the "Spencer Launcher"
Henry Spencer
>>Henry Spencer wrote:
>> Of course, if preservation of jobs at Rocketdyne was not a priority,
>> you *could* just use a cluster of RL10s...
>
> Keep going with that idea. Replace the SRB booster with a stretched Zenit
> first stage, powered either by an RD-171 or by two RD-180s, and top it
> with the new "Spencer" cluster-RL10B second stage...
A launcher with such a noble name :-) ought to be thought out from scratch,
rather than as a derivative of somebody else's hack job. :-)
So I thought about it, in my copious spare time (which is why this followup
has taken a while to appear). And I came up with an idea that seems to be
of some interest. (Note that I also choose a different name for it.)
Assumptions
Of course, what you get out of the engineering design process depends a
whole lot on what assumptions go in. I'm assuming:
1. I'm not allowed to mess with the overall architecture. Notably, no
serious orbital assembly is allowed -- although a lunar mission is allowed
to dock two payloads in LEO -- and the launchers are expendable. Stupid
assumption, of course, because it's a stupid architecture...
2. Launchers have to be "shuttle-derived" in at least some loose sense,
as a matter of salesmanship. EELV derivatives are ground-ruled out, as
are Saturn V revivals and clean-sheet designs.
3. However, preservation of jobs at existing shuttle contractors is *not*
a priority. (If it is, you get NASA's existing designs.)
4. No crucial foreign components.
5. The time scale does not permit developing new engines.
6. Launch is from KSC LC-39, possibly with modifications.
Assumption #5 is actually a serious headache. The US really needs a big
high-Isp kerosene engine that doesn't run afoul of #4. The RS-27A is the
best currently on hand, and it's just not good enough.
It *does* make sense to base tankage on the shuttle ET. That's a big,
light tank, with a fairly large diameter, with production tooling already
in place and operating.
Architecture
Consider costs. For low launch rates -- and there's no real prospect of
seriously high launch rates here -- costs are dominated by development
cost and by the "standing army", the salaries of the people needed to do a
launch. Altering the launch rate has essentially *no* effect on annual
cost. Launching fewer times saves you almost nothing; launching more
times costs almost nothing. (The shuttle and Titan IV are examples of
this.) Some contemplation of this yields an interesting conclusion:
Build One Launcher, Not Two!
There is no possible way you can justify the added development costs of
the CLV, or the extra standing army needed to operate it. It's *cheaper*
to put the capsule plus a tub of ballast on a heavy launcher than to build
a medium launcher just to carry the capsule. (There's even a development
path here: the Block 1 heavy launcher can have a substantial performance
shortfall without hampering early CEV operations, provided you can make it
back with incremental improvements in a Block 2 design.)
Launcher Concept
I fiddled around with this a bit, and here's what I came up with.
The first stage is a shuttle ET, the modern aluminum-lithium version,
about 26t of tank (all masses in metric tons) holding about 720t of
propellant. The LOX tank at the top needs to lose the pointed nose, in
favor of a blunter tank end with an interstage ring extending up, but that
shouldn't be at all hard -- we can use the tooling currently used to
build the *bottom* of the LOX tank. With no SRBs, a fair bit of heavy
structure can be deleted; I assume that suffices to cover the interstage
ring's mass.
At the bottom of the tank, we put seven RS-68s, a ring of six around a
seventh. The engines are about 48t, and throw in another 10t for a thrust
structure. The RS-68's sea-level Isp is 357s, and its vacuum Isp is 409s;
I assume an average of 380s. Takeoff thrust/weight is 1.25, about the
same as the Saturn V.
The last mass property of interest is residual propellant at the end of
the burn. NASA's designs seem to assume the orthodox rule of thumb, 1%...
which is ridiculous. The S-IVB specified 0.25%, and typically achieved
even better. I'm specifying 0.25%, or about 2t of residuals.
On top of this is the second stage... another shuttle ET! Same capacity
and mass, same blunted nose. This one has only two RS-68s (14t), with a
smaller thrust structure (5t). Here the Isp is the full vacuum 409s. The
thrust/weight at ignition is about 0.8, which is okay for an upper stage.
Same 0.25% residuals. Needs an altitude-start variant of the RS-68, but
that should be pretty trivial -- it's a much simpler and less cranky
engine than the SSME.
On top is 100t of payload. A fairing, if needed, is charged against
payload.
This is kind of a tall stack, but it fits. A stock ET is 154ft tall.
These stages lack the pointed nose, but have engines sticking down, so
call that even, making two stages about 310ft high. That leaves about
100ft -- nearly 4x the rocket diameter -- for payload while still clearing
the VAB transom.
The first stage yields about 2.1km/s of delta-V, and the second about
7.1km/s, putting that 100t of payload into low LEO (none of this business
of getting it almost there). The total of 9.2km/s arguably is slightly
low, but if needed, we can probably pick up 0.2-0.3km/s by putting a
nozzle extension on the second-stage engines -- the RS-68 is optimized for
first-stage use and has a rather low expansion ratio.
The first-stage tank mass may be a little optimistic, since it may need
some beefing-up to cope with the heavy load on top, plus the bending loads
of the longer stack. However, extra structural mass in the first stage
has little effect on performance.
Payloads
100t is not as much as NASA's heavy launcher. However, because we keep
the idea of docking two payloads, we have *200t* to use for the lunar
mission. We do it much like the final Apollo EOR concepts.
One launch carries the TLI stage, fully loaded. It's the same 8.4m
diameter as the lower stages, but rather shorter. Knock off, say, 2t for
a nose fairing, jettisoned on the way up. Scaling the mass numbers, but
discounting structure a bit for light loads, we get about 92t of
propellant in 3t of tank. Here we might want to use a common bulkhead
rather than an intertank. A 1t thrust structure carries seven RL10Bs,
which weigh about 2t total. The initial T/W is low, about 0.4, but that's
okay for an orbital-maneuvering stage, and the RL10B Isp is 462.4s, better
than even an SSME and much better than a J-2S.
This stage can't quite boost 100t of payload to escape, but it comes
pretty close. Either cut the TLI payload to around 90t (we have to deduct
something for its fairing anyway), or (better) have the payload supply the
last little bit of boost.
Docking the two together in LEO might seem a little tricky. Remember,
though, that the lunar lander needs a downward view for landing. Once in
orbit, the capsule separates, turns around, and docks to the lander, like
Apollo. Then the docking to the TLI stage is flown from the *lander*
cockpit. (Actually, it might be better to do this as berthing rather than
docking -- have a small robot arm reach out and grab the TLI stage, and
ease the two together slowly under precise control.)
For LEO operations, there's lots of extra mass available, even with NASA's
elephantine 20t capsule... not forgetting that the second stage, which is
roughly a shuttle ET, also reaches the initial parking orbit, and could be
useful. (If not, it gets deorbited the same way the Skylab S-IVBs were
deorbited, by propellant dumps through the engines.)
The capsule can be made the full 8.4m diameter, which gives a lot more
room inside, and permits drastically shrinking, perhaps even eliminating,
the expendable service module.
Finally, if you really want to optimize and you think it's worth the extra
hassles of dealing with another configuration... For light-load LEO work
like station crew rotations, if the capsule (with its service module, if
any) can supply about 1km/s for orbit insertion, you can dispense with the
second stage entirely. Yes, with a light load the first stage is a
near-SSTO; in practice, you'd want to delete three or four of the RS-68s
from such single-stage configurations, to save mass and avoid overly-high
dynamic pressures. (Caveat: this scheme works only if the first-stage
structural mass doesn't grow much, because *here* it really matters.)
Conclusion
Okay, the same-size first and second stages are a bit inelegant. It'd be
better if the first stage was LOX/kerosene, in which case it would have
several times the mass of the second, and would contribute substantially
more delta-V. (Running the numbers on that, with revived F-1s as the
first-stage engines, is left as an exercise for the reader. :-)) And a
larger diameter would be better. But given the constraints, it actually
works out pretty well, at least at this back-of-the-envelope level.
However, it does seem a bit egotistical to attach my own name to it. Hmm,
long and thin, and given the color of the ET insulation (which will still
be needed on the LH2 tanks), I think I'll call it the Brown Bess. Still
an antiquated weapon(*), but a lot better than a stick. :-)
(* For those who don't recognize the reference: the "Brown Bess" was
[slang for] the standard British Army muzzle-loading musket of the 18th
and early 19th century. )
This design uses only existing engines -- no J-2S revival needed -- and no
solids. The first two stages structurally are simple derivatives of the
shuttle ET. The TLI stage is all new (except for the engines), although
its tanks can use some of the ET tooling, and it's only needed for lunar
missions so it can be scheduled a bit later. The SSME and SRB production
lines can be closed. And we get nearly twice the TLI payload of NASA's
design, and several times the LEO payload, at lower overall cost. What's
not to like? :-)
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | he...@spsystems.net
Jake McGuire
> At the bottom of the tank, we put seven RS-68s, a ring of six around a
> seventh. The engines are about 48t, and throw in another 10t for a thrust
> structure. The RS-68's sea-level Isp is 357s, and its vacuum Isp is 409s;
> I assume an average of 380s. Takeoff thrust/weight is 1.25, about the
> same as the Saturn V.
This is 2200 tons thrust that has to go through the first-stage liquid
hydrogen tank. The current SSME liquid hydrogen tank carries no
compressive loads to speak of, and the 5 SSME SD-HLV will carry about
450 tons of thrust. I'm not sure how much of a difference this will
make, but five times the compressive load is not something to take
lightly.
> This design uses only existing engines -- no J-2S revival needed -- and no
> solids. The first two stages structurally are simple derivatives of the
> shuttle ET.
See above. Interesting otherwise.
-jake
Ed Kyle
> A couple of months back, Ed Kyle wrote:
> >>Henry Spencer wrote:
> >> Of course, if preservation of jobs at Rocketdyne was not a priority,
> >> you *could* just use a cluster of RL10s...
> >
> > Keep going with that idea. Replace the SRB booster with a stretched Zenit
> > first stage, powered either by an RD-171 or by two RD-180s, and top it
> > with the new "Spencer" cluster-RL10B second stage...
>
> A launcher with such a noble name :-) ought to be thought out from scratch,
> rather than as a derivative of somebody else's hack job. :-)
>
> So I thought about it, in my copious spare time (which is why this followup
> has taken a while to appear). And I came up with an idea that seems to be
> of some interest. (Note that I also choose a different name for it.)
>The US really needs a big
>high-Isp kerosene engine that doesn't run afoul of #4. The RS-27A is the
>best currently on hand, and it's just not good enough.
Hear, hear!!! A festering hole in the propulsion arsenal
of the West. I am astonished every day that another
day has gone by without something being done about
this problem. Were it not for the now less-wealthy
Mr. Musk, there would be no new developments on this
front. Even if Elon can scrape together capital for a
bigger Merlin, it won't be available for years.
>......
> Build One Launcher, Not Two!
>
> There is no possible way you can justify the added development costs of
> the CLV, or the extra standing army needed to operate it. It's *cheaper*
> to put the capsule plus a tub of ballast on a heavy launcher than to build
> a medium launcher just to carry the capsule.
I agree that there should only be one launcher
design, but I am a bit of a pessimist when it comes
to believing that money will ever materialize for the
Moon mission. That is why I think that it would be a
good idea to build the smaller launcher only. It
would replace shuttle for less money than building
a much bigger launcher and could, if the money
did actually show up, still support a lunar mission
via multiple LEO rendezvous flights. (I suspect
that many at NASA were thinking along the same
lines when they came up with this concept. Notice
how much effort has already gone into the crew
launcher, which heavy lift is going to be little more
than a presentation slide for years to come.)
> Launcher Concept
>
> I fiddled around with this a bit, and here's what I came up with.
>
> The first stage is a shuttle ET, ... seven RS-68s, a ring of six around a
> seventh.
> On top of this is the second stage... another shuttle ET! Same capacity
> and mass, same blunted nose. This one has only two RS-68s (14t), with a
> smaller thrust structure (5t).
> On top is 100t of payload. A fairing, if needed, is charged against
> payload.
I like this idea. If the big launcher were really ever
going to be built, this would be a sound approach.
> Finally, if you really want to optimize and you think it's worth the extra
> hassles of dealing with another configuration... For light-load LEO work
> like station crew rotations, if the capsule (with its service module, if
> any) can supply about 1km/s for orbit insertion, you can dispense with the
> second stage entirely. Yes, with a light load the first stage is a
> near-SSTO; in practice, you'd want to delete three or four of the RS-68s
> from such single-stage configurations, to save mass and avoid overly-high
> dynamic pressures. (Caveat: this scheme works only if the first-stage
> structural mass doesn't grow much, because *here* it really matters.)
According to Keith Cowing, an ET derived crew launcher,
albeit a two-stage version, was the final option hanging
in there against Stick designs this summer. The ET
launcher looked like it was a bigger lifter than Stick.
"http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/cev.32.l.jpg"
I wonder why ET didn't make the cut? Oh, never mind,
I know why and so does anyone else who has noticed
where Scott Horowitz works now and what his job title
is (hanging pictures on the wall of his new office while
still figuring out how to cash the nice bonus he no doubt
received from his former employer for bringing home the
SRB bacon.)! He, and his new boss Griffin, would
probably say that the reason was that Stick could be
developed sooner and for less money.
> Conclusion
>
> However, it does seem a bit egotistical to attach my own name to it. Hmm,
> long and thin, and given the color of the ET insulation (which will still
> be needed on the LH2 tanks), I think I'll call it the Brown Bess. Still
> an antiquated weapon(*), but a lot better than a stick. :-)
>
> (* For those who don't recognize the reference: the "Brown Bess" was
> [slang for] the standard British Army muzzle-loading musket of the 18th
> and early 19th century. )
Probably a bit too militaristic for today's PC-conscious NASA. Can't
we at least call it "Henry"?
- Ed Kyle
Pat Flannery
Henry Spencer wrote:
>
>This design uses only existing engines -- no J-2S revival needed -- and no
>solids.
>
You really don't like the SRBs, do you? :-)
Of course if you were to hang four SRBs on this booster you could way up
its orbital payload, by air starting some or all of the RS-68s.
Could the payload fairing be built using standard upper ET components
with the current point on top? That would be yet another way to cut costs.
As you describe it (minus the SRBs) it would certainly work for the Moon
and Mars missions, but for orbital work one would be hard pressed to
find a use for all that payload capacity outside of building another
space station. Once the station was built, this seems an awfully big
rocket just to fly crewing and supply missions to it unless it's a real
monster of a station with a large crew.
Still, from an economic point of view this concept seems very sensible
and workable. It's simple and straight forward.
And having all of that LEO payload capability might well invite some
major space ventures in LEO, including the building of a test SPS
array. You'd better hope that you find some use for the capability,
otherwise it's going to be like driving to work in a bus. :-)
Pat
Henry Spencer
Jake McGuire <jamc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>This is 2200 tons thrust that has to go through the first-stage liquid
>hydrogen tank. The current SSME liquid hydrogen tank carries no
>compressive loads to speak of, and the 5 SSME SD-HLV will carry about
>450 tons of thrust. I'm not sure how much of a difference this will
>make, but five times the compressive load is not something to take
>lightly.
Pressurized tanks are *extremely* strong in compression. Let's see here,
hmm, yes, it will be necessary to increase the Brown Bess first-stage LH2
tank pressure somewhat to carry the loads. And the tank in turn will most
likely need some strengthening to carry the pressure. That's a nuisance,
but as noted, extra structural mass in the first stage has little effect
on performance.
Neil Gerace
news:IqDD8...@spsystems.net...
> A launcher with such a noble name :-) ought to be thought out from
> scratch,
Like yourself? :-)
life...@atlantic.net
Ed Kyle wrote:
> Can't we at least call it "Henry"?
It's a Mook ripoff. Totally passe'.
Prop...@gmx.net
> One launch carries the TLI stage.... Here we might want to use a common bulkhead
> rather than an intertank.
If you're going to develop a common bulkhead for the TLI stage anyway,
is there any reason you wouldn't use it in the lower stages too?
For that matter, why doesn't the Shuttle ET have a common bulkhead?
Jorge R. Frank
news:11o7ner...@corp.supernews.com:
> Could the payload fairing be built using standard upper ET components
> with the current point on top? That would be yet another way to cut
> costs.
Not really; the ET is grossly overbuilt for that (it's built to handle a
lot more pressure). A cheap composite fairing would be a better bet.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Jorge R. Frank
news:1132735725.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Henry Spencer wrote:
>> One launch carries the TLI stage.... Here we might want to use a
>> common bulkhead rather than an intertank.
>
> If you're going to develop a common bulkhead for the TLI stage anyway,
> is there any reason you wouldn't use it in the lower stages too?
Performance is less critical in lower stages and common bulkheads are
marginally trickier and more expensive to build.
> For that matter, why doesn't the Shuttle ET have a common bulkhead?
If it did, the SRB forward structural member would have to run through one
of the tanks, rather than the intertank.
Ed Kyle
> Assumption #5 is actually a serious headache. The US really needs a big
> high-Isp kerosene engine that doesn't run afoul of #4. The RS-27A is the
> best currently on hand, and it's just not good enough.
RS-27A is not good enough for a heavy lifter, and I agree
that the U.S. needs a better kerosene engine, but RS-27A
could suffice for a crew launcher in the 20-30 tonne
payload class.
If the second stage were powered by a single RS-68,
an eight RS-27A first stage would be able to lift 19 tonnes
or so to LEO. A 10-engine first stage with an RS-68
second stage would lift 25 tonnes. This could all be
ET-tank-toolage based. Stage gross mass breaks down
roughly 400 tonnes first stage, 140 tonnes second stage.
I assumed first stage mass ratio 93%, second stage 90%.
If the second stage were powered by a single SSME,
the eight-engine first stage rocket would lift 25 tonnes
while the ten-engine launcher would orbit more than
32 tonnes. Stage mass would be 500+200 tonnes.
- Ed Kyle
Ed Kyle
Goofed that up. For the eight-engine first stage version,
the stage gross mass breaks down roughly 400 tonnes
first stage, 140 tonnes second stage, regardless of
which second stage engine is used. For the ten-engine
first stage version, stage mass would be 500+200 tonnes.
- Ed Kyle
Jake McGuire
> In article <1132703695.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Jake McGuire <jamc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >This is 2200 tons thrust that has to go through the first-stage liquid
> >hydrogen tank. The current SSME liquid hydrogen tank carries no
> >compressive loads to speak of, and the 5 SSME SD-HLV will carry about
> >450 tons of thrust. I'm not sure how much of a difference this will
> >make, but five times the compressive load is not something to take
> >lightly.
>
> Pressurized tanks are *extremely* strong in compression. Let's see here,
> hmm, yes, it will be necessary to increase the Brown Bess first-stage LH2
> tank pressure somewhat to carry the loads. And the tank in turn will most
> likely need some strengthening to carry the pressure.
And when it's just sitting unpressurized on the pad, or in the VAB? I
know that old-school Atlas needed pressurization to support it's own
empty weight, and that the Falcon 1 needs pressurization to withstand
flight loads, but are there any other rockets that need pressurization
to stand up fully fueled?
The combination of low liftoff T/W and a comparatively small first
stage mean that the ground loads on the Spencer's lowest tank are a
much higher percentage of flight loads than that of most existing
launch vehicles.
> That's a nuisance,
> but as noted, extra structural mass in the first stage has little effect
> on performance.
True. Thicker skins and more structural analysis, but that's probably
fairly minor.
-jake
Rüdiger Klaehn
[snip]
Interesting concept. I agree that an ET derived launcher with RS-68
engines would be the way to go given the constraints you mentioned. But
since we use the low ISP/high thrust RS-68 on the upper stage, what
about parallel staging?
Since the ET is designed to feed its propellant to another vehicle (the
orbiter), it should be relatively straightforward to modify the
plumbing for propellant crossfeed.
So what about this:
Two almost identical stages consisting of an ET with four RS-68 each.
The stages are mounted side by side. The payload sits on top of one
stage.
All eight engines run at launch, giving it a slightly better T/W at
liftoff. All eight engines are fed by the "booster tank" until it is
depleted. Then the booster stage is jettisoned and the sustainer stage
continues to LEO.
I did some BOTE calculations for this configuration. Making both stages
identical has the downside of bringing more engines to orbit than
nessecary, so I had to reduce the payload to 90t.
Propellant mass for each stage is 720t. Stage mass consists of tank
mass (26t), interstage mass (5,71t) and engine mass (27.4t) and is
59.14t. The "first stage" phase has a delta-v of 2140m/s, while the
second stage has 7072m/s.
The numbers are very similar to yours. But I think the bimese
configuration has some advantages:
-the lower stage does not require thicker walls.
-the whole stack is shorter and therefore more compatible to existing
launch infrastructure.
-The T/W at liftoff is better => more engine-out capability, less
gravity losses.
-It uses one less engine.
-All engines can be checked out before launch
-Upper stage has better engine-out capability: 3/4 is much better than
1/2.
Disadvantages are the asymmetric loads and the parallel staging event.
But on the other hand, the ET is designed for asymmetric loads. And the
staging happens higher up than with the STS, so aerodynamic loads
should be much less severe.
Henry Spencer
<Prop...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> ...TLI stage.... Here we might want to use a common bulkhead
>> rather than an intertank.
>
>If you're going to develop a common bulkhead for the TLI stage anyway,
>is there any reason you wouldn't use it in the lower stages too?
The TLI stage is going to be short enough that its internal layout may
end up being rather different; in particular, the LOX tank might not be
full-diameter. So I'm not confident that the bulkhead design would
transfer over... and it would spoil the economy of using pretty much the
existing ET design for the lower stages.
I doubt that the benefits would be large enough to be worth the trouble.
Speaking very approximately, the very best you could expect would be the
elimination of the mass of the intertank ring; in practice, you'd gain
some of that back from the complexities of the bulkhead. Since the ring
weighs under 6t, it's not that big an improvement.
>For that matter, why doesn't the Shuttle ET have a common bulkhead?
As the only inherently-expendable element of what was supposed to be a
highly-reusable launch system, there was an urgent desire to make the ET
simple and cheap to manufacture. Common bulkheads *are* harder to make.
Henry Spencer
Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
>>This design uses only existing engines -- no J-2S revival needed -- and no
>>solids.
>
>You really don't like the SRBs, do you? :-)
Nope. :-) Not even if they do provide Scott with his livelihood. :-)
Besides, I'd need a big liquid engine for the core stage and second stage
anyhow. Producing and using *more* of those engines won't cost very much
extra. If I make them do the whole job for the first stage, then at very
little additional cost, I can get rid of the SRB production line, the SRB
handling/recovery/refurbishing facilities, and the SRB standing army. And
I can simplify VAB operations by eliminating the hazards of huge masses of
fuel inside.
>Could the payload fairing be built using standard upper ET components
>with the current point on top?
Maybe. It would mean pressurizing the interior of the fairing, because
the ET nose gets most of its strength from the tank pressure inside.
(Even launcher tanks which are self-supporting on the ground tend to
operate as balloon tanks in flight.) You wouldn't have to pressurize
it as much as the ET LOX tank, but you'd need some pressure, which would
be a complication. Not a ridiculous idea, but I don't have a good feel
for how it would stack up against just building a simple (if rather large)
composite fairing.
>...for orbital work one would be hard pressed to
>find a use for all that payload capacity outside of building another
>space station. Once the station was built, this seems an awfully big
>rocket just to fly crewing and supply missions to it unless it's a real
>monster of a station with a large crew.
Yep. Even adding a fairly heavy cargo module behind the capsule, there's
a lot of capacity going unused there.
Mind you, if the station is also your assembly base for deep-space
missions, more fuel is always welcome. And even a non-assembly-base
station benefits from having more mass -- it reduces the microgravity
disturbances from air drag etc., and it lengthens the intervals between
reboost burns. (Provided it doesn't increase the frontal area
significantly, then to a first approximation, it doesn't affect the
reboost fuel burned per year -- the burns are bigger but less frequent.)
The question is whether it's worth your while to develop and maintain a
separate launcher type just for the resupply function, given that the big
one has to be around anyhow. I think it's not, unless you can do it as a
very simple derivative of the big one, e.g. my almost-SSTO suggestion.
Pat Flannery
Henry Spencer wrote:
>>You really don't like the SRBs, do you? :-)
>>
>>
>
>Nope. :-) Not even if they do provide Scott with his livelihood. :-)
>
>Besides, I'd need a big liquid engine for the core stage and second stage
>anyhow. Producing and using *more* of those engines won't cost very much
>extra. If I make them do the whole job for the first stage, then at very
>little additional cost, I can get rid of the SRB production line, the SRB
>handling/recovery/refurbishing facilities, and the SRB standing army. And
>I can simplify VAB operations by eliminating the hazards of huge masses of
>fuel inside.
>
>
>
You know full well if you built this NASA would strap four SRBs on it
inside of five minutes. :-)
Has anyone figured out what its payload capacity would be with four SRBs
on it? It would have to be huge.
You'd be getting into Vulkan territory:
http://www.buran.ru/htm/38-3.htm#vulkan
Pat
Phil Bagust
the last few decades as more and more solids have been hung around the
Delta II core? I mean, as I understand it, the RS-27A is basically just
a slightly twiddled with H-1, and that engine was substantially upgraded
between the block 1 and 2 Saturn Is both in absolute thrust and ISP.
Come to think of it - how much does an RS-27A cost, is a cluster
economically viable? I believe the engine bell is an expensive piece of
work for a start, but then there's that perfect service record, very
impressive and one that would give confidence if 'clusters last stand'
rose again...
P
Will McLean
Henry Spencer wrote:
> This design uses only existing engines -- no J-2S revival needed -- and no
> solids. The first two stages structurally are simple derivatives of the
> shuttle ET. The TLI stage is all new (except for the engines), although
> its tanks can use some of the ET tooling, and it's only needed for lunar
> missions so it can be scheduled a bit later. The SSME and SRB production
> lines can be closed. And we get nearly twice the TLI payload of NASA's
> design, and several times the LEO payload, at lower overall cost. What's
> not to like? :-)
> --
> spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
> mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | he...@spsystems.net
One disadvantage of making only a heavy lift vehicle is that ir's hard
to believe that it can be brought into service nearly as quickly as the
Stick. While the lower stages use shuttle ET tooling, they still
involve significantly more changes than the NASA SDHLV baseline. ATK
was estimating that as a ten year job, given adequate funding.
The disadvantage of using RS-68s is that they have a lot less track
record than SSMEs and SRBs. That hardware has had a lot of opportunity
to wring out the bugs that the RS-68 has not had.
I suspect that the marginal cost of stretching the first stage and
shortening the second would be relatively low in relation to the
performance improvement.
Will McLean
Alex Terrell
1. Why not use SSMEs. They're more expensive, but they cost nothing to
develop.
2. If NASA goes for a moonbase rather than "flags and footprints", a
significant number of missions would be cargo only, for which a single
mission with 100t LEO capability is about optimum. 100t LEO is also
about what is needed to orbit a CEV around the moon.
Hence, two missions with Lunar Orbit Rendez-vous becomes an alternative
architecture.
3. I would like to see some analysis of whether there's a way the
insulating foam can be dumped just prior to launch. Encase the whole
system in a helium baloon that is ripped off just before launch?
Alex Terrell
engines on the central ET could be air started.
richard schumacher
"Will McLean" <mclea...@aol.com> wrote:
> One disadvantage of making only a heavy lift vehicle is that ir's hard
> to believe that it can be brought into service nearly as quickly as the
> Stick. While the lower stages use shuttle ET tooling, they still
> involve significantly more changes than the NASA SDHLV baseline. ATK
> was estimating that as a ten year job, given adequate funding.
Longer to modify than it took to develop the original? It is to laugh,
especially as that estimate comes from the maker of the SRBs, who is
certainly not a disinterested party.
NASA is never going to fly any of these things, of course.
life...@atlantic.net
richard schumacher wrote:
> It is to laugh,
> especially as that estimate comes from the maker of the SRBs, who is
> certainly not a disinterested party.
>
> NASA is never going to fly any of these things, of course.
And I will do everything in my power to kill ESAS.
I'd like to see the SSMEs continue flying though, one way or another.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://www.lifeform.net
http://cosmic.lifeform.org
Henry Spencer
Phil Bagust <pai...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>Is there any growth potential in the RS-27A? Has anyone even tried in
>the last few decades as more and more solids have been hung around the
>Delta II core?
They *have* upgraded it somewhat, but my vague impression is that the
upgrades have mostly consisted of lengthening the nozzle.
>I mean, as I understand it, the RS-27A is basically just
>a slightly twiddled with H-1...
Kind of, sort of. I believe Delta II is still using the rather odd (by
modern standards) Thor arrangement of fastening the pumps to the engine
bay, so that the *high-pressure* plumbing has to cross the gimbal joint.
The RS-27s actually were H-1s rebuilt to the Delta configuration; the
RS-27A is new production and has minor improvements.
>and that engine was substantially upgraded
>between the block 1 and 2 Saturn Is both in absolute thrust and ISP.
And the original H-1 was a substantial upgrade of the variously-numbered
engine which served as main engine on Thor/Delta and booster engine on
Atlas. Which was itself an upgrade of the Navaho booster engine... It's
had a long history and has grown extensively.
Does it still have growth potential? Maybe some. Not a whole lot. When
LockMart first started talking about re-engining Atlas, Rocketdyne was
briefly in the running, with the MA-5D, vaguely defined as a major upgrade
with "some SSME technology". They bowed out fairly quickly, saying they
could not meet LM's schedule. (Reportedly they told LM so, well before
the official public announcement; there was speculation that LM asked them
to keep quiet for a while, to keep pressure on the NK-33 and RD-180 bids.)
>Come to think of it - how much does an RS-27A cost...
There basically is no list price. The traditional engine builders are so
wedded to cozy deals with government and ex-government programs that it's
very hard (I am told) to actually get them to quote a number.
>is a cluster economically viable?
Technically it's practical, although for big launchers like Brown Bess,
you'd need a big cluster. The economics are very hard to assess. It's
not ridiculous, especially when you consider what volume production
could potentially do to the price of what are fairly low-tech engines
by modern standards.
Henry Spencer
Alex Terrell <alext...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>1. Why not use SSMEs. They're more expensive, but they cost nothing to
>develop.
They're *very* expensive; their standing army is large because they're
complex, marginal engines; and you need lots of them, since they have only
about half the thrust of the RS-68.
The RS-68 also costs nothing to develop. It's in operational service on
Delta IV. The only mods required -- for altitude start on the second
stage, and perhaps minor alterations for clustering -- would have to be
done to the SSME too.
The one extra item that *might* be needed for the RS-68 is that nozzle
extension for the second stage, if it needs a bit more Isp (which the SSME
already has plenty of). But the RS-68 nozzle is already ablatively
cooled, so extending it is pretty trivial.
>3. I would like to see some analysis of whether there's a way the
>insulating foam can be dumped just prior to launch. Encase the whole
>system in a helium baloon that is ripped off just before launch?
Centaur used to have jettisonable insulation. It caused quite a bit of
development trouble, and was not as light as you might think, considering
required structural strength, the helium-purge system required to keep air
out from under it, etc. Centaur's payload went *up* when it switched to
permanently-attached foam.
The S-II, the Saturn V second stage, originally had fabricated foam panels
plus a helium purge, although it didn't try to jettison them. Same story:
lots of hassles. Midway through Apollo, it switched to spray-on foam.
(In fact, the shuttle ET was originally going to use the S-II foam, but
it was rather heavy and there were some other problems, so an improved
version was developed.)
There's nothing particularly wrong with the ET foam in an in-line
configuration where there's nothing fragile to get hit by falling bits.
Henry Spencer
>to believe that it can be brought into service nearly as quickly as the
I thought about that, but I don't see it. The Stick requires an all-new
second stage, developed essentially from scratch, and some changes -- not
clear how big or how drastic -- to the complex, marginal, cranky SSME.
That has got to take more time, not less, than developing a stage from
existing tankage and a much simpler engine. Brown Bess needs two such
stages, yes, but development can run in parallel, and a fair bit of the
work should be in common.
The one obvious place where Brown Bess does need more work is that it
needs more drastic modification to the LC-39 launch facilities: new
mounts and possibly a new flame duct on the launch platforms, and taller
access towers on the pads. (Putting the towers on the platforms -- as for
the Saturn V -- would be better, but is more work.) This doesn't strike
me as a big deal, though.
>While the lower stages use shuttle ET tooling, they still
>involve significantly more changes than the NASA SDHLV baseline. ATK
>was estimating that as a ten year job, given adequate funding.
The Saturn V, developed from scratch, took 5.5 years from decision to
first flight. (Including two all-new engines, although early work on
them was started before the launcher firmed up.)
ATK is hardly a disinterested source, since they've been lobbying really
hard for the Stick for quite a while now.
>The disadvantage of using RS-68s is that they have a lot less track
>record than SSMEs and SRBs. That hardware has had a lot of opportunity
>to wring out the bugs that the RS-68 has not had.
This is true. On the other hand, the RS-68 is a much simpler engine than
the SSME, and its development went much more quickly and smoothly.
>I suspect that the marginal cost of stretching the first stage and
>shortening the second would be relatively low in relation to the
>performance improvement.
I played with stretches and shrinks a bit, but never got numbers that I
really liked.
Henry Spencer
Jake McGuire <jamc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> hmm, yes, it will be necessary to increase the Brown Bess first-stage LH2
>> tank pressure somewhat to carry the loads. And the tank in turn will most
>> likely need some strengthening to carry the pressure.
>
>And when it's just sitting unpressurized on the pad, or in the VAB?
In the VAB, empty, Brown Bess should be fine unpressurized. Ditto on the
pad, empty. I *think* you'd have trouble if you loaded LOX in both stages
without pressurizing the first-stage LH2 tank first. (Most of the mass of
LOX/LH2 is the LOX.)
>know that old-school Atlas needed pressurization to support it's own
>empty weight, and that the Falcon 1 needs pressurization to withstand
>flight loads...
It's common to need pressurization to handle flight loads. That's fairly
standard design practice.
>but are there any other rockets that need pressurization
>to stand up fully fueled?
Don't remember any specific examples of exactly that. The shuttle ET LOX
tank needs to be pressurized during *loading*, because thermal contraction
could make it buckle in some partly-loaded conditions, but it's fine
without pressure once it's full.
Alain Fournier
Henry Spencer wrote:
> The one obvious place where Brown Bess ...
You are only adding confusion by calling it the Brown Bess.
We all know it by the name Spencer Launcher. Plus wouldn't
you like that if it actually did launch Spencer. :-)
Alain Fournier
Murray Anderson
> In article <1132856137.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Alex Terrell <alext...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >1. Why not use SSMEs. They're more expensive, but they cost nothing to
> >develop.
>
> They're *very* expensive; their standing army is large because they're
> complex, marginal engines; and you need lots of them, since they have only
> about half the thrust of the RS-68.
>
64% of the thrust at sea level, 69% in vacuum. That's more like two-thirds
than a half. They have a good reliability record, and a much longer one than
the RS-68. How much of Nasa's standing army is actually needed?
The cost would still be a problem.
> The RS-68 also costs nothing to develop. It's in operational service on
> Delta IV. The only mods required -- for altitude start on the second
> stage, and perhaps minor alterations for clustering -- would have to be
> done to the SSME too.
>
> The one extra item that *might* be needed for the RS-68 is that nozzle
> extension for the second stage, if it needs a bit more Isp (which the SSME
> already has plenty of). But the RS-68 nozzle is already ablatively
> cooled, so extending it is pretty trivial.
> - - snipped - -
> --
> spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
> mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |
he...@spsystems.net
Murray Anderson
Pat Flannery
Alain Fournier wrote:
>
> You are only adding confusion by calling it the Brown Bess.
> We all know it by the name Spencer Launcher. Plus wouldn't
> you like that if it actually did launch Spencer. :-)
Mars-O-Matic.
Pat
Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro
> Architecture
> Consider costs. For low launch rates -- and there's no real prospect of
> seriously high launch rates here -- costs are dominated by development
> cost and by the "standing army", the salaries of the people needed to do a
> launch. Altering the launch rate has essentially *no* effect on annual
> cost. Launching fewer times saves you almost nothing; launching more
> times costs almost nothing. (The shuttle and Titan IV are examples of
> this.)
I understand this, but anyway I am curious what would be the marginal cost
of this launcher. Perhaps someone familiar with costs/prices could calculate
how much it would cost:
- 2 * Shuttle ET
- 9 * RS-68
And similar for the TLI stage:
- 1 * shorthened Shuttle ET
- 7 * RL10B
I found some information on the engines, but no prices or costs:
http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/engines/rs68_specs.shtml
http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/engines/rl10_specs.shtml
> Some contemplation of this yields an interesting conclusion:
> Build One Launcher, Not Two!
> There is no possible way you can justify the added development costs of
> the CLV, or the extra standing army needed to operate it. It's *cheaper*
> to put the capsule plus a tub of ballast on a heavy launcher than to build
> a medium launcher just to carry the capsule.
And if such a large mass margin was available it should not be too
difficult to use it for something useful.
> The first stage yields about 2.1km/s of delta-V,
At what altitude would stage separation happen ?
Since that speed is relatively low would it be possible to recover the
stage without needing a Thermal Protection System (apart from the foam
insulation) ? Would the stage be too fragile to land on water ?
And would it be worthwhile ?
.pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94
Will McLean
Henry Spencer wrote:
> In article <1132855059.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Will McLean <mclea...@aol.com> wrote:
> >One disadvantage of making only a heavy lift vehicle is that ir's hard
> >to believe that it can be brought into service nearly as quickly as the
> >Stick...
>
> I thought about that, but I don't see it. The Stick requires an all-new
> second stage, developed essentially from scratch, and some changes -- not
> clear how big or how drastic -- to the complex, marginal, cranky SSME.
> That has got to take more time, not less, than developing a stage from
> existing tankage and a much simpler engine. Brown Bess needs two such
> stages, yes, but development can run in parallel, and a fair bit of the
> work should be in common.
>
Yet structurally, the Stick second stage is essentially a shortened
Delta IV with a different engine. That's a lot closer to an existing
stage than taking a side-mounted drop tank, reshaping the front end,
designing for entirely different load paths, adding thrust structure
for a new engine cluster, etc.
Having tooling for the tanks is helpful, but any in-line design using
ET tooling is going to be virtually a new stage, and a alarge and
complex one at that.
(snip)
>
> >While the lower stages use shuttle ET tooling, they still
> >involve significantly more changes than the NASA SDHLV baseline. ATK
> >was estimating that as a ten year job, given adequate funding.
>
> The Saturn V, developed from scratch, took 5.5 years from decision to
> first flight. (Including two all-new engines, although early work on
> them was started before the launcher firmed up.)
>
Sure. In an entirely different funding climate and agency culture.
> ATK is hardly a disinterested source, since they've been lobbying really
> hard for the Stick for quite a while now.
>
Sure. Also their heavy lift versions, also using their engines. You
would expect their bias, when decribing any SDHLV, to be to
underestimate development time, not the reverse.
"A develop only one launcher" straegy would be to their advantage, if
the one launcher was some sort of SDHLV. They'd sell four motors rather
than three per lunar mission.
Will
Will McLean
How do the numbers work with 1,000 tonnes of propellant in the first
stage, and 400 in the second?
Will McLean
Reed Snellenberger
news:IqHpn...@spsystems.net:
>
> They're *very* expensive; their standing army is large because they're
> complex, marginal engines; and you need lots of them, since they have
> only about half the thrust of the RS-68.
>
Isn't most of the standing army connected to re-use activities?
--
I was punching a text message into my | Reed Snellenberger
phone yesterday and thought, "they need | GPG KeyID: 5A978843
to make a phone that you can just talk | rsnellenberger
into." Major Thomb | -at-houston.rr.com
Derek Lyons
>>...for orbital work one would be hard pressed to
>>find a use for all that payload capacity outside of building another
>>space station. Once the station was built, this seems an awfully big
>>rocket just to fly crewing and supply missions to it unless it's a real
>>monster of a station with a large crew.
>
>Yep. Even adding a fairly heavy cargo module behind the capsule, there's
>a lot of capacity going unused there.
The solution would seem to be sending larger cargo/crew exchange
missions less frequently. This worked just fine for Antartic stations
for decades.
Like instant mass communication, rapid (JIT) movement of small(er)
amounts of cargo is the norm today, and folks seem to assume that
means there are no other ways.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Henry Spencer
Will McLean <mclea...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I thought about that, but I don't see it. The Stick requires an all-new
>
>Yet structurally, the Stick second stage is essentially a shortened
>Delta IV with a different engine.
Except that it's completely different -- different diameter, different
length, different engine, different environment. Oh yes, and man-rating
Delta IV would be oh-so-hard but the Stick second stage will be easy.
Uh huh.
>> >...significantly more changes than the NASA SDHLV baseline. ATK
>> >was estimating that as a ten year job, given adequate funding.
>> ATK is hardly a disinterested source, since they've been lobbying really
>> hard for the Stick for quite a while now.
>
>Sure. Also their heavy lift versions, also using their engines. You
>would expect their bias, when decribing any SDHLV, to be to
>underestimate development time, not the reverse.
Almost everyone involved -- except Congress -- benefits from longer
development, not shorter.
>"A develop only one launcher" straegy would be to their advantage, if
>the one launcher was some sort of SDHLV. They'd sell four motors rather
>than three per lunar mission.
But they'd only get paid for one lot of development. Producing 1/3 more
motors is not that much more lucrative.
Will McLean
Henry Spencer wrote:
> In article <1132929835....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> Will McLean <mclea...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> I thought about that, but I don't see it. The Stick requires an all-new
> >> second stage, developed essentially from scratch...
> >
> >Yet structurally, the Stick second stage is essentially a shortened
> >Delta IV with a different engine.
>
> Except that it's completely different -- different diameter, different
> length, different engine, different environment. Oh yes, and man-rating
> Delta IV would be oh-so-hard but the Stick second stage will be easy.
> Uh huh.
>
It doesn't need to be a different diameter. A number of Stick designs
have quoted the same diameter as the Delta IV core for the upper stage.
> >> >...significantly more changes than the NASA SDHLV baseline. ATK
> >> >was estimating that as a ten year job, given adequate funding.
> >> ATK is hardly a disinterested source, since they've been lobbying really
> >> hard for the Stick for quite a while now.
> >
> >Sure. Also their heavy lift versions, also using their engines. You
> >would expect their bias, when decribing any SDHLV, to be to
> >underestimate development time, not the reverse.
>
> Almost everyone involved -- except Congress -- benefits from longer
> development, not shorter.
>
And the taxpayers. But nobody benefits from *admitting* that
development will be longer for their design.
> >"A develop only one launcher" strategy would be to their advantage, if
> >the one launcher was some sort of SDHLV. They'd sell four motors rather
> >than three per lunar mission.
>
> But they'd only get paid for one lot of development. Producing 1/3 more
> motors is not that much more lucrative.
> --
Is it plausible that ATK expects that they will be paid to develop the
complete vehicle? Have they ever gotten that sort of contract?
Will McLean
Rand Simberg
he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>Sure. Also their heavy lift versions, also using their engines. You
>>would expect their bias, when decribing any SDHLV, to be to
>>underestimate development time, not the reverse.
>
>Almost everyone involved -- except Congress -- benefits from longer
>development, not shorter.
Even Congress does. The only people who don't are the taxpayers.
Fred J. McCall
:Nice design for a start.
:
:1. Why not use SSMEs. They're more expensive, but they cost nothing to
:develop.
Because that's how we got the Shuttle with its high flight costs in
the first place. Development costs happen once and are sunk costs.
Operating costs hang around your neck forever. So if you plan on
doing something a lot, you need to minimize operating costs.
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
Fred J. McCall
:he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) wrote:
:
:>>...for orbital work one would be hard pressed to
:>>find a use for all that payload capacity outside of building another
:>>space station. Once the station was built, this seems an awfully big
:>>rocket just to fly crewing and supply missions to it unless it's a real
:>>monster of a station with a large crew.
:>
:>Yep. Even adding a fairly heavy cargo module behind the capsule, there's
:>a lot of capacity going unused there.
:
:The solution would seem to be sending larger cargo/crew exchange
:missions less frequently. This worked just fine for Antartic stations
:for decades.
:
:Like instant mass communication, rapid (JIT) movement of small(er)
:amounts of cargo is the norm today, and folks seem to assume that
:means there are no other ways.
If the storage costs on site are low and/or the fixed costs of a
transport mission are high this would certainly seem to be the way to
go. If the facts support it (and they probably do) this starts to
argue the case for heavier lifters.
Stefan D.
Henry Spencer wrote:
...
> Launcher Concept
>
> I fiddled around with this a bit, and here's what I came up with.
>
> The first stage is a shuttle ET, the modern aluminum-lithium version,
> about 26t of tank (all masses in metric tons) holding about 720t of
> propellant. The LOX tank at the top needs to lose the pointed nose, in
> favor of a blunter tank end with an interstage ring extending up, but that
> shouldn't be at all hard -- we can use the tooling currently used to
> build the *bottom* of the LOX tank. With no SRBs, a fair bit of heavy
> structure can be deleted; I assume that suffices to cover the interstage
> ring's mass.
>
> At the bottom of the tank, we put seven RS-68s, a ring of six around a
> seventh. The engines are about 48t, and throw in another 10t for a thrust
> structure. The RS-68's sea-level Isp is 357s, and its vacuum Isp is 409s;
> I assume an average of 380s. Takeoff thrust/weight is 1.25, about the
> same as the Saturn V.
>
> The last mass property of interest is residual propellant at the end of
> the burn. NASA's designs seem to assume the orthodox rule of thumb, 1%...
> which is ridiculous. The S-IVB specified 0.25%, and typically achieved
> even better. I'm specifying 0.25%, or about 2t of residuals.
>
> On top of this is the second stage... another shuttle ET! Same capacity
> and mass, same blunted nose. This one has only two RS-68s (14t), with a
> smaller thrust structure (5t). Here the Isp is the full vacuum 409s. The
> thrust/weight at ignition is about 0.8, which is okay for an upper stage.
> Same 0.25% residuals. Needs an altitude-start variant of the RS-68, but
> that should be pretty trivial -- it's a much simpler and less cranky
> engine than the SSME.
>
> On top is 100t of payload. A fairing, if needed, is charged against
> payload.
How would one design a launcher in this class to be reusable?
I can imaginze the booster stage to be reusable (probably the
Energia/Zenit way, with reusable flyback boosters) as the mass penalty
for making it reusable does not influence overall performance that
much.
But how would one make a large second stage reusable? All the weight
is in the engines at the bottom. How could you use the large tankage
area? Reentering sideways does not look very stable aerodynamically.
What about TPS? You can perhaps reuse just the engines, but truly
significant cost savings can probably be achieved only by reusing the
whole stage as-is, no? I think in most cases bringing your second stage
back and almost ready to go again would be worth sacrifyihg even half
of the available payload.
Stefan
...
Mike Lorrey
Henry Spencer wrote:
>
> Launcher Concept
>
> I fiddled around with this a bit, and here's what I came up with.
>
> The first stage is a shuttle ET, the modern aluminum-lithium version,
> about 26t of tank (all masses in metric tons) holding about 720t of
> propellant. The LOX tank at the top needs to lose the pointed nose, in
> favor of a blunter tank end with an interstage ring extending up, but that
> shouldn't be at all hard -- we can use the tooling currently used to
> build the *bottom* of the LOX tank. With no SRBs, a fair bit of heavy
> structure can be deleted; I assume that suffices to cover the interstage
> ring's mass.
>
> At the bottom of the tank, we put seven RS-68s, a ring of six around a
> seventh. The engines are about 48t, and throw in another 10t for a thrust
> structure. The RS-68's sea-level Isp is 357s, and its vacuum Isp is 409s;
> I assume an average of 380s. Takeoff thrust/weight is 1.25, about the
> same as the Saturn V.
Here's something I've been toying with for a little bit: a ring of 5
SSMEs in an ejectable pod, surrounding a sixth SSME. Essentially
similar to the ET SSTO that Hudson proposed, however this is a 1.5STO:
Firstly, it uses the SLWT, rather than the standard ET that Hudson
based his mass calcs on. This increases payload from 30klb to 50klb.
At 65-70% of fuel expended, the 5 SSME ring shuts down and drops off,
much as the early Atlas used to drop two engines. This ring is
recoverable by parachute. The launcher then continues into orbit on the
remaining SSME.
The ET has been modified on the ground to have rough compartment
framing and decking, ladders, and hatches. It carries deployable solar
panels in pods along its side. Even with all this added mass, this
ETlas launcher can still put 100,000 lb in orbit, and the ET is
prepared for gradual equipment installation in orbit as a space station
module of massive capacity.
Subtracting 9000 lb from payload for equipment to be installed, and
1,000 lb for a foam-bag reentry module similar to that (but larger)
proposed in the late 60's for space station emergency escape and
reentry pods. This foam bag pod would be used to recover the last SSME.
Otherwise, SSMEs would be stockpiled at the spacestation for eventual
reuse in interplanetary vessels, or recovery together in a larger
future RLV.
This sort of launcher can be podded in parallel with identical
launchers to multiply payload: 3x, 5x, and 7x launchers launching
300klb, 500klb, and 700klb payloads respectively. Rebuilding the ET as
a composite structure should add 20klb in payload capacity to every
booster pod used.
I've also got a similar concept for a lunar transtage/lander that keeps
its fuel tanks for use as lunar base modules after landing...
Mike Lorrey
of the TPS and the SRB, and the need to operate the SSMEs at 110% for
so much of the flight time since you've only got three of them. Newer
engines get their longer life only because they are designed to operate
at no more than 90% of the SSME performance level. The newest model of
SSME is not measurably different from the COBRA or RS-68 other than
that.
The big problem with the heavy lift launchers is the use of LH2. As
Dunn has clearly demonstrated, it would be much smarter to use RP-1,
Cyclopropane, or Methylacetylene, or, my personal favorite, boronated
kerosene (which has an Isp of 457, thus negating the advantage of LH2
while eliminating its density weakness).
Mike Lorrey
to produce the SLWT, depending on production rates. Anything over that
is bureaucratic surplusage.
Len Lekx
wrote:
>my personal favorite, boronated kerosene (which has an Isp of 457,
I've never heard of this one. (Then again, I don't hear about a
LOT of `em... :-) ) Is there someplace I can look up its'
properties? Or would you give a bit of an overview?
Mike Lorrey
and French ramjet and missile studies of the 60's. I'm at work now,
I'll try to post some good links tonight. Boron additive to JP-4, 7 or
RP-1 have been proposed with post-Blackhorse USAF TAV studies, I've
seen a few charts plotting varying Isp's based on the percent of boron
slurried in the kerosene. Detractors usually point to a 1950's study of
the fuel in a baseline engine with complaints about coking in the
exhaust nozzle, but typically this occurs due to insufficient chamber
pressures. Precipitation of boron oxide should not occur until after it
has left the nozzle, and settles out as a bauxite dust. Makes lots of
smoke and thunder, though. Lots of fun.
Fred J. McCall
:But they'd only get paid for one lot of development. Producing 1/3 more
:motors is not that much more lucrative.
If this is true, there's something wrong with the whole space
industry. In almost any business you make your money selling the
cookies, not figuring out what the recipe is.
Production contracts are where the money generally is, Henry.
Rand Simberg
McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) wrote:
>
>:But they'd only get paid for one lot of development. Producing 1/3 more
>:motors is not that much more lucrative.
>
>If this is true, there's something wrong with the whole space
>industry.
There is indeed.
>In almost any business you make your money selling the
>cookies, not figuring out what the recipe is.
Aerospace companies view R&D as a profit center, not a cost of doing
business, because the government encourages them to do so.
>Production contracts are where the money generally is, Henry.
Not in the government space business.
John Schilling
>he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) wrote:
>:But they'd only get paid for one lot of development. Producing 1/3 more
>:motors is not that much more lucrative.
>If this is true, there's something wrong with the whole space
>industry. In almost any business you make your money selling the
>cookies, not figuring out what the recipe is.
>Production contracts are where the money generally is, Henry.
The spaceflight industry was, by historical accident, founded by people
whose skills lay in recipe development. They came to like being the people
who got most of the money, and want to keep it that way.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Monte Davis
>The spaceflight industry was, by historical accident, founded by people
>whose skills lay in recipe development. They came to like being the people
>who got most of the money, and want to keep it that way.
Obviously R&D costs predominate at first in *any* new industry using
new technologies. But we expect unit costs to decline and the fraction
of costs going into production to grow as the industry expands.
If that hasn't happened yet in spaceflight, it seems simpler -- if
less gratifying -- to explain it by limited demand than by invoking
greedy conspiracy by BoLockMart et al. It's naive to expect
mass-market economies (or rapid technological progress) from a
transportation technology that moves a few hundred tons per year
worldwide.
Rand Simberg
Davis <monte...@verizon.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>
>>The spaceflight industry was, by historical accident, founded by people
>>whose skills lay in recipe development. They came to like being the people
>>who got most of the money, and want to keep it that way.
>
>Obviously R&D costs predominate at first in *any* new industry using
>new technologies. But we expect unit costs to decline and the fraction
>of costs going into production to grow as the industry expands.
>
>If that hasn't happened yet in spaceflight, it seems simpler -- if
>less gratifying -- to explain it by limited demand than by invoking
>greedy conspiracy by BoLockMart et al.
Nobody has done that, Monte. Nice straw man, though.
Monte Davis
>Nobody has done that, Monte. Nice straw man, though.
Then how do *you* interpret "They [people whose skills lay in recipe
development, i.e. those who benefit from high R&D costs] came to like
being the people who got most of the money, and want to keep it that
way"..?
I understand why so many people here take it as axiomatic that
spaceflight could and should be much cheaper, and would be if it
weren't for Vested Interests, or failure to implement Really Cool
Underrated Technology, or a Mysterious Post-Apollo Loss of National
Will.
It's so much more comforting than looking squarely at the facts:
- that most of the technologies crucial to spaceflight were developed
not for spaceflight, but in a money's-no-object race for ICBMs
- that there has not yet been enough demand for spaceflight either to
drive the cost of those technologies down, or to drive development of
intrinsically cheaper technologies
- that the pricing behavior of aerospace vendors (and the relative
weight of R&D vs. production costs) is economically rational in the
existing market -- characterized by low volume, uncertain future
demand, and an orientation to "missions" rather than frequent, routine
operation
Ed Kyle
One of the problems, at least in the U.S., is that the launch
customer won't leave the vehicle alone long enough for it to earn
a return on the R&D costs. Thor-based launchers have flown
most-often from the U.S., 688 in all (including IRBMs), but the
most often-flown space launch variant, Delta 2, has only flown
120 times - and the Air Force is abandoning Delta 2 after next
year. More than 580 Atlas launches took place, but
Atlas Agena D, the most often flown Atlas variant, only lifted off
76 times. There were 147 or so Atlas Centaurs, but using
11 different versions! Each version required its own development
monies. Titan 4 is the absolute worst example. $20-30 billion
for a program that only flew 39 times. And the Air Force couldn't
even leave Titan 4 alone - it had to develop a "B" version at
great expense that only flew 17 of those 39 missions.
Russia, on the other had, has flown more than 600 identical
Soyuz-U variants of the R-7 family alone. Bought and paid for,
that one.
- Ed Kyle
Rand Simberg
>simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
>
>>Nobody has done that, Monte. Nice straw man, though.
>
>Then how do *you* interpret "They [people whose skills lay in recipe
>development, i.e. those who benefit from high R&D costs] came to like
>being the people who got most of the money, and want to keep it that
>way"..?
Certainly not as a "conspiracy," which is a word with connotations
that have nothing to do with what we're describing, which is simply
response to institutional incentives, and the behavior of a particular
industry culture. It's simply inertia.
But of course, if you call it a "conspiracy," you can transform a
straightforward (and well accepted, by people who actually study such
things, like Norm Augustine) observation about public-choice theory
into some sort of tinfoil-hat screed. I'm sure you never intended
that, though, right...?
People who are benefitting very well from the status quo have no
incentive to change. Failure to understand that on the part of NASA
was the main reason for the X-33 debacle. They gave the job to a
contractor who not only had no interest in seeing the project succeed,
but benefitted from its failure (this would have been true for
Rockwell as well, though to a lesser degree).
Monte Davis
>One of the problems, at least in the U.S., is that the launch
>customer won't leave the vehicle alone long enough for it to earn
>a return on the R&D costs...
Agreed. Surely some of that is a mental and organizational legacy from
the "stretch" objectives of NASA's glory days. It's more exciting to
keep pushing the envelope with technology refinements than to do
something you've already done over and over and over, focusing on cost
rather than performance... enough times to get real economies of
scale, infrastructure, and operational experience.
That's what drives me nuts about the "all we've done since 1972 is go
around in circles in LEO" meme. Yeah -- very very expensive circles.
Sometimes I think a NASA commitment to spend $104B on bricks delivered
to orbit would do more for space capability in the long run than VSE
will.
>Russia, on the other had, has flown more than 600 identical
>Soyuz-U variants of the R-7 family alone. Bought and paid for,
>that one.
Khrushchev was lying in 1957 when he said the USSR was turning out
ICBMs like sausages, but over time the R-7 has come closer to that
than anything since the V2. (In point of fact the V2 production people
complained a lot about how hard it was to fulfill Berlin's quotas with
all the design changes slipstreaming from Peenemunde... but given
their production methods, it's hard to be sympathetic.)
Rand Simberg
>That's what drives me nuts about the "all we've done since 1972 is go
>around in circles in LEO" meme. Yeah -- very very expensive circles.
>Sometimes I think a NASA commitment to spend $104B on bricks delivered
>to orbit would do more for space capability in the long run than VSE
>will.
I think that all the time. Though water would probably be a more
useful payload...
Monte Davis
>what we're describing... is simply response to institutional incentives,
>and the behavior of a particular industry culture. It's simply inertia.
We agree: that's exactly what I meant by saying that BoLockMart's R&D
costs and pricing behavior are economically rational. What I should
have said was that "They came to like being the people who got most of
the money, and want to keep it that way" directs our attention to
their behavior, which is -- literally -- their business. I believe
it's more useful to focus on the pattern of incentives NASA gives
them, which we -- through Congress -- can shape.
I meant no tinfoil hat for John, whom I respect, and should he take
offense I apologize for any unintended connotations of "conspiracy."
Your readiness to take vicarious offense is your own business.
Rand Simberg
>simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
>
>>what we're describing... is simply response to institutional incentives,
>>and the behavior of a particular industry culture. It's simply inertia.
>
>We agree: that's exactly what I meant by saying that BoLockMart's R&D
>costs and pricing behavior are economically rational. What I should
>have said was that "They came to like being the people who got most of
>the money, and want to keep it that way" directs our attention to
>their behavior, which is -- literally -- their business. I believe
>it's more useful to focus on the pattern of incentives NASA gives
>them, which we -- through Congress -- can shape.
We're in violent agreement.
>I meant no tinfoil hat for John, whom I respect, and should he take
>offense I apologize for any unintended connotations of "conspiracy."
>Your readiness to take vicarious offense is your own business.
It gets a little tiresome, because even if that wasn't your intent in
using the word, it often is and has been by others (and I have been at
the direct receiving end in the past, many times). I always notice,
though, that it is generally only the people trying to debunk the
"conspiracy" who actually use the word. Usually because they don't
even understand the point, or the argument.
Jake McGuire
> Monte Davis wrote:
> > John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >The spaceflight industry was, by historical accident, founded by people
> > >whose skills lay in recipe development. They came to like being the people
> > >who got most of the money, and want to keep it that way.
> >
> > Obviously R&D costs predominate at first in *any* new industry using
> > new technologies. But we expect unit costs to decline and the fraction
> > of costs going into production to grow as the industry expands.
>
> customer won't leave the vehicle alone long enough for it to earn
> a return on the R&D costs.
How much of this is the customer, and how much of it is a perception
that there are largeish launcher design organizations that need to be
kept busy? I know that there was an article about Snecma and
Aerospatiale saying that now that the Ariane V ESC had flown, they
needed a new project to work on, with an explicit recognition that
Europe didn't need a new launcher.
> Russia, on the other had, has flown more than 600 identical
> Soyuz-U variants of the R-7 family alone. Bought and paid for,
> that one.
True. Even in the west, the largest production runs of things
resembling launch vehicles have been ICBMs or SLBMs. Peacekeeper was
the lowest-volume, at 50 operational missiles plus test vehicles, and
that's more than most modern western launch vehicles.
- jake
John Schilling
>John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>>The spaceflight industry was, by historical accident, founded by people
>>whose skills lay in recipe development. They came to like being the people
>>who got most of the money, and want to keep it that way.
>Obviously R&D costs predominate at first in *any* new industry using
>new technologies. But we expect unit costs to decline and the fraction
>of costs going into production to grow as the industry expands.
Yes, but if we are paying attention, we only expect this to ever actually
happen when the market is willing to go to the people who founded the
new industry and say, "Thanks, but fuck off - from now on, we're going
to buy our cars/planes/whatever from some new guys who've never built
cars/planes/whatever before but say they can do it better than you all".
The airplanes people actually flew, weren't built by Wright or Bleriot.
The first automobiles were made by Daimler and Benz and Maybach; we can
look at those names and see what the auto market would look like if we
deferred to their judgement. Computers, well, IBM did eventually find
its way into the mass market, but they had to be dragged kicking and
screaming.
Spacecraft, as soon as we're willing to tell NASA and all its big primes
from the '50s and '60s to take a hike, we can expect unit costs to decline
and the industry to expand. If we leave it to them, well, the cheapest
new Maybach lists at $325,000 - hope you like taking the bus.
>If that hasn't happened yet in spaceflight, it seems simpler -- if
>less gratifying -- to explain it by limited demand than by invoking
>greedy conspiracy by BoLockMart et al. It's naive to expect
>mass-market economies (or rapid technological progress) from a
>transportation technology that moves a few hundred tons per year
>worldwide.
And it's wrong to expect the people who developed the space industry,
or any other industry, to ever move more than a few hundred units per
year worldwide. Different skills required, and no motive for the old
dog to learn the new tricks.
snidely
John Schilling wrote:
[...]
> well, the cheapest new Maybach lists at $325,000 - hope you like taking the bus.
This, of course, glosses over a lot of details...such as Daimler-Benz
and BMW spending the '50s making a lot of taxis and Black Marias. DB
did maintain a luxury line all along, but the Maybach marque was...out
of circulation for a while, and only recently re-animated. And DB/DBC
in the late 20th and early 21st century had a variety of micro-cars
that don't show up in the US, except occasionally at auto shows.
That isn't to say they would have done this if Henry F and Robert O and
Walter C hadn't made their efforts to make the auto a mass-market
commodity, but it does mean that you have to use care in predicting the
future of the space dinosaurs by analogy.
/dps
Monte Davis
>Spacecraft, as soon as we're willing to tell NASA and all its big primes
>from the '50s and '60s to take a hike, we can expect unit costs to decline
>and the industry to expand. If we leave it to them, well, the cheapest
>new Maybach lists at $325,000 - hope you like taking the bus.
To take the nearest non-space-vehicle comparison, it would be
interesting to know the cost trend during the longest US ICBM
production runs -- probably the 500+ each for Minuteman I and III, but
no doubt someone will correct me if that's wrong.
>And it's wrong to expect the people who developed the space industry,
>or any other industry, to ever move more than a few hundred units per
>year worldwide. Different skills required, and no motive for the old
>dog to learn the new tricks.
Could be -- although I remember some fairly tempting numbers projected
even by the old dogs at the height of expectations for commsat
constellations around 1997.
I guess where we differ is that you put the emphasis on the existing
vendors' lack of interest in adapting, and I put it on their never
having encountered a level of demand that would make it worth their
while.
Mike Lorrey
carries thousands of silica bricks.... of course they bring them all
home too...
John Schilling
>>And it's wrong to expect the people who developed the space industry,
>>or any other industry, to ever move more than a few hundred units per
>>year worldwide. Different skills required, and no motive for the old
>>dog to learn the new tricks.
>Could be -- although I remember some fairly tempting numbers projected
>even by the old dogs at the height of expectations for commsat
>constellations around 1997.
The really tempting numbers, IIRC, came from the commercial-aircraft
side of those operations. And from companies that only got retconned
into space-industry "old dog" status via merger, like Boeing.
>I guess where we differ is that you put the emphasis on the existing
>vendors' lack of interest in adapting, and I put it on their never
>having encountered a level of demand that would make it worth their
>while.
Demand for a product that doesn't yet exist, is almost by definition
something you can't *encounter*. You can only forecast it.
Forecasts by people who are professionals at that sort of thing, which
includes some of the marketing folk at the "old dogs", does suggest
a substantial increase in demand for spaceflight at the <$1K/kg level.
It's just not a market that e.g. LockMart is confident it can win and
keep even half of.
Ed Kyle
Jake McGuire wrote:
> Ed Kyle wrote:
> > Monte Davis wrote:
> > > John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >The spaceflight industry was, by historical accident, founded by people
> > > >whose skills lay in recipe development. They came to like being the people
> > > >who got most of the money, and want to keep it that way.
> > >
> > > Obviously R&D costs predominate at first in *any* new industry using
> > > new technologies. But we expect unit costs to decline and the fraction
> > > of costs going into production to grow as the industry expands.
> >
> > One of the problems, at least in the U.S., is that the launch
> > customer won't leave the vehicle alone long enough for it to earn
> > a return on the R&D costs.
>
> How much of this is the customer, and how much of it is a perception
> that there are largeish launcher design organizations that need to be
> kept busy? I know that there was an article about Snecma and
> Aerospatiale saying that now that the Ariane V ESC had flown, they
> needed a new project to work on, with an explicit recognition that
> Europe didn't need a new launcher.
Until the late 1980s in the U.S., it was all on the
customer because the customer totally financed the
production and launch facilitites. Since then, the
customer has been only slightly decoupled from the
manufacturer. No one has yet successfully fielded
a rocket that the government didn't want.
And as soon as the rocket is fielded, the builder
begins lobbying for R&D money, which is most
easily provided if the rocket is somehow being
"improved" by the funding. The same thing is
happening in Europe, as well as in post-Soviet
Russia. In the last few years, Energia has used
Russian and European money to start tinkering
with the Soyuz launcher. We've seen Soyuz-FG,
Soyuz/Ikar, Soyuz/Fregat, and now the new and
improved Soyuz-2. Plans for a Soyuz-3 rocket, etc,
are probably being penciled in as we speak.
>
> > Russia, on the other had, has flown more than 600 identical
> > Soyuz-U variants of the R-7 family alone. Bought and paid for,
> > that one.
>
> True. Even in the west, the largest production runs of things
> resembling launch vehicles have been ICBMs or SLBMs. Peacekeeper was
> the lowest-volume, at 50 operational missiles plus test vehicles, and
> that's more than most modern western launch vehicles.
I didn't realize it until just now, but 2005 will be the
first year since 1982 that an MX missile has not
been launched on a test flight. There have been
51 MX test flights (one failure), along with 14 other
space launches using MX or MX-derived booster
stages (Athena or Taurus). The program is clearly
winding down.
- Ed Kyle
Derek Lyons
>Spacecraft, as soon as we're willing to tell NASA and all its big primes
>from the '50s and '60s to take a hike, we can expect unit costs to decline
>and the industry to expand.
Assuming of course that there are customers willing and waiting with
cash in hand to buy the units as they roll like sausages off the
assembly line.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Stefan D.
automated) factory producing sausages at a rate of 1/week and with lean
launch procedures (a la Zenit) cost per year?
Somehow, it is hard to believe that it would be more then the 4B cost
of the shuttle standing army.
As far as customers go:
- with lower cost, there will be some
- subsidize launch costs, if necessary, for universities/research
institutes/even privite start-ups trying out novel technologies
- this will allow to actually test in hardware (instead of just seeing
viewgraphs) a lot of diverse, non-mainstream, even 'crazy' technology,
significantly speeding-up its development cycle
- with the flying rate of 1 sausage/week, many concepts (ballutes,
water-perspiration TPS, MOOSE-type personal reentry devices (skydiving
on steroids!), small/medium scale orbital tethers (rotating,
electromagnetic, ...), power sats, mirrors, cheap but capable
telescopes, actually going to the moon and trying cheap& dirty
technologies for volatile extraction/regolith processing, ...) can be
tactually tried, rested and made to work, instead of over-engineering
everything to make sure it works when launched for the first time (and
making sure that it hideously expensive and actually never flies).
Somehow, I feel that if you invest in sausage factory and just take
the few B/year as sunked cost of doing research, in a dozen years you
will have something much better/cheaper then the sausages and you won't
need to subsidize the research launches any more.
Even if you keep launching the sausages for 20 years, still much more
could be achieved (for comparable if not less money) then what has been
done in the previous 30 years.
Bruce Scott TOK
>The big problem with the heavy lift launchers is the use of LH2. As
>Dunn has clearly demonstrated, it would be much smarter to use RP-1,
>Cyclopropane, or Methylacetylene, or, my personal favorite, boronated
>kerosene (which has an Isp of 457, thus negating the advantage of LH2
>while eliminating its density weakness).
In a post-Oil world, we're going to have to learn to live without petro
derivatives and hence, with LH2 or something else as fuel.
--
ciao,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
Dr John Stockton
Dec 2005 17:29:11 local, seen in news:sci.space.policy, Bruce Scott TOK
<Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> posted :
>Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
>>The big problem with the heavy lift launchers is the use of LH2. As
>>Dunn has clearly demonstrated, it would be much smarter to use RP-1,
>>Cyclopropane, or Methylacetylene, or, my personal favorite, boronated
>>kerosene (which has an Isp of 457, thus negating the advantage of LH2
>>while eliminating its density weakness).
>
>In a post-Oil world, we're going to have to learn to live without petro
>derivatives and hence, with LH2 or something else as fuel.
There's going to be an ample supply of carbon and hydrogen atoms in the
atmosphere on any rainy day, and the cost of the energy contained in a
hydrocarbon-powered rocket is, and is likely to remain, small in
comparison with all the other costs of a mission.
Industrial chemists know how to synthesise all necessary substances from
raw materials and energy, and in many cases without adding substantial
additional cost.
There is, therefore, no _major_ problem for the space-travel industry.
It's different for ground- and air- travel, in which the costs of
present-day fuels are a much larger proportion of mission costs.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
Jake McGuire
> >The big problem with the heavy lift launchers is the use of LH2. As
> >Dunn has clearly demonstrated, it would be much smarter to use RP-1,
> >Cyclopropane, or Methylacetylene, or, my personal favorite, boronated
> >kerosene (which has an Isp of 457, thus negating the advantage of LH2
> >while eliminating its density weakness).
>
> In a post-Oil world, we're going to have to learn to live without petro
> derivatives and hence, with LH2 or something else as fuel.
LH2 is as much of a petro derivative as kerosene.
Both are currently made by processing hydrocarbons extracted from the
ground because it's cheap, and both can be synthesized from their
combustion products given an alternate source of energy.
-jake
Mike Lorrey
Dr John Stockton wrote:
> JRS: In article <200512301629....@ipp.mpg.de>, dated Fri, 30
> Dec 2005 17:29:11 local, seen in news:sci.space.policy, Bruce Scott TOK
> <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> posted :
> >Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >
> >>The big problem with the heavy lift launchers is the use of LH2. As
> >>Dunn has clearly demonstrated, it would be much smarter to use RP-1,
> >>Cyclopropane, or Methylacetylene, or, my personal favorite, boronated
> >>kerosene (which has an Isp of 457, thus negating the advantage of LH2
> >>while eliminating its density weakness).
> >
> >In a post-Oil world, we're going to have to learn to live without petro
> >derivatives and hence, with LH2 or something else as fuel.
>
> There's going to be an ample supply of carbon and hydrogen atoms in the
> atmosphere on any rainy day, and the cost of the energy contained in a
> hydrocarbon-powered rocket is, and is likely to remain, small in
> comparison with all the other costs of a mission.
Quite so, even if Peak Oil isn't the myth that it now appears to be,
once again. What the hydrogen crazies can't admit is that most hydrogen
used in the space program is extracted from propane and natural gas,
not from electrolysing seawater with solar and wind power, despite
their most ferverent fantasies. It is still cheaper even, and less
polluting, to crack hydrogen out of hydrocarbon molecules than to burn
fuel at the electric plant to electrolyse seawater.
>
> Industrial chemists know how to synthesise all necessary substances from
> raw materials and energy, and in many cases without adding substantial
> additional cost.
>
> There is, therefore, no _major_ problem for the space-travel industry.
If anything, and if Peak Oil were real, it would make greater economic
sense to reserve the hydrocarbons available for high value uses, like
space launch, than in wasting them on getting Loser Len and Bimbo Betty
to their burger flipper jobs daily. Let the proles drive gutless
no-range underpowered hydrogen cars.
Rand Simberg
<mlo...@gmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:
>Quite so, even if Peak Oil isn't the myth that it now appears to be,
>once again.
"Peak Oil" is a myth, but "Peak Cheap Oil" isn't (though it's probably
nowhere near as soon as many of the Chicken Littles claim). We may
have to settle at prices closer to the range they are now to open up
the vast new supplies that are out there. Which is all right, of
course, since the economy seems to be booming at current prices. So
"cheap" becomes relative as well.
Mike Lorrey
What is the metric for cheapness? In inflation adjusted dollars, oil is
still cheap. The price peaks of 79-80' are equivalent to $3.15/gallon
of gas today. Todays average price of $2.23/gal is cheap. Today's
$60/bbl oil prices are equivalent to $22.38 in 1979.
http://www.ioga.com/PDF_Files/oilpricechart.pdf
http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif
http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1869.gif
Doesn't seem to be any end to "cheap" oil, does there?
Nor does there seem to be a production peak, currently:
http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/PAPRPNT.gif
http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/PAPRPOP.gif
What there is is a dearth of production capacity:
http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/excess.gif
Due to environmental restrictions here in the US:
http://www.techcentralstation.com/020501C.html
Which is a result of feasible reserves being put off limits by
environmentalists and the world "global warming" campaign to empower
the UN with carbon taxing authority:
http://www.energycommission.org/ewebeditpro/items/O82F6801.pdf
Rand Simberg
>
>Rand Simberg wrote:
>> On 31 Dec 2005 21:12:26 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Mike Lorrey"
>> <mlo...@gmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
>> as to indicate that:
>>
>> >Quite so, even if Peak Oil isn't the myth that it now appears to be,
>> >once again.
>>
>> "Peak Oil" is a myth, but "Peak Cheap Oil" isn't (though it's probably
>> nowhere near as soon as many of the Chicken Littles claim). We may
>> have to settle at prices closer to the range they are now to open up
>> the vast new supplies that are out there. Which is all right, of
>> course, since the economy seems to be booming at current prices. So
>> "cheap" becomes relative as well.
>
>What is the metric for cheapness?
Whatever the Chicke Littles need it to be to prove their thesis.
Bruce Scott TOK
>LH2 is as much of a petro derivative as kerosene.
>
>Both are currently made by processing hydrocarbons extracted from the
>ground because it's cheap, and both can be synthesized from their
>combustion products given an alternate source of energy.
That's fair enough. We're going to have to shift a few gears. Also,
the point about hydrocarbon manufacture is also well taken, as long as
it is kept in mind.
To the others, Peak Oil as well as Global Warming are both very real.
Pity too many people can't think on long enough timescales (I thought
this was supposed to be part of the point in sci.space.*)...
Don't forget about energy costs while thinking about any of these
things. The people carping about peak oil being a hoax (they said the
same about global warming as recently as 5 years ago while today you
have to be a nut to say that) always ignore the energy cost of
extracting non-cheap oil.
Any long term model about space has to solve the same problem as any
long term model about industry. How do you run it when you can't
cheaply take what you need? We have to figure out how to do this stuff
when we will have to _make_ every piece of it. Ultimately, the energy
sources will have to be the Sun or geothermal or nuclear. Fossil
hydrocarbons will be a thing of the past in relatively short order (200
yrs or so at most counting coal).
Mike Lorrey
Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
>
> To the others, Peak Oil as well as Global Warming are both very real.
> Pity too many people can't think on long enough timescales (I thought
> this was supposed to be part of the point in sci.space.*)...
Haven't you heard, Bruce? The ASPO's projections of world oil reserves
do not constitutute enough oil to produce even as much as 3% of the
carbon emissions that the IPCC claims will be emitted in the 21st
century and thus will not cause the warming they claim will happen. You
can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either Global Warming is true, or
Peak Oil is true. They cannot both be true. Claiming both exposes you
as a fraud intent on another agenda.
Alain Fournier
I'm not sure what it is you call Peak Oil. But since oil is essentially
a non-renewable resource at some point we will have to cut down on oil
consumption. The consumption of fossil oil will peak. The question is
not will it peak but when.
Global warming exists today. The question is not about the existence
of global warming only about the scope of it.
So yes, we can have both. But it isn't cake.
Alain Fournier
Bruce Scott TOK
Basically, Peak Oil isn't coming fast enough to stop warming, which is
already occurring. Perhaps Mike forgot the weather/climate difference.
Mike will have to show his calculation here... that 3% claim looks like
nonsense. Basically the emissions will keep increasing because China
and other countries which have easily minable coal reserves will burn
them whether anyone else likes it or not.
We're only halfway through the oil, but the cheap oil is over with when
the demand curve rises above available supply. There is enough noise in
the signal for anyone making a statement to be pecked apart by
legalists, but this point is reached basically now with an uncertainty
of circa 5 yrs. Another recession could delay it for a few years.
Prediction: oil production in 2020 will _not_ be 20 percent higher than
it is now. Mike, what's yours?
Don't bother me about an "agenda". People with one always accuse others
with having the opposite and then demand they prove their innocence.
James Nicoll
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
> But since oil is essentially
>a non-renewable resource at some point we will have to cut down on oil
>consumption. The consumption of fossil oil will peak. The question is
>not will it peak but when.
Technically, _fossil fuels_ are non-renewable. Oil or oil-
like fuels could be made from carbon and hydrogen and energy. While
the apparent nature of the universe means all energy supplies
eventually run down, some of them do so on very long time scales
compared to human history. An economy as rich as the US and as
populous as the Earth is now that exploited fission could persist
for geological eras before running out of U and Th.
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
James Nicoll
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <9cduf.576$X25.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
>Alain Fournier <alai...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>I'm not sure what it is you call Peak Oil.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
>
>> But since oil is essentially
>>a non-renewable resource at some point we will have to cut down on oil
>>consumption. The consumption of fossil oil will peak. The question is
>>not will it peak but when.
>
> Technically, _fossil fuels_ are non-renewable.
I take this back: fossil fuels seem to be formed more slowly
than we are using them, which is different.
Alan Anderson
> ...since oil is essentially
> a non-renewable resource at some point we will have to cut down on oil
> consumption. The consumption of fossil oil will peak. The question is
> not will it peak but when.
Fossil oil is nonrenewable. Oil itself can be produced from non-fossil
feedstock.
Alain Fournier
Alan Anderson wrote:
Oil can be produced from non-fossil feedstock but it isn't likely to ever
be done in any significant amount. Maybe gasoline, though even that I don't
consider likely, but not oil (by oil here I mean petroleum not refined oil).
Of course we are nowhere near peak energy. I think we will eventually get
some decent battery, or maybe a fuel cell but probably not using gasoline
as a fuel.
Alain Fournier
Jake McGuire
> We're only halfway through the oil, but the cheap oil is over with when
> the demand curve rises above available supply.
This is either a nonsensical statement, or a tautology.
Yes, when people want to buy more oil at price X than is available for
sale, the price will change to a value higher than X, reducing the
amount of oil people want to buy. But "cheap" is too vague of a term
to be meaningful. On the one hand, you could argue the era of cheap
oil surely ended in 1999 when it went above $20 a barrel. On the other
hand, oil's pretty valuable stuff, and you could argue that it should
be considered cheap at $200 a barrel.
Oil prices increasing is a reality, "Peak Oil" is bullshit.
-jake
ro...@telus.net
Flat wrong. World oil reserves are based on a given price for oil.
As the price rises, the reserves will rise. Deposits of heavy, tarry,
sandy, shale-y, etc. oil that can be profitably extracted for their
energy content only if oil prices are higher than current levels are
orders of magnitude larger than all the free-flowing oil extracted to
date. Also, the IPCC estimates are based on use of coal as well as
oil, and on coal (which involves larger carbon emissions for a given
amount of useful energy extracted) substituting for oil as production
of the latter peaks and declines.
Peak Oil, in the sense that at some point petroleum extraction will
enter an inexorable decline, is definitely true. Global Warming may
not be true, the jury is still out on that (and it may be true, but
not in the sense that its principal cause is human combustion of
fossil fuels). But your claim that both cannot be true is based on
fallacious reasoning, and is flat wrong.
-- Roy L
Pete Lynn
news:9cduf.576$X25.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> I'm not sure what it is you call Peak Oil. But since oil
> is essentially a non-renewable resource at some point
> we will have to cut down on oil consumption. The
> consumption of fossil oil will peak. The question is
> not will it peak but when.
There is a quite simple method of making oil short term renewable. Take
all available biowaste, (sewage, household, agricultural and forestry
waste, etcetera) and pump it back down deeper used oil wells. A form of
hot rock energy the heat and pressure serve to thermally depolymerize
the waste, creating oil, gas, coal, carbon and various salts, etcetera.
The oil and gas can be tapped off, the raw carbon can remain
sequestered.
This can be much cheaper than TDP on the surface. In this fashion
biowaste/biomass production is near a sufficient feedstock for global
oil needs.
Pete.
Mike Lorrey
Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
> Alain F wrote:
>
> >Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >I'm not sure what it is you call Peak Oil. But since oil is essentially
> >a non-renewable resource at some point we will have to cut down on oil
> >consumption. The consumption of fossil oil will peak. The question is
> >not will it peak but when.
> >
> >Global warming exists today. The question is not about the existence
> >of global warming only about the scope of it.
> >
> >So yes, we can have both. But it isn't cake.
>
> Basically, Peak Oil isn't coming fast enough to stop warming, which is
> already occurring. Perhaps Mike forgot the weather/climate difference.
>
> Mike will have to show his calculation here... that 3% claim looks like
> nonsense. Basically the emissions will keep increasing because China
> and other countries which have easily minable coal reserves will burn
> them whether anyone else likes it or not.
They aren't my calculations, they are the calcs of the head of the ASPO
at the University of Uppsalla in Finland. Allegedly based on global oil
reserves of 3500 billion barrels at current time, current consumption
rates and rate of increase in consumption vs. the rate of increase in
proven reserves, of about 180 billion barrels.
Not that I put a lot of weight in them, myself, but I find it curious
that the chicken-littles of the world seem to simultaneously believe in
both Global Warming (which apparently will cause an Ice Age) caused by
carbon emissions equal to some 100,000 billion bbls of oil, most of
which doesn't exist (even as coal) in current proven reserves, AND in
Peak Oil, which is based on the supposition that there is only 3500 bn
bbl of recoverable oil left in the world which allegedly isn't being
replenished by deeper reserves (despite evidence to the contrary) or
geothermal hydrogenation of tectonically subsided methane hydrates...
They cannot believe in two mutually exclusive myths at the same time
and be considered rational human beings.
The third contradictory myth they believe in is that all the oil in the
world was produced by organisms billions of years ago and all of it has
been discovered, drilled, and half of it all is used (that is actually
three or four myths there, which I can dissect in detail for those
interested in how oil is recovered and how it is counted as
'reserves'). In the short and sweet: of all supposedly "exhausted" oil
fields in the world, not a single one has had more than 5-10% of its
oil extracted.
Another myth that people believe in is that CO2's 'greenhouse' effect
is linear. In fact, it follows a diminishing returns curve which is
pretty close to its asymptotic peak. So, not only is there, according
to the Peak Oilers, not enough oil to produce the necessary CO2 for the
global warming the IPCC predicts, but the IPCC has ignored the fact
that CO2's warming follows a diminishing returns curve that we are
close to topping out at....
>
> We're only halfway through the oil, but the cheap oil is over with when
> the demand curve rises above available supply. There is enough noise in
> the signal for anyone making a statement to be pecked apart by
> legalists, but this point is reached basically now with an uncertainty
> of circa 5 yrs. Another recession could delay it for a few years.
Supply always expands when demand demands it. Yes, prices increase, but
if you look at the long term trend, the rate of increase has always
been less than inflation.
>
> Prediction: oil production in 2020 will _not_ be 20 percent higher than
> it is now. Mike, what's yours?
My prediction is that oil consumption in 2020 will not be 20% higher
than it is now. If anything, given the level of propaganda fueled
ignorant hysteria about 'global warming' and 'peak oil', I predict that
the Chinese will become more environmentalist than God, and that by
2020 CAFE of American cars will average 45 mpg, and every bit of the
savings will go into expansion of the Chinese car market, as 2020 will
be the year that China has more automobiles than the US.
Is anybody concerned about the fact that the biggest single component
of CO2 emissions are uncontrolled coal seam fires in Asia? There is not
one mention of it in the Kyoto agreement, not one calorie of those
fires goes into economic production, and they are only going to get
bigger over time.
>
> Don't bother me about an "agenda". People with one always accuse others
> with having the opposite and then demand they prove their innocence.
I've been to meetings of the World Federalist Society, I've met with
Club of Rome participants, and read the publications of the whole
Ehrlich doomsday cult (Donella Meadows, Fritjof Kapra, Jeremy Rifkin,
Jerry Mander, Kirkpatrick Sale, et al), and found them to be
neo-fabians, one and all. I've read the DOE/EPA proposals for carbon
taxes from the early 1990's and before, I know how much oil is in the
Athabascan sands, among other places. I've seen the UN maps to resettle
the North American population into the cities and turn the rural areas
into Biosphere Reserves used to finance a global welfare state. There
are a lot of important people lying very big lies that contradict each
other. You can't believe both of the Big Lies at once and not be either
irrational, ignorant, or an agent of a particular agenda.
There is a very big reason why NASA, et al, have promoted LH2 as the
be-all end-all rocket fuel in spite of its horrendous volumetric energy
density, which has nothing whatsoever to do with rocket science. It is
about the bully keeping the little kids in the bully's playground for
the duration, giving up their lunch money every day, and doing the
bully's homework as required.
I frankly don't care if they never prove their innocence, nor do I care
if you believe me or not. You'll objectively seek out and examine the
evidence if you are capable of such objectivity and have an interest in
finding the truth and arrive at your own opinion. You asked me my
opinion, I gave it.
Bruce Scott TOK
Very true... what's the production model?
Bruce Scott TOK
>Flat wrong. World oil reserves are based on a given price for oil.
>As the price rises, the reserves will rise. Deposits of heavy, tarry,
>sandy, shale-y, etc. oil that can be profitably extracted for their
>energy content only if oil prices are higher than current levels are
>orders of magnitude larger than all the free-flowing oil extracted to
>date. Also, the IPCC estimates are based on use of coal as well as
>oil, and on coal (which involves larger carbon emissions for a given
>amount of useful energy extracted) substituting for oil as production
>of the latter peaks and declines.
>
>Peak Oil, in the sense that at some point petroleum extraction will
>enter an inexorable decline, is definitely true. Global Warming may
>not be true, the jury is still out on that (and it may be true, but
>not in the sense that its principal cause is human combustion of
>fossil fuels). But your claim that both cannot be true is based on
>fallacious reasoning, and is flat wrong.
Global warming is already happening as is well documented. The
CO2/temperature signal rose out of the noise circa 2000 and is already
several std devs above the previous medium scale (100s yrs) trend.
Your comments on oil are well taken except they don't mention the
central point: energy cost. ``world oil reserves are based...price''
must be modified to take that into account... world oil reserves are
actually based on what is energetically profitable to mine out. Money
is merely the means. Physics sets the boundary conditions for the
reality. Funny I never see the cornucopia crowd (one of whom you are
responding to) address this.
I don't actually post much but I've been in and out of this newsgroup in
lurk mode for a long time ... for the cornucopia crowd and their
mentality, see the thread from a few years ago,
``never ending launch cost fantasies''
The same mentality is at work among the deniers who think they can solve
everything with policy and money. That's true for a lot of things but
it is not true where the limits are set by energy costs.
Alan Anderson
> >Fossil oil is nonrenewable. Oil itself can be produced from non-fossil
> >feedstock.
>
> Very true... what's the production model?
Thermal depolymerization, for one. It works fine in lab-scale
demonstrations, and doesn't seem to have any fundamental problems with
being scaled up.
Bruce Scott TOK
Alan Anderson wrote:
Is this CO2 net-negative? Also, what's the energy profit ratio (what we
in fusion call the "Q")?
Alan Anderson
> >Thermal depolymerization, for one. It works fine in lab-scale
> >demonstrations, and doesn't seem to have any fundamental problems with
> >being scaled up.
>
> Is this CO2 net-negative? Also, what's the energy profit ratio (what we
> in fusion call the "Q")?
Bare carbon is one of the outputs of the process. About 1/6 of the
energy content of the input is used to run the process; the rest comes
out as oil.
See more at http://www.answers.com/topic/thermal-depolymerization (or do
your own web search).
Sander Vesik
>
> They aren't my calculations, they are the calcs of the head of the ASPO
> at the University of Uppsalla in Finland. Allegedly based on global oil
> reserves of 3500 billion barrels at current time, current consumption
> rates and rate of increase in consumption vs. the rate of increase in
> proven reserves, of about 180 billion barrels.
The problem is that "proven reserves" has no basis. By all evidence,
Kuwait will keep their numbers constant (or raise them) until they have
at least one barrel remaining as doing otherwise would adversly affect
their income. And given that it has no real basis in reality, as a
result using it to prove anything is useless.
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Mike Lorrey
That is a nonsensical claim. If Kuwaiti reserves were much lower than
they really are, they could justify charging more for each barrel,
given the limited supply. This is why the peak oil scenario doesn't
fly: the people with the most to gain by claiming less is left (i.e.
those who own the reserves and pump them, could charge more per bbl if
there were less left) are not, only those who gain by scaring the
market with intentional underestimates are making shortfall claims
(i.e. universities with large endowments invested in oil company
stocks, oil futures, or beholden to governments that levy extensive
percentage based taxes on oil imports.)