tanks in orbit. This would greatly aid a SSTP for flight to the
planets. Here, vertical/tubular rockets could be used to place this
extra fuel in orbit waiting for the spaceplane.
>
> I think you'll need to stick with the SMEs/SRBs no matters what, and
> perhaps at least four of them suckers at that.
Based on preliminary calculation a SSTO will need 7 SSME's for proper
payload capacity of about 200,000 pounds. The ability to use SRB's
should be designed in for extra weight payloads and general
flexibility. For example, it might become desirable to take a load to
high Earth orbit. RATO (Rocket Assisted Take Off) rockets have been
used by the USAF for some time.
An SSTP (Single Stage To the Planets) can use everything it can get.
Preliminary figures indicate a need for 11 SSME's and SRB's as well as
possible 'in orbit' refueling. The SSTP has to have extra fuel for a
possible VTOL, using 4 SSME's for bottom thrusters, on Mars, Venus, or
wherever.
>
> This catchy phrase "in case of maroonment" doesn't sound good. At least
> I wouldn't use it within any future infomercials, or as any part of the
> flight attendant speech. Are you sure that plan-B or plan-C isn't
> somewhere in the cards?
Good 'Space Pilots' always have . . . contingency plans. They will be
hardened genius types making nearly a half million dollars for each
mission.
The ion engines will work for increasing speed on the way to the
planets and will provide artificial gravity besides. But, with Xenon
Engines having just '20 thousandths of one pound' of thrust, they must
be thought of as auxilary engines, not primary power sources.
Whether or not ion engines make sense for reverse thrust will require
R&D, a very expensive proposition. The thrust is so small that it
probably will not help for 'reverse thrust' but whether or not ion
engines can push air away from the hull at hypersonic speeds, that is
of some importance.
A nuclear generator, for a SSTP, will be necessary with or without ion
engines so that is not really extra weight for the engines.
tomcat
tomcat
> However, my obsession or
> mindset with utilizing basalt as a nearly do-everything composite is
> similar to the nearly do-everything aspects of utilizing H2O2, whereas
> H2O2 isn't the most rocket exhaust velocity for the buck. However
> H2O2/Aluminum is certainly offering us one heck of a battery energy/kg,
> and H2O2/C12H26 is offering a terrific density of extremely powerful
> rocket elements, that which provides a great deal of thrust potential
> that isn't requiring nearly the complexities and extra volumes of space
> as per slush LH2/LO2, nor is the process of creating and subsequently
> storing the H2O2 and C12H26 nearly as energy and infrastructure
> consuming as per artificially creating LH2/LO2.
Using hydrogen peroxide and kerosene sounds pretty good. But, no
cryogenic fuel and no cryogenic cooling for hull and interior. The
Saturn V's F-1 engines were Lox/Kerosene, however, and they have a
terrific thrust using high density fuel.
Currently, the most developed and scrutinized rocket fuel system
packing a real punch is the SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engine). It is a
Lox/Liquid Hydrogen engine. It has proven safe. It has proven it
works.
My standing offer to build a sub-orbital in 3 years for 3 billion
dollars, a SSTO in 5 years for 5 billion dollars, and a SSTP in 8 years
for 8 billion dollars, requires the use of proven equipment and
methods. It requires an absolute minimum of R&D.
So, hydrogen peroxide/kerosene engines and other exotic things must
wait for future spacecraft.
>
> If we're still alive to benefit from what's been doable, such as
> creating basalt composites upon or preferably well above the surface of
> the moon (such as safely within the massive CM/ISS sphere that's
> offering a tethered abode of 1e9 m3) is an absolute win-win for that
> sort of technology, whereas the process of creating basalt fibers and
> of those extremely nifty basalt balloons (especially if we wanted those
> little hollow spheres to have a vacuum within) needs a clean resource
> of energy by which to melt and process the raw basalt, of which 1.4
> kw/m2 is certainly more than sufficient from the standpoint of a solar
> farm as established for a lunar surface or LSE-CM/ISS basalt processing
> plant that would obviously work best if this basalt and solar farm were
> situated in such a near vacuum to start with.
That the Moon will be used to manufacture spaceships and rocket fuel is
obvious. I do not anticipate, however, that there will be any Moon
facilities at the time of my SSTP launch, hopefully not more than 10
years from now. (I need financial backing. Someone, or some
corporation -- or U.S. Congress -- to front 8 billion dollars.)
>
> Of course, we could just through away all of the other viable secondary
> process elements, such as lunar Titanium, Aluminum, Radium, U238 and
> He3. Here's that same old NASA infomercial video that was created when
> Oil was hardly $10/barrel, big aircraft weren't smashing into tall
> buildings, stingers weren't taking out 747s, ABLs weren't taking
> practice shots at incoming shuttles and we weren't at war with Muslims
> that are sitting on most of the affordably accessible oil:
>
> NASA He3 infomercial: http://www.nuenergy.org/video/helium3.rm
> Of course using He3/fusion as a spaceplane energy on behalf of
> whatever-->ion thrust might suggest a good method of affordably using
> just about any element as a viable source of ions.
The NASA film states that He3's current value is 4 billion dollars a
ton. My SSTP should haul 200,000 pounds worth and that comes to: 400
billion dollars. Not bad, for a single load! That makes the SSTP's
initial cost of 8 billion dollars look like . . . peanuts.
>
> Wherever the composite application temperature is less than 500°F
> (intermittently 600°F) is where the likes of JB-WELD might be
> considered as a sufficient binder (key words "likes of JB-WELD"
> suggesting upon fairly common epoxy form of binder). However, I'm
> certain that others and yourself can find a 10+fold if not a 100 fold
> spendier/kg worth of an exotic epoxy that'll do a bit better, as well
> as being nearly impossible to apply under anything but the most ideal
> environment, meaning that your replacement super-whatever-epoxy may not
> be nearly as field reparable as JB-WELD, although it will not likely be
> your bank account nor your sorry butt that's on the line, so what's the
> difference?
You JB-WELD will do just fine on the Moon. It would also do great for
any Earth construction project. It will work everyplace except a
hypersonic spaceplane. It is limited by it's 500 deg. F. meltpoint.
>
> I'm willing to explore the spaceplane notions even though I'm not
> entirely convinced that such a very large scale spaceplane (especially
> of an airfoil body and thus without wings and as based upon
> conventional SSMEs) as having built-in deployable aerobreaking is even
> going to get itself as hot and nasty upon exit/reentry as per what's
> being suggested, at least not for very long at any one application.
The SSTP design will -- sooner or later -- return with low fuel and a
100,000+ mph speed. Even using 'air brakes' the hull might go to
20,000+ deg. F. The SSTP must be designed with extreme heat in mind.
> Using a spray-on ceramic and/or those scale like ceramic tiles, plus if
> need be introducing LRn as an extreme refrigerant or merely as a freon
> like thermal conductor, and/or perhaps for creating a high density
> boundary layer between the reentry plasma gas and that of the outer
> hull seems somewhat doable as long as the volumes of released LRn are
> not too excessive. The option of implementing outer skin cooling via a
> circulated matrix of fully enclosed LRn-->Rn that'll then become fully
> utilized as ion retro-thrusting form of Rn-->ions is simply my way of
> suggesting upon a more advanced method (though obviously unproven) of
> essentially taking advantage of the available thermal heat-exchanging
> dynamics LRn without actually wasting a kg of Rn that needs to go into
> making those ions.
>
> BTW; as long as you're the one excluding nuclear thrust derived energy . . .
I am not excluding nuclear thrust derived energy. I regard Ion Engines
as an auxiliary power source for increasing speed to the planets which,
in turn, creates an artificial acceleration gravity onboard a
spaceship. Ion Engines will help make Mars in two weeks a reality.
> my previous notions of a highly modified A380 super-air-tanker that's
> H2O2/C12H26 assisted is simply stating that such a modification
> wouldn't require 50% the engine and fuel mass as would conventional
> engines and fuel, allowing the A380SAT to cruise much higher and faster
> with a greater payload of LH2/LO2 for your thirsty spaceplane that'll
> need every last tonne of fuel it can get, and then some.
As I said in my previous post, the A380SAT is not capable of refueling
a spaceplane. Any refueling will require 'snap in' tanks waiting in
orbit for the spaceplane to arrive.
>
> BTW No.2; I'm still getting way more than my fair share of my PC being
> hit with a tonne of GOOGLE/NOVA accommodated spermware/malware, thus
> the MI6/NSA~CIA spooks and their extremely brown-nosed freelance
> supporters are still hard at it, applying as much damage control
> without spilling any more of those perpetrated cold-war beans than they
> have to. You don't suppose that I'm on to anything?
The Muslim Extremists are on the web too. Interpol and the FBI/CIA
should hunt them down.
If the U.S. isn't careful the Muslims will build the first SSTP based
on what we are designing. It is easy with today's technology.
Congress has to begin construction of an SSTP spaceplane immediately to
prevent the Muslims from winning the Space Race.
The Muslims are smart. Their Air Force Generals know that wings work
even if our rocket scientists can't understand the basic physics of it.
The idea that gravity applies pressure to a gas and that energy can be
used to help lift an airfoil spaceplane, is too much for some people to
understand.
tomcat
Brad Guth
>So, hydrogen peroxide/kerosene engines and other exotic things must
>wait for future spacecraft.
uneducated and/or closed minded individuals would ever think such
things. You need to get yourself a good German rocket scientist or at
least a second rate Russian rocket scientist on your spaceplane team,
plus a good supplier of Prozac wouldn't hurt.
Your slush LH2/LO2 is however extremely exotic, extremely spendy and
overall damn risky, especially if honestly considering the extrema
volumes and tonnage that'll likely require the usage of 4 SMEs/SBRs to
boot. If that's not exotic, a bit risky and damn spendy as hell, then I
don't know what is.
>Currently, the most developed and scrutinized rocket fuel system
>packing a real punch is the SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engine). It is a
>Lox/Liquid Hydrogen engine. It has proven safe. It has proven it
>works.
The H-Bomb is extremely reliable, energy efficient and it certainly
works. However, I would NOT use one of those suckers no matters what.
Thse SSMEs can't haul their own mass along with a decent 100t payload
unless given one hell of a boost past the 76 km mark.
>(I need financial backing. Someone, or some corporation
>-- or U.S. Congress -- to front 8 billion dollars.)
I'll gladly provide your efforts with matching funds (no limits nor
strings attached).
>The NASA film states that He3's current value is 4 billion
>dollars a ton.
As I'd said, that's an old outdated figure. Try 40 billion per tonne as
of today and 400 billion per tonne by the time we're into WW-III over
fossil fuel reserves and your spaceplane gets into action. However,
without the LSE-CM/ISS, there's no viable way of getting much of
anything to/from the surface of our moon or of your spaceplane safely
going interplanetary unless we're speaking full robotic. You're sure as
hell are not going to land your spaceplane upon the moon, and of
whatever massive fly-by-rocket landers of any cargo capacity and much
less being safe and sane for human usage haven't even been R&D
prototyped as of today.
>You JB-WELD will do just fine on the Moon. It would also do great for
>any Earth construction project. It will work everyplace except a
>hypersonic spaceplane. It is limited by it's 500 deg. F. meltpoint.
You keep insisting upon roasting the inner shell and of nearly all
contents, including your extremely massive and thick walled slush
LH2/LO2 tankage, therefore roasting an expendable crew and passengers
to boot. Of course that goes along quite nicely with your "in case of
maroonment" policy, whereas your PR campane and of what your flight
attendants can include as a little further information as to the "in
case of getting roasted to death" policy, which should at least qualify
your spaceplane trips as yet another televised 'Extreme Adventure'
series for our entertainment, whereas each trip requires an entirely
new crew and passenger manifest.
>The SSTP design will -- sooner or later -- return with low fuel and a
>100,000+ mph speed. Even using 'air brakes' the hull might go to
>20,000+ deg. F. The SSTP must be designed with extreme heat in mind.
Trust me, there's no such composite binder that's going to take a
20,000+ deg. F licking and keep on ticking. Only ceramics are going to
come into that realm and, as far as I know of, you can not construct
the outer structural hull (external shell or skin) out of purely
ceramics, much less use any known binder for even ceramic fibers
without everything fusing as one, then breaking into extremely hot
little pieces. So, I'm thinking you're exaggerating just a bit too far,
as I'm not sure that the outer most basalt balloons touching the outer
shell as structural insulation situated between the inner and outer
shell should get any were near 1000 deg. F., as with an R-1024/m
shouldn't hardly be warm to the touch on the inner most shell. It
sounds as though your spaceplane still has that R-4 or perhaps R-2
factor that needs a little work.
BTW; you still haven't given us a clue as to the sorts of those
supposedly extremely high temperature binders that you have in mind to
use for everything, and that's even if it's cost 100 fold more than a
metallic alloy and not service as well as the metallic alloy.
>As I said in my previous post, the A380SAT is not capable of refueling
>a spaceplane. Any refueling will require 'snap in' tanks waiting in
>orbit for the spaceplane to arrive.
OK, at least now I understand that going from $100,000/kg to perhaps
$250,000/kg makes perfect sense. As by then a 'Happy Meal' should only
cost us $100, about the same as a gallon of gasoline.
>The Muslim Extremists are on the web too. Interpol and the FBI/CIA
>should hunt them down.
They keep trying to build bigger and better anti-Muslim walls.
Unfortunately, a few too many efforts have gotten a wee bit out of
control, as we've taken out some of our own kind in the process. In
other words, thanks to the likes of our resident warlord(GW Bush), half
of America is near bankrupt and a few too many are quite dead, as such
life sucks even if you're not a Muslim Extremists.
>The Muslims are smart. Their Air Force Generals know that wings work
>even if our rocket scientists can't understand the basic physics of it.
>The idea that gravity applies pressure to a gas and that energy can be
>used to help lift an airfoil spaceplane, is too much for some people to
>understand.
Fortunately, the vast majority of Muslims are by far the good guys, and
as you say they're already damn smart enough. If China and Muslims go
hand and hand after establishing their one and only LSE-CM/ISS platform
before us (this could even be 100% robotic to start off with), then
we'll be the ones paying big-time for the rights to using their LSE for
whatever has to get to/from the surface of the moon. It's going to be
technically much easier to establish the LSE-CM/ISS than to safely land
any crew upon the moon. It's that simple, and we're that summarily
screwed, blued and tattooed unless we accomplish this basic and
essential task beforehand.
To prove that I'm right, just post a topic as to anything involving the
lunar space elevator, then sit back and watch all the mainstream status
quo of their damage-control flak fly. You'll be getting the Full Monty
worth of what all the MI6/NSA~CIA can muster, and then some. And BTW,
you can't possibly be dumb enough not to realize that anything
involving the LSE-CM/ISS is 100% improving upon the need for and of the
viability of whatever your spaceplane has to offer, including paying
for absolutely everything since the LSE is the one and only viable
alternative method of getting anything safely and efficiently to/from
the nearly naked and thus highly reactive surface of the moon.
Otherwise, even accomplishing the moon via earthshine by way of
conventional fly-by-rocket methods is going to remain as testy and damn
risky business, as well as horrifically energy consuming per mission,
thus spendy if not a wee bit lethal.
George Evans
jla...@bellsouth.net wrote on 10/31/05 10:22 AM:
<snip>
> Burn time for orbital insertion of a spaceplane starting out with roughly
> thrust to weight of 1:1 is, roughly, 4 minutes. Add 2 minutes to that for the
> Moon and beyond. To add enough speed to get to Venus or Mars in a couple of
> weeks, vice forever, add yet another 1 to 2 minutes of burn time.
You're creeping away from reality a bit. In order to get to orbit in four
minutes you would end up at nearly 6 g's even excluding atmospheric drag.
Passengers aren't going to put up with that!
<snip>
George Evans
Fred J. McCall
:in article 1130782940....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, tomcat at
:jla...@bellsouth.net wrote on 10/31/05 10:22 AM:
:>
:> Burn time for orbital insertion of a spaceplane starting out with roughly
:> thrust to weight of 1:1 is, roughly, 4 minutes. Add 2 minutes to that for the
:> Moon and beyond. To add enough speed to get to Venus or Mars in a couple of
:> weeks, vice forever, add yet another 1 to 2 minutes of burn time.
:
:You're creeping away from reality a bit. In order to get to orbit in four
:minutes you would end up at nearly 6 g's even excluding atmospheric drag.
:Passengers aren't going to put up with that!
Only a bit?
--
"Adrenaline is like exercise, but without the excessive gym fees."
-- Professor Walsh, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
Damon Hill
news:mh1gm1tfbvnlq6fhs...@4ax.com:
> George Evans <geor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>:in article 1130782940....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
>:tomcat at jla...@bellsouth.net wrote on 10/31/05 10:22 AM:
>:>
>:> Burn time for orbital insertion of a spaceplane starting out with
>:> roughly thrust to weight of 1:1 is, roughly, 4 minutes. Add 2
>:> minutes to that for the Moon and beyond. To add enough speed to get
>:> to Venus or Mars in a couple of weeks, vice forever, add yet another
>:> 1 to 2 minutes of burn time.
>:
>:You're creeping away from reality a bit. In order to get to orbit in
>:four minutes you would end up at nearly 6 g's even excluding
>:atmospheric drag. Passengers aren't going to put up with that!
>
> Only a bit?
>
Nah, he's fled reality by leaps and bounds. Why even
humor him?
--Damon