DIY space transport

It is a bit of a dream of mine to build a small semi self sufficient
space station in LEO, (with a large engineering workshop of course), and
set up as a developer and tester of space based infrastructure as
required for what would eventually pass as the space handy person
market. Refining the development of small solar power systems, farming,
mining, refining, manufacturing, habitat making, transport systems,
etcetera.

This is a DIY job which requires a small cheap and convenient space
transport pickup truck and the means with which to build a small space
station - that would grow in an organic fashion. Could this potentially
be accomplished by a lone, well off and capable person, (assuming use of
earth based contractors), as opposed to a standing army?

Spaceshipone has a drymass around 2000kg. A space transport capable of
carrying a single person, and a reasonable excess baggage allowance,
might have a drymass as low as half of this - and perhaps even a similar
cost? The space transport might look something like the t/Space CXV
with much larger propellant tanks, much smaller cabin volume - and no
aeroshell.

Air launch is necessary for a number of reasons, starting with the need
to avoid aerodynamic drag at such a small scale. Obviously high launch
pad fees will not be sustainable, this will want launch site flexibility
and perhaps the capacity to launch from international waters. This
needs to be capable of less than $100/kg to LEO.

It should be possible to build a specialist carrier aircraft for only a
few million, this is more about climb and ferrying than efficiency -
large fabric covered wings, basically an oversized ultralight. It would
be nice to be able to carry bulky but light weight components in front
of the space transport vehicle, (like thin wall habitat pressure
vessels). This should be possible with air launching, the aircraft
would likely have a large protective aeroshell for the space transport,
and release at low dynamic pressure. If need be a very light weight
fabric tent like structure could be placed over such external loads to
ease asymmetric aerodynamic loads. With such a space transport a small
transport it should be feasible to eventually assemble a very large
space station.

Along the minimalist design philosophy I was considering a skydiving
parachute approach to landing. Using various tricks it should be
possible, for a 2-3% drymass mass cost, to have pin point flared landing
of the space transport on its side on a soft surface, (e.g. sand). The
seat would probably be a very light weight hammock type design and I am
even wondering about closed circuit TV, (some entirely independent),
instead of portholes. If need be one might pop the hatch and stick ones
head out to control the landing - or have an outside seat. Another
thought is mid air LOX fuelling of the space transport from the carrier
aircraft so as to minimise insulation.

The question of two stage verse one stage is a tricky one. I am
starting to favour single stage, which will be technically more
challenging, as second stage recovery from flexible launch locations
will be highly problematic. Single stage is more in keeping with the
single person operation - excepting the carrier aircraft pilot of
course. The point of the carrier aircraft design is that GLOW is not a
design constraint. Space transport GLOW might be around twenty ton.

I am considering the absence of an external aeroshell over the entire
space transport. The nose might consist of a large diameter miniature
capsule in which the pilot is situated. This would take the brunt of
the re-entry load and might even offer various separation and abort
capacities. The perhaps axis-symmetric multiple tanks would be aft of
this and while possessing some direct insulation and shielding there
would be no covering aeroshell over the intertank and capsule regions.
Hopefully the small scale, low re-entry heat loading, and high altitude
launch would make such an un-aerodynamically compromised design
possible. The open tank format would hopefully make maintenance easier,
increase frontal area during re-entry, and enable the capsule door to be
located at the back of the capsule away from the re-entry shield.

Such a miniature space transport design can I think reach assisted SSTO
performance requirements. If one can air launch, scale effects actually
favour smaller vehicle size with regard to drymass, and re-entry -
except for fixed guidance system weights, which continue to reduce with
each passing year. The engine design will be critical, something like a
miniature Merlin designed solely for vacuum. Throttling will be highly
desirable, and/or a multiple engine design.

The price tag to develop such a space transport and to start building
such a space station is probably 50 million at a minimum, (~twice
Spaceshipone, ~maybe half the larger Falcons). I had better start
putting away a little extra each week. :-)

Pete.

Pete Lynn wrote:
It is a bit of a dream of mine to build a small semi self sufficient
space station in LEO, (with a large engineering workshop of course), and
set up as a developer and tester of space based infrastructure as
required for what would eventually pass as the space handy person
market. Refining the development of small solar power systems, farming,
mining, refining, manufacturing, habitat making, transport systems,
etcetera.

This is a DIY job which requires a small cheap and convenient space
transport pickup truck and the means with which to build a small space
station - that would grow in an organic fashion. Could this potentially
be accomplished by a lone, well off and capable person, (assuming use of
earth based contractors), as opposed to a standing army?

Spaceshipone has a drymass around 2000kg. A space transport capable of
carrying a single person, and a reasonable excess baggage allowance,
might have a drymass as low as half of this - and perhaps even a similar
cost? The space transport might look something like the t/Space CXV
with much larger propellant tanks, much smaller cabin volume - and no
aeroshell.

Air launch is necessary for a number of reasons, starting with the need
to avoid aerodynamic drag at such a small scale. Obviously high launch
pad fees will not be sustainable, this will want launch site flexibility
and perhaps the capacity to launch from international waters. This
needs to be capable of less than $100/kg to LEO.

It should be possible to build a specialist carrier aircraft for only a
few million, this is more about climb and ferrying than efficiency -
large fabric covered wings, basically an oversized ultralight. It would
be nice to be able to carry bulky but light weight components in front
of the space transport vehicle, (like thin wall habitat pressure
vessels). This should be possible with air launching, the aircraft
would likely have a large protective aeroshell for the space transport,
and release at low dynamic pressure. If need be a very light weight
fabric tent like structure could be placed over such external loads to
ease asymmetric aerodynamic loads. With such a space transport a small
transport it should be feasible to eventually assemble a very large
space station.

Along the minimalist design philosophy I was considering a skydiving
parachute approach to landing. Using various tricks it should be
possible, for a 2-3% drymass mass cost, to have pin point flared landing
of the space transport on its side on a soft surface, (e.g. sand). The
seat would probably be a very light weight hammock type design and I am
even wondering about closed circuit TV, (some entirely independent),
instead of portholes. If need be one might pop the hatch and stick ones
head out to control the landing - or have an outside seat. Another
thought is mid air LOX fuelling of the space transport from the carrier
aircraft so as to minimise insulation.

The question of two stage verse one stage is a tricky one. I am
starting to favour single stage, which will be technically more
challenging, as second stage recovery from flexible launch locations
will be highly problematic. Single stage is more in keeping with the
single person operation - excepting the carrier aircraft pilot of
course. The point of the carrier aircraft design is that GLOW is not a
design constraint. Space transport GLOW might be around twenty ton.

I am considering the absence of an external aeroshell over the entire
space transport. The nose might consist of a large diameter miniature
capsule in which the pilot is situated. This would take the brunt of
the re-entry load and might even offer various separation and abort
capacities. The perhaps axis-symmetric multiple tanks would be aft of
this and while possessing some direct insulation and shielding there
would be no covering aeroshell over the intertank and capsule regions.
Hopefully the small scale, low re-entry heat loading, and high altitude
launch would make such an un-aerodynamically compromised design
possible. The open tank format would hopefully make maintenance easier,
increase frontal area during re-entry, and enable the capsule door to be
located at the back of the capsule away from the re-entry shield.

Such a miniature space transport design can I think reach assisted SSTO
performance requirements. If one can air launch, scale effects actually
favour smaller vehicle size with regard to drymass, and re-entry -
except for fixed guidance system weights, which continue to reduce with
each passing year. The engine design will be critical, something like a
miniature Merlin designed solely for vacuum. Throttling will be highly
desirable, and/or a multiple engine design.

The price tag to develop such a space transport and to start building
such a space station is probably 50 million at a minimum, (~twice
Spaceshipone, ~maybe half the larger Falcons). I had better start
putting away a little extra each week. :-)

Pete.

Before some other poster questions the feasibility of what you propose,
let me say that I believe much of what you propose is quite feasible.
You and I have influenced one another's ideas quite a bit over the past
few years.

I think that you will be quite pleased with our latest concept when we
finish the conceptual design and publish it--assuming that it works out
as currently expected. It will be much larger than what you propose.
However, I believe that this should make it technologically easier--it
should also simplify operations and yield a several-ton payload that
should be of interest to even the government.

This newer concept permits a large vehicle without breaking the bank.
I will need more that the $50 million that you propose, but I think
that we cans still stay within our usual $200 million development
cost limit

As for price per kg of payload to LEO, this is highly dependent on
traffic levels--which, ultimately, is higly dependent upon price
per kg of payload. I think that--even at moderate traffic levels
(as measured in dollar value)--it should be quite easy to get under
$1000/kg. $100/kg is going to be quite difficult, but not out of the
question with high enough traffic levels and clever system design.

I know that some think that I am rather fickle with respect to the
variety of launch vehicle concepts that I have proposed. However,
with our very limited resources, I have found that this is, by far,
the best way to make the most progress for the fewest bucks. Even
I am amazed--after 49 years of studying launch vehicle concepts
--how much can be done on the conceptual system design level, as
opposed to "space technology development."

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com

"Len" wrote:
I know that some think that I am rather fickle with respect to the
variety of launch vehicle concepts that I have proposed. However,
with our very limited resources, I have found that this is, by far,
the best way to make the most progress for the fewest bucks.

Proposals don't make progress - bending and flying metal does.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Derek Lyons wrote:
"Len" wrote:
I know that some think that I am rather fickle with respect to the
variety of launch vehicle concepts that I have proposed. However,
with our very limited resources, I have found that this is, by far,
the best way to make the most progress for the fewest bucks.

Proposals don't make progress - bending and flying metal does.

D.
--

Fine. I would like nothing better than to stop designing and
start bending metal. Send money. In the meantime, I'll try
to come up with better and better concepts that might attract
funding.

Money and a new market for low-cost space transportation
are the problems--not lack of technology.

L.

My objective for sending people into space, is they are preparing to
live there. Sending out just one person sounds good for cost cutting,
but what good is the cost cutting if you aren't doing a producctive
change, something that moves you on somehow? How does this program
advance toward a settlement on Mars or on Luna? Or in the Belt?

Cheers -- Martha Adams

Well, our designs do (would) bend metal--with not much
dependenceon composites, at least not in the orbiter
stage or in assisted single-stage concepts.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com

Actually, something like Pete proposes could be quite useful.
However, it is not sufficient to go to Mars or to the moon or
to the asteroids.

This does not necessarily mean that we need heavy lift.
As Rand points out, we need cheap lift. The main requirement
is for propellants. If staging from LEO or HEO is the way to go
--which I feel is far superior to direct ascent--then one should
not care how the propellants get to the tank farm, only how
much the propellants cost in orbit.

But back to Pete's original, excellent post, a low-cost, one-person
space transport would be very interesting and useful.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Len" wrote:
I know that some think that I am rather fickle with respect to the
variety of launch vehicle concepts that I have proposed. However,
with our very limited resources, I have found that this is, by far,
the best way to make the most progress for the fewest bucks.

Proposals don't make progress - bending and flying metal does.

It is rare that I can comprehensively disagree with something you say -
this is one of those rare occasions.

There is yet to be general conceptual vehicle design convergence, until
this happens bending metal beyond the component level will not be
justified. We are not yet ready to bend metal and doing so prematurely
is a very big waste of money, as has been elaborately demonstrated.

There is not even a general consensus on things like optimal flight
rate, vehicle size, orbital assembly, propellant choice, etcetera. We
do not yet even have well developed cheap OTS componentry like plug and
play rocket engines and guidance systems. Hell, many people think heavy
lift, space elevators, SDVs, etcetera, are a good idea. We are just not
yet ready to bend metal let alone fly it, except with regard to
fundamental research and development.

Currently we are following what I refer to as the astrologer's model of
development. We use the stars to randomly select a vehicle design that
has no conceptual basis in cost, development, practicality, etcetera.
By literally trying hundreds of designs survival of the fittest will
eventually select for design superstitions that inadvertently work
finally resulting in a viable design. This is a pure numbers game.
Because the government is involved everything has to be done at great
scale, and because of the nature of such institutional knowledge these
designs invariably continually repeat themselves. This is why astrology
must be used, to randomise the process and avoid old patterns.

Say we try one new white elephant every thirty years, and say we have to
try one hundred new vehicle designs before we hit on one that works,
then we should have a viable design in say another 3000 years.
Obviously this assumes the NASA budget can be sustained and publicly
justified for that length of time.

Most of the economic design optimisation can still be done at the
conceptual level without going through the expensive process of bending
metal. When the conceptual designs have been sufficiently developed the
timing will become apparent as to when to start bending metal.
Basically the rate of conceptual design improvement will decrease to the
point where the cost benefit analysis of conceptual design is less than
that of bending metal. Arguments about the excessive costs of some
conceptual designers compared to the costs of other metal benders aside,
we are not yet at that point. A $1000 worth of thinking can still
refine a general design far more than a $1000 worth of bending metal.

In development there must always be the test of reality, even with the
most sensible conceptual design analysis this will still be in part a
numbers game. As such initial designs should be biased towards even
lower development cost than would otherwise seem optimal - vehicles
should be smaller than the economic and practical considerations
suggest. This is because many will fail and in the numbers game
increasing the number of vehicles tried will pay greater dividends than
optimising individual designs for direct economic return. If the base
design works, it can be grown and economically optimised later. The
development methodology needs to move towards more, smaller, cheaper
vehicle prototypes. While individual likelihood of success will
decrease, total likelihood of success will increase. Making vehicles
bigger is not cheaper, people forget the cost savings associated with
the mass producing of smaller prototypes. This is a flight rate type
argument with regard to the design, build and testing of prototypes.
Build small and often.

Something which is critical in circumstances like this, but which gets
very little consideration, is that one would normally actively design
the development process. Right from the beginning one considers how one
can best minimise the cost of bending metal, how one can minimise the
cost of testing, how one can minimise individual prototype cost, how one
can minimise the time of the prototype cycle, (from conceptual design
through to testing), this is in part a numbers game and one needs to
stack the deck. If one can not prototype quickly, cheaply and
effectively, learning everything one can from each prototype and pouring
it into the next one, then one is not ready to start.

At this stage, vehicle design should be selecting primarily on the basis
of being fast, cheap and easy to continually prototype. This is not
something that most tend to consider. Designs just do not leap fully
developed off the drawing board. We are just not yet ready to start
bending metal, though some individuals are close.

Pete.

Pete:

Actually, we are not in disagreement with respect to the value,
importance, appropriateness, and timing of conceptual design
versus building something that should never have gotten past
the drawing board/tube.

Having said that, I am currently extremely enthused about our
last two (unpublished) design iterations. If either of these pan
out and live up to my current expectations, then, yes, with
funding, I would be ready to commit to preliminary design,
component testing, followed by prototype detailed design,
fabrication, flight test and initial operation as an operational
prototype based upon one of these new (related) concepts. True,
any design can always be improved (the Wright Brothers
should never have flown until they had a better design).
However, a space transport can be far from perfect and still
clobber the existing way of doing business. Dutch Kindleberger
used to say that at some point you have to shoot the engineer.

My reply to Derek's post stems from two emotions:

1) Strong feelings that parallel yours with respect to the
importance of conceptual design and the need for far more
emphasis on conceptual design instead rushing ahead to
build another "white elephant." I have said for many years
that the most important technology of all is system-level
conceptual design--which should be done in many heads
in as decentralized manner as possible. There is no such
thing as "duplication," when it comes to system-level
conceptual design and R&D in general. The tendency of
the bureaucracy to force R&D into planned categories is
folly and very destructive. The best system-level conceptual
design depends only on better packaging of component things
we already know how to do; and this should be open to as
many individuals and companies as possible.

2) My basic agreement with Derek that, at some point, we
need to get on with the show--coupled with my current excitement
over our latest conceptual designs.

Stand by for further (conceptual) definition of these latest
ideas. Perhaps realistic reevaluation will dampen this latest
excitement. But right now, it looks "breakthrough good."
If and when it continues to look good, I'll publish the new
concepts on our web site and let others critique them.

Best regards,
Len
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com

"Len" wrote in message
oups.com...

I know that some think that I am rather fickle with respect to the
variety of launch vehicle concepts that I have proposed. However,
with our very limited resources, I have found that this is, by far,
the best way to make the most progress for the fewest bucks. Even
I am amazed--after 49 years of studying launch vehicle concepts
--how much can be done on the conceptual system design level, as
opposed to "space technology development."

From what I can gather the viability of a design is actually fairly
insensitive to specific technical details. TSTO, SSTO, air launch,
etcetera, they should all ultimately be capable of less than $100/kg to
LEO.

As my father says repeatedly, it is not the design but the development
process that is critical, all roads lead to Rome. The development
process is a learning process. Refining of the conceptual model from
which the design is derived is everything. This wants to follow the
most economical path. Generally the ROI clock really starts ticking
once metal gets bent. It costs little and is generally beneficial to
leave a design percolating until then.

Pete.