SSTO's would have made possible Arthur C. Clarke's vision of 2001.
Robert Clark
Space exploration might just be the key to human beings surviving mass
genocide, ecocide or omnicide.
July 24, 2009
"On December 31st, 1999, National Public Radio interviewed the
futurist and science fiction genius Arthur C. Clarke. Since the author
had forecast so many of the 20th Century's most fundamental
developments, the NPR correspondent asked Clarke if anything had
happened in the preceding 100 years that he never could have
anticipated. 'Yes, absolutely,' Clarke replied, without a moment's
hesitation. 'The one thing I never would have expected is that, after
centuries of wonder and imagination and aspiration, we would have gone
to the moon ... and then stopped.'"
http://www.alternet.org/news/141518/space_travel:_the_path_to_human_immortality/
I remember thinking when I first saw 2001 as a teenager and could
appreciate it more, I thought it was way too optimistic. We could
never have huge rotating space stations and passenger flights to orbit
and Moon bases and nuclear-powered interplanetary ships by then.
That's what I thought and probably most people familiar with the space
program thought that. And I think I recall Clarke saying once that the
year 2001 was selected as more a rhetorical, artistic flourish rather
than being a prediction, 2001 being the year of the turn of the
millennium (no, it was NOT in the year 2000.)
However, I've now come to the conclusion those could indeed have been
possible by 2001. I don't mean the alien monolith or the intelligent
computer, but the spaceflights shown in the film.
It all comes down to SSTO's. As I argued previously [1] these could
have led and WILL lead to the price to orbit coming down to the $100
per kilo range. The required lightweight stages existed since the 60's
and 70's for kerosene with the Atlas and Delta stages, and for
hydrogen with the Saturn V upper stages. And the high efficiency
engines from sea level to vacuum have existed since the 70's with the
NK-33 for kerosene, and with the SSME for hydrogen.
The kerosene SSTO's could be smaller and cheaper and would make
possible small orbital craft in the price range of business jets, at a
few tens of millions of dollars. These would be able to carry a few
number of passengers/crew, say of the size of the Dragon capsule. But
in analogy with history of aircraft these would soon be followed by
large passenger craft.
However, the NK-33 was of Russian design, while the required
lightweight stages were of American design. But the 70's was the time
of detente, with the Apollo-Soyuz mission. With both sides realizing
that collaboration would lead to routine passenger spaceflight, it is
conceivable that they could have come together to make possible
commercial spaceflight.
There is also the fact that for the hydrogen fueled SSTO's, the
Americans had both the required lightweight stages and high efficiency
engines, though these SSTO's would have been larger and more
expensive. So it would have been advantageous for the Russians to
share their engine if the American's shared their lightweight stages.
For the space station, many have soured on the idea because of the ISS
with the huge cost overruns. But Bigelow is planning on "space hotels"
derived from NASA's Transhab[2] concept. These provide large living
space at lightweight. At $100 per kilo launch costs we could form
large space stations from the Transhabs linked together in modular
fashion, financed purely from the tourism interests. Remember the low
price to orbit allows many average citizens to pay for the cost to
LEO.
The Transhab was developed in the late 90's so it might be
questionable that the space station could be built from them by 2001.
But remember in the film the space station was in the process of being
built. Also, with large numbers of passengers traveling to space it
seems likely that inflatable modules would have been thought of
earlier to house the large number of tourists who might want a longer
stay.
For the extensive Moon base, judging from the Apollo missions it might
be thought any flight to the Moon would be hugely expensive. However,
Robert Heinlein once said: once you get to LEO you're half way to
anywhere in the Solar System. This is due to the delta-V requirements
for getting out of the Earth's gravitational compared to reaching
escape velocity.
It is important to note then SSTO's have the capability once refueled
in orbit to travel to the Moon, land, and return to Earth on that one
fuel load. Because of this there would be a large market for passenger
service to the Moon as well. So there would be a commercial
justification for Bigelow's Transhab motels to also be transported to
the Moon [3].
Initially the propellant for the fuel depots would have to be lofted
from Earth. But we recently found there was water in the permanently
shadowed craters on the Moon [4]. Use of this for propellant would
reduce the cost to make the flights from LEO to the Moon since the
delta-V needed to bring the propellant to LEO from the lunar surface
is so much less than that needed to bring it from the Earth's surface
to LEO.
This lunar derived propellant could also be placed in depots in lunar
orbit and at the Lagrange points. This would make easier flights to
the asteroids and the planets. The flights to the asteroids would be
especially important for commercial purposes because it is estimated
even a small sized asteroid could have trillions of dollars worth of
valuable minerals [5]. The availability of such resources would make
it financially profitable to develop large bases on the Moon for the
sake of the propellant.
Another possible resource was recently discovered on the Moon: uranium
[6]. Though further analysis showed the surface abundance to be much
less than in Earth mines, it may be that there are localized
concentrations just as there are on Earth. Indeed this appears to be
the case with some heavy metals such as silver and possibly gold that
appear to be concentrated in some polar craters on the Moon [7].
So even if the uranium is not as abundant as in Earth mines, it may be
sufficient to be used for nuclear-powered spacecraft. Then we wouldn't
have the problem of large amounts of nuclear material being lofted on
rockets on Earth. The physics and engineering of nuclear powered
rockets have been understood since the 60's [8]. The main impediment
has been the opposition to launching large amounts of radioactive
material from Earth into orbit above Earth. Then we very well could
have had nuclear-powered spacecraft launching from the Moon for
interplanetary missions, especially when you consider the financial
incentive provided by minerals in the asteroids of the asteroid belt.
Bob Clark
1.)Newsgroups: sci.space.policy, sci.astro, sci.physics,
sci.space.history
From: Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 21:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: A kerosene-fueled X-33 as a single stage to orbit
vehicle.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/msg/db4b9bcc5ca2dc05?hl=en
2.)TransHab.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransHab
3.)Private Moon Bases a Hot Idea for Space Pioneer.
by Leonard David, SPACE.com's Space Insider Columnist
Date: 14 April 2010 Time: 02:23 PM ET
http://www.space.com/8217-private-moon-bases-hot-idea-space-pioneer.html
4.)Mining the Moon's Water: Q & A with Shackleton Energy's Bill Stone.
by Mike Wall, SPACE.com Senior WriterDate: 13 January 2011 Time: 03:57
PM ET
http://www.space.com/10619-mining-moon-water-bill-stone-110114.html
5.)Riches in the Sky: The Promise of Asteroid Mining.
Mark Whittington, Nov 15, 2005
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/11560/riches_in_the_sky_the_promise_of_asteroid_pg2.html?cat=58
6.)Uranium could be mined on the Moon.
Uranium could one day be mined on the Moon after a Japanese spacecraft
discovered the element on its surface.
By Julian Ryall in Tokyo 4:58PM BST 01 Jul 2009
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/5711129/Uranium-could-be-mined-on-the-Moon.html
7.)Silver, Gold, Mercury and Water Found in Moon Crater Soil by LCROSS
Project.
Catherine Dagger, Oct 22, 2010
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5922906/silver_gold_mercury_and_water_found_pg2.html?cat=15
8.)NERVA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA
Matt
SSTO (unless you consider a rocket-sled boost, which might help just
enough but complicates the hell out of something already very
complicated). As the X-30 guys found, once you try to move beyond the
slides and start designing all the parts you need, with real-world
materials and real-world manufacturing processes and real-world engine
technology, your vehicle grows to impossible size and your payload
mass fraction falls off a cliff and hits zero. I wish the Skylon
guys all the luck in the world, but I rate their chances of making a
runway-to-orbit vehicle as slim to none.
Pat Flannery
If their work didn't have the BS smell about it before, the book about
Sodom and Gomorrah being destroyed by an asteroid that first bounced off
of the Alps, by two of the HOTOL/Skylon designers, pretty much made sure
the warm scent of manure reached one's nostrils:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-02-04/#feature
Instead of "Skylon", they should call it "Blue Parrot", which not only
shows what they are trying to sell you, but actually sounds like
something Britain would have worked on in the 1950's.
Pat
Sylvia Else
I imagine there are people in the US looking over their shoulders at
Skylon, because if Reaction Engines get it work, it'll be a game changer.
RE are starting testing on their proof-of-concept pre-cooler, which is a
necessary step towards constructing the Sabre engine.
Sylvia.
Brad Guth
No doubt ignoring their highly toxic NOx factor, just like our
government ignored their cesium laced JP7.
http://groups.google.com/group/google-usenet/topics?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet/topics?hl=en
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Brad Guth
If they applied a couple of reusable LRBs, Skylon would work like a
charm, with fuel and payload to spare. Even a pair of small Acetone
Peroxide solids would get that monster off the deck and moving
supersonic within 15 seconds (then hypersonic within a minute).
Mook's lithium-6 fusion alternative is of course way better.
Derek Lyons
>I imagine there are people in the US looking over their shoulders at
>Skylon, because if Reaction Engines get it work, it'll be a game changer.
*If* they can get it to work - that's a mighty big if there.
>RE are starting testing on their proof-of-concept pre-cooler, which is a
>necessary step towards constructing the Sabre engine.
One of the problems with the SABRE engine, in fact *the* over arching
problem is that all of the components are essentially at or beyond the
bleeding edge. It won't take many problems in integration of the
various components (some experimentally proven, some not) or errors
down in the third or fourth place after the decimal to doom the
engine. It's one of the most complex (if not the most complex) non
nuclear powerplants of air, sea, or space ever proposed.
That complexity has implications for it's life cycle as well - because
for a practical re-useable vehicle, maintenance man hours and the
associated turn around times are *the* key barriers that must be
surmounted. SABRE could easily end up like the SSME, high performance
with a crippingly high maintenance load. So the long term question
(once they get it to work) is - can it be kept funded and operating
long enough to accumulate the neccesary operational flight experience
with the system to reach the design and operational generation(s)
where it is economical and practical?
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Alan Dicey
> If their work didn't have the BS smell about it before, the book about
> Sodom and Gomorrah being destroyed by an asteroid that first bounced off
> of the Alps, by two of the HOTOL/Skylon designers, pretty much made sure
> the warm scent of manure reached one's nostrils:
> http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-02-04/#feature
> Instead of "Skylon", they should call it "Blue Parrot", which not only
> shows what they are trying to sell you, but actually sounds like
> something Britain would have worked on in the 1950's.
Blue Parrot was the radar system fitted to the Buccaneer.
http://www.blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk/Pages1_files/Technical_files/0_IntWepSys-1.html
(mind the wrap)
Pat Flannery
>> Instead of "Skylon", they should call it "Blue Parrot", which not only
>> shows what they are trying to sell you, but actually sounds like
>> something Britain would have worked on in the 1950's.
>
> Blue Parrot was the radar system fitted to the Buccaneer.
Okay, we'll call it "Spiny Norman". ;-)
Pat
Robert Clark
SSTO's were already being proposed in the 60's, as well as ambitious
lunar exploration proposals as exemplified by the lunar bases in the
film, 2001:
ROMBUS, Pegasus, Ithacus .
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=4577.0
We didn't have the required high efficiency kerosene or hydrogen
engines in the 60's. But we did in the 70's with the NK-33 for
kerosene and the SSME's for hydrogen.
Bob Clark
On Jul 4, 12:28 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Space Travel: The Path to Human Immortality?
> Space exploration might just be the key to human beings surviving mass
> genocide, ecocide or omnicide.
> July 24, 2009
> "On December 31st, 1999, National Public Radio interviewed the
> futurist and science fiction genius Arthur C. Clarke. Since the author
> had forecast so many of the 20th Century's most fundamental
> developments, the NPR correspondent asked Clarke if anything had
> happened in the preceding 100 years that he never could have
> anticipated. 'Yes, absolutely,' Clarke replied, without a moment's
> hesitation. 'The one thing I never would have expected is that, after
> centuries of wonder and imagination and aspiration, we would have gone
> to the moon ... and then stopped.'"http://www.alternet.org/news/141518/space_travel:_the_path_to_human_i...
> vehicle.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/msg/db4b9bcc5ca2dc05?...
>
> 2.)TransHab.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransHab
>
> 3.)Private Moon Bases a Hot Idea for Space Pioneer.
> by Leonard David, SPACE.com's Space Insider Columnist
> Date: 14 April 2010 Time: 02:23 PM EThttp://www.space.com/8217-private-moon-bases-hot-idea-space-pioneer.html
>
> 4.)Mining the Moon's Water: Q & A with Shackleton Energy's Bill Stone.
> by Mike Wall, SPACE.com Senior WriterDate: 13 January 2011 Time: 03:57
> PM EThttp://www.space.com/10619-mining-moon-water-bill-stone-110114.html
>
> 5.)Riches in the Sky: The Promise of Asteroid Mining.
> Mark Whittington, Nov 15, 2005http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/11560/riches_in_the_sky_the_...
>
> 6.)Uranium could be mined on the Moon.
> Uranium could one day be mined on the Moon after a Japanese spacecraft
> discovered the element on its surface.
> By Julian Ryall in Tokyo 4:58PM BST 01 Jul 2009http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/5711129/Uranium-could-be-min...
>
> 7.)Silver, Gold, Mercury and Water Found in Moon Crater Soil by LCROSS
> Project.
> Catherine Dagger, Oct 22, 2010http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5922906/silver_gold_mercury_...
>
> 8.)NERVA.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA
William Mook
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDTuByaK20w
http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/engines/rs68_specs.shtml
The RS-68 rocket engine produces 336.8 metric tons of force. The
turbomachinery that feeds propellant to the combustion chamber and
nozzle can be used to feed propellant to an annular aerospike
combustion chamber, which operates more efficiently in the lower
atmosphere. The zero-height aerospike engine can be equipped with a
heat shield and Philip Bono and others designed a number of boosters
around this concept.
Rocketdyne used the turbomachinery of the J2 to create the J-2T-200K
and the J-2T-250K engine. A 100 metric ton thrust engine.
http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/engines/j2t200k.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Annular-Aerospike.jpg
This could also be done with the RL-10 turbomachinery at the 12 ton
level - which has also been built.
The problem with chemically powered SSTO is the energy of chemical
propellants.
The problem with nuclear powered SSTO is the thrust to weight ratio of
nuclear engines.
We can make a Two-Stage-To-Orbit (TSTO) that can have reasonable
structural fractions and built in such a way that they are easy to
build, operate and maintain.
Using the RS-68 turbomachinery and the turbomachinery of the other
engines as the basic building blocks, and building an appropriately
sized aerospike engine around it, at the base of a booster stage, with
a smaller aerospike orbiter stage.
The stages are 'plug compatable'. The landing gear of the orbiter
stages plugs into the 'hold down clamps' of the booster stages. They
go together as easily as train cars. The network as easily as your
household wireless router. The fuel as easily as a truck of cryogenic
hydrogen unloads at a steel mill.
They land and take off vertically like the DCX or JAXA RVT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-irOfrXy4N4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzXcTFfV3L
Simplified ground handling and launch procedures also help reduce
costs and improve safety.
Built in a dry dock like a ship, floated out to sea and launched like
a submarine launched ballistic missile, it is capable of landing in
the ocean as well, and being refueled in the ocean.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTS-ZZj8vuI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22UCuRffvDk
The first orbiter carries 4.33 metric ton payload aboard a 1.66 metric
ton structure carrying 11.05 tonnes of hydrogen/oxygen propellant
totals 17.04 metric tons propelled by an aerospike made with two RL-10
engine sets.
This is attached to a booster that carries the 17.04 stage. It masses
6.51 tonnes empty and carries 43.42 tonnes of propellant. Take off
weight is 66.95 metric tons and it is propelled by an aerospike built
around a J2 pumpset.
This booster stage can also operate as an orbiter that carries 17.04
tonnes of payload. It is propelled by a booster that masses 25.59
tonnes empty, and carries 170.63 tonnes of propellant. The two stage
system with payload masses 263.13 metric tons at take off.
This booster stage can also operate as an orbiter that carries 66.90
metric tons when propelled by a larger booster whose aerospike engine
consists of four RS-68 pumps. The emtpy booster stage masses 100.59
metric tons and carries 670.57 metric tons of propellant. We're
approaching the size of a single Space Shuttle External Tank here.
The total take off weight of both stages and payload is 1,034.08
metric tons.
Finally, at the limits of the RS-68 is a booster that turns the
previous booster into an orbiter. This system masses 395.30 metric
tons empty, and carries 2,635.33 metric tons of propellant. The old
booster stage turned orbiter stage carries 262.93 metric tons of
payload to orbit. The two stage system masses 4,063.94 metric tons at
lift off.
Venus Luna Mars Jupiter Saturn
I II III IV V
17.04 66.95 263.13 1,034.08 4,063.94 Total Wght
11.05 43.42 170.63 670.57 2,635.33 Propellant
1.66 6.51 25.59 100.59 395.30 Structure
4.33 17.02 66.90 262.93 1,033.30 Load
The two stage system takes off vertically separates after accelerating
to 4.6 km/sec. The booster drops off and the orbiter takes over.
The booster re-enters and lands vertically in the ocean down range. A
tanker loitering downrange docks with the booster and refuels the
booster in the ocean - partially. Then, the booster blasts back to
the launch point and lands vertically there, to be refueled, and
'topped' again with an orbiter stage - and launched again.
Now, the orbiter itself, be 'topped' with deep space stages. A three
stage system for example can boost payloads into lunar free return
orbit - with recovery of the third stage in 8 days, or even to Mars or
Venus free return orbit, along a two year, or one year trajectory.
A fourth stage can be designed to land on the surface of the Moon, or
go into orbit around Mars or Venus and return to Earth.
Thus a three stage rocket system can be assembled from these
components to place 4.33, 17.03, or 66.90 tonnes around the inner
solar system.
A four stage rocket system can carry 2.91, 11.45, and 44.99 to the
surface of the moon or mars and return them to Earth without refueling
- reducing the payloads to allow 5 km/sec delta vee.
This was the basis for the Greenspace launcher system I designed back
in the mid 1990s. The *base* of the launcher, not the nose cone, was
the location of the payload bay. This allowed easy access to the
surface when landing on the moon or mars. Payloads were ejected from
the base.
We would start by orbiting the Teledesic and Iridium networks within a
year and maintain them. We'd do this for a portion of the revenue
stream, and borrow against that revenue going forward. The revenue
estimates by experts in the mid 1990s for these systems (assuming they
were deployed in record time) would have total $60 billion per year.
They were willing to give qualified aerospace vendors up to 35% of
their revenue. This would have been $21 billion per year - for as
long as the networks were working. MORE than NASAs entire budget.
Thus a fleet of smaller vehicles, would have generated cash to build
larger vehicles, to return to the Moon, explore Mars, orbit power
satellites, and using those revenue streams build even larger more
capable systems.
Robert Clark
orbit. Quite key here is that if you use the principle of using *both*
the most lightweight stages *and* the most efficient engines *at the
same time* then you can loft even more payload to orbit with your mult-
stage launchers. Plus, the individual stages can now be used as SSTO's
to loft smaller payloads at a lower cost than using the full multi-
stage launchers.
I have discussed before that SpaceX is using weight optimized design
for their Falcon 9 launcher. They are getting a 20 to 1 mass ratio for
the Falcon 9 first stage. And they expect to achieve a 30 to 1 mass
ratio for the side boosters on their Falcon Heavy. If they had used
high efficiency engines such as the NK-33 or the RD-180 instead of the
Merlins on their Falcons they could loft even more payload to orbit as
well as using the first stages or boosters alone as SSTO's to launch
smaller payloads.
It is notable that Elon Musk this week announced that SpaceX will be
working on a "super efficient" engine which he says will allow
reusable launchers that can bring the price to orbit down to $50 to
$100 per pound, in the range of what I was saying. The key point is
this is doable now with the high efficiency engines already existing
and the lightweight stages already existing.
August 03, 2011
Looking at Spacex plans for Making Falcon Rockets Reusable to get to
$50 per pound launch costs.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/08/looking-at-spacex-plans-for-making.html
August 02, 2011
Elon Musk of Spacex talks about a Reusable Falcon Heavy to get to $50
a pound to space.
[Quote]
Two technology areas Musk didn’t like were lifting bodies/wings
and nuclear rockets.
On the former, he said he was a “vertical takeoff, vertical
landing” type guy and eschewed wings since they had to be tailored for
each planet’s atmosphere and were useless on airless bodies such as
the Moon.
Drawbacks to nuclear power included the need for shielding
(heavy), water (heavy), and public objections against launching
nuclear fuel on a rocket. “IT’S A TRICKY THING GETTING A REACTOR UP
THERE WITH A TON OF URANIUM,” MUSK SAID AND WENT ON TO SAY WHILE
NUCLEAR POWER WOULD BE USEFUL FOR MARS OR LUNAR OPERATIONS, HE IMPLIED
THAT SOME ASSEMBLY (I.E., MINING AND PROCESSING FUEL OFF PLANET) WOULD
BE REQUIRED.[/Quote] - {emphasis added - B.C.}
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/08/elon-musk-of-spacex-talks-about.html
Bob Clark
On Jul 4, 12:28 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Space Travel: The Path to Human Immortality?
> Space exploration might just be the key to human beings surviving mass
> genocide, ecocide or omnicide.
> July 24, 2009
> "On December 31st, 1999, National Public Radio interviewed the
> futurist and science fiction genius Arthur C. Clarke. Since the author
> had forecast so many of the 20th Century's most fundamental
> developments, the NPR correspondent asked Clarke if anything had
> happened in the preceding 100 years that he never could have
> anticipated. 'Yes, absolutely,' Clarke replied, without a moment's
> hesitation. 'The one thing I never would have expected is that, after
> centuries of wonder and imagination and aspiration, we would have gone
> to the moon ... and then stopped.'"http://www.alternet.org/news/141518/space_travel:_the_path_to_human_i...
> vehicle.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/msg/db4b9bcc5ca2dc05?...
>
> 2.)TransHab.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransHab
>
> 3.)Private Moon Bases a Hot Idea for Space Pioneer.
> by Leonard David, SPACE.com's Space Insider Columnist
> Date: 14 April 2010 Time: 02:23 PM EThttp://www.space.com/8217-private-moon-bases-hot-idea-space-pioneer.html
>
> 4.)Mining the Moon's Water: Q & A with Shackleton Energy's Bill Stone.
> by Mike Wall, SPACE.com Senior WriterDate: 13 January 2011 Time: 03:57
> PM EThttp://www.space.com/10619-mining-moon-water-bill-stone-110114.html
>
> 5.)Riches in the Sky: The Promise of Asteroid Mining.
> Mark Whittington, Nov 15, 2005http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/11560/riches_in_the_sky_the_...
>
> 6.)Uranium could be mined on the Moon.
> Uranium could one day be mined on the Moon after a Japanese spacecraft
> discovered the element on its surface.
> By Julian Ryall in Tokyo 4:58PM BST 01 Jul 2009http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/5711129/Uranium-could-be-min...
>
> 7.)Silver, Gold, Mercury and Water Found in Moon Crater Soil by LCROSS
> Project.
> Catherine Dagger, Oct 22, 2010http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5922906/silver_gold_mercury_...
>
> 8.)NERVA.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA
Robert Clark
The Coming SSTO's
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/05/coming-sstos.html
Bob Clark
- Hide quoted text -
Greg Goss
>New post to my blog:
>
>The Coming SSTO's
>http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/05/coming-sstos.html
>> > lightweight stages were of American design. But the 70's was the time
>> > of detente, with the Apollo-Soyuz mission. With both sides realizing
>> > that collaboration would lead to routine passenger spaceflight, it is
>> > conceivable that they could have come together to make possible
>> > commercial spaceflight.
that the MI complex wanted to stop an idea he had of sidelining the
space race and convincing the Russian's to co-operate on a joint moon
mission.
--
I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.
Robert Clark
> New post to my blog:
>
> The Coming SSTO's
> http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/05/coming-sstos.html
>
> Bob Clark
>
SSTO's would have made possible Arthur C. Clarke's vision of 2001.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/05/sstos-would-have-made-possible-arthur-c.html
It is well known that SSTO's have the characteristic that if refueled
in LEO then they can fly to the Moon, land, lift off and fly back to
Earth on that one single fuel load. This is not true of TSTO's where
the upper stage might only get, say, a delta-v of 6,000 m/s.
So if one did have his own private, SSTO vehicle, then with
propellant depots he would also have his own private lunar vehicle.
Also posted to the blog a discussion of a recently re-discovered
video of Clarke from 1963 where he mentions his optimistic predictions
for manned spaceflight:
Re: SSTO's would have made possible Arthur C. Clarke's vision of 2001.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/05/re-sstos-would-have-made-possible.html
Bob Clark
Robert Clark
news:68880c95-e16b-41f5...@e20g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> The original post to this thread posted to my blog:
>
>SSTO's would have made possible Arthur C. Clarke's vision of 2001.
>http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/05/sstos-would-have-made-possible-arthur-c.html
>
> It is well known that SSTO's have the characteristic that if refueled
>in LEO then they can fly to the Moon, land, lift off and fly back to
>Earth on that one single fuel load. This is not true of TSTO's where
>the upper stage might only get, say, a delta-v of 6,000 m/s.
> So if one did have his own private, SSTO vehicle, then with
>propellant depots he would also have his own private lunar vehicle.
>
> Also posted to the blog a discussion of a recently re-discovered
>video of Clarke from 1963 where he mentions his optimistic predictions
>for manned spaceflight:
>
>Re: SSTO's would have made possible Arthur C. Clarke's vision of 2001.
>http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/05/re-sstos-would-have-made-possible.html
v1.1, they did not stably "land" the first stage, SpaceX is optimistic they
can solve the problem to get a reusable first stage:
SpaceX Hit Huge Reusable Rocket Milestone with Falcon 9 Test Flight (Video)
By Mike Wall, Senior Writer | October 17, 2013 02:01pm ET
http://www.space.com/23230-spacex-fa...milestone.html
SpaceX also plans to transition the half-scale Grasshopper VTVL test vehicle
to a full scale Falcon 9 first stage:
Final flight of Grasshopper v1.0 sets new record.
By Brian Dodson
October 14, 2013
http://www.gizmag.com/grasshopper-re...-record/29384/
This article says this "Grasshopper 2", as it were, would have all 9
engines of the regular F9 first stage. However, discussions on other forums
have said it would only have 3 engines. That would make sense since on stage
return, you are using at most 3 engines, and moreover this way, you would
not be risking an expensive loss of 9 copies of the Merlins during these
Grasshopper test flights.
Still, in point of fact there would be an advantage of using all 9 engines
on this first stage Grasshopper, and with a full propellant load. In
November, 2012 Elon Musk gave a lecture in London at the Royal Aeronautical
Society.
Elon Musk lecture at the Royal Aeronautical Society - YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB3R5Xk2gTY
About 30 minutes in, he gave the propellant fraction of the new Falcon 9
v1.1 as around 96%, or perhaps 95.5%. The 96% propellant fraction number
gives a 25 to 1 mass ratio. But at an Isp of 311 s for the Merlin 1D, the
rocket equation gives a delta-v of 311*9.81ln(25) = 9,800 m/s. Since the
delta-v to orbit is only about 9,100 m/s, this would allow a significant
amount of payload.
Then using the 9 engines and the full propellant load on the F9 first stage
would allow in fact not just a VTVL test vehicle, but in fact a fully
reusable and fully orbital vehicle.
Amusingly, about 36 minutes into Elon's lecture someone asks a question
about what he sees as the next big breakthrough in rockets after full
reusability. Elon thinks for awhile and can't come up with an answer. He
finally jokes maybe warp drive. Ironically, he already has the next big
advance: a reusable SSTO.
Bob Clark
--
Single-stage-to-orbit was already shown possible 50 years ago
with the Titan II first stage.
In fact, contrary to popular belief SSTO's are actually easy.
Just use the most efficient engines and stages at the same time,
and the result will automatically be SSTO.
Blog: Http://Exoscientist.blogspot.com
David Spain
[snip]
> SpaceX Hit Huge Reusable Rocket Milestone with Falcon 9 Test Flight (Video)
> By Mike Wall, Senior Writer | October 17, 2013 02:01pm ET
> http://www.space.com/23230-spacex-fa...milestone.html
>
> SpaceX also plans to transition the half-scale Grasshopper VTVL test vehicle
> to a full scale Falcon 9 first stage:
>
> Final flight of Grasshopper v1.0 sets new record.
> By Brian Dodson
> October 14, 2013
> http://www.gizmag.com/grasshopper-re...-record/29384/
>
> Bob Clark
>
Bob these links are truncated. Do you have the full links?
Thanks,
Dave
Jeff Findley
127.0.0.1 says...
> Bob these links are truncated. Do you have the full links?
Re: SSTO's would have made possible Arthur C. Clarke's vision of 2001.
Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
Rick Jones
> Elon Musk lecture at the Royal Aeronautical Society - YouTube.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB3R5Xk2gTY
> About 30 minutes in, he gave the propellant fraction of the new Falcon 9
> v1.1 as around 96%, or perhaps 95.5%. The 96% propellant fraction number
> gives a 25 to 1 mass ratio. But at an Isp of 311 s for the Merlin 1D, the
> rocket equation gives a delta-v of 311*9.81ln(25) = 9,800 m/s. Since the
> delta-v to orbit is only about 9,100 m/s, this would allow a significant
> amount of payload.
> Then using the 9 engines and the full propellant load on the F9 first stage
> would allow in fact not just a VTVL test vehicle, but in fact a fully
> reusable and fully orbital vehicle.
rick jones
--
The computing industry isn't as much a game of "Follow The Leader" as
it is one of "Ring Around the Rosy" or perhaps "Duck Duck Goose."
- Rick Jones
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
Robert Clark
news:85eb43cf-6e64-4659...@googlegroups.com...
> On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:32:52 AM UTC-4, Robert Clark wrote:
>> ...
>> F9
>> v1.1, they did not stably "land" the first stage, SpaceX is optimistic
>> they
>> can solve the problem to get a reusable first stage:
>>
>> SpaceX Hit Huge Reusable Rocket Milestone with Falcon 9 Test Flight
>> (Video)
>> By Mike Wall, Senior Writer | October 17, 2013 02:01pm ET
>> SpaceX also plans to transition the half-scale Grasshopper VTVL test
>> vehicle
>> to a full scale Falcon 9 first stage:
>>
>> Final flight of Grasshopper v1.0 sets new record.
>> By Brian Dodson
>> October 14, 2013
stages in the required Environmental Impact report for the Falcon 9 v1.1.
These propellant amounts have been much speculated about on the internet.
The amount for the first stage is about what has been estimated. However,
the propellant load for the second stage is about 50% higher than the
estimates.
Given this and the propellant fraction for the first stage given by Elon in
the Royal Aeronautical Society lecture, you can calculate the dry mass at
least for the first stage. Plugging these values into the rocket equation
you see it can carry quite a significant amount of payload as an SSTO.
However, an SSTO achieves its best performance when altitude compensation
such as aerospike is used. Then the payload in fact becomes surprisingly
high. So high in fact that the cost per kilo of the expendable SSTO F9 is
better than that of the standard expendable two stage without altitude
compensation.
In other words by investing in altitude compensation, the F9 first stage
SSTO is a more efficient launcher than the standard two stage F9 if you
don't invest in altitude compensation. Surprisingly, this superiority of the
SSTO on the cost per kilo metric, is still true for the reusable launcher
case, even when you make an apples-to-apples comparison of also giving the
two stage an altitude compensating first stage.
Discussion here:
The Coming SSTO's: Falcon 9 v1.1 first stage as SSTO, Page 2.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-coming-sstos-falcon-9-v11-first.html
Robert Clark
...
stages in the required Environmental Impact report for the Falcon 9 v1.1.
These propellant amounts have been much speculated about on the internet.
The amount for the first stage is about what has been estimated. However,
the propellant load for the second stage is about 50% higher than the
estimates.
Given this and the propellant fraction for the first stage given by Elon in
the Royal Aeronautical Society lecture, you can calculate the dry mass at
least for the first stage. Plugging these values into the rocket equation
you see it can carry quite a significant amount of payload as an SSTO.
However, an SSTO achieves its best performance when altitude compensation
such as aerospike is used. Then the payload in fact becomes surprisingly
high. So high in fact that the cost per kilo of the expendable SSTO F9 is
better than that of the standard expendable two stage without altitude
compensation.
In other words by investing in altitude compensation, the F9 first stage
SSTO is a more efficient launcher than the standard two stage F9 if you
don't invest in altitude compensation. Surprisingly, this superiority of the
SSTO on the cost per kilo metric, is still true for the reusable launcher
case, even when you make an apples-to-apples comparison of also giving the
two stage an altitude compensating first stage.
Discussion here:
The Coming SSTO's: Falcon 9 v1.1 first stage as SSTO, Page 2.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-coming-sstos-falcon-9-v11-first.html
Since a SSTO can be more cost efficient than standard multi-stage rockets IF
you use altitude compensation on the SSTO, it is important to find low cost
methods of accomplishing altitude compensation. Some proposals are discussed
on this blog post:
Altitude compensation attachments for standard rocket engines, and
applications.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2014/10/altitude-compensation-attachments-for.html
Bob Clark
---
------------------------------------------------------------------
with the Titan II first stage.
In fact, contrary to popular belief SSTO's are actually easy.
Just use the most efficient engines and stages at the same time,
and the result will automatically be SSTO.
Blog: Http://Exoscientist.blogspot.com
hanson
launch 28-Oct-2014 is given, by the operative word
=== "Environmental" === in the 2nd line of your tripe.
>
This disaster was precipitated by non other then being
a direct consequence of the idiotic demands by Greenies.
>
Any &all rocket launches combined have/are not causing
as much "pollution" as one part per billion that is naturally
emitted by one single small volcanic eruption.
>
This sorry event is yet another example of the problems
produced by the Green Turds' irrational megalomania
to save the planet, ... which in reality is just a ruse they
use to conduct their enviro machinations to fatten their
own wallets.
>
Their Green Greed have suppressed progress, & instead
instituted measures that have produced disease and
poverty, which enabled & furthered only their own greed
for $$.
>
Enviros are to Earth Science what Relativists are to physics.
Both are committing crimes against humanity!
>
Send All Green Bastards to Ebola infested Areas
and leave'em there for environmental reasons!
>
=========================================================
Alain Fournier
> Bob, the cause for the disastrous failure of the Space X
> launch 28-Oct-2014 is given, by the operative word
> === "Environmental" === in the 2nd line of your tripe.
>>
> This disaster was precipitated by non other then being
> a direct consequence of the idiotic demands by Greenies.
>>
> Any &all rocket launches combined have/are not causing
> as much "pollution" as one part per billion that is naturally
> emitted by one single small volcanic eruption.
ammonium perchlorate. There were 135 missions, that's 2*135*500 tonnes
of ammonium perchlorate. A billion times that would be about 1.3x10^14
tonnes. If you estimate the density of what is emitted by a volcano at
about 10 tonnes per cubic meter, you would need a volcano emitting about
1.3x10^13 cubic meters of ejecta to have the same mass. That is about
13,500 km^3. I wouldn't call that a small volcano.
Of course most of the mass ejected by a volcano is just molten rock, so
it is a little difficult to claim that it is more of a pollutant than
ammonium perchlorate. Also, there were much more rocket launch pollution
than just that of the Space Shuttle. So, to put it kindly, let's say
that your assertion is an exaggeration.
Alain Fournier
J. Clarke
says...
> Bob, the cause for the disastrous failure of the Space X
> launch 28-Oct-2014
scheduled for that date.
hanson
Bob, the operative word is = "Environmental" = in the
2nd line of your <news:m2tam3$9t6$1...@dont-email.me>
This disaster was precipitated by non other then being
a direct consequence of the idiotic demands by Greenies.
>
emitted by one single small volcanic eruption.
>
produced by the Green Turds' irrational megalomania
to save the planet, ... which in reality is just a ruse they
use to conduct their enviro machinations to fatten their
own wallets.
>
Their Green Greed have suppressed progress, & instead
instituted measures that have produced disease and
poverty, which enabled & furthered only their own greed
for $$.
>
Enviros are to Earth Science what Relativists are to physics.
Both are committing crimes against humanity!
>
Send All Green Bastards to Ebola infested Areas
and leave'em there for environmental reasons!
>
> One Shuttle solid rocket booster contained
> approximately 500 tonnes of ammonium perchlorate.
> There were 135 missions, that's 2*135*500 tonnes of
> ammonium perchlorate. A billion times that would
> be about 1.3x10^14 tonnes. If you estimate the density
> of what is emitted by a volcano at about 10 tonnes per
> cubic meter, you would need a volcano emitting about
> 1.3x10^13 cubic meters of ejecta to have the same mass.
> That is about 13,500 km^3. I wouldn't call that a small volcano.
>
> Of course most of the mass ejected by a volcano is just
> molten rock, so it is a little difficult to claim that it is more
> of a pollutant than ammonium perchlorate. Also, there were
> much more rocket launch pollution than just that of the Space
> Shuttle. So, to put it kindly, let's say that
> your assertion is an exaggeration.
>
"exaggeration?".. pas vrais, mon cher verte ami.
>
Volcanoes do not emit "just molten rock"... Never
mind your nitpicking over " big or small volcanoes"
to get you out of your Green fantasy, but consider
>
also the global numbers of the emissions from
the millions of 24/7/365 ongoing fumaroles and
other terrainian fissures,
(emissions which you Green Misanthropes do not
consider as pollution, even though they consist
of the same chemicals, but are not "man-made")
>
So, educate yourself at the edge of one & measure
its emission output quantities of CHx, CO, CO2,
HCl, N2, NOx, H2S, H2SO4 etc for a few says, then
estimate how much pollution came/comes out of
the earth **globally** since the dawn of rocket
launches and then make your Green case against
the puny amount of manmade booster pollution.
>
Furthermore, you lying or stupid enviro-moron,
Solid propellant booster material **consists**
of Ammonium Perchlorate but neither the NH4+
nor Perchlorate ClO4- gets into the atmosphere.
>
NH4ClO4 is the oxidizer of the organics (poly-
urethanes) and the Al dust, which reduce the
NH4ClO4 to Nitrogen and Chloride products
together with the generation of Aluminum oxides,..
>
.. all of which are items that are present in the
atmosphere at all times from natural sources
and events.
>
You are guilty as charged, Enviro Fournicateur.
Now do the right thing, repent, exculpate and
redeem yourself by going to the Ebola infested
Areas & stay there for environmental reasons!