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.

"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...
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.

Indeed. When it comes time to move beyond the drawing board, engineers
that can not move beyond the drawing board need to be shot... Inability
to cut a design off and let it bleed, (as my wife would say), can be
indicative of too long a design cycle. Some make the mistake of leaping
in and bending metal before they are ready, others make the mistake of
not experimenting enough during the design process because they do not
know how to bend metal.

I find that decisions of bending metal verse more conceptual design are
usually obvious and make themselves, so long as the homework has been
done. When the development path of least resistance becomes to bend
metal, then you know it is time to start bending metal. It sounds very
promising that you have reached such a point.

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.

It has always seemed to me with regard to space transports that while
there was considerable clever detailed design, no one really knew what
they should be designing for. Probably because design was always a one
off affair and so they never had the opportunity to learn what really
mattered. Kludgy design speaks volumes, a design should speak with
clarity of purpose. It is as if there has been a lack of singular
individuals directly forging such coherent purpose into space transport
designs.

I would still have to say that I do not think there is a current rocket
engine within the right design range let alone a well developed one.
This is not to say that current engines are not workable, just that no
engine has really hit the spot yet. Specifically, a low cost, reliable,
easy to use engine with high ISP and much higher T/W. While not
necessary, such an engine would significantly ease the development of
space transports. Such rocket engine metal bending is long overdue.

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.

Sounds like you are ready. I know that my own thoughts on space
transport design are still bouncing around quite a bit, though I am
starting to get some general design and development principles in place.

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.

I am looking forward to it. :-)

Pete.

In article , Pete Lynn says...

"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.


Sure we are. In fact, we are ready to bend several different kinds of
metal in parallel.

The lack of general consensus on any of the items you name, is not evidence
that we have not figured out what the Right Way to approach the problem is,
but that smart and capable people have concluded that there are *Many* ways
to achieve the desired goal. If at all possible, we should try them all.
If we've only got the money to try one at a time, whoever's actually got
the money gets to decide, and should not be stopped from deciding on the
grounds that not everybody is going to agree with him.

This approach, is likely to get us spaceships. Your approach, would have
the entire human race not only Earthbound but groundbound, as the heirs of
Wright, Langley, Bleriot, et al ad infinitum continued to argue towards an
eternally elusive consensus as to whether the One True Way to fly involved
a monoplane, a biplane, a helicopter, or a zeppelin.


--
*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 *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

In light of his later posts, it seems as if Pete is not at
odds with what you say--nor am I.

Yes. I think there are many ways. We just haven't funded
any of the right ways yet. I don't profess to have found the
one true Right Way. However, I think I have found a way
that is good enough.

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

"John Schilling" wrote in message
...
In article , Pete Lynn
says...

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.


Sure we are. In fact, we are ready to bend several different kinds of
metal in parallel.

For a moment there I thought you were referring to numerous metal
bending catastrophic disassemblies.

The lack of general consensus on any of the items you name, is not
evidence that we have not figured out what the Right Way to
approach the problem is, but that smart and capable people have
concluded that there are *Many* ways to achieve the desired goal.
If at all possible, we should try them all.

Otherwise referred to as the shot gun approach, blast away and hope that
one of the small little pellets hits home. Unfortunately they are not
small little pellets, nor are they numerous. We are indiscriminately
blasting away with a snipers rifle pretending that it is a shot gun and
wondering why we are not hitting anything.

Either our aim needs to get a lot better or we need to take many more
smaller shots. Realistically, we need to do both.

If we've only got the money to try one at a time, whoever's actually
got the money gets to decide, and should not be stopped from
deciding on the grounds that not everybody is going to agree with
him.

One of the problems is that the white elephants we choose absorb all
available funds and prevent multiple shots.

This approach, is likely to get us spaceships. Your approach, would
have the entire human race not only Earthbound but groundbound, as
the heirs of Wright, Langley, Bleriot, et al ad infinitum continued to
argue towards an eternally elusive consensus as to whether the One
True Way to fly involved a monoplane, a biplane, a helicopter, or a
zeppelin.

This approach has demonstrated that it is going backwards.

Wright, Langley, Bleriot, etcetera, chose designs with low enough
resource requirements that enabled them to each continuously build and
develop their own airplanes with extensive experimentation and the
ability to feed off one another. They each had the capacity to take
multiple ongoing shots at the problem.

Development requires competition to get its priorities in order, this is
only just starting in the private sector. Both our aim and firing rate
need to greatly improve. We should be working on developing our gun
until such time as pulling the trigger will have a reasonable chance of
success, until then we need to keep our powder dry. Hopefully that time
is not too far off.

Pete.