SpaceBanter.com

SpaceBanter.com (http://www.spacebanter.com/index.php)
-   Space Station (http://www.spacebanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=8)
-   -   The 100/10/1 Rule. (http://www.spacebanter.com/showthread.php?t=96795)

Sylvia Else March 5th 07 03:51 AM

The 100/10/1 Rule.
 
kT wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:

It's all about the overall cost of putting payload into orbit. A TSTO
would presumably give a better payload ratio, but with extra
complexity (equals dollars) both in the vehicles themselves, and in
handling the vehicles when they're in use. So the net cost per kg in
orbit may be higher for a TSTO than for an SSTO despite the higher
payload ratio.

An airliner style operation using a single vehicle per mission is very
attractive if it's achievable. After the vehicle lands, you just
refuel it, put in the next mission's payload and you're ready to
launch again.



And I posit we must approach that SSTO RLV launch scenario
incrementally. The 100/10/1 puts the masses involved in perspective.

However, one can argue that the expendable SSTO approach puts almost an
order of magnitude more mass into orbit, which is what I am suggesting.


Only because you're deeming that the spacecraft hardware in orbit is
part of the payload. That's fine if you have someone who wants that
payload in orbit, but most launches involve other kinds of payload.

Sylvia.

kT March 5th 07 04:50 AM

The 100/10/1 Rule.
 
Sylvia Else wrote:
kT wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:

It's all about the overall cost of putting payload into orbit. A TSTO
would presumably give a better payload ratio, but with extra
complexity (equals dollars) both in the vehicles themselves, and in
handling the vehicles when they're in use. So the net cost per kg in
orbit may be higher for a TSTO than for an SSTO despite the higher
payload ratio.

An airliner style operation using a single vehicle per mission is
very attractive if it's achievable. After the vehicle lands, you just
refuel it, put in the next mission's payload and you're ready to
launch again.



And I posit we must approach that SSTO RLV launch scenario
incrementally. The 100/10/1 puts the masses involved in perspective.

However, one can argue that the expendable SSTO approach puts almost
an order of magnitude more mass into orbit, which is what I am
suggesting.


Only because you're deeming that the spacecraft hardware in orbit is
part of the payload. That's fine if you have someone who wants that
payload in orbit, but most launches involve other kinds of payload.


Then they can launch on little Dneprs for all I care, I want to colonize
space, and the 100/10/1 rule is the only way I know how. If I'm going to
be flying around in a large spaceship for any length of time, I want as
much fuel and hardware as I can get. By leveraging the 10/1 rule to our
advantage the material and infrastructure in orbit gets large very fast.

Plus, I can get the engines back, so it's sustainable, and it's an order
of magnitude less flights that it otherwise would have taken. Thus, it's
scalable and sustainable so things only get bigger and better over time.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

kT March 5th 07 04:42 PM

The 100/10/1 Rule.
 
Alan Jones wrote:
On 4 Mar 2007 08:29:52 -0800, "Frogwatch"
wrote:

On Mar 4, 11:28 am, "Frogwatch" wrote:
On Mar 2, 4:42 pm, kT wrote:


I've been simulating single stage to orbit (SSTO) launch to low earth
orbit (LEO) in orbiter space flight simulator for a little while now.
In order to increase this payload, the obvious solution is converting
the rocket itself into payload.


BTW, why ssto, wouldnt tsto give better payload ratio?


Certainly, but kT is playing some sort of game with SSTO.


It's not a game, it's a fully qualified space simulator.

SSTO itself is just an engineering challenge, not the most economical
way to achieve orbit. Most SSTO studies postulate a fully reusable
vehicle to achieve some level of economy, but the margins, payload
performance, and real costs just are not competitive. kT's
cannibalistic SSTO vehicle seems pointless.


I'm not cannibalizing anything, I'm designing it all in from scratch.

Everything is used as is. At the most, it will require a space suit to
get into the hydrogen tank to seal the ports. All the the pressurization
hardware can be used as is. If anything, I'll be adding hardware to it.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer) March 5th 07 11:10 PM

The 100/10/1 Rule.
 
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 20:46:23 -0600, kT wrote:

However, one can argue that the expendable SSTO approach puts almost an
order of magnitude more mass into orbit, which is what I am suggesting.


Has anyone ever put anything into orbit with a single stage? I know
we've managed SSTS, Single Stage To Space, but I don't think we've
managed SSTO.

Mary "Haven't thought about this for years"
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
or
Visit my new blog at
http://thedigitalknitter.blogspot.com/

Rand Simberg[_1_] March 5th 07 11:15 PM

The 100/10/1 Rule.
 
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 14:10:19 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Reunite
Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)" made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 20:46:23 -0600, kT wrote:

However, one can argue that the expendable SSTO approach puts almost an
order of magnitude more mass into orbit, which is what I am suggesting.


Has anyone ever put anything into orbit with a single stage? I know
we've managed SSTS, Single Stage To Space, but I don't think we've
managed SSTO.


The old Atlas could have come pretty close. With a small enough
payload, it might have been able to.

Pat Flannery March 5th 07 11:40 PM

The 100/10/1 Rule.
 


Rand Simberg wrote:
The old Atlas could have come pretty close. With a small enough
payload, it might have been able to.


That would be fun to figure out; the weight of the aft skirt and its
engines versus that of the LEO payload.
The Atlas H 1/2 stage weighed 8,038 lb according to Encyclopedia
Astronautica; payload to LEO is 8,000 pounds, so with a lightweight
aerodynamic nosecone, who knows?
You'd be able to strip some weight off of the 1/2 stage because it
wouldn't have to separate, so the plumbing could be simpler.
It'd be a mighty low orbit, but you might be able to do it.

Pat

Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) March 5th 07 11:49 PM

The 100/10/1 Rule.
 
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Rand Simberg wrote:
The old Atlas could have come pretty close. With a small enough
payload, it might have been able to.


That would be fun to figure out; the weight of the aft skirt and its
engines versus that of the LEO payload.
The Atlas H 1/2 stage weighed 8,038 lb according to Encyclopedia
Astronautica; payload to LEO is 8,000 pounds, so with a lightweight
aerodynamic nosecone, who knows?


Hmm, and can you upgrade the engines at all?

Might gain you a bit more.

So.. what could you do with say:

200lbs
500lbs
1000lbs

I think the first 2 are basically "small sat" type things.

1000lbs, a bare minimum once around capsule?


You'd be able to strip some weight off of the 1/2 stage because it
wouldn't have to separate, so the plumbing could be simpler.
It'd be a mighty low orbit, but you might be able to do it.

Pat



--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting
sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com



Pat Flannery March 6th 07 12:13 AM

The 100/10/1 Rule.
 


Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
Hmm, and can you upgrade the engines at all?

Might gain you a bit more.

So.. what could you do with say:

200lbs
500lbs
1000lbs

I think the first 2 are basically "small sat" type things.

1000lbs, a bare minimum once around capsule?


It really doesn't make any sense though.
Because of its size and low mass, the Atlas booster will destructively
reenter in fairly short order from air drag anyway, so you really
haven't gained anything by doing it this way.
It would make more sense to figure out how to recover the 1/2 stage
after jettison.
But the two engines in that were fairly cheap low-tech ones, so that
really doesn't make any sense either, considering the amount of payload
you'd lose from the weight of the recovery system.

Pat

Pat Flannery March 6th 07 12:53 AM

The 100/10/1 Rule.
 


Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer) wrote:
Has anyone ever put anything into orbit with a single stage? I know
we've managed SSTS, Single Stage To Space, but I don't think we've
managed SSTO.

Mary "Haven't thought about this for years"



Scott Lowther claimed a long time back that Thor could do it, but then
backed off that statement.
I wonder if Thor could, minus any payload?
I think the single stage Atlas conversion would be the most reasonable
choice.
It's almost going to have to be something using balloon tankage to get
the mass fraction to where it's good enough to do the job.

Pat

Chris Jones March 6th 07 01:19 AM

The 100/10/1 Rule.
 
"Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)" writes:

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 20:46:23 -0600, kT wrote:

However, one can argue that the expendable SSTO approach puts almost an
order of magnitude more mass into orbit, which is what I am suggesting.


Has anyone ever put anything into orbit with a single stage? I know
we've managed SSTS, Single Stage To Space, but I don't think we've
managed SSTO.


I assume there's an implied "earth" before orbit there, since all the
lunar landing LMs' ascent stages were SSTO, albeit lunar.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 SpaceBanter.com. Space photos on this page are credited to NASA and ESA