View Single Post
  #4  
Old October 31st 17, 07:55 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.astro
Robert Clark[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 245
Default SpaceX BFR tanker as an SSTO.

"William Mook" wrote in message
...
You can buy them and do anything you can get a license to do. So, have at
it!
With a 3.2 km/sec exhaust speed and the requirement to boost through a 9.2
km/sec delta vee to attain a 7.91 km/sec orbital speed (with 1.29 km/sec
lost due to air drag and gravity losses) we have a propellant fraction of;
u = 1 - 1 / exp(9.2/3.2) = 0.943583860496223 ~ 94.36%
So, with a 3.5% structure fraction you could place 2.14% into LEO.
With a TSTO-RLV and the same structure fraction, dividing the delta vee by
2 to make each stage 4.6 km/sec we have;
u = 1 - 1 / exp(4.6/3.2) = 0.762479180904542 ~ 76.25%
So with a 3.5% structure fraction you could push 20.25% of each stage
through 4.6 km/sec.
So, here you have 0.202520819095458 squared which is 0.0410146821670953 ~
4.1%
Nearly double the take off weight into orbit.
Let's do three stages! 9.2 km/sec / 3 = 3.067 so,
u = 1 - 1 / exp(3.067/3.2) = 0.616468427123689 ~ 61.65%
So with a 3.5% structure fraction you have 0.348531572876311 ~ 34.85%
payload on each stage.
0.348531572876311 cubed is 4.23%
A slight, but measureable improvement.
So, you can see there is a significant benefit to two stages over one.
Now, if your structure fraction is higher, the benefit of staging is
higher. If we go from 3.5% to 5.0% structure fraction, we have

1 stage to orbit -0.64% - 155.85 t per t on orbit
2 stage to orbit - 3.51% - 28.44 t per t on orbit
3 stage to orbit - 3.71% - 26.96 t per t on orbit


Thanks for that calculation. It is correct, for the most part. There is the
fact that structure fraction only refers to the rocket stage itself without
payload. But when you calculate the fraction that reaches orbit, that's of
the entire mass including payload. So it's not quite accurate to subtract
off the structure fraction from this. But since the payload is a small
percentage of the entire stage mass it's a small discrepancy.

However, a key consideration that should be taken into account is that to
optimize the payload for a SSTO you really should use altitude compensation.
Your structure fraction for the stage of 3.5% is very good, but the exhaust
speed of 3.2 km/sec isn't very good for a vehicle you want to be SSTO.
Altitude compensation allows you to maximize your vacuum Isp while
optimizing your sea level thrust at launch as well.

Since we're discussing in the context of the Raptor engine I'll use
estimates for methane engines. I'll use a rocket engine analysis program to
estimate the possible vacuum Isp with methane fuel:

http://www.propulsion-analysis.com/index.htm

The specs of the Raptor in its latest incarnation are given he

https://www.freelists.org/archives/a...Xl97QZZkJ3.jpg

If you use the cited combustion chamber pressure of 250 bar of the Raptor,
but give it an expansion area ratio of 300, possible with altitude
compensation, then the vacuum Isp can be in the range of 390 s according to
the rocket engine analysis program.

In contrast, the sea level Raptors to be used on the BFR will have only a
vacuum Isp of 356 s, and even the vacuum optimized Raptors to be used only
have a vacuum Isp of 375 s. By using altitude compensation you don't have to
make these trades of how many sea level vs. vacuum engines to use. All the
engines will have the optimal performance both at sea level and at vacuum
with altitude compensation.

So let's redo your calculation assuming the good structure fraction of 3.5%
but using altitude compensation to improve the Isp to 390 s, exhaust speed
of 3,824 m/s.

Then the proportion of the rocket, dry mass plus payload, that reaches orbit
is: 1/exp(9200/3,824) = .09019, then subtracting off the .035 for structure
fraction, the payload fraction it would be .09019 - .035 = .05519, about
5.5%, significantly better than the 2.14% you get with only a 3.2 km/s
exhaust speed. Even more notable is that the payload fraction of the SSTO
with altitude compensation is even better than that of the TSTO without it.

But to compare apples to apples, let's calculate the payload fraction
assuming both stages of the TSTO get the 390 s Isp. In that case,
1/exp(4600/3,824) = .300313 is the final stage mass at burn out, dry mass
plus payload. So subtracting off the structure fraction, the payload
fraction for each stage would be .300313-.035 = .265313. Then squaring this
because it is a two-stage, the payload fraction would be .07039, about 7%,
well above the payload fraction of the TSTO without altitude compensation.

This shows altitude compensation can make a significant improvement even for
multistage vehicles. The payload fraction is still better than the SSTO
case, but it is not as radically better as in the case without altitude
compensation. When you take into account you don't have the extra expense of
the second stage and of integrating the two stages together, the SSTO can be
useful for launching smaller payloads.


Bob Clark
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon nanotubes can revolutionize 21st-century technology IF they can be
made arbitrarily long while maintaining their strength.
Some proposals to accomplish that he
From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to Production
of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials.
American Journal of Nanomaterials.
Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016, pp 39-43. doi: 10.12691/ajn-4-2-2 | Research Article.
http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajn/4/2/2/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------