Orbiting fuel depot concept
Pat Flannery
putting fuel depots into LEO to allow Moon-bound spacecraft to take
aboard fuel on-orbit without having to carry it all the way to orbit
with them:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/ULA08109.xml&headline=ULA%20Proposes%20On-Orbit%20Gas%20Stations%20for%20Space%20Exploration
(when I saw that illustration, I thought they were proposing the old
"PROFAC" nuclear ramjet LOX gatherer from "The High Frontier" days for a
moment) ;-)
Pat
Jeff Findley
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:GvedneReQviV4R3X...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
I believe what the illustration shows is a "tanker" upper stage on the left
and the LEO fuel depot on the right. The large fan like structure is a
thermal shield to help keep the depot cold. The common cryogenic upper
stage that they're developing seems like a logical starting point for a fuel
depot.
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon
.
Damon Hill
> United Launch Alliance has released some details on their concept for
> putting fuel depots into LEO to allow Moon-bound spacecraft to take
> aboard fuel on-orbit without having to carry it all the way to orbit
> with them:
> http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&
> id=news/ULA08109.xml&headline=ULA%20Proposes%20On-Orbit%20Gas%20Station
> s%20for%20Space%20Exploration (when I saw that illustration, I thought
> they were proposing the old "PROFAC" nuclear ramjet LOX gatherer from
> "The High Frontier" days for a moment) ;-)
Yeah, I thought so too, but it turns out just to be a sunshade for
the propellant tanks.
--Damon
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
JDL
Orval Fairbairn
<GvedneReQviV4R3X...@posted.northdakotatelephone>,
Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
The idea sounds good -- at first. You can't just launch at any old time
and expect to get there.
The problem is -- you have to get the launch and orbit planes lined up,
reducing the launch window.
Next, you have to get the launch window correct for translunar flight.
--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.
Pat Flannery
Jeff Findley wrote:
> I believe what the illustration shows is a "tanker" upper stage on the left
> and the LEO fuel depot on the right.
> The large fan like structure is a
> thermal shield to help keep the depot cold.
>
I think that's the case also, but the illustration is fairly vague about
what's going on.
You can see that ULA is trying to figure out a way to get four
guaranteed launches a year for Delta IV/Atlas V, so they can use those
as a assured revenue stream, and make added profits off of any other
launches they do.
Unfortunately, if something like this is set up, it's going to be almost
impossible to stop it at some future point from a political point of
view, as ULA will be counting on the four launches even after any Moon
exploration ends.
So then they will start lobbying for a new program to use this "valuable
national space resource" on.
You can see that one coming a mile off. :-)
Pat
Pat Flannery
Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> The idea sounds good -- at first. You can't just launch at any old time
> and expect to get there.
>
> The problem is -- you have to get the launch and orbit planes lined up,
> reducing the launch window.
>
Well, at least the booster should have more lax weather constraints than
the Shuttle, and that should help with getting into the launch window.
If we ever were going to get into the Moon game big time, it would be
wise to consider building a new launch facility somewhere a lot closer
to the equator, and where the summer weather is better than at the Cape.
> Next, you have to get the launch window correct for translunar flight.
>
What are the launch windows for a Moon flight like from the equator
versus the Cape? Can you launch more often from down there? You would
get significantly more payload into LEO with a equatorial launch.
Pat
Jeff Findley
Depends if NASA is smart enough to separate the depot bid from the ongoing
tanker bids (I would hope they are). The way you do this is make sure that
the RFP for the depot is written in such a way as to force the docking and
propellant transfer interfaces to be made public. That way ULA will need to
compete for tanker bids on a level playing field with other, potentially
cheaper, launch providers.
Also, as I've said in the past, the tankers could even be paid for and flown
by other nations in exchange for seats on "international" Orion missions.
Pat Flannery
>
> Depends if NASA is smart enough to separate the depot bid from the ongoing
> tanker bids (I would hope they are). The way you do this is make sure that
> the RFP for the depot is written in such a way as to force the docking and
> propellant transfer interfaces to be made public. That way ULA will need to
> compete for tanker bids on a level playing field with other, potentially
> cheaper, launch providers.
>
> Also, as I've said in the past, the tankers could even be paid for and flown
> by other nations in exchange for seats on "international" Orion missions.
>
> Jeff
That will work fine till the Russian space tanker rams the US fuel depot
while trying to dock, and all hell breaks loose internationally.
Pat
Orval Fairbairn
<id2dnU3syoO7NhzX...@posted.northdakotatelephone>,
Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
No real difference there -- the Moon, IIRC, has a 23.5 deg inclination
to the equator, very close to that of the Ecliptic. Of course, you CAN
approach the Moon at numerous inclinations, but the Earth-Moon transfer
still has to be in the neighborhood of 23.5 deg.
Peter Fairbrother
Consider that the moon crosses the equatorial plane every 14 days, and
aim for that point from equatorial LEO, with no plane changes necessary
(and using the same total delta-V as an inclined plane orbit with a stop
in LEO).
There isn't much to be gained, as far as lunar operations go, in using
an inclined orbit. A minimum-fuel launch window every 14 days is enough.
The best place for a fuel depot / station is in equatorial orbit because:
1) you get the most benefit from the Earth's rotation, and thus the
highest payload.
2) you can launch to it from any point on the Earth's equator every 90
minutes.
3) you can do first orbit rendezvous every 90 minutes.
This means that the flight time is a minimum, and for instance eg
passengers don't need meals, toilets, beds etc (half a Soyuz is taken up
by that stuff, as it takes them several days to rendezvous with the
Space Station: for a passenger flight this *doubles* capacity, or more),
with frequent flights urgent supplies can arrive in a couple of hours
from when they arrive at the launch site, and any reuseable cargo
hardware is back on the ground quicker, increasing turnaround.
4) you can minimum-fuel transfer to anywhere in GSO every 90 minutes,
5) you have a minimum-fuel lunar launch window every 14 days.
The main disadvantage is the scenery isn't very pretty, it's mostly
ocean with occasional desert or jungle. Few Tourists will be able to say
"I can see my home from here".
The other disadvantage is that you need to launch from somewhere on the
equator, but that's just politics mostly.
You need a tug in orbit though, preferably manned - supplies etc should
be delivered to near the station, and final placement/docking is done by
the tug. This means the station/tug is mainly responsible for safety,
which is sensible as it's their safety.
-- Peter Fairbrother
Orval Fairbairn
Peter Fairbrother <zenad...@zen.co.uk> wrote:
Now your launch window gets too tight!
--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Please consider trimming your quotes in the future. JDL
BradGuth
> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > In article
> > Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
>
> >> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> >>> The idea sounds good -- at first. You can't just launch at any old ti
me
> >>> and expect to get there.
>
> >>> The problem is -- you have to get the launch and orbit planes lined u
p,
> >>> reducing the launch window.
>
> >> Well, at least the booster should have more lax weather constraints th
an
> >> the Shuttle, and that should help with getting into the launch window.
> >> If we ever were going to get into the Moon game big time, it would be
> >> wise to consider building a new launch facility somewhere a lot closer
> >> to the equator, and where the summer weather is better than at the Cap
e.
>
> >>> Next, you have to get the launch window correct for translunar flight
.
>
> >> What are the launch windows for a Moon flight like from the equator
> >> versus the Cape? Can you launch more often from down there? You would
> >> get significantly more payload into LEO with a equatorial launch.
>
> >> Pat
>
> JDL
There's nothing better than using the to/from delta-V of our Selene
L1.
~ BG
bob haller
launch costs.....
BradGuth
wrote:
> "Pat Flannery" <flan...@daktel.com> wrote in message
>
> news:GvedneReQviV4R3X...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
>
> > United Launch Alliance has released some details on their concept for
> > putting fuel depots into LEO to allow Moon-bound spacecraft to take abo
ard
> > fuel on-orbit without having to carry it all the way to orbit with them
:
..
> > (when I saw that illustration, I thought they were proposing the old
> > "PROFAC" nuclear ramjet LOX gatherer from "The High Frontier" days for
a
> > moment) ;-)
>
> I believe what the illustration shows is a "tanker" upper stage on the le
ft
> and the LEO fuel depot on the right. The large fan like structure is a
> thermal shield to help keep the depot cold. The common cryogenic upper
> stage that they're developing seems like a logical starting point for a f
uel
> depot.
>
> Jeff
> --
> "Take heart amid the deepening gloom
> that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
> Lampoon
>
> .
If using h2o2 + synfuel, there's hardly any thermal issues or
subsequent loss of fuel tonnage.
~ BG
Jorge R. Frank
Expanding on that a bit:
The Moon's orbit has a 5.5 degree inclination with respect to the
ecliptic. The inclination with respect to the equator depends on the
orientation of the Moon's line of nodes, which regresses around its
orbit with a period of 18.5 years, varying between a minimum of 18
degrees and a maximum of 29 degrees.
In 1969, the Moon's ascending node happened to be close to the vernal
equinox, resulting in an inclination near the maximum, and
coincidentally close to the latitude of KSC.
The TLI burn must be performed at or near the Moon's antipode, the
projection of the Earth-Moon vector through the Earth's center to the
opposite side. So the LEO parking orbit plane must pass through the
antipode. That implies the launch inclination must be greater than the
declination of the moon, otherwise the antipode will not intersect the
orbital plane.
Since Apollo could launch a lunar mission with a single Saturn V, they
could meet this requirement and still have a relatively wide launch
window by the use of variable-azimuth launch targeting. The azimuth
limits were typically 72-108 degrees, or 18 degrees north or south of
due east. This resulted in orbit inclinations between 28.5 and 33.3
degrees, and a daily launch window of around 2.5 hours.
Not so with an EOR architecture. You can use variable azimuth targeting
on the first element, but after that the launch times of the subsequent
elements are fixed entirely by the planar/phase requirements for
rendezvous with the previous elements, and TLI opportunities are
similarly fixed. Equatorial orbits do not necessarily provide an
advantage here; they provide more frequent (and longer) launch windows
for the subsequent elements, but TLI opportunities are limited to when
the antipode crosses the equator, which only happens twice per month and
will only rarely coincide with desired lighting conditions at the
landing site.
Orval Fairbairn
<9a3b5098-e5ad-4cf3...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 10, 9:42 pm, "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...@ugs.nojunk.com>
> wrote:
> > "Pat Flannery" <flan...@daktel.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:GvedneReQviV4R3X...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
> >
> > > United Launch Alliance has released some details on their concept for
> > > putting fuel depots into LEO to allow Moon-bound spacecraft to take abo
> ard
> > > fuel on-orbit without having to carry it all the way to orbit with them
> :
> > >http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel�ac.
> ..
> > > (when I saw that illustration, I thought they were proposing the old
> > > "PROFAC" nuclear ramjet LOX gatherer from "The High Frontier" days for
> a
> > > moment) ;-)
> >
> > I believe what the illustration shows is a "tanker" upper stage on the le
> ft
> > and the LEO fuel depot on the right. The large fan like structure is a
> > thermal shield to help keep the depot cold. The common cryogenic upper
> > stage that they're developing seems like a logical starting point for a f
> uel
> > depot.
> >
> > Jeff
> > --
> > "Take heart amid the deepening gloom
> > that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
> > Lampoon
> >
> > .
>
> If using h2o2 + synfuel, there's hardly any thermal issues or
> subsequent loss of fuel tonnage.
>
> ~ BG
Yes -- but you sacrifice payload for a low performance propellant
combination. Remember -- you get only one oxygen atom from a molecule of
H2O2.
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <9a3b5098-e5ad-4cf3-bd73-1208e5f87...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 10, 9:42 pm, "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...@ugs.nojunk.com>
> > wrote:
> > > "Pat Flannery" <flan...@daktel.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:GvedneReQviV4R3X...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
>
> > > > United Launch Alliance has released some details on their concept f
or
> > > > putting fuel depots into LEO to allow Moon-bound spacecraft to take
abo
> > ard
> > > > fuel on-orbit without having to carry it all the way to orbit with
them
> > :
H2O2 + synfuel maximum energy density and thus terrific energy
value, not to mention near zero storage loss has got to be worth
something.
~ BG
MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Have a link to a description of the synfuel anywhere? JDL
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <9a3b5098-e5ad-4cf3-bd73-1208e5f87...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> > On Aug 10, 9:42 pm, "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...@ugs.nojunk.com>
> > wrote:
> > > "Pat Flannery" <flan...@daktel.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:GvedneReQviV4R3X...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
>
> > > > United Launch Alliance has released some details on their concept f
or
> > > > putting fuel depots into LEO to allow Moon-bound spacecraft to take
abo
> > ard
> > > > fuel on-orbit without having to carry it all the way to orbit with
them
> > :
H2O2 and Propargyl alcohol (C3H4O)
http://www.dunnspace.com/alternate_ssto_propellants.htm
~ BG
BradGuth
> first we need low cost to orbit. what good is a fuel depot at current
> launch costs.....
Launch using fission. Fuel can withstand <100 gees.
~ BG
MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Can you expend upon what you mean by laucnhing using fission? GdM
Anvil*
> United Launch Alliance has released some details on their concept for
> putting fuel depots into LEO to allow Moon-bound spacecraft to take
> aboard fuel on-orbit without having to carry it all the way to orbit
> with them:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channe
> (when I saw that illustration, I thought they were proposing the old
> "PROFAC" nuclear ramjet LOX gatherer from "The High Frontier" days for a
> moment) ;-)
>
> Pat
It would seem simpler to launch pre-filled tanks and mate the tanks
with contents
in orbit. Pumping from a fueling station seems just added steps and
hardware.
Anvil*
Pat Flannery
> It would seem simpler to launch pre-filled tanks and mate the tanks
> with contents
> in orbit. Pumping from a fueling station seems just added steps and
> hardware.
The big problem is the added weight and complexity (not to mention cost)
of putting the rendezvous, docking gear, and RCS on the tanker so that
it can transfer its propellants to the orbiting depot.
From a weight and cost viewpoint, it might make more sense to have the
depot be able to go to and dock with the tanker once it gets into orbit
as the _active_ partner in the docking, rather than the other way around.
The more aspects of the docking equipment you put aboard the depot, the
less you lose when the tanker burns up on reentry.
Pat
Peter Fairbrother
> Anvil* wrote:
>> It would seem simpler to launch pre-filled tanks and mate the tanks
>> with contents
>> in orbit. Pumping from a fueling station seems just added steps and
>> hardware.
Yes, in almost all cases, though you might occasionally want to split a
tankload if you have spare tanks available, eg from a lunar or LEO-GSO
shuttle.
>
> The big problem is the added weight and complexity (not to mention cost)
> of putting the rendezvous, docking gear, and RCS on the tanker so that
> it can transfer its propellants to the orbiting depot.
> From a weight and cost viewpoint, it might make more sense to have the
> depot be able to go to and dock with the tanker once it gets into orbit
> as the _active_ partner in the docking, rather than the other way around.
> The more aspects of the docking equipment you put aboard the depot, the
> less you lose when the tanker burns up on reentry.
>
> Pat
>
A tug is even better (after only about 4 fuel launches, depending on
details), as that way you don't have to move all the mass of the depot,
just the mass of the tug plus the new fuel tank.
A tug has several other advantages, eg the rendezvous doesn't have to be
as accurate, and it keeps the tanks apart from the depot until the depot
is ready to receive them - if you like you can also keep the fuel tanks
far from the depot, on maybe a tether or a long boom, and just move them
to where they are needed, maybe joining them to the ongoing spacecraft
at a point far enough from the depot to prevent a catastrophic tank
failure from destroying the depot.
You can also keep fuel and oxidiser tanks far apart from each other,
which minimises the danger of accidental mixing, eg after meteorite impact.
Initially of course a depot can just be a location in orbit with no
hardware there at all - send up a few tanks, and then get the
onward-going space craft to collect them.
Another advantage of a (slightly more advanced) orbital depot is that is
actually makes cheap access to space easier. Each launcher can be
smaller than the big ones (I reckon the sweet spot is about 8 tons
equatorial LEO payload). For a smaller launcher you don't need as many
billions upfront, or as expensive assembly buildings, launch pads and GSE.
So what form should this launch system take?
For lots of reasons, a two-version TSTO with a common highly-reuseable
fuel-and-go-again winged flyback first stage, and two versions of the
second stage, one reentering version for people and one partly
expendable (just bring back the expensive bits like engines and
electronics) version for cargo, is by far the best.
For a LOX/kero first stage and a LOX/LH2 second stage, with an 8 ton
payload, TOW is about 450 tons, about the same as a 747 or big Airbus,
which means a good runway can be used for HTHL takeoff and landing, or
if you want VTHL you can land on a much smaller runway, as the landing
weight is only about 120 tons - however that means having a dedicated
launchpad, rather than just propellent supplies and a hanger at a
runway, so I'd suggest HTHL is the way to go - it's also slightly
cheaper in fuel terms.
About $7-8 billion in development costs.
-- Peter Fairbrother
Derek Lyons
>Another advantage of a (slightly more advanced) orbital depot is that is
>actually makes cheap access to space easier.
It makes cheap *launchers* possible - at the cost of making the system
as a whole more expensive and complicated.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Pat Flannery
>
>
> Another advantage of a (slightly more advanced) orbital depot is that is
> actually makes cheap access to space easier. Each launcher can be
> smaller than the big ones (I reckon the sweet spot is about 8 tons
> equatorial LEO payload). For a smaller launcher you don't need as many
> billions upfront, or as expensive assembly buildings, launch pads and GSE.
>
>
>
> So what form should this launch system take?
>
> For lots of reasons, a two-version TSTO with a common highly-reuseable
> fuel-and-go-again winged flyback first stage, and two versions of the
> second stage, one reentering version for people and one partly
> expendable (just bring back the expensive bits like engines and
> electronics) version for cargo, is by far the best.
>
> For a LOX/kero first stage and a LOX/LH2 second stage, with an 8 ton
> payload, TOW is about 450 tons, about the same as a 747 or big Airbus,
> which means a good runway can be used for HTHL takeoff and landing, or
> if you want VTHL you can land on a much smaller runway, as the landing
> weight is only about 120 tons - however that means having a dedicated
> launchpad, rather than just propellent supplies and a hanger at a
> runway, so I'd suggest HTHL is the way to go - it's also slightly
> cheaper in fuel terms.
>
> About $7-8 billion in development costs.
The problem with all this infrastructure and its cost is that unless you
are intending to make frequent trips to and beyond LEO over a period of
many years, you can't justify the long range cost savings of developing it.
With a high enough launch rate the Shuttle would have been cheaper than
expendable rockets; unfortunately that was when the yearly launch rate
went into the hundreds, which wasn't going to happen in any foreseeable
future for the simple reason that there weren't that many combined
science, commercial, and military payloads that needed to be launched in
any given year.
Pat
Marvin the Martian
> first we need low cost to orbit. what good is a fuel depot at current
> launch costs.....
The idea is to avoid having to build a heavy lift capability. We had a
heavy lift capability in the Saturn V, but it seems NASA has gotten a lot
more stupid in the last 40 years and they can't build those anymore.
Jeff Findley
"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.08...@ontomars.org...
NASA has not "gotten stupid". The Apollo/Saturn V architecture was
finanially unsustainable. Look at a chart of NASA funding adjusted for
inflation and you'll see massive cuts to the budget happening well before
Apollo 11 was successful. In hindsight, this was clearly because the Moon
Race was a politically driven stunt to show the Soviet Union that the US had
superior technology, economics, and politics. In other words, it was one of
the biggest pissing contests the world has ever seen, and when it was clear
that the US was going to win, the budget was naturally cut back to something
more sustainable.
Similarly, the Augustine Commission is realizing that NASA is already in the
same situation with Ares/Orion. The costs are well beyond what NASA can
afford, to the point that a lunar program simply can't happen without some
changes. They're tasked with presenting the administration with options and
we'll see how the politics plays out.
Peter Fairbrother
The development cost is about 7 or 8 billion dollars - about half of the
Ariane development cost, and a fifth of the Constellation development
cost - and after that, the marginal cost of a launch is tiny, about 1.2
to 3 million dollars per flight, depending on flight rate.
The present private space market is about 500 tons to LEO equivalent per
year, at a price to customers of about 6 billion dollars per year.
Assuming a private company builds this system, This is a bit marginal at
low flight rates, but if it gets 40% of the present market, that's 50
flights per year. At 2.2 billion capital repayment and 300 million
operating costs per year that's 50 million per flight, or 3,000 dollars
per lb, which is about 1/3 to 2/3 of the present price.
Remember that this will be a highly reliable system, better than the
usual disposable systems of today - for instance, the piloted first
stage could have 50 plus test flights before any paying cargo flight,
and many more before the first passenger flight.
You'll note that in the private development case about 94-97% of the
cost is capital repayment - and additional flights are practically free.
If the company/corporation offers flights at 3,000 dollars per lb, do
you think the market might expand to double the present size? Because if
it does, the company starts raking it in.
Add a few extras, like a manned GEO-GSO bus service to repair GSO
communication satellites, or return them for repair. Add tourism at 10
million for a week in orbit. Add the manufacturing concerns which would
love to do stuff in space/zero-g, but the present price is too high.
Instead of the present market, suppose a flight rate of 500 per year.
Little or no further capital is required. The cost per flight is now 6
million dollars, or 350 dollars per lb. The cost of a week's holiday in
space is now less than half a million dollars.
At a flight rate of 5,000 flights per year (a 7-8 billion dollar system
maxes out about here, but it is just about possible) the cost per flight
is 1.7 million dollars, or 85 dollars per lb. The cost of a week in
space is 100,000 dollars.
Now suppose a government decides to build such a system ...
-- Peter Fairbrother
Pat Flannery
>> The problem with all this infrastructure and its cost is that unless
>> you are intending to make frequent trips to and beyond LEO over a
>> period of many years, you can't justify the long range cost savings of
>> developing it.
>> With a high enough launch rate the Shuttle would have been cheaper
>> than expendable rockets; unfortunately that was when the yearly
>> launch rate went into the hundreds, which wasn't going to happen in
>> any foreseeable future for the simple reason that there weren't that
>> many combined science, commercial, and military payloads that needed
>> to be launched in any given year.
>
> The development cost is about 7 or 8 billion dollars - about half of the
> Ariane development cost, and a fifth of the Constellation development
> cost - and after that, the marginal cost of a launch is tiny, about 1.2
> to 3 million dollars per flight, depending on flight rate.
I'd really like to see the math regarding how you arrived at those
cost figures.
Pat
Jochem Huhmann
> Similarly, the Augustine Commission is realizing that NASA is already in the
> same situation with Ares/Orion. The costs are well beyond what NASA can
> afford, to the point that a lunar program simply can't happen without some
> changes. They're tasked with presenting the administration with options and
> we'll see how the politics plays out.
If Obama has any guts he would be wise to propose an international space
program instead. Invite Russia, Europe, Canada, Japan and even China (if
he's *really* brave even invite Iran and NK for minor things) to work
towards missions to the Moon, Near Earth Objects and Mars. This might be
a management nightmare very much like the ISS with many configuration
changes along the way, budget overruns and what not, but if it would
work out as the ISS did, it would probably have a better chance of
success than what's on the table now. I don't know though in how far
this could be popular in the US. Not so much, probably.
But then I've been a fan of such things for a long time now. You get
lots of little problems endlessly fought over and temporarily solved by
bloodless bureaucrats (they're good at this), the details are boring and
it takes a long time, but between all the international diplomacy the
thing gets a momentum that makes it hard to drop by anyone involved and
in the end at least the ISS is there and it's supplied and manned. Still
the major achievement in manned spaceflight since decades, even if there
is not much glory attached to it. I don't see any reason why follow-up
projects with slightly different trajectories shouldn't work very much
the same way.
Jochem
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Jeff Findley
"Jochem Huhmann" <j...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:m28whin...@revier.com...
> "Jeff Findley" <jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> writes:
>
>> Similarly, the Augustine Commission is realizing that NASA is already in
>> the
>> same situation with Ares/Orion. The costs are well beyond what NASA can
>> afford, to the point that a lunar program simply can't happen without
>> some
>> changes. They're tasked with presenting the administration with options
>> and
>> we'll see how the politics plays out.
>
> If Obama has any guts he would be wise to propose an international space
> program instead. Invite Russia, Europe, Canada, Japan and even China (if
> he's *really* brave even invite Iran and NK for minor things) to work
> towards missions to the Moon, Near Earth Objects and Mars. This might be
> a management nightmare very much like the ISS with many configuration
> changes along the way, budget overruns and what not, but if it would
> work out as the ISS did, it would probably have a better chance of
> success than what's on the table now. I don't know though in how far
> this could be popular in the US. Not so much, probably.
This is one of the reasons I'm in favor of orbital fuel depots. You get the
international partners to pay the cost of the fuel delivery flights to the
depot. You do NOT put them on the critical path like we did Russia on ISS
(FGB, SM, Soyuz, Progress...). If the international partners don't come
through with 100% of the fuel needed for any given mission, the US can still
proceed with lunar flights, but will obviously need to pay a US launch
provider to deliver the fuel to the ISS.
Obviously international partners can also contribute experiments,
astronauts, and etc. However, these aren't on the critical path. Once
flights get started, it might also be possible for some international
partners to contribute copies of some hardware which is on the critical
path, like ESA did by manufacturing nodes for ISS. But again, the US could
still make this hardware itself, if the need arises.
Jeff Findley
"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:sfnk855v852lgi3gn...@4ax.com...
> Jochem Huhmann <j...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> :"Jeff Findley" <jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> writes:
> :
> :> Similarly, the Augustine Commission is realizing that NASA is already
> in the
> :> same situation with Ares/Orion. The costs are well beyond what NASA
> can
> :> afford, to the point that a lunar program simply can't happen without
> some
> :> changes. They're tasked with presenting the administration with
> options and
> :> we'll see how the politics plays out.
> :
> :If Obama has any guts he would be wise to propose an international space
> :program instead. Invite Russia, Europe, Canada, Japan and even China (if
> :he's *really* brave even invite Iran and NK for minor things) to work
> :towards missions to the Moon, Near Earth Objects and Mars.
>
> That'll GUARANTEE that we don't ever get out there. International
> efforts are inevitably less efficient in their use of resources than
> single nation efforts.
Absolutely true. That's why you keep them off the critical path. The US
relied on the Russians far too much for critical path items for ISS. ISS is
still very dependant on the Russians, arguably more so than the US.
Jochem Huhmann
> Obviously international partners can also contribute experiments,
> astronauts, and etc. However, these aren't on the critical path.
Without Soyuz and Progress the ISS would have been in dire problems
during the STS downtimes. It was a very lucky fact that the Shuttle was
*not* on the critical path at that time.
> Once flights get started, it might also be possible for some
> international partners to contribute copies of some hardware which is
> on the critical path, like ESA did by manufacturing nodes for ISS. But
> again, the US could still make this hardware itself, if the need
> arises.
In my opinion any large national effort in manned spaceflight will fail.
Mankind will either go to space as mankind or not at all. It will be
less efficient, yes. But I have no real doubt that Project Constellation
will fail as Space Station Alpha did. Without the momentum of
international cooperation, diplomacy and contracts any major effort is
just a feather in the wind of national budget games and will suffer and
finally be cancelled or cut down to meaningless pieces, just because it
*can* be cut and cancelled. Putting others in the critical path is not a
bug, it's a feature. You pay a price for that, but in this world nothing
is for free.
Jochem Huhmann
> That'll GUARANTEE that we don't ever get out there. International
> efforts are inevitably less efficient in their use of resources than
> single nation efforts.
But then national efforts can be easily cancelled on the whim of a
single administration or budget problems of a single nation. Is the ISS
up there? Is it manned? Is it supplied? Against all odds it obviously
is. Space Station Alpha isn't. Mir 2 isn't.
Tell me of *one* large single-nation effort in manned spaceflight in the
last decades that got that far. Even Apollo was a international effort
(in a negative way). Without the space-race with the Russians the US
would've never made it to the moon. The US alone will never even try to
go to Mars. It will either need to have some other nation to beat or
complicated contracts, international bureaucracy and diplomatic
interlocks to pull it through all the shallows, tiny problems and
political changes happening on a much smaller time-scale than what's
needed to get this done. You need to be totally blind to political
realities if you doubt that.
Note that I agree with you that international efforts are less efficient
than single nation efforts. But they are also much harder to kill once
they're started. A single nation effort can easily be started by one
administration and then killed by the next one.
Jochem
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
We're really moving to policy here, not the technical issues of international cooperation. Let's try to move it back to tech otherwise redirect to policy. Thanks. GdM
Derek Lyons
>"Jeff Findley" <jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> writes:
>
>> Obviously international partners can also contribute experiments,
>> astronauts, and etc. However, these aren't on the critical path.
>
>Without Soyuz and Progress the ISS would have been in dire problems
>during the STS downtimes. It was a very lucky fact that the Shuttle was
>*not* on the critical path at that time.
We've been very, very lucky there hasn't been a problem with Soyuz or
Progress.
Derek Lyons
>The development cost is about 7 or 8 billion dollars - about half of the
>Ariane development cost, and a fifth of the Constellation development
>cost - and after that, the marginal cost of a launch is tiny, about 1.2
>to 3 million dollars per flight, depending on flight rate.
The development cost of what? An orbital fuel depot system in a
single orbit? Or an actually useful system?
Not to mention that in the real world, you don't pay marginal costs.
>The present private space market is about 500 tons to LEO equivalent per
>year, at a price to customers of about 6 billion dollars per year.
>
>Assuming a private company builds this system, This is a bit marginal at
>low flight rates, but if it gets 40% of the present market, that's 50
>flights per year. At 2.2 billion capital repayment and 300 million
>operating costs per year that's 50 million per flight, or 3,000 dollars
>per lb, which is about 1/3 to 2/3 of the present price.
Assuming that a system can be built that will cover the myriad of
different orbit that private space craft go into.
>Remember that this will be a highly reliable system, better than the
>usual disposable systems of today - for instance, the piloted first
>stage could have 50 plus test flights before any paying cargo flight,
>and many more before the first passenger flight.
That's an assumption - not a fact. It'll still be an early generation
system.
>You'll note that in the private development case about 94-97% of the
>cost is capital repayment - and additional flights are practically free.
>If the company/corporation offers flights at 3,000 dollars per lb, do
>you think the market might expand to double the present size? Because if
>it does, the company starts raking it in.
More handwaving assumptions. The balance of the handwaving was
snipped.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:4a8c9d72....@news.supernews.com...
> Jochem Huhmann <j...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>>"Jeff Findley" <jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> writes:
>>
>>> Obviously international partners can also contribute experiments,
>>> astronauts, and etc. However, these aren't on the critical path.
>>
>>Without Soyuz and Progress the ISS would have been in dire problems
>>during the STS downtimes. It was a very lucky fact that the Shuttle was
>>*not* on the critical path at that time.
>
> We've been very, very lucky there hasn't been a problem with Soyuz or
> Progress.
>
> D.
I think you mean we're lucky the Russians haven't grounded Soyuz. After all
with several serious landing problems I don't think one can say iit's free
of problems.
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
Jeff Findley
>
>>"Jeff Findley" <jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> writes:
>>
>>> Obviously international partners can also contribute experiments,
>>> astronauts, and etc. However, these aren't on the critical path.
>>
>>Without Soyuz and Progress the ISS would have been in dire problems
>>during the STS downtimes. It was a very lucky fact that the Shuttle was
>>*not* on the critical path at that time.
>
> We've been very, very lucky there hasn't been a problem with Soyuz or
> Progress.
There have been some fairly serious problems with Soyuz. Specifically the
pyro problem with the separation mechanism between the service module and
descent module. But the Russians are perfectly willing to continue flying
in the face of such near disasters.
Derek Lyons
>"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:4a8c9d72....@news.supernews.com...
>
>> We've been very, very lucky there hasn't been a problem with Soyuz or
>> Progress.
>
>I think you mean we're lucky the Russians haven't grounded Soyuz. After all
>with several serious landing problems I don't think one can say iit's free
>of problems.
You're correct of course. And it's worth pointing out that had the
Shuttle had the same ongoing series of significant faults, the screams
to ground it would be deafening here (and elsewhere).
Instead, people turn a blind eye. Too many folks are less concerned
with facts and safety than they are with "two legs bad, four legs
good".
Pat Flannery
> We've been very, very lucky there hasn't been a problem with Soyuz or
> Progress.
There have been problems, just nothing fatal yet, or something that is
endemic to the spacecraft or booster.
The closest was in regards to the faulty explosive bolts a few Soyuz
flights back that meant the reentry capsule wasn't separating from the
equipment module correctly.
Even if that had grounded Soyuz for a few months, the ISS crew could
still have roughed it out with cargo supplied via Progress launches,
which burn up on reentry and don't have a separate reentry capsule or
the associated explosive bolts.
Pat
Pat Flannery
>
> The development cost of what? An orbital fuel depot system in a
> single orbit?
I think he means his reusable booster and upper(reusable?)
propellant/crew carrying stage. This sounds way low to me, particularly
given that no one has built something along these lines (that we know
of) at any cost.
Pat
Pat Flannery
>
> There have been some fairly serious problems with Soyuz. Specifically the
> pyro problem with the separation mechanism between the service module and
> descent module. But the Russians are perfectly willing to continue flying
> in the face of such near disasters.
I think the Russians are sort of using the concept of "Any landing you
can walk away from is a good landing." :)
That's what makes Soyuz so problematic to discuss in relation to safety.
When it does screw up, the crew seems to get out with only mild
injuries; on the other hand, it screws up _a lot_.
Pat
Pat Flannery
>
> You're correct of course. And it's worth pointing out that had the
> Shuttle had the same ongoing series of significant faults, the screams
> to ground it would be deafening here (and elsewhere).
>
> Instead, people turn a blind eye. Too many folks are less concerned
> with facts and safety than they are with "two legs bad, four legs
> good".
There is no chance of the Shuttle doing a survivable ballistic reentry,
which is the main abnormality that the Soyuz has demonstrated over time.
The Shuttle is pretty fragile when it gets right down to it with even
small problems with the TPS being potentially fatal, so it's always
treated with kid gloves in regards to safety standards.
Soyuz on the other hand is pretty tough, and that may be one reason that
the Russians don't ground it when flight problems arise, as they think
that the spacecraft's toughness will see it through in such situations.
Paradoxically, the ballistic reentries are due to a safety system on the
Soyuz; when the onboard computers detect anything at all going
off-nominal in the final preparations for reentry or during it, they
default to the ballistic mode, as that's a survivable type of landing,
whereas some abnormality caused by a control problem could mutate the
normal lifting reentry into a fatal situation.
The Russians figure a known high-G reentry profile is better than a
unknown situation developing, and build in a very easily triggered
default to ballistic reentry in case of anything even slightly acting up.
Pat
Derek Lyons
>Jeff Findley wrote:
>>
>> There have been some fairly serious problems with Soyuz. Specifically the
>> pyro problem with the separation mechanism between the service module and
>> descent module. But the Russians are perfectly willing to continue flying
>> in the face of such near disasters.
>
>I think the Russians are sort of using the concept of "Any landing you
>can walk away from is a good landing." :)
Well, regardless of the standard the Russians use there is still an
objective standard.
>That's what makes Soyuz so problematic to discuss in relation to safety.
>When it does screw up, the crew seems to get out with only mild
>injuries; on the other hand, it screws up _a lot_.
The question is why is are such ongoing problems tolerated? Not just
by the Russians, but in the double standards of the observers and
commentators.
Derek Lyons
>Derek Lyons wrote:
>>
>> You're correct of course. And it's worth pointing out that had the
>> Shuttle had the same ongoing series of significant faults, the screams
>> to ground it would be deafening here (and elsewhere).
>>
>> Instead, people turn a blind eye. Too many folks are less concerned
>> with facts and safety than they are with "two legs bad, four legs
>> good".
>
>There is no chance of the Shuttle doing a survivable ballistic reentry,
>which is the main abnormality that the Soyuz has demonstrated over time.
And a motorycle doesn't have airbags. That's no reason to go around
courting a collision in my minivan.
>The Shuttle is pretty fragile when it gets right down to it with even
>small problems with the TPS being potentially fatal, so it's always
>treated with kid gloves in regards to safety standards.
>Soyuz on the other hand is pretty tough, and that may be one reason that
>the Russians don't ground it when flight problems arise, as they think
>that the spacecraft's toughness will see it through in such situations.
Yet, near fatal accidents persist. That's usually considered a Very
Bad Sign pretty much anywhere.
Two legs bad, four legs good.
Pat Flannery
>> That's what makes Soyuz so problematic to discuss in relation to safety.
>> When it does screw up, the crew seems to get out with only mild
>> injuries; on the other hand, it screws up _a lot_.
>
> The question is why is are such ongoing problems tolerated? Not just
> by the Russians, but in the double standards of the observers and
> commentators.
Because it's their spaceship, and if you want to use it, it's up to you.
If you say that you don't want to use it, then go ahead and find or
build a alternative to use. They'll still go up to and down from the ISS
in it, there just won't be any US astronauts on board during those trips.
Pat
Jeff Findley
> Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
>
>>Jeff Findley wrote:
>>>
>>> There have been some fairly serious problems with Soyuz. Specifically
>>> the
>>> pyro problem with the separation mechanism between the service module
>>> and
>>> descent module. But the Russians are perfectly willing to continue
>>> flying
>>> in the face of such near disasters.
>>
>>I think the Russians are sort of using the concept of "Any landing you
>>can walk away from is a good landing." :)
>
> Well, regardless of the standard the Russians use there is still an
> objective standard.
>
>>That's what makes Soyuz so problematic to discuss in relation to safety.
>>When it does screw up, the crew seems to get out with only mild
>>injuries; on the other hand, it screws up _a lot_.
>
> The question is why is are such ongoing problems tolerated? Not just
> by the Russians, but in the double standards of the observers and
> commentators.
It's just accepted as the way the Russians operate. They're not Americans
and they don't operate like Americans. The Russians are more than willing
not only to take risks, but I think they're more willing to acknowledge that
there *are* risks that can't easily be quantified.
As an example, how many here believe that the safety numbers being promoted
for Ares I/Orion have any basis in reality? Based on historical data of
similar launch vehicles and spacecraft, I simply don't believe NASA's
predictions. I think Ares I/Orion will be lucky if they duplicate the
shuttle's safety numbers. Less hardware will be reused on Ares I/Orion than
on shuttle, giving the program more opportunities for "infant mortality"
types of problems with the expendable hardware and more opportunities for
unseen near failures in the hardware won't be recovered or inspected after
every flight.
Peter Fairbrother
> Peter Fairbrother <zenad...@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The development cost is about 7 or 8 billion dollars - about half of the
>> Ariane development cost, and a fifth of the Constellation development
>> cost - and after that, the marginal cost of a launch is tiny, about 1.2
>> to 3 million dollars per flight, depending on flight rate.
>
> The development cost of what? An orbital fuel depot system in a
> single orbit? Or an actually useful system?
Two reuseable winged first stages (3.1 billion), an unmanned second
stage production line (1.3 billion), three reuseable reentering second
stages (2.2 billion), a tug (200 million), gse (100 million) and 50 test
flights (300 million).
Plus an extra billion just in case.
These figures might seem low, but I think they are achievable. I am
working on more detailed estimates, will post them later, but to give
you some idea the boosters use the landing gear from a 747-400, two
Trent 900/ GP7000 jet engines, and a RD-171, all almost off-the-shelf
parts. Some modifications will be needed eg for longer life for the
RD-171, which can "only" do 20 flights now.
>
> Not to mention that in the real world, you don't pay marginal costs.
If you have a system in place and just want to send up an extra flight,
you do. :)
>
>> The present private space market is about 500 tons to LEO equivalent per
>> year, at a price to customers of about 6 billion dollars per year.
>>
>> Assuming a private company builds this system, This is a bit marginal at
>> low flight rates, but if it gets 40% of the present market, that's 50
>> flights per year. At 2.2 billion capital repayment and 300 million
>> operating costs per year that's 50 million per flight, or 3,000 dollars
>> per lb, which is about 1/3 to 2/3 of the present price.
>
> Assuming that a system can be built that will cover the myriad of
> different orbit that private space craft go into.
Can get to most anywhere - any LEO, plus GSO, Moon etc with existing
extra stages.
>
>> Remember that this will be a highly reliable system, better than the
>> usual disposable systems of today - for instance, the piloted first
>> stage could have 50 plus test flights before any paying cargo flight,
>> and many more before the first passenger flight.
>
> That's an assumption - not a fact. It'll still be an early generation
> system.
With 50 test flights it's fairly well tested.
>
>> You'll note that in the private development case about 94-97% of the
>> cost is capital repayment - and additional flights are practically free.
>> If the company/corporation offers flights at 3,000 dollars per lb, do
>> you think the market might expand to double the present size? Because if
>> it does, the company starts raking it in.
>
> More handwaving assumptions. The balance of the handwaving was
> snipped.
The costs are fairly detailed estimates, not handwaving. The market - is
maybe more of a guess.
-- Peter Fairbrother
Pat Flannery
>
> As an example, how many here believe that the safety numbers being promoted
> for Ares I/Orion have any basis in reality?
I do, but then I also believe that Ed White's glove is still in orbit. ;)
I'm waiting for the launch of Ares-1X, currently scheduled to occur on
Halloween; the thing is fully stacked now, and I assume they are waiting
till the administration has a look at the Augustine Commission's final
report before they actually attempt to launch it.
If some of the speculation that Air Force Range Safety has made about
it...that it could shake so much that it would disable its own self
destruct system while going out of control during ascent...is correct,
this could be one spectacular launch, with the thing ending up
who-knows-where. Let's just say if I were a alligator near KSC, I'd be
wearing a Nomex suit and steel helmet for my Halloween costume.
Pat
Pat Flannery
>>
>> The development cost of what? An orbital fuel depot system in a
>> single orbit? Or an actually useful system?
>
> Two reuseable winged first stages (3.1 billion)
Let me get this straight - including R&D, you are going to build _two_
reusable first stages for under twice the price of what it cost to build
the orbiter Endeavour using a lot of leftover parts in 1991 dollars (1.7
billion)?
Yeah...right.
Pat
Peter Fairbrother
Right.
They are each five times the price of a 747-8 or A380, but much simpler
and easier to build, and they use mostly existing aircraft technology
and parts for the expensive-to-develop stuff.
They don't have to do high-speed reentry after all, or have good
aerodynamics, jet fuel economy, noise levels, cabin comfort, service
life, or range - they are basically just very crude unpressurised
aircraft with large rocket fuel tanks and a rocket engine stuck on the
back.
And the (existing) rocket engine is much cheaper than a SSME, and it
runs on LOX/Kero, not LOX/LH2.
-- Peter Fairbrother
>
>
> Pat
>
Pat Flannery
> Pat Flannery wrote:
>> Peter Fairbrother wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The development cost of what? An orbital fuel depot system in a
>>>> single orbit? Or an actually useful system?
>>>
>>> Two reuseable winged first stages (3.1 billion)
>>
>>
>> Let me get this straight - including R&D, you are going to build _two_
>> reusable first stages for under twice the price of what it cost to
>> build the orbiter Endeavour using a lot of leftover parts in 1991
>> dollars (1.7 billion)?
>> Yeah...right.
>
> Right.
>
> They are each five times the price of a 747-8 or A380, but much simpler
> and easier to build, and they use mostly existing aircraft technology
> and parts for the expensive-to-develop stuff.
The production cost isn't the problem; the R&D cost to design and build
something like this _is_.
We discussed this years ago on the newsgroup regarding the Saturn V...
once you designed one, figured out how to make one, and set up the
production line for it, the actual cost of materials and man-hours
involved in making one was almost inconsequential in regards to overall
program costs.
If you want to do this, don't make two...make twenty.
Your overall program cost is only going to go up by around 10-20% by
doing that once things get rolling.
> They don't have to do high-speed reentry after all,
You had better get stage two up to around Mach 6-10 easy, or it isn't
worth the weight, cost, or complexity over a simple expendable first stage.
Now comes the real problem; figure out the heating and G loads on
something falling back into the atmosphere at around Mach 6-10, because
your reusable first stage is going to undergo heating and structural
loads that would melt a X-15, while simultaneously tearing it apart...
despite the fact that the X-15 was built like a brick shithouse.
You're talking a 10 G+ reentry here, like the suborbital
Mercury/Redstone flights. It won't have the advantage the Shuttle has by
going around 1/3 of the way around the world between hitting the
atmosphere and landing - so that it can cut its velocity slowly and
reduce heating and G loads - but rather is going to come into the
atmosphere like a cannonball.
Pat
Derek Lyons
>
>"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:4a8db3fc....@news.supernews.com...
>> Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Jeff Findley wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There have been some fairly serious problems with Soyuz. Specifically
>>>> the
>>>> pyro problem with the separation mechanism between the service module
>>>> and
>>>> descent module. But the Russians are perfectly willing to continue
>>>> flying
>>>> in the face of such near disasters.
>>>
>>>I think the Russians are sort of using the concept of "Any landing you
>>>can walk away from is a good landing." :)
>>
>> Well, regardless of the standard the Russians use there is still an
>> objective standard.
>>
>>>That's what makes Soyuz so problematic to discuss in relation to safety.
>>>When it does screw up, the crew seems to get out with only mild
>>>injuries; on the other hand, it screws up _a lot_.
>>
>> The question is why is are such ongoing problems tolerated? Not just
>> by the Russians, but in the double standards of the observers and
>> commentators.
>
>It's just accepted as the way the Russians operate. They're not Americans
>and they don't operate like Americans.
Which fails to explain why non American fanboys also love Soyuz and
hate Shuttle, and why American fanboys (who quite often decry NASA's
and the public's aversion to risk) love Soyuz and hate Shuttle.
>As an example, how many here believe that the safety numbers being promoted
>for Ares I/Orion have any basis in reality?
Nice handwaving to divert attention. Didn't work.
Derek Lyons
>Derek Lyons wrote:
>
>> Not to mention that in the real world, you don't pay marginal costs.
>
>If you have a system in place and just want to send up an extra flight,
>you do. :)
That's a fantasy world, not the real one.
>
>> Assuming that a system can be built that will cover the myriad of
>> different orbit that private space craft go into.
>
>Can get to most anywhere - any LEO, plus GSO, Moon etc with existing
>extra stages.
Assuming you have myriad fuel depots to supply coverage.
>>
>>> Remember that this will be a highly reliable system, better than the
>>> usual disposable systems of today - for instance, the piloted first
>>> stage could have 50 plus test flights before any paying cargo flight,
>>> and many more before the first passenger flight.
>>
>> That's an assumption - not a fact. It'll still be an early generation
>> system.
>
>With 50 test flights it's fairly well tested.
ROTFLMAO. 50 test flights is 'barely warmed up', 50 test flights is
barely a fraction of well tested.
>>> You'll note that in the private development case about 94-97% of the
>>> cost is capital repayment - and additional flights are practically free.
>>> If the company/corporation offers flights at 3,000 dollars per lb, do
>>> you think the market might expand to double the present size? Because if
>>> it does, the company starts raking it in.
>>
>> More handwaving assumptions. The balance of the handwaving was
>> snipped.
>
>The costs are fairly detailed estimates, not handwaving. The market - is
>maybe more of a guess.
The costs (you provide) are smoke and mirrors, to put it politely.
Peter Fairbrother
> Peter Fairbrother wrote:
>> Pat Flannery wrote:
>>> Peter Fairbrother wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The development cost of what? An orbital fuel depot system in a
>>>>> single orbit? Or an actually useful system?
>>>>
>>>> Two reuseable winged first stages (3.1 billion)
>>>
>>>
>>> Let me get this straight - including R&D, you are going to build
>>> _two_ reusable first stages for under twice the price of what it cost
>>> to build the orbiter Endeavour using a lot of leftover parts in 1991
>>> dollars (1.7 billion)?
>>> Yeah...right.
>>
>> Right.
>>
>> They are each five times the price of a 747-8 or A380, but much
>> simpler and easier to build, and they use mostly existing aircraft
>> technology and parts for the expensive-to-develop stuff.
>
> The production cost isn't the problem; the R&D cost to design and build
> something like this _is_.
The whole point is that there is very little R+D to do, as most of the
expensive components are off-the-shelf, and half of the R+D is done
during the flight test program. Get it flying first, then fiddle.
Note that the total system cost is still over half the development cost
of the Ariane 5 system - and there is much, much less to develop,
virtually no research to do, and no expensive launch pads etc.
> We discussed this years ago on the newsgroup regarding the Saturn V...
> once you designed one, figured out how to make one, and set up the
> production line for it, the actual cost of materials and man-hours
> involved in making one was almost inconsequential in regards to overall
> program costs.
> If you want to do this, don't make two...make twenty.
> Your overall program cost is only going to go up by around 10-20% by
> doing that once things get rolling.
>
>
>> They don't have to do high-speed reentry after all,
>
>
> You had better get stage two up to around Mach 6-10 easy, or it isn't
> worth the weight, cost, or complexity over a simple expendable first stage.
Horizontal velocity at 105 km apogee is 2,050 m/s. The vehicle is pretty
fluffy at this point, as it's mostly empty.
> Now comes the real problem; figure out the heating and G loads on
> something falling back into the atmosphere at around Mach 6-10, because
> your reusable first stage is going to undergo heating and structural
> loads that would melt a X-15, while simultaneously tearing it apart...
Reentry proper begins at about 80 km and 2,110 m/s, at an entry angle of
-14 degrees, covers about 160 horizontal km, max decceleration is 3.3 G.
Maximum stagnation temperature is briefly 2,300 C, maximum surface
temperature on any part of the airframe is about 1,300 C, but most of
the surface doesn't get above 300C.
Note there are some assumptions in these figures, as the precise
aerodynamics and profile haven't been worked out yet, but they should be
well in the ballpark.
-- Peter Fairbrother
Peter Fairbrother
> Peter Fairbrother <zenad...@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Derek Lyons wrote:
>>
>>> Not to mention that in the real world, you don't pay marginal costs.
>> If you have a system in place and just want to send up an extra flight,
>> you do. :)
>
> That's a fantasy world, not the real one.
Okay, so what extra costs are there apart from the marginal cost?
"In economics and finance, marginal cost is the change in total cost
that arises when the quantity produced changes by one unit." - by
definition the cost of an extra flight IS the marginal cost.
>>> Assuming that a system can be built that will cover the myriad of
>>> different orbit that private space craft go into.
>> Can get to most anywhere - any LEO, plus GSO, Moon etc with existing
>> extra stages.
>
> Assuming you have myriad fuel depots to supply coverage.
A fuel depot can be just a location in space - I only envisage having
actual hardware in equatorial orbit, and maybe a hotel in an inclined
orbit for tourists.
>>>> Remember that this will be a highly reliable system, better than the
>>>> usual disposable systems of today - for instance, the piloted first
>>>> stage could have 50 plus test flights before any paying cargo flight,
>>>> and many more before the first passenger flight.
>>> That's an assumption - not a fact. It'll still be an early generation
>>> system.
>> With 50 test flights it's fairly well tested.
>
> ROTFLMAO. 50 test flights is 'barely warmed up', 50 test flights is
> barely a fraction of well tested.
Let's see - Soyuz has 800 or so flights, Proton has 300, STS 127,
Delta-II 144, Ariane-5 48, Delta-IV 10 - where does well-tested come in?
I'm talking about 50 test flights before any paying cargo is accepted.
>
>>>> You'll note that in the private development case about 94-97% of the
>>>> cost is capital repayment - and additional flights are practically free.
>>>> If the company/corporation offers flights at 3,000 dollars per lb, do
>>>> you think the market might expand to double the present size? Because if
>>>> it does, the company starts raking it in.
>>> More handwaving assumptions. The balance of the handwaving was
>>> snipped.
>> The costs are fairly detailed estimates, not handwaving. The market - is
>> maybe more of a guess.
>
> The costs (you provide) are smoke and mirrors, to put it politely.
They are in late 2008 dollars, so they may be a bit out-of-date - but
they are not "smoke and mirrors", they are fairly well worked out, in
detail.
F'rinstance, for the two boosters, the rocket engines cost say 300
million for six RD-171's (a rough guess), the jet engines 130 million,
60 million for landing gear, 800 million for building the airframes, 200
million for RCS, 200 million for mostly-COTS electronics and
instrumentation, 300 million for odds and ends, and 20 million for paper
studies, 200 million for integration issues, 300 million for aerodynamic
design, 300 million for other R+D.
Plus 10% for extras, and a billion in reserve.
-- Peter Fairbrother
Derek Lyons
>The whole point is that there is very little R+D to do, as most of the
>expensive components are off-the-shelf, and half of the R+D is done
>during the flight test program. Get it flying first, then fiddle.
Right - all the work on the structure is off the shelf, the wing is
off the shelf, the software is off the shelf, the system integration
is off the shelf...
Oh, wait. They aren't are they?
>Note that the total system cost is still over half the development cost
>of the Ariane 5 system - and there is much, much less to develop,
>virtually no research to do, and no expensive launch pads etc.
Yeah, no way this need any research, it's all off the shelf. Nor will
it need any kind of processing facility, and it will launch via magic
fairy dust.
Derek Lyons
>Derek Lyons wrote:
>> Peter Fairbrother <zenad...@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Derek Lyons wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not to mention that in the real world, you don't pay marginal costs.
>>> If you have a system in place and just want to send up an extra flight,
>>> you do. :)
>>
>> That's a fantasy world, not the real one.
>
>Okay, so what extra costs are there apart from the marginal cost?
>
>"In economics and finance, marginal cost is the change in total cost
>that arises when the quantity produced changes by one unit." - by
>definition the cost of an extra flight IS the marginal cost.
I see - a small handful of flights annually will bear the full costs,
while the remaining small balance will pay only the marginal costs.
There's a sure fire way to attract customers.
>>>> Assuming that a system can be built that will cover the myriad of
>>>> different orbit that private space craft go into.
>>> Can get to most anywhere - any LEO, plus GSO, Moon etc with existing
>>> extra stages.
>>
>> Assuming you have myriad fuel depots to supply coverage.
>
>A fuel depot can be just a location in space - I only envisage having
>actual hardware in equatorial orbit, and maybe a hotel in an inclined
>orbit for tourists.
There aren't words in the English language to describe how utterly
disconnected from reality this is.
>>>>> Remember that this will be a highly reliable system, better than the
>>>>> usual disposable systems of today - for instance, the piloted first
>>>>> stage could have 50 plus test flights before any paying cargo flight,
>>>>> and many more before the first passenger flight.
>>>> That's an assumption - not a fact. It'll still be an early generation
>>>> system.
>>> With 50 test flights it's fairly well tested.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO. 50 test flights is 'barely warmed up', 50 test flights is
>> barely a fraction of well tested.
>
>Let's see - Soyuz has 800 or so flights, Proton has 300, STS 127,
>Delta-II 144, Ariane-5 48, Delta-IV 10 - where does well-tested come in?
Commercial aircraft test programs typically range into the hundreds.
>I'm talking about 50 test flights before any paying cargo is accepted.
Duh, you already said fifty flights.
Pat Flannery
>
> Which fails to explain why non American fanboys also love Soyuz and
> hate Shuttle, and why American fanboys (who quite often decry NASA's
> and the public's aversion to risk) love Soyuz and hate Shuttle.
I'll say one thing for both Soyuz and Progress - they launch on the day
they are planned to launch on a hell of a lot more often than the
Shuttle ever has, with today's scrub being another good example of that.
It's not a all-weather spacecraft, it's a fair-weather spacecraft at
best... and given any sort of requirement for getting something into LEO
reliably on a fixed schedule, it's pretty much pointless to rely on the
Shuttle to get it there.
Pat
Pat Flannery
>
> Right - all the work on the structure is off the shelf, the wing is
> off the shelf, the software is off the shelf, the system integration
> is off the shelf...
>
> Oh, wait. They aren't are they?
You are completely wrong about that.
It should be: "Oh, wait. They aren't_,_ are they?"
Pat
Peter Fairbrother
> Peter Fairbrother <zenad...@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Derek Lyons wrote:
>>> Peter Fairbrother <zenad...@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Derek Lyons wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not to mention that in the real world, you don't pay marginal costs.
>>>> If you have a system in place and just want to send up an extra flight,
>>>> you do. :)
>>> That's a fantasy world, not the real one.
>> Okay, so what extra costs are there apart from the marginal cost?
>>
>> "In economics and finance, marginal cost is the change in total cost
>> that arises when the quantity produced changes by one unit." - by
>> definition the cost of an extra flight IS the marginal cost.
>
> I see - a small handful of flights annually will bear the full costs,
> while the remaining small balance will pay only the marginal costs.
>
> There's a sure fire way to attract customers.
Ermm - I never said that some balance will pay marginal costs while
others pay the full cost. However if the operator wants to pout
something in orbit, for his own profit or advancement, then *he* only
has to pay the marginal costs.
But most importantly, there is room to reduce prices dramatically - once
a certain level of demand is met it becomes a marketing man's dream
situation.
Besides, it doesn't have to be a commercial operation, at $7 billion it
is within the reach of many nations, who would love the ability to
launch more at such a low marginal cost.
[...]
>> A fuel depot can be just a location in space - I only envisage having
>> actual hardware in equatorial orbit, and maybe a hotel in an inclined
>> orbit for tourists.
>
> There aren't words in the English language to describe how utterly
> disconnected from reality this is.
Please try - something which requires an orbital rendezvous requires one
craft to do the docking manoeuvres, and thus have the appropriate
hardware etc.
If the depot doesn't have a tug, then there is almost no difference
between the requirements whether or not there is additional hardware in
the orbital "depot" position.
-- Peter Fairbrother
Peter Fairbrother
> Peter Fairbrother <zenad...@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The whole point is that there is very little R+D to do, as most of
>> the expensive components are off-the-shelf, and half of the R+D is
>> done during the flight test program. Get it flying first, then
>> fiddle.
>
> Right - all the work on the structure is off the shelf, the wing is
> off the shelf, the software is off the shelf, the system integration
> is off the shelf...
No, those are not off the shelf, but..
Structure - with lots of dry mass to play with, we don't much care
about spending money saving weight in the structure, and - well, you'll
have to wait and see for the details, but I promise, it's ugly :0
Wing - much the same as above, and while it's not of-the-shelf, it's
pretty much everyday aircraft technology, apart from materials. Note
also that the required supersonic L/D is only 0.8 - yes, 0.8 - which
also makes aerodynamic development and wing construction much cheaper.
At supersonic speeds it flies like a brick.
Software - there doesn't have to be much in the way of dedicated
software, only enough to find the orbit - after all there are two pilots
in the booster, it isn't fly-by-wire or anything.
System integration - there isn't much needed in the way of system
integration either, but what there is is in the budget.
>
> Oh, wait. They aren't are they?
>
>> Note that the total system cost is still over half the development
>> cost of the Ariane 5 system - and there is much, much less to
>> develop, virtually no research to do, and no expensive launch pads
>> etc.
>
> Yeah, no way this need any research,
Of course it needs research, but not billions of dollars worth - that is
the point of largely using off-the-shelf components.
it's all off the shelf. Nor
> will it need any kind of processing facility,
Is that like a VAB? it doesn't need one of those.
For ordinary operations it only needs a hanger at an airport, plus
available fuel/lox supplies, and some specialised one to five
million-dollar-apiece support vehicles to load the second stages and fuel.
For heavy maintenance and R+D, it will need another hanger-sized space
plus jigs etc. That's all included in the budget too, under GSE. But
normally there is no heavy maintenance needed between flights, just
refuel, load a second stage, and go again.
Note the second stages are prepped separately, then loaded into the
booster, which takes about ten minutes. It might be possible to fly
again within 90 minutes of the previous takeoff if the second stage is
prefuelled when it is loaded, and it certainly should be able to takeoff
within 3 hours if not prefuelled (due to safety issues).
> and it will launch via magic fairy dust.
No fairy dust required. the booster will take off on two jet engines
with a bit of rocket boost at takeoff, climb subsonically on jets to
10,000 m, do a 180 degree turn, then light the main rocket motors. Stage
separation occurs at 65 km, the booster will then coast to 105 km,
reenter, transition to subsonic flight, do another 180 degree turn and
fly 150 km back to it's takeoff/landing site on jet engines.
And yes, it can do go-arounds and aborted landings.
-- Peter Fairbrother
Derek Lyons
>Derek Lyons wrote:
>> Peter Fairbrother <zenad...@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> The whole point is that there is very little R+D to do, as most of
>>> the expensive components are off-the-shelf, and half of the R+D is
>>> done during the flight test program. Get it flying first, then
>>> fiddle.
>>
>> Right - all the work on the structure is off the shelf, the wing is
>> off the shelf, the software is off the shelf, the system integration
>> is off the shelf...
>
>No, those are not off the shelf, but..
Well then, no - the expensive stuff isn't (as you claim) off the
shelf. If it isn't off the shelf, then everything else is handwaving.
>Software - there doesn't have to be much in the way of dedicated
>software, only enough to find the orbit - after all there are two pilots
>in the booster, it isn't fly-by-wire or anything.
ROTFLMAO. Yeah, there isn't much software in Windows XP either - just
an entire operating system. (And I suspect you have a serious
misunderstanding of what fly-by-wire means.)
>System integration - there isn't much needed in the way of system
>integration either, but what there is is in the budget.
Yeah, there isn't any systems integration except for every system in
the booster. Again, I suspect you fail to understand what the term
means.
>> Oh, wait. They aren't are they?
>>
>>> Note that the total system cost is still over half the development
>>> cost of the Ariane 5 system - and there is much, much less to
>>> develop, virtually no research to do, and no expensive launch pads
>>> etc.
>>
>> Yeah, no way this need any research,
>
>Of course it needs research, but not billions of dollars worth - that is
>the point of largely using off-the-shelf components.
Except - you aren't actually largely using off the shelf components.
Yet again, you have a very serious misconception of what the term
means.
>> and it will launch via magic fairy dust.
>
>No fairy dust required. the booster will take off on two jet engines
>with a bit of rocket boost at takeoff, climb subsonically on jets to
>10,000 m, do a 180 degree turn, then light the main rocket motors. Stage
>separation occurs at 65 km, the booster will then coast to 105 km,
>reenter, transition to subsonic flight, do another 180 degree turn and
>fly 150 km back to it's takeoff/landing site on jet engines.
So which is it? A small payload or magic fairy dust powered jet
engines?
Derek Lyons
>Derek Lyons wrote:
>> Peter Fairbrother <zenad...@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Derek Lyons wrote:
>>>> Peter Fairbrother <zenad...@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Derek Lyons wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not to mention that in the real world, you don't pay marginal costs.
>>>>> If you have a system in place and just want to send up an extra flight,
>>>>> you do. :)
>>>> That's a fantasy world, not the real one.
>>> Okay, so what extra costs are there apart from the marginal cost?
>>>
>>> "In economics and finance, marginal cost is the change in total cost
>>> that arises when the quantity produced changes by one unit." - by
>>> definition the cost of an extra flight IS the marginal cost.
>>
>> I see - a small handful of flights annually will bear the full costs,
>> while the remaining small balance will pay only the marginal costs.
>>
>> There's a sure fire way to attract customers.
>
>Ermm - I never said that some balance will pay marginal costs while
>others pay the full cost.
I don't see many other ways to interpret your continued insistence on
marginal costs.
>But most importantly, there is room to reduce prices dramatically - once
>a certain level of demand is met it becomes a marketing man's dream
>situation.
Assuming sufficient demand exists.
>Besides, it doesn't have to be a commercial operation, at $7 billion it
>is within the reach of many nations, who would love the ability to
>launch more at such a low marginal cost.
Again the idiotic insistence on marginal costs. What part of "In the
real world you don't pay marginal costs" are you having such a
difficult time understanding?
>[...]
>>> A fuel depot can be just a location in space - I only envisage having
>>> actual hardware in equatorial orbit, and maybe a hotel in an inclined
>>> orbit for tourists.
>>
>> There aren't words in the English language to describe how utterly
>> disconnected from reality this is.
>
>Please try - something which requires an orbital rendezvous requires one
>craft to do the docking manoeuvres, and thus have the appropriate
>hardware etc.
What part of "There aren't words" is so hard to understand?
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
>>
>>No, those are not off the shelf, but..
>
> Well then, no - the expensive stuff isn't (as you claim) off the
> shelf. If it isn't off the shelf, then everything else is handwaving.
>
Oh, I don't know Derek. I mean if Boeing can spend $10-$18 BILLION (I've
seen various numbers) to develop the 787, which while very new in many ways
is also really an extension of the "tube+wings" design Boeing's been
building for decades, I can't see why Peter's design can't be a lot cheaper.
I mean after all, it'll only be a one of a kind, brand new design, operating
in a new environment doing things that haven't been done on this scale
before. Should be trivial. :-)
> So which is it? A small payload or magic fairy dust powered jet
> engines?
I'm voting magic fairy dust powered engine.
Jeff Findley
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:VZqdndLUgPgiHQ7X...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
Oh no, that's Soyuz launcher fanboy talk Pat! Just because the Russians
launch on time doesn't make it better than the shuttle. Clearly you're
biased. ;-)
The last Soyuz spacecraft launched and the last shuttle launched both make
it to ISS, so that's something.
Pat Flannery
>> So which is it? A small payload or magic fairy dust powered jet
>> engines?
>
> I'm voting magic fairy dust powered engine.
Ah. Skylon and its Sabre engines:
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/sabre.html
Ay, laddie, that's the ticket. :)
Pat
Pat Flannery
>
>
> The last Soyuz spacecraft launched and the last shuttle launched both make
> it to ISS, so that's something.
This is supposed to be the last Shuttle flight that will be carrying
crew up to the ISS BTW.
Pat
Peter Fairbrother
[snip]
> Well then, no - the expensive stuff isn't (as you claim) off the
> shelf. If it isn't off the shelf, then everything else is handwaving.
Oh dear.
Let's just look at some other systems instead.
Initial STS (Shuttle etc) development cost 42 billion or so in 2008
dollars, including 4 shuttles, launch pads etc, about half of which was
caused by SSME and tile development, either directly or through delays
(adjusted GAO figures).
Shuttle has a one-way-LEO payload equivalent of about 40 tons (it's hard
to calculate exactly because it also has crew, and flies back) or a
development cost of 1.05 billion per ton, or 0.5 billion per ton if you
don't count SSME, tiles and pads.
Ariane5 development cost about 18 billion 2008 dollars.
Araine has a ELEO payload equivalent of 22 tons or so, or a development
cost ratio of 0.818 billion per ton.
My system has a ELEO payload of 8 tons, at a cost of 7 billion, or 0.875
billion per ton.
So what would make anyone think it's particularly unfeasible at that
price, especially considering that at least some of the expensive bits
like the engines are off-the-shelf, and the rest is within existing
technology, and considering eg that there is much less ground support
equipment needed?
[...]
>> No fairy dust required. the booster will take off on two jet engines
>> with a bit of rocket boost at takeoff, climb subsonically on jets to
>> 10,000 m, do a 180 degree turn, then light the main rocket motors. Stage
>> separation occurs at 65 km, the booster will then coast to 105 km,
>> reenter, transition to subsonic flight, do another 180 degree turn and
>> fly 150 km back to it's takeoff/landing site on jet engines.
>
> So which is it? A small payload or magic fairy dust powered jet
> engines?
Payload is 8 tons to equatorial LEO.
Booster stage:
Liftoff mass: 480-530 tons, depending on flight profile
Jet fuel: 65-115 tons, depending on flight profile
Takeoff boost rocket fuel: 5 tons
Jet-to-rocket transition: initial mass 410 tons, height 10,000 m,
horizontal velocity 250 m/s
Rocket burns 245 tons of LOX/kero
Isp: 325
Raw delta-V: 2,900 m/s
Horizontal velocity component after burn: 2050 m/s
Separation @ ~60 km on the way up
Re-entry
Piloted flyback / go-around fuel: 20 tons
Landing (empty) mass: 85 tons
Orbital stages, cargo:
Equatorial LEO
Initial mass: 60 tons
LH2/LOX fuel: 36.5 tons
Isp: 430 s
Delta-V: 6,285 m/s
Empty mass: 5.5 tons
Payload: 8 tons
55 degree inclined LEO
Initial mass: 60 tons
LH2/LOX fuel: 37.5 tons
Isp: 430 s
Delta-V: 6,610 m/s
Empty mass: 5.5 tons
Payload: 7 tons
-- Peter Fairbrother
Peter Fairbrother
>> Ermm - I never said that some balance will pay marginal costs while
>> others pay the full cost.
>
> I don't see many other ways to interpret your continued insistence on
> marginal costs.
The *operator* of the system can send up extra hardware (or eg provide
an orbital freebie to executives) at marginal cost to him.
If the operator is a nation - manned Earth observation stations? If they
ignore the OS treaty - rods from god, and lots of them, anyone?
>> But most importantly, there is room to reduce prices dramatically - once
>> a certain level of demand is met it becomes a marketing man's dream
>> situation.
>
> Assuming sufficient demand exists.
Rather say, assuming sufficient demand can be created at a lower price.
-- Peter Fairbrother
Peter Fairbrother
> news:4a9b9145....@news.supernews.com...
>>> No, those are not off the shelf, but..
>> Well then, no - the expensive stuff isn't (as you claim) off the
>> shelf. If it isn't off the shelf, then everything else is handwaving.
>>
>
> Oh, I don't know Derek. I mean if Boeing can spend $10-$18 BILLION (I've
> seen various numbers) to develop the 787, which while very new in many ways
> is also really an extension of the "tube+wings" design Boeing's been
> building for decades, I can't see why Peter's design can't be a lot cheaper.
3.1 billion is a lot cheaper than 10-18 billion, I agree.
But it's not an airliner, where 30% of the development cost is in
paperwork, and 50% plus is spent in tweaking fuel efficiency, noise
reduction, long life, range, etc..
> I mean after all, it'll only be a one of a kind, brand new design, operating
> in a new environment
Just has to have a Mach 7.5 high-temperature reentry skin (sort-of :),
... and fly like a brick at supersonic speeds ... only the cockpit and
tanks are pressurised, vacuum is not much of a problem apart from the
jet engines.
> doing things that haven't been done on this scale before. Should be trivial. :-)
I can't think of any part which hasn't been done on this scale before,
except maybe the RCS, although obviously the whole hasn't been done.
>> So which is it? A small payload or magic fairy dust powered jet
>> engines?
>
> I'm voting magic fairy dust powered engine.
The jet engines are just modified Trent 900's, and the rocket engine is
a standard RD-171.
A challenge, to all - what would you cost it at?
Let's limit it to developing and producing two boosters:
Takeoff mass: 480-530 tons, depending on flight profile
Jet fuel: 65-115 tons, depending on flight profile
Takeoff boost rocket fuel: 5 tons
Jet-to-rocket transition: initial mass 410 tons, height 10,000 m,
horizontal velocity 250 m/s
Rocket burns 245 tons of LOX/kero
Isp: 325s average
Raw delta-V: 2,900 m/s
Horizontal velocity component after burn: 2050 m/s
Separation @ ~60 km on the way up
Re-entry
Piloted flyback / go-around fuel: 20 tons
Landing (empty) mass: 85 tons
On rocket engines: the RD-171 is qualified for 20 flights, so an initial
6 will do 120 flights. The vacuum Isp of the RD-171 is 337s, but in this
case it starts in air at 10 km, so the initial Isp will be lower than
vacuum, although not as low as the sea-level RD-171 Isp of 309s - 325s
seems a useful average number for Isp. The wings and jets may also give
some lift and thrust in the early stages of the rocket burn.
On jet engines: They might be Trent 900's with the fan and fan spool
removed to save weight, ie turbojets not turbofans (Rolls Royce might
even do the mods, or even supply the engines for free, as a testbed for
a supersonic airliner, although supersonic performance is not needed),
at the expense of higher fuel consumption and noise.
On wings: The wings are short and wide compared to an airliner's, more
like a F-104 or X-15, and they do not contain any fuel tanks, so they
can be much lighter than airliner wings, again at the expense of higher
fuel consumption (and lower range). This also means a higher takeoff
speed, and rocket boost at takeoff.
My estimates are: 300 million for six RD-171's (a rough guess), the jet
engines 130 million, 60 million for landing gear, 800 million for
building the airframes, 200 million for RCS, 200 million for mostly-COTS
electronics and instrumentation, 300 million for odds and ends, and 20
million for paper studies, 200 million for integration issues, 300
million for aerodynamic design, 300 million for other R+D.
-- Peter Fairbrother
Derek Lyons
>
>"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
>news:VZqdndLUgPgiHQ7X...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
>> Derek Lyons wrote:
>>>
>>> Which fails to explain why non American fanboys also love Soyuz and
>>> hate Shuttle, and why American fanboys (who quite often decry NASA's
>>> and the public's aversion to risk) love Soyuz and hate Shuttle.
>>
>> I'll say one thing for both Soyuz and Progress - they launch on the day
>> they are planned to launch on a hell of a lot more often than the Shuttle
>> ever has, with today's scrub being another good example of that.
>> It's not a all-weather spacecraft, it's a fair-weather spacecraft at
>> best... and given any sort of requirement for getting something into LEO
>> reliably on a fixed schedule, it's pretty much pointless to rely on the
>> Shuttle to get it there.
>
>Oh no, that's Soyuz launcher fanboy talk Pat! Just because the Russians
>launch on time doesn't make it better than the shuttle. Clearly you're
>biased. ;-)
Since there appears to be no requirement to launch or arrive on a
rigid schedule...
Jorge R. Frank
> news:4a9b9145....@news.supernews.com...
>>> No, those are not off the shelf, but..
>> Well then, no - the expensive stuff isn't (as you claim) off the
>> shelf. If it isn't off the shelf, then everything else is handwaving.
>>
>
> Oh, I don't know Derek. I mean if Boeing can spend $10-$18 BILLION (I've
> seen various numbers) to develop the 787, which while very new in many ways
> is also really an extension of the "tube+wings" design Boeing's been
> building for decades, I can't see why Peter's design can't be a lot cheaper.
> I mean after all, it'll only be a one of a kind, brand new design, operating
> in a new environment doing things that haven't been done on this scale
> before. Should be trivial. :-)
>
>
>> So which is it? A small payload or magic fairy dust powered jet
>> engines?
>
> I'm voting magic fairy dust powered engine.
I'm voting an engine powered by unicorn farts.
Derek Lyons
>Derek Lyons wrote:
>> Peter Fairbrother <zenad...@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Derek Lyons wrote:
>[...]
>>> Ermm - I never said that some balance will pay marginal costs while
>>> others pay the full cost.
>>
>> I don't see many other ways to interpret your continued insistence on
>> marginal costs.
>
>The *operator* of the system can send up extra hardware (or eg provide
>an orbital freebie to executives) at marginal cost to him.
Which should be such a small fraction of the total traffic - that it
utterly and completely fails to explain your fetish with marginal
costs.
In the real world, you don't pay marginal costs.
>>> But most importantly, there is room to reduce prices dramatically - once
>>> a certain level of demand is met it becomes a marketing man's dream
>>> situation.
>>
>> Assuming sufficient demand exists.
>
>Rather say, assuming sufficient demand can be created at a lower price.
Semantic hairsplitting - it amounts to the same thing.
Derek Lyons
>Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>
>But it's not an airliner, where 30% of the development cost is in
>paperwork, and 50% plus is spent in tweaking fuel efficiency, noise
>reduction, long life, range, etc..
What psychoactive substances are you ingesting that could possibly
lead you to the addlepated notion that just because it's not an
airliner it won't be saddled with paperwork? Do think the operators
won't insure it? Do think regulators anywhere in the free world will
allow it just show up an operate? You don't think purchasers of it's
services won't want assurance as to it's reliability, etc?
>> I mean after all, it'll only be a one of a kind, brand new design, operating
>> in a new environment
>
>Just has to have a Mach 7.5 high-temperature reentry skin (sort-of :),
>... and fly like a brick at supersonic speeds ... only the cockpit and
>tanks are pressurised, vacuum is not much of a problem apart from the
>jet engines.
None of which change the facts - it'll be a one of a kind new design
operating in a way that no aircraft has ever operated before.
>> doing things that haven't been done on this scale before. Should be trivial. :-)
>
>I can't think of any part which hasn't been done on this scale before,
>except maybe the RCS, although obviously the whole hasn't been done.
It's that the whole hasn't been done before that's the point.
>On jet engines: They might be Trent 900's with the fan and fan spool
>removed to save weight, ie turbojets not turbofans (Rolls Royce might
>even do the mods, or even supply the engines for free, as a testbed for
>a supersonic airliner, although supersonic performance is not needed),
>at the expense of higher fuel consumption and noise.
ROTFLMAO.
Jim Davis
> Booster stage:
>
> Liftoff mass: 480-530 tons, depending on flight profile
> Jet fuel: 65-115 tons, depending on flight profile
> Takeoff boost rocket fuel: 5 tons
>
> Jet-to-rocket transition: initial mass 410 tons, height 10,000 m,
> horizontal velocity 250 m/s
> Rocket burns 245 tons of LOX/kero
> Isp: 325
> Raw delta-V: 2,900 m/s
> Horizontal velocity component after burn: 2050 m/s
> Separation @ ~60 km on the way up
>
> Re-entry
> Piloted flyback / go-around fuel: 20 tons
> Landing (empty) mass: 85 tons
You have here a high performance, Mach 6ish, aircraft that carries
4.5 times its empty mass in fuel and 0.7 times its empty mass in
payload.
Peter, such an aircraft is far beyond the state of the art.
> Orbital stages, cargo:
>
> Equatorial LEO
>
> Initial mass: 60 tons
> LH2/LOX fuel: 36.5 tons
> Isp: 430 s
> Delta-V: 6,285 m/s
> Empty mass: 5.5 tons
> Payload: 8 tons
LH2/LO2 fuel has to equal 46.5 tons for this to work out, Peter.
Jim Davis
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:yMGdnZboCLUZOwDX...@giganews.com...
>
> I'm voting an engine powered by unicorn farts.
>
At least those smell good.
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:841e6$4a9c1fe9$927a2cda$13...@FUSE.NET...
>
> "Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
> news:VZqdndLUgPgiHQ7X...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
>> Derek Lyons wrote:
>>>
>>> Which fails to explain why non American fanboys also love Soyuz and
>>> hate Shuttle, and why American fanboys (who quite often decry NASA's
>>> and the public's aversion to risk) love Soyuz and hate Shuttle.
>>
>> I'll say one thing for both Soyuz and Progress - they launch on the day
>> they are planned to launch on a hell of a lot more often than the Shuttle
>> ever has, with today's scrub being another good example of that.
>> It's not a all-weather spacecraft, it's a fair-weather spacecraft at
>> best... and given any sort of requirement for getting something into LEO
>> reliably on a fixed schedule, it's pretty much pointless to rely on the
>> Shuttle to get it there.
>
> Oh no, that's Soyuz launcher fanboy talk Pat! Just because the Russians
> launch on time doesn't make it better than the shuttle. Clearly you're
> biased. ;-)
>
> The last Soyuz spacecraft launched and the last shuttle launched both make
> it to ISS, so that's something.
On the other hand, I'll take my odds of landing in the right place over
on-time launch. :-)
>
> Jeff
> --
> "Take heart amid the deepening gloom
> that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
> Lampoon
>
> .
>
--
Derek Lyons
>Derek Lyons wrote:
>[snip]
>> Well then, no - the expensive stuff isn't (as you claim) off the
>> shelf. If it isn't off the shelf, then everything else is handwaving.
>
>Oh dear.
>
>Let's just look at some other systems instead.
>Shuttle has a one-way-LEO payload equivalent of about 40 tons (it's hard
>to calculate exactly because it also has crew, and flies back) or a
>development cost of 1.05 billion per ton, or 0.5 billion per ton if you
>don't count SSME, tiles and pads.
>Araine has a ELEO payload equivalent of 22 tons or so, or a development
>cost ratio of 0.818 billion per ton.
When development price per pound is a useful and meaningfull metric,
I'll get back to you on that. Don't hold your breath.
>So what would make anyone think it's particularly unfeasible at that
>price, especially considering that at least some of the expensive bits
>like the engines are off-the-shelf, and the rest is within existing
>technology, and considering eg that there is much less ground support
>equipment needed?
This has been answered previously.
Pat Flannery
> None of which change the facts - it'll be a one of a kind new design
> operating in a way that no aircraft has ever operated before.
There once was _going_ to be something that operated like this:
http://www.buran.ru/htm/str126.htm
It got dropped after the cost estimates for building it...particularly
the flyback booster...went right through the roof.
Forget magic fairy dust; this thing was going to use fluorine. :O
Past
Jeff Findley
Yea, that's a magic fairy dust powered engine all right.
Jeff Findley
So from here on out, we'll get to hear rants on the singing and dancing
Soyuz? Great...
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon
.
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Let's get back to the technical side of the issues - GDM
Jeff Findley
"Jim Davis" <jimd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9C79D11458C2Bji...@216.168.3.70...
> Peter Fairbrother wrote:
>
>> Booster stage:
>>
>> Liftoff mass: 480-530 tons, depending on flight profile
>> Jet fuel: 65-115 tons, depending on flight profile
>> Takeoff boost rocket fuel: 5 tons
>>
>> Jet-to-rocket transition: initial mass 410 tons, height 10,000 m,
>> horizontal velocity 250 m/s
>> Rocket burns 245 tons of LOX/kero
>> Isp: 325
>> Raw delta-V: 2,900 m/s
>> Horizontal velocity component after burn: 2050 m/s
>> Separation @ ~60 km on the way up
>>
>> Re-entry
>> Piloted flyback / go-around fuel: 20 tons
>> Landing (empty) mass: 85 tons
>
> You have here a high performance, Mach 6ish, aircraft that carries
> 4.5 times its empty mass in fuel and 0.7 times its empty mass in
> payload.
>
> Peter, such an aircraft is far beyond the state of the art.
Agreed. Mach 3+ (a little bit more) would be state of the art, but it would
also be freaking huge and freaking heavy. I think you'd burn through your 7
billion dollar budget money just on this part. High performance aircraft
design, development, and testing isn't cheap. Plan on losing one or two of
your reusable boosters during development and see how that impacts the
overall development costs.
High performance upper stage design is more or less off the shelf, but will
still likely cost a billion or two to get done. Talk to the EELV providers
for numbers here. They know the state of the art in high energy upper
stages far better than even NASA.
Jeff Findley
> Peter Fairbrother <zenad...@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Derek Lyons wrote:
>>[snip]
>>> Well then, no - the expensive stuff isn't (as you claim) off the
>>> shelf. If it isn't off the shelf, then everything else is handwaving.
>>
>>Oh dear.
>>
>>Let's just look at some other systems instead.
>
>>Shuttle has a one-way-LEO payload equivalent of about 40 tons (it's hard
>>to calculate exactly because it also has crew, and flies back) or a
>>development cost of 1.05 billion per ton, or 0.5 billion per ton if you
>>don't count SSME, tiles and pads.
>
>>Araine has a ELEO payload equivalent of 22 tons or so, or a development
>>cost ratio of 0.818 billion per ton.
>
> When development price per pound is a useful and meaningfull metric,
> I'll get back to you on that. Don't hold your breath.
Agreed. Complexity is a better metric. And a Mach 6ish reusable first
stage powered by both jets and rockets is a lot more complex than any other
first stage ever flown. Even if every component used in its construction
were "off the shelf", the systems engineering costs caused by all of the
systems integration problems are still going to be huge. From what I can
tell, integration costs go up as system complexity increases, and you've got
a real challenge with your first stage.
Jeff Findley
"Peter Fairbrother" <zenad...@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4a9d6450$0$2486$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
> On jet engines: They might be Trent 900's with the fan and fan spool
> removed to save weight, ie turbojets not turbofans (Rolls Royce might even
> do the mods, or even supply the engines for free, as a testbed for a
> supersonic airliner, although supersonic performance is not needed), at
> the expense of higher fuel consumption and noise.
If you turn a Trent 900 into a turbojet, it's a new engine which will
require a new engine development program. How many Trent engines in
production today are turbojets versus turbofans? Is the engineering
expertise there to make this happen without a lenghty and costly development
program? My guess is you'll spend billions just to develop the jet engines
you need to make this work.
Plus there are the integration costs. How fast do you want to go before you
shut down the turbojets? If it's Mach 3+, like the Blackbird, development
and integration costs go up since quite a bit of the aircraft essentially
becomes part of the engines. You can't develop the turbojet in abstentia in
this case.
> On wings: The wings are short and wide compared to an airliner's, more
> like a F-104 or X-15, and they do not contain any fuel tanks, so they can
> be much lighter than airliner wings, again at the expense of higher fuel
> consumption (and lower range). This also means a higher takeoff speed, and
> rocket boost at takeoff.
That's all well and good, but they're still new wings, even if you're basing
the design off an existing aircraft's wings.
> My estimates are: 300 million for six RD-171's (a rough guess), the jet
> engines 130 million, 60 million for landing gear, 800 million for building
> the airframes, 200 million for RCS, 200 million for mostly-COTS
> electronics and instrumentation, 300 million for odds and ends, and 20
> million for paper studies, 200 million for integration issues, 300 million
> for aerodynamic design, 300 million for other R+D.
You can't just buy parts like this and slap them together and call it a
reusable first stage! Where are the enormous integration costs necessary to
make this work? You are seriously underestimating development costs. Look
at how much it costs Boeing or Airbus to design a new aircraft that, on the
surface, looks very much like previous models. It's not cheap. I'd say
that your "200 million for integration issues" and "300 million for other
R+D" are both off by more than an order of magnitude.
Jeff Findley
> "Jeff Findley" <jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
>>Oh no, that's Soyuz launcher fanboy talk Pat! Just because the Russians
>>launch on time doesn't make it better than the shuttle. Clearly you're
>>biased. ;-)
>
> Since there appears to be no requirement to launch or arrive on a
> rigid schedule...
Only if you want good microgravity science experiments coming out of ISS,
which apparently isn't a priority to anyone but the scientists who own those
experiments.
Peter Fairbrother
> Peter Fairbrother <zenad...@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>>
>> But it's not an airliner, where 30% of the development cost is in
>> paperwork, and 50% plus is spent in tweaking fuel efficiency, noise
>> reduction, long life, range, etc..
>
> What psychoactive substances are you ingesting that could possibly
> lead you to the addlepated notion that just because it's not an
> airliner it won't be saddled with paperwork? Do think the operators
> won't insure it? Do think regulators anywhere in the free world will
> allow it just show up an operate? You don't think purchasers of it's
> services won't want assurance as to it's reliability, etc?
There will be paperwork, of course, and I don't think I ever suggested
otherwise - but not nearly as much as for an airliner: AST, not FAA.
[..]
>> On jet engines: They might be Trent 900's with the fan and fan spool
>> removed to save weight, ie turbojets not turbofans (Rolls Royce might
>> even do the mods, or even supply the engines for free, as a testbed for
>> a supersonic airliner, although supersonic performance is not needed),
>> at the expense of higher fuel consumption and noise.
>
> ROTFLMAO.
These engine modifications were proposed by Rolls-Royce, not by me.
However the budget does already include RR's estimate for the
modifications, if RR won't do it for free - which they might, I have
spoken to them about it (they're just up the road).
-- Peter Fairbrother
Jeff Findley
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote in message
news:Xs2dnQ3Lre2IdgDX...@earthlink.com...
> "Jeff Findley" <jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote in message
> news:841e6$4a9c1fe9$927a2cda$13...@FUSE.NET...
>>
>> "Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
>> news:VZqdndLUgPgiHQ7X...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
>>> Derek Lyons wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Which fails to explain why non American fanboys also love Soyuz and
>>>> hate Shuttle, and why American fanboys (who quite often decry NASA's
>>>> and the public's aversion to risk) love Soyuz and hate Shuttle.
>>>
>>> I'll say one thing for both Soyuz and Progress - they launch on the day
>>> they are planned to launch on a hell of a lot more often than the
>>> Shuttle ever has, with today's scrub being another good example of that.
>>> It's not a all-weather spacecraft, it's a fair-weather spacecraft at
>>> best... and given any sort of requirement for getting something into LEO
>>> reliably on a fixed schedule, it's pretty much pointless to rely on the
>>> Shuttle to get it there.
>>
>> Oh no, that's Soyuz launcher fanboy talk Pat! Just because the Russians
>> launch on time doesn't make it better than the shuttle. Clearly you're
>> biased. ;-)
>>
>> The last Soyuz spacecraft launched and the last shuttle launched both
>> make it to ISS, so that's something.
>
> On the other hand, I'll take my odds of landing in the right place over
> on-time launch. :-)
I'll give you that rather than try to claim it doesn't matter like Derek did
by claiming that launch schedules (and therefore docking schedules for ISS)
don't matter.
I'm not trying to claim Soyuz is superior, just different.
Peter Fairbrother
> Peter Fairbrother wrote:
>
>> Booster stage:
>>
>> Liftoff mass: 480-530 tons, depending on flight profile
>> Jet fuel: 65-115 tons, depending on flight profile
>> Takeoff boost rocket fuel: 5 tons
>>
>> Jet-to-rocket transition: initial mass 410 tons, height 10,000 m,
>> horizontal velocity 250 m/s
>> Rocket burns 245 tons of LOX/kero
>> Isp: 325
>> Raw delta-V: 2,900 m/s
>> Horizontal velocity component after burn: 2050 m/s
>> Separation @ ~60 km on the way up
>>
>> Re-entry
>> Piloted flyback / go-around fuel: 20 tons
>> Landing (empty) mass: 85 tons
>
> You have here a high performance, Mach 6ish, aircraft that carries
> 4.5 times its empty mass in fuel and 0.7 times its empty mass in
> payload.
>
Consider - it isn't capable of Mach 6 in air of any significant density
except for a short time during ascent, where the thermal and aerodynamic
forces are similar to those on any orbital rocket; and during unpowered
reentry. For illustrative purposes think that the jets switch off as
soon as the rocket lights, though we'll probably run them a little
longer in practice - on jets in air it is only capable of Mach 0.83,
less than many airliners.
It isn't particularly high performance either, except for the rocket
engine, which is an off-the-shelf RD-171. It's required subsonic
performance, L/D, and fuel economy, are pretty poor by airline
standards, and it's required supersonic performance under rocket thrust
is so low as to be almost irrelevant.
It isn't pressurised, it doesn't have passenger stuff like seats,
toilets etc, it isn't performance optimised for atmospheric flight, it's
landing weight is very low (reducing needed structure mass).
> Peter, such an aircraft is far beyond the state of the art.
But which art, aircraft design or rocket design? In many ways it's more
like a rocket than an aircraft, where such numbers would be more than
generous.
I do have a partial design and mass budget, although it isn't finished
yet - however it doesn't seem at all impossible, or particularly expensive.
As an analogy, let's compare it to a similarly-sized 747-8F, which has a
MTOW of 440 tons, can take off with a combined fuel/cargo load of 255
tons, and has an empty mass of about 185 tons.
The 747-8's MTOW is mostly limited by takeoff thrust, and we can
increase that a bit with a little rocket boost at takeoff. We can save
37 tons on the wings (partly because they are smaller and shorter, as we
are doing a comparatively high-speed takeoff and don't need particularly
good aerodynamic performance from them, and partly because they do not
have fuel tanks in them) and 18 tons on the engines and pylons.
Then the fuselage is unpressurised, indeed what fuselage there is is
more like a rocket than an aircraft, consisting mainly of fuel tanks. It
is also much smaller and shorter than the fuselage of a 747, saving 35
tons or so - and with 10 tons saved on structure because of the low
landing weight, we now have the required empty mass of 85 tons.
It is of course more complicated than this, please don't bother to poke
small or even medium-sized holes in the analogy :) , it's just to give
some idea. I'll post the actual mass budget (and constructional details.
materials etc) when it's finished.
Also, by reducing the payload to 7 tons, we come up with a figure of 118
tons for the dry mass, which you might find easier to achieve - however,
at the moment I'm sticking to 8 tons payload and 85 tons empty mass.
>> Orbital stages, cargo:
>>
>> Equatorial LEO
>>
>> Initial mass: 60 tons
>> LH2/LOX fuel: 36.5 tons
>> Isp: 430 s
>> Delta-V: 6,285 m/s
>> Empty mass: 5.5 tons
>> Payload: 8 tons
>
> LH2/LO2 fuel has to equal 46.5 tons for this to work out, Peter.
You are of course correct, it should read 46.5 tons (46.5 + 5.5 + 8 =
60). My apologies for the typographic error.
-- Peter Fairbrother
Peter Fairbrother
> "Peter Fairbrother" <zenad...@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4a9d6450$0$2486$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>> On jet engines: They might be Trent 900's with the fan and fan spool
>> removed to save weight, ie turbojets not turbofans (Rolls Royce might even
>> do the mods, or even supply the engines for free, as a testbed for a
>> supersonic airliner, although supersonic performance is not needed), at
>> the expense of higher fuel consumption and noise.
>
> If you turn a Trent 900 into a turbojet, it's a new engine which will
> require a new engine development program. How many Trent engines in
> production today are turbojets versus turbofans? Is the engineering
> expertise there to make this happen without a lenghty and costly development
> program? My guess is you'll spend billions just to develop the jet engines
> you need to make this work.
It is Rolls Royce's idea, not mine. The figure of 130 million for jet
engines includes Rolls Royce's 50 million rough estimate for the initial
get-it-working development cost (the unmodified engines are about 9
million each, about 60 million in total including spares etc - modified
engines should be cheaper, ignoring development cost, about 6.5 million
each or 45 million in total), plus 20/35 million for etceterae.
It isn't essential to use modified engines anyway, though it would add a
bit to the useful payload, around 5% or so. RR came up with the idea of
modifying the engines, and I heard about it and thought it would be
suitable, but it wasn't in my initial plans.
>
> Plus there are the integration costs. How fast do you want to go before you
> shut down the turbojets?
Mach 0.83. It isn't a supersonic aircraft.
It's a subsonic aircraft, and also a rocket - although the way I look at
it, it's more of a rocket which also has the basic capabilities of
subsonic aircraft.
If it's Mach 3+, like the Blackbird, development
> and integration costs go up since quite a bit of the aircraft essentially
> becomes part of the engines. You can't develop the turbojet in abstentia in
> this case.
>
>> On wings: The wings are short and wide compared to an airliner's, more
>> like a F-104 or X-15, and they do not contain any fuel tanks, so they can
>> be much lighter than airliner wings, again at the expense of higher fuel
>> consumption (and lower range). This also means a higher takeoff speed, and
>> rocket boost at takeoff.
>
> That's all well and good, but they're still new wings, even if you're basing
> the design off an existing aircraft's wings.
Indeed, and the skins are made from nickel alloy, not aluminium, which
isn't cheap - about 40 million dollars worth, although the price of
nickel is now less than when I priced it.
>
>> My estimates are: 300 million for six RD-171's (a rough guess), the jet
>> engines 130 million, 60 million for landing gear, 800 million for building
>> the airframes, 200 million for RCS, 200 million for mostly-COTS
>> electronics and instrumentation, 300 million for odds and ends, and 20
>> million for paper studies, 200 million for integration issues, 300 million
>> for aerodynamic design, 300 million for other R+D.
>
> You can't just buy parts like this and slap them together and call it a
> reusable first stage! Where are the enormous integration costs necessary to
> make this work? You are seriously underestimating development costs. Look
> at how much it costs Boeing or Airbus to design a new aircraft that, on the
> surface, looks very much like previous models. It's not cheap. I'd say
> that your "200 million for integration issues" and "300 million for other
> R+D" are both off by more than an order of magnitude.
Maybe I'm pricing things a bit differently from normal, but many of the
figures above include development and integration for the individual
items/subsystems.
The integration costs included above are only meant to include the cost
of the work needed to ensure that the systems work together, they do not
include the cost of redesigning / tweaking systems to fit into the whole
(the cost of which is included in the systems estimates).
Take the landing gear for example, the raw cost is about 15 million, and
45 million is for modifications etc.
Take the 800 million for building the airframes - the actual
construction cost is about 180 million, the rest is for R+D.
For electronics, the actual cost should be about 30 million (no glass
cockpit), with 170 million for development and integration. For the RCS,
it's about 60/140 million.
Or take aerodynamic design, Airbus spent several billion, somewhere
around 1/4 of the total development cost, just on testing the
aerodynamic design of the A-380's wings. tweaking them for maximum fuel
efficiency - we don't need to spend anything like that, something like
50 million.
In general, about 60% of the total in the estimates is for development
and "integration".
Ignoring the rocket bits, we are spending about 2.2 billion on
developing an aircraft, which is about a fifth of what Airbus spent on
the A-380 - and our aircraft is much simpler, much less optimised, and
considerably smaller.
But suppose it does cost a lot more than I estimated, maybe 10 billion
for the booster and 5 billion for the second stage - it's still worth
building.
100 Ariane 5 flights, including development, will cost somewhere around
25 billion, and lift about 1,600 ELOE tons.
1,000 flights of this system will lift 8,000 ELEOE (equatorial LEO
equivalent) tons, and cost about 20 billion. After that, it will cost
about 200k per ton - while Ariane will still cost about 10 million per ton.
-- Peter Fairbrother
>
> Jeff
Jeff Findley
> These engine modifications were proposed by Rolls-Royce, not by me.
>
> However the budget does already include RR's estimate for the
> modifications, if RR won't do it for free - which they might, I have
> spoken to them about it (they're just up the road).
You've spoken with whom? An overenthusiastic senior engineer, or an upper
level manager who has authority to sign contracts? Ideally, this would
involve an actual proposal with an actual contract, not just "speaking to
them about it".
Anyone and everyone who actually writes contracts knows to keep the
engineers/programmers away from prospective customers, because they'll
seriously underestimate how long something will take to develop. And even
if they get that right, they still won't remember all of the overhead that
comes with running a business (outside of the R&D department). On top of
that, it's not even worth it if you can't make a tidy profit off of just
about every business venture.
I'm not doubting you have a good concept, just that you're seriously
underestimating the cost to bring that concept to fruition. Concepts in
this business are a dime a dozen. Look at the many start-ups which have
come and gone. All had interesting concepts. The ones that have gone
almost always failed due to lack of financial support from investors.
Sometimes this was coupled with a lack of realistic estimates of just how
much money needed to be spent to make the concept a reality.
The start-ups that are beginning to succeed have been financed by few
investors with deep pockets and a firm commitment to the business, even in
the face of schedule overruns and cost increases.
Pat Flannery
>>> I'm voting magic fairy dust powered engine.
>> Ah. Skylon and its Sabre engines:
>> http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/sabre.html
>> Ay, laddie, that's the ticket. :)
>
> Yea, that's a magic fairy dust powered engine all right.
It would be the most amazing thing you ever saw...if only they could
find someone to finance it. :D
That's the descendant of what was supposed to power Britain's canceled
HOTOL SSTO.
Beware the members of the British Commonwealth bearing miracle engine
ideas and needing your investment in them; remember this little
easy-to-make aircraft with its giant flat centrifugal turbojet?:
http://www.cufon.org/cufon/silverbg.htm
They got the US Air Force to nibble on that hook.
I'd like to see how you are supposed to bank an aircraft that has what
is in effect a giant gyroscope spinning around inside of it. :)
Pat
Peter Fairbrother
> "Peter Fairbrother" <zenad...@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4a9e6399$0$2529$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>> These engine modifications were proposed by Rolls-Royce, not by me.
>>
>> However the budget does already include RR's estimate for the
>> modifications, if RR won't do it for free - which they might, I have
>> spoken to them about it (they're just up the road).
>
> You've spoken with whom? An overenthusiastic senior engineer, or an upper
> level manager who has authority to sign contracts?
The latter, though I don't think he himself would be able to sign a
contract without passing it up another level - RR tend to keep the likes
of me far away from the senior techs and engineers.
Ideally, this would
> involve an actual proposal with an actual contract, not just "speaking to
> them about it".
I only spoke to them about the possibility of a joint effort, wherein
they would supply modified engines at a bit above production cost in
return for flight testing. RR were thinking about doing the modification
development anyway, though afaik they haven't decided either way. It
wasn't much more than idle conversation, or very preliminary exploratory
talks at absolute best, just feeling them out.
But modified engines are not necessary in any case, they just make
things slightly more efficient.
> I'm not doubting you have a good concept,
Thank you. It seems many here do doubt it.
I hope however that I have persuaded at least some people that it is
practical, if perhaps they still think it's uneconomic; that it doesn't
involve fairy dust or unicorn farts; and that any remaining doubts they
have mostly involve cost estimates and/or construction of the booster at
that dry weight (though a heavier dry weight booster would work too,
just with a lower payload).
just that you're seriously
> underestimating the cost to bring that concept to fruition.
Maybe. If I was putting it out to tender, so to speak, I'd do a lot more
work on costing first! - but I have done quite a bit of work on costing,
and believe that it is possible at somewhere about that cost. Though not
at NASA contract rates.
Concepts in
> this business are a dime a dozen. Look at the many start-ups which have
> come and gone. All had interesting concepts.
for some value of "interesting" .. there have been some doozies :)
The ones that have gone
> almost always failed due to lack of financial support from investors.
> Sometimes this was coupled with a lack of realistic estimates of just how
> much money needed to be spent to make the concept a reality.
>
> The start-ups that are beginning to succeed have been financed by few
> investors with deep pockets and a firm commitment to the business, even in
> the face of schedule overruns and cost increases.
Indeed - it's probably aimed more at a (non-US) government than at a
company, or at least it should have some government participation. For
whom, the fact that we are not talking about new types of engines, or
developing a new technology like hypersonic aircraft, is important - the
step into the new is a small one.
-- Peter Fairbrother
Derek Lyons
>Jim Davis wrote:
>
>> Peter, such an aircraft is far beyond the state of the art.
>
>But which art, aircraft design or rocket design?
Both.
>As an analogy, let's compare it to a similarly-sized 747-8F
Why since, as you keep claiming it isn't an aircraft?
Jim Davis
> It is of course more complicated than this, please don't bother
> to poke small or even medium-sized holes in the analogy :) ,
> it's just to give some idea.
Very well, I'll confine myself to the observation that your "design"
is incredibly naive.
Jim Davis