International Space Agency (ISA) - International Space Plane (ISP) Program
public-...@international-space-agency.org
considered as a key and collective project of the Google Space
Community.
http://www.international-space-agency.org/pages/7/index.htm
It is a worthy project and effort, and one on which all routine human
space access to Space "Earth Orbit, luna, Mars, and Beyond", of any
scale or scope, is totally dependant on, and so would be a very worthy
cause for the Space Generations Community to support and pursue.
Respectfully,
Mrs. Victoria Scott, Ph.D.
Public Affairs Officer
International Space Agency, I.S.A.
International Space Administration
International-Space-Agency-(ISA)
more diversity in our methods for getting into LEO. And as the saying
goes, "once you're in orbit you are halfway to anywhere in the solar
system."
SSTO is difficult, although the X-33 was a descent shot and we've
learned a lot from the attempt. That said, the ISP "would utilize an
Advanced Ground Based Electromagnetic or Conventional Assisted Space
Launch Ramp System" (quote from website)
Ramps cannot be affectively used while dealing with atmospheres at this
point in time. Ramps require a shallow initial launch angle, because
that's where your velocity vector has to be in the end while on orbit.
If you ramp becomes very steep, as illustrated on the left hand photo
on your website, then the vehicle would have to be powered in its own
right, rapidly diminishing the benefits of the ramp system.
A shallow launch angle means the craft will be in the denser parts of
the atmosphere for a longer period of time. Its simply too much drag
to overcome - a lot more energy would have to be expended in the end
than a conventional launch profile. This is regardless of whether the
ramp is of conventional means or is electromagnetic. Electromagnetic
ramps do, however, hold great promise for lunar operations.
If you're really looking for an alternative launch solution may I
propose something along the lines of MAKS, an air launched platformed
designed by the Soviets/Russians during the late 80s.
http://www.ceebd.co.uk/ceebd/molniya6.htm
Basically a cargo carrier aircraft lifts the spacecraft piggyback (much
like how the Shuttle is ferried from Edwards back to Kennedy) to 40,000
feet where it then takes off. Also similar to the albeit smaller
Pegasus boosters and of course SpaceShipOne. The cargo plane
essentially serves as the first stage - primarily providing altitude.
While the given altitude and velocity of the aircraft are insignificant
in the grand scheme of things, this method allows the rocket engines to
operate at lower atmosphereic pressure than typical. Conventional
engines have to be optimized for sea level, decreasing their
performance later in the flight profile.
I'm not saying MAKS is perfect - its not. Its not SSTO, and its
cargo/crew area is aft of the fuel tank. That's something I'd like to
avoid due to the Shuttle's debris issues. But if X-33 and other mass
saving technologies were used, this would provide a robust launch
platform. Aircraft takeoff would be limited to conventional takeoff
weather conditions - no frequent launch scrubs due to weather since
actual rocket ignition is well above the clouds.
Its a start. ryan
public-...@international-space-agency.org
You knowledge and understanding of ramp launch is not totally correct.
Assisted Launch Systems:
http://p201.ezboard.com/finternationalspaceagencyfrm213
Sadly, few people know the truth about assisted ramp launch, as it is
not a widely covered technology, by either the media, or the military &
space industry that is afraid to loose its control of expendable launch
vehicles.
Firstly there is no shallow launch angle as you suggest. We propose a
ramp launch angle of between 45 degrees and 60 degrees, and would be
based on the topographics of the selected or prospective mountain
launch site. Once the launch vehicle left the launch ramp the onboard
propulsion and navigation systems could easily divert the SSTO Launch
Vehicle to any desired angle or heading. Indeed your idea of a
Mothership launch profile launches the vehicle horizontally, and only
after launch is any desired launch angle or heading initiated.
Mothership Launch Systems & Space Planes:
http://p201.ezboard.com/finternationalspaceagencyfrm52
The ramp launch system, which the International Space Agency has
proposed since 1986, would be located on the Earths equator. This as
the closer you get to the Earths equator, the less (Energy/Fuel) you
need to put a vehicle or payload into Earths Orbit, as on the Earths
equator the surface speed (Earths Rotation) of the Earth is greater
there (about 1,500 kilometers / 1,000 miles per hour). We have looked
at three prime mountain locations, in Peru, Ecuador, and Tanzania.
However, these are all the Countries on the Earths Equator, which the
International Space Agency has also made contact with in this regards.
01) Ecuador - Chimborazo (Andes) - 20,702 feet / 6,310 meters
02) Peru - Huascarán (Andes) - 22,205 feet / 6,768 meters
03) Colombia - Pico CristÛbal ColÛn - 18,947 feet / 5,775 meters
04) Brazil - Pico da Neblina - 9,888 feet / 3,014 meters
05) Gabon - Mont Iboundji (Massif du Chaillu) - 5167 feet / 1,575
meters
06) Congo - Pic Marguerite (Mount Stanley) - 16765 feet / 5110
meters
07) Congo (DNC) - Ruwenzori (Mitumba Mountains) - 16,763 feet /
5,119 meters
08) Tanzania - Kilimanjaro (Ruwenzori Range) - 19,340 feet / 5,895
meters
09) Uganda - Ruwenzori (Mitumba Mountains) - 16,763 feet / 5,119
meters
10) Kenya - Mount Kenya (Rift Valley) - 17,058 Ft / 5,199 meters
11) Somalia - Shimbiris - 7,926 feet / 2,416 meters
12) Indonesia - Carstensz Pyramid - 16,023 feet / 4,884 meters
Also, another factor which people fail to realize, is that in an
Electromagnetic (EM) based Launch System, any air resistance on the
SSTO Launch Vehicle is countered by the nearly unlimited power output
(Thrust) of the EM Launch Ramp & Launch Sled (Not needed to be provided
by onboard fuel or propulsion). Also the vehicle is not carrying fuel
or extra structure (Mass & Weight) during the EM Launch phase, making
the vehicle lighter and smaller. When the SSTO Launch Vehicle is
released at the end of the EM launch phase, at 19,000 to 22,000 feet,
the SSTO Launch Vehicle will be moving at 2000+ MPH forward momentum,
plus 1000~ MPH Earth Rational Speed, giving 3000+ MPH total release
speed and forward momentum, and it is only at this time that the SSTO
Launch Vehicle onboard propulsion system is engaged. The SSTO Launch
Vehicle will have already have attained a great deal of forward
momentum (3000+MPH) at the time of release from the EM Launch System,
and its forward momentum and additional onboard thrust will quickly
carry it to high altitude and low atmospheric drag, and efficient
engine nozzle low atmospheric operational zone. Also the proposed
International Space Plane (ISP) SSTO Vehicle would/could also likely
use reusable solid rocket boosters which would ignite at the time of
SSTO Launch Vehicle release at the end of the EM Launch Ramp/Cycle, and
would boost the SSTO Launch vehicle through the lower atmosphere where
drag is high, and then be ejected later in the launch cycle, as is
presently done on the U.S. Space Shuttle.
http://www.international-space-agency.org/pages/7/index.htm
The International Space Agency has researched and looked into this
since 1986, and again and again, this system and approach has proven
that it would not only work, but would totally revolutionize space
launch philosophy, technology, and capability, and as well field a
system that would be 100% reusable and able to launch SSTO Orbital
Vehicles and Hypersonic Inter-continental Vehicles on nearly an hourly
launch schedule, 365 days a year. Even if only a launch off the EM
Launch system occurred every 2 hours or so, that would be 10 launches a
day, and 3650 launches a year. These SSTO Launch Vehicles would be in
the cargo class of the present U.S. Space Shuttle. The U.S. Space
Shuttle System has presently wasted, and burned up, over 114 of those
massive main fuel tanks, which the mere cost (waste) in the high grade
refined metal ores, many many millions of precision machining and
assembly man hours, and massive loss of capability and infrastructure
because these tanks are not reusable.
The problem with your idea of MOTHERSHIP AIR LAUNCH, is that such
systems are very limited in scale and scope. Also, such systems could
never be able to attain 10 to 20 launches a day, or 3650 to 7300
launches a year. Only an EM Ground Based EM Launch System could ever
achieve such scale and scope of operations and capability.
Also, a MOTHERSHIP AIR LAUNCH system would be very restrictive to
providing a launch platform for more than one or few specifically
designed launch vehicles specifically for the MOTHERSHIP.
A EM Ground Based Launch System, would operate much like a modern
Aircraft Carrier catapult launch system, and would be able to launch a
"Wide Variety" of SSTO Launch Vehicles Sizes, Configurations, and
Weights, at a "Wide Range" of G-Forces and Release Speeds.
There are powerful political forces at work, as the USA, Russia,
Europe, and China do not control "directly" any of these potential
Equatorial Launch Sites, and so do not want to invest Billions in
National Resources into these areas and sites because they cannot
control them for their own narrow national concerns and agendas. Also,
the present day space industry is totally controlled by the Military
Industrial Complex, and they want Space for their control and
dominance, and since anything space launch technology or systems
related is controlled by the Militaries of the USA, Russia, Europe, and
China mostly, and so they will go so far as destroy and undermine human
access to Earth Orbit & Space to maintain their total control for their
use only. Also the space industry is presently totally based on
expendable launch systems, and an EM Launch System is presently
perceived by the Industry as a threat to its survival, which is not
true. In fact once an International EM launch Facility was built and
in operation, it would create a great and vast new industry for new
SSTO Launch Vehicles and massive production. Just like many companies
compete to build NAVY Carrier Aircraft of many types, sizes, and
mission purpose.
The International Space Agency (ISA) has faced the same resistance by
the same forces, as has the International Space Plane (ISP) Program.
Both need to happen, and both are important and historic efforts, on
which the future of peaceful human space endeavors and capability
greatly depends on.
Here are some other International Space Agency Projects & Efforts:
http://www.international-space-agency.org/pages/3/index.htm
http://www.international-space-agency.net/ground_based_launch_tube_system_detail.html
Thanks for your reply and comments,
Ad-Astra! To the Stars!
The I.S.A. Global Team
International Space Agency, I.S.A.
International Space Administration
International-Space-Agency-(ISA)
review alternative launch platforms for academic projects. So while
its impossible to see every possible idea, in the end many are just
derivities of a few key theories. For instance, I typically see the
rail launcher launching a passive payload, not an active spacecraft
with rocket engines. The fact that the 'projectile' has its own
propulsion system does change things a bit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly there is no shallow launch angle as you suggest. We propose a
ramp launch angle of between 45 degrees and 60 degrees, and would be
based on the topographics of the selected or prospective mountain
launch site. Once the launch vehicle left the launch ramp the onboard
propulsion and navigation systems could easily divert the SSTO Launch
Vehicle to any desired angle or heading.
True, but with a steep angle you set an upper limit on how effective
the rail launcher could be. To be put another way, how much of the
total energy needed to get into orbit would the rail provide? This is
of course a give and take, since the shallower the angle is the higher
the energy requirements become to overcome drag.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
internationalspaceagency wrote:
The closer you get to the Earths equator, the less (Energy/Fuel) you
equator the surface speed (Earths Rotation) of the Earth is greater
there (about 1,500 kilometers / 1,000 miles per hour).
This is true of all launch platforms - whether land, sea, or air.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have looked at three prime mountain locations, in Peru, Ecuador, and
Tanzania.
However, these are all the Countries on the Earths Equator, which the
International Space Agency has also made contact with in this regards.
If a rail launcher really changes the way we get into space, then the
location of the rail will forever change the country in which it
resides. One needs not only suitable geography but a stable government
that can survive the necessary transformation that a brand new, large
scale, space infrastructure would provide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, another factor which people fail to realize, is that in an
Electromagnetic (EM) based Launch System, any air resistance on the
SSTO Launch Vehicle is countered by the nearly unlimited power output
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm really hesistant to accept the unlimited power of the EM launch
ramp. While this is all "free energy" from the spacecraft's
perspective, generating sufficient power is not trivial. I can hardly
fathom the necessary electrical power - this is essentially a rail gun
with a much lower final velocity, and on something of this scale would
require a serious amount of superconductors. How economical this
launch platform is hinges not only on the optimization of the
spacecraft but also the costs of the ground support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
When the SSTO Launch Vehicle is released at the end of the EM launch
phase, at 19,000 to 22,000 feet, the SSTO Launch Vehicle will be moving
at 2000+ MPH forward momentum, plus 1000~ MPH Earth Rational Speed,
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This rougly equates to 15-20% of the total energy needed to achieve
orbit. This is really impressive, assuming of course it is possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Also the proposed International Space Plane (ISP) SSTO Vehicle
would/could also likely use reusable solid rocket boosters which would
ignite at the time of SSTO Launch Vehicle release at the end of the EM
Launch Ramp/Cycle, and would boost the SSTO Launch vehicle through the
lower atmosphere where drag is high, and then be ejected later in the
launch cycle, as is presently done on the U.S. Space Shuttle.
The use of boosters, solid or any other, really disqualifies it from
being a SSTO vehicle. Besides, while 20k feet isn't as thin as the
40k+ ft of air launches, it is still quite thinner than sea level so
the engines would be a good deal more efficient than they otherwise
would have been. Given this, and the estimates of what the rail system
provides, I doubt boosters would be necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The International Space Agency has researched and looked into this
since 1986, and again and again, this system and approach has proven
that it would not only work
This hasn't been proven. EM propulsion on this scale has not been
demonstrated, nor has the attempts at SSTO panned out yet (although we
are getting close). I'd like to see a detailed report on the power
requirements of the launch platform, where that power would come from,
and most importantly how so much power would be disapaited so quickly
without the use of superconductors. Superconductors have to be
cryogenically cooled, and having enough superconductor to scale the
side of a mountain will be very expensive to build and maintain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if only a launch off the EM Launch system occurred every 2 hours
or so, that would be 10 launches a day, and 3650 launches a year.
These SSTO Launch Vehicles would be in the cargo class of the present
U.S. Space Shuttle.
A launch every two hours?! This is the kind of number that the Shuttle
program was to achive when the program was being sold to Congress in
the 70s - a launch every few days, for upwards of 100 launches/year.
The Shuttle can barely launch every 3 months when the fleet is
operational. This is a factor of roughly 30 between the 'pipedream'
launch rate and the reality.
Applying this same factor to your 2hr ideal rate would be a launch
every other day or so. That in itself would be a huge breakthrough in
launch technology. A launch every couple hours would require at least
a dozen reusable SSTO vehicles, a neverending supply of cyrogenic
coolants, and a nuclear reactor or two to provide the power for the EM
rail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with your idea of MOTHERSHIP AIR LAUNCH, is that such
systems are very limited in scale and scope. Also, such systems could
never be able to attain 10 to 20 launches a day, or 3650 to 7300
launches a year. Only an EM Ground Based EM Launch System could ever
achieve such scale and scope of operations and capability.
Also, a MOTHERSHIP AIR LAUNCH system would be very restrictive to
providing a launch platform for more than one or few specifically
designed launch vehicles specifically for the MOTHERSHIP.
Air launch systems have only been used on occasion and have not been
brought to their fullest potential. The plans and hardware already
exist, and the performace of such systems would be greatly improved by
simply updating the technology to the today's industry standards (The
An-225 Mirya, the proposed mothership for MAKS, could stand to greatly
improve its payload by simply using GE's latest engines for the Boeing
777 Dreamliner as opposed to the low performance engines of the Soviet
Union that were designed in the early 80s.)
Does it have limitations? Of course it does, but I don't think its a
big of a deal as you make it out to be. If done properly it will be
much more versatile than any existing launch platform and the flight
rate would be much improved, perhaps even weekly flights of the same
SSTO being possible.
I must stress that not only do we have all necessary technologies but
the necessary operations are regularly carried out - piggyback of
spacecraft, aviation turnaround times, timely cargo plane maintenance,
cryogenic fueling, etc. These capabilities just haven't been
integrated into a single operation yet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
There are powerful political forces at work, as the USA, Russia,
Europe, and China do not control "directly" any of these potential
Equatorial Launch Sites, and so do not want to invest Billions in
National Resources into these areas and sites because they cannot
control them for their own narrow national concerns and agendas. Also,
the present day space industry is totally controlled by the Military
Industrial Complex, and they want Space for their control and
dominance, and since anything space launch technology or systems
related is controlled by the Militaries of the USA, Russia, Europe, and
China mostly, and so they will go so far as destroy and undermine human
access to Earth Orbit & Space to maintain their total control for their
use only.
This seems to be a very conspiracy theorist view of the world. USA,
Eurasia, & China are the primary nations with space interets (note this
is not saying that there are not space enthusiasts elsewhere - just
that space plays a significant part of those nations' agendas). Is it
so wrong to want to keep control of facilities that would cost billions
of dollars? Who else could possibly invest so much in these
infrastructrues other than the primary players?
As far as space militarization goes, it is a problem, but they aren't
out to get rid of civilan flight. I reference NASA, which no longer
has any military agenda after the last DoD Shuttle flight around 1991.
I also reference SpaceShipOne (and the rest of the X Prize) as well as
the Planetary Society's Cosmos 1. You make it sound like the Military
would have shot the missions out of the sky (if they had a missile
defense shield that actually worked)!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Also the space industry is presently totally based on expendable launch
systems, and an EM Launch System is presently perceived by the Industry
as a threat to its survival, which is not true. In fact once an
International EM launch Facility was built and in operation, it would
create a great and vast new industry for new SSTO Launch Vehicles and
massive production. Just like many companies compete to build NAVY
Carrier Aircraft of many types, sizes, and mission purpose.
I agree that the industry's institutional inertia is difficult to
overcome, but this is no different than any other industry or complex
system. Profit margins are good, people have steady jobs, and the
customer base continues to be there. There is no appreciable
competition, and the few launch providers (in the U.S. anyway) tend to
make allliances than compete, creating a quasi-monopoly.
There is no reason to change - change involves risk, involves
substantial R&D, unseen schedule delays and inevitable cost overruns.
This all at least erodes the profit margins and at worse can collapse
the company if too much is invested in an unachieveable idea. There is
no driving force to push the industry forward - the Cold War was an
incredible catylyst for scientific advancement.
I wouldn't classify their behavior so much as actively opposing new
technologies rather than quiite simply not needing to invest in them.
ryan
public-...@international-space-agency.org
ryan wrote:
I've had the opportunity on several occassions to review alternative
launch platforms for academic projects. So while its impossible to see
every possible idea, in the end many are just derivities of a few key
theories. For instance, I typically see the rail launcher launching a
passive payload, not an active spacecraft with rocket engines. The
fact that the 'projectile' has its own propulsion system does change
things a bit.
Yes I agree, and most people think when you talk about ramp/rail launch
you are talking about shooting an object like a bullet into space. The
Electromagnetic Launch Ramp & Launch Sled only acts as a "REPLACEMENT"
for a "First Stage" and eliminates the need for a massive expendable
main tank as in the shuttle. The Space Shuttle burns nearly half or a
little more than half of its fuel just reaching around 2000 to 3000
mph. The demand on the engines to move the great mass from a dead
weight 0 mph to 2000+ mph requires a great deal of fuel, structure to
hold the fuel, and power, and that is not even counting the air
resistance on the launch vehicle. With and Electromagnetic Ramp/Rail
launch system on the side of a mountain, there would be nearly a 50%
reduction in the needed Onboard Fuel, 30% to 40% reduction in needed
Structure, and the Power Plants could be slightly smaller. This all
adds up to less Mass/Structure, less Aerodynamic Cross Section, and
Greater Payload.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ryan wrote:
True, but with a steep angle you set an upper limit on how effective
the rail launcher could be. To be put another way, how much of the
total energy needed to get into orbit would the rail provide? This is
of course a give and take, since the shallower the angle is the higher
the energy requirements become to overcome drag.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In attaining orbit forward "horizontal" speed (Orbital Momentum) is as
important if not more important than upwards "vertical" climb. A 45
Degree angle provides equal amounts of both factors to a spacecrafts
orbital flight path. The onboard propulsion systems provide the rest
of these factors. If you have ever watched a live shuttle flight or
rocket launch, you will see they only climb straight up for a limited
time and then head directly into the path of (Orbital Momentum) which
in most cases is in the same direction of the Earths spin. The
vertical climb is only used to make the shortest path to the thin air
of the upper atmosphere which gives the launch vehicle less drag and
then the launch vehicle turns and races to achieve full (Orbital
Momentum) needed to achieve stable orbit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ryan wrote:
This is true of all launch platforms - whether land, sea, or air.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that is true! But a 19,000 to 20,000 foot mountain offers easy
access to low pressure launch release window, which land & sea launch
cannot offer, and a very heavy duty launch system of scale and scope
which no airborne mothership launch could ever offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ryan wrote:
If a rail launcher really changes the way we get into space, then the
location of the rail will forever change the country in which it
resides. One needs not only suitable geography but a stable government
that can survive the necessary transformation that a brand new, large
scale, space infrastructure would provide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Believe me! :-) If any of the Countries I have mentioned, that the
ISA is courting for an International Launch Site, were to see that the
USA, Russia, Europe, Japan, China, India, and many other Countries were
going to invest Many Trillions into a generational launch facility.
You can bet the Government Bureaucrats, Industrial Barrens, and Rebels
of the poor and out of work underclass's, would all be Dressed in
Suits and standing together with big happy smiles on their faces,
saying come here, come here. And when that day came, a stable
Government would materialize really fast, and with the support and
infrastructure that the larger Governments would bring to the area, of
any such endeavor of this scale and importance. Money can make people
forget their problems real fast, that is a fact of human nature. Any
such Country or Countries picked for such International Space Launch
Ports would become much like Switzerland is to the Banking Industry.
Except their precious resource would be a 19,000+ foot mountain, and a
strategic location on the Equator!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ryan wrote:
I'm really hesistant to accept the unlimited power of the EM launch
ramp. While this is all "free energy" from the spacecraft's
perspective, generating sufficient power is not trivial. I can hardly
fathom the necessary electrical power - this is essentially a rail gun
with a much lower final velocity, and on something of this scale would
require a serious amount of superconductors. How economical this
launch platform is hinges not only on the optimization of the
spacecraft but also the costs of the ground support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, when I say unlimited power, I do not mean infinite! I simply
meant that the power (energy/fuel) was seperate from the Launch Vehicle
during th EM Launch Phase, and that the EM Launcher does not have the
very restrictive limitations which a Launch Vehicle has in regards to
(energy/fuel) storage and usage. You said it best though "While this
is all "free energy" from the spacecraft's perspective"
The EM Launch System which the International Space Agency (ISA)
proposes for the International Space Plane (ISP) Program would be
rather simple in its design and application, but on a large scale. The
launch ramp would have high-energy capacitors running its entire
length. The power would not be distributed as in running electricity
trough a long rail or wire; but, instead as the launch vehicle races up
the track, laser censors and powerful computers plot and track the
Launch Sled & Launch Vehicle up the ramp and fire off the capacitors
which then activate charge the section of track which the Launch Sled &
Launch Vehicle occupy at that moment in time and location on the launch
ramp and launch cycle. The discharge of the capacitors can be
controlled to provide more or less energy to that section of the track
to allow the correct acceleration forces needed at that moment and time
in the launch cycle, and specifically to the specifications of each
particular launch vehicle and mission requirements. This also builds
into the system a fail-safe operational capability, as if one, or a few
capacitors misfire or fail, then the other sections of the track can be
controlled by the computer to compensate for this by adding little
extra power down range. The use of a single source power grid would
present a major safety issue, as if the main power goes down, the whole
system fails. The U.S. and Russian Governments have proven sled/rail
launch up to Mach 4, and the requirements of this proposed system would
be in the Mach 2 range, meaning the technology is here now for such a
system. Also Electromagnetic Repulsor technology has moved objects to
near light speed, and so acquiring and applying these existing
technologies would also be more than doable. The Electromagnetic Ramp
Launch System would be just a big Aircraft Carrier Catapult System,
albeit, a bit larger and a little more complex, none-the-less, the
same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ryan wrote:
This roughly equates to 15-20% of the total energy needed to achieve
orbit. This is really impressive, assuming of course it is possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I think 15% to 20% is very doable for manned launches! For unmanned
launches of more robust high G tolerant vehicles that can withstand
higher launch forces and speeds, I think more like 30% to 40% could be
achieved in some cases, and with a little effort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ryan wrote:
The use of boosters, solid or any other, really disqualifies it from
being a SSTO vehicle. Besides, while 20k feet isn't as thin as the
40k+ ft of air launches, it is still quite thinner than sea level so
the engines would be a good deal more efficient than they otherwise
would have been. Given this, and the estimates of what the rail system
provides, I doubt boosters would be necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Not true! If the boosters are like pods they would be complementary to
the SSTO vehicles enhanced performance. When people think stages, they
mean more like Apollo where the Rocket was 3 separate small rockets
stacked to form one big rocket, or as in the Ariane 5 where the
boosters are as nearly as large as the main launch vehicle, and same
with the shuttle where the SRBs are a major and separate part of the
vehicle. The boosters I am talking about would be small, and only
designed to help the main propulsion system in the 20,000 foot to
50,000 foot range. These types of options could also be used to attain
higher orbits or when increased payload weight is desired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ryan wrote:
This hasn't been proven. EM propulsion on this scale has not been
demonstrated, nor has the attempts at SSTO panned out yet (although we
are getting close). I'd like to see a detailed report on the power
requirements of the launch platform, where that power would come from,
and most importantly how so much power would be disapaited so quickly
without the use of superconductors. Superconductors have to be
cryogenically cooled, and having enough superconductor to scale the
side of a mountain will be very expensive to build and maintain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I outlined most of this in my earlier outline of the proposed EM Launch
System.
Yes it would be big and costly like a Golden Gate Bridge! But like the
Golden Gate Bridge that carries millions of cars daily, so will the EM
Launch System provide launches of scale and large numbers. Right now
the space industry builds a tiny little bridge every time it wants to
cross the river, and after only just one vehicle crosses that bridge,
they blow it up, and repeat this again, and again, and again! Better to
invest in the Golden Gate Bridge! Less Waste, Less Time, and Much
Greater & Robust Capability, Scale, and Scope!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ryan wrote:
A launch every two hours?! This is the kind of number that the Shuttle
program was to achive when the program was being sold to Congress in
the 70s - a launch every few days, for upwards of 100 launches/year.
The Shuttle can barely launch every 3 months when the fleet is
operational. This is a factor of roughly 30 between the 'pipedream'
launch rate and the reality.
Applying this same factor to your 2hr ideal rate would be a launch
every other day or so. That in itself would be a huge breakthrough in
launch technology. A launch every couple hours would require at least
a dozen reusable SSTO vehicles, a neverending supply of cyrogenic
coolants, and a nuclear reactor or two to provide the power for the EM
rail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
An Aircraft Carrier Catapult can launch aircraft in an endless stream,
at 5 minute or less intervals! Many aircraft are waiting in line to be
launched, and after each launch, the next plane moves to the launcher,
and is launched, ect. ect. An EM Space Launch System would be the same
way. Many SSTO Launch Vehicles would be in a long line of readied and
fueled vehicles, and launched in a same manner as planes off an
Aircraft Carrier! If the system is perfected overtime, launch cycles
of even less than an hours separation may be achievable!?
As far as a power source, only one Nuclear Power Plant would be needed,
and of course Diesel Generators running the length of the Launch Ramp
to provide back up and auxiliary power. The Capacitor system would
have 3 or 4 dedicated capacitors to each track section. This way as a
launch is under way the capacitor from the last launch is being
charged, and the primary capacitor for the present launch has a back
up, and the forth can be used as a rotation for routine and regular
maintenance on the EM Launch System. Any extra power production can
always be sold to the local power companies for use in the surrounding
power grid. Likewise, in some unforeseen emergency, power for the EM
Launch System could be drawn off the local power grid, but again only
in some unforeseen emergency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ryan wrote:
Air launch systems have only been used on occasion and have not been
brought to their fullest potential. The plans and hardware already
exist, and the performace of such systems would be greatly improved by
simply updating the technology to the today's industry standards (The
An-225 Mirya, the proposed mothership for MAKS, could stand to greatly
improve its payload by simply using GE's latest engines for the Boeing
777 Dreamliner as opposed to the low performance engines of the Soviet
Union that were designed in the early 80s.)
Does it have limitations? Of course it does, but I don't think its a
big of a deal as you make it out to be. If done properly it will be
much more versatile than any existing launch platform and the flight
rate would be much improved, perhaps even weekly flights of the same
SSTO being possible.
I must stress that not only do we have all necessary technologies but
the necessary operations are regularly carried out - piggyback of
spacecraft, aviation turnaround times, timely cargo plane maintenance,
cryogenic fueling, etc. These capabilities just haven't been
integrated into a single operation yet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Much of what you say is true, as too the use and availability of this
technology. However, even using the largest aircraft in the world the
Russian An-225.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/design/q0188.shtml
MAKS spaceplane - NPO Molniya
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/maks.htm
Hotol 2 - British Aerospace
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/inthotol.htm
There have been a number of proposals to launch in this way using the
Russian An-225 or a plane of its size. However the best manned
capability from such a system would be only one Astronaut, or maybe two
if it was a sardine can. Also the size of any payload of the orbital
vehicle, would be so small as to be a waste of time for anything other
than small satellites. No modules or components for any space station
or manned Mars Ship could be launched in this way. Also with air
launch the Mothership must ascend and descend each time, and with such
a large plane this is an hour or two up and an hour our two down, and
once on the ground an hour or two post flight inspection, then and hour
or two at BEST to mate the next launch vehicle, then an hour or two to
fuel and ready both vehicles, and then and hour or so to
preflight/prelaunch, and an hour or so start the engines and do the
ground taxi to the runway and get clearance to launch if the weather is
perfect, and then launch. This is 12 to 16 hours at the "very very
best" for each launch!
Night launches with very large aircraft is not advisable, so we are
talking about one launch a day if you are very lucky?
With a very heavy duty over-engineered Electromagnetic Launch Ramp
System, the preparations of the launch vehicle and launch sleds are
done totally separate from the EM Launch Ramp, and only when the SSTO
Launch Vehicle is ready for launch, is it brought to the EM Launch
Ramp, and launched in short order. This in the same way as Aircraft
Carrier Launch Operations, fast & routine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ryan wrote:
This seems to be a very conspiracy theorist view of the world. USA,
Eurasia, & China are the primary nations with space interets (note this
is not saying that there are not space enthusiasts elsewhere - just
that space plays a significant part of those nations' agendas). Is it
so wrong to want to keep control of facilities that would cost billions
of dollars? Who else could possibly invest so much in these
infrastructrues other than the primary players?
As far as space militarization goes, it is a problem, but they aren't
out to get rid of civilan flight. I reference NASA, which no longer
has any military agenda after the last DoD Shuttle flight around 1991.
I also reference SpaceShipOne (and the rest of the X Prize) as well as
the Planetary Society's Cosmos 1. You make it sound like the Military
would have shot the missions out of the sky (if they had a missile
defense shield that actually worked)!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On this I will not comment on any more, as I stated the facts as they
are in reality! Humans are evil by nature, and the world is not a
utopia by any means, and there will always be those that want more and
more power, as this is a sad state of the human condition. Do you not
remember that Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was nearly burned at the
stake for saying the Earth revolved around the Sun!!?? Those in power
do not like change, as it threatens their control of the masses, and
will even subvert the truth in order to maintain that power and
control. The Wright Brothers faced this as well, as they were
routinely slandered and called "Bird Men", which in their day was
publicly calling them crazy! Today the International Space Agency
(ISA) and our Founder face these very problems as Galileo Galilei and
the Wright Brothers faced. Change, any change, never comes easily for
these reasons. The International Space Plane (ISP) Program faces the
very same problems as well. This is not a conspiracy theory, it is
fact, and sadly the root of human nature!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ryan wrote:
I agree that the industry's institutional inertia is difficult to
overcome, but this is no different than any other industry or complex
system. Profit margins are good, people have steady jobs, and the
customer base continues to be there. There is no appreciable
competition, and the few launch providers (in the U.S. anyway) tend to
make allliances than compete, creating a quasi-monopoly.
There is no reason to change - change involves risk, involves
substantial R&D, unseen schedule delays and inevitable cost overruns.
This all at least erodes the profit margins and at worse can collapse
the company if too much is invested in an unachieveable idea. There is
no driving force to push the industry forward - the Cold War was an
incredible catylyst for scientific advancement.
I wouldn't classify their behavior so much as actively opposing new
technologies rather than quiite simply not needing to invest in them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree mostly with what you say, but again change never comes easy!
The ISA Global Team