Questions regarding my Earth-to-LEO infrastructure biases

What do you think are the current (or at least most near-term) TECHNICALLY
feasible low cost Earth to LEO solutions? Let's hand-wave the politics and
economic arguments in this thread.

Given developments in maglev technology I would think that this aspect
wouldn't be a problem.

What about using carbon fiber/epoxy or pressurized PBO fiber shells or other
materials instead of diamond for a space pier?

What about evacuated tube systems? Would use of high velocity gas ejectors
and MHD systems to minimize air infiltration and maintain a vacuum be
currently doable technology? If not how far out is it compared to fully
reusable rocketry, laser/maser powered space planes or other Earth-to-LEO
schemes? If a space plane was maser powered I would think that would
necessitate a transfer of cargo at high altitude from one plane to another
designed for high altitudes (if even this would work).


My "wild" ideas can be found he

om
or
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...a8361600615baf

--
I am a reasonable conservative who likes to write about politics and
culture. Since the media is biased I get all my news from Fox News, Rush
Limbaugh and Jay Leno monologues. -- Jon Swift

In article ,
"Bill Haught" wrote:

What do you think are the current (or at least most near-term) TECHNICALLY
feasible low cost Earth to LEO solutions? Let's hand-wave the politics and
economic arguments in this thread.

OK, what we need then are rockets that launch pretty much daily. That's
it -- the high cost (and poor reliability) of rocket launch stems mainly
from the fact that it's so rare. Things like space piers, space
elevators, etc., that assume a huge launch rate in order to economically
justify themselves, often fail to notice that the same huge launch rate
would dramatically lower the cost of rocket launch too.

But this points out the chicken & egg problem: rocket launches are rare
because they're so expensive, and they're expensive because they're so
rare. Such problems do eventually crack, but it takes either a lot of
patience, or a lot of pushing (or both).

Folks like Elon Munsk are doing their best to push from the supply side.

The government could push from the demand side, say by setting up an
orbital fuel depot and paying for the delivery of large amounts of water.

From the commercial demand side, space tourism seems like the most
likely bet -- though that will start out suborbital, it will involve a
high flight rate, and I'm hopeful that customers will demand
longer/higher/faster flights all the way to orbit.

Best,
- Joe

"Bill Haught" wrote in message
om...
What do you think are the current (or at least most near-term) TECHNICALLY
feasible low cost Earth to LEO solutions? Let's hand-wave the politics and
economic arguments in this thread.

How can you discuss "low cost" LEO launch vehicles and "hand wave" the
"economic arguments"?

Given developments in maglev technology I would think that this aspect
wouldn't be a problem.

You underestimate the state of the art in maglev technology.

What about using carbon fiber/epoxy or pressurized PBO fiber shells or
other
materials instead of diamond for a space pier?

I personally think this space pier idea is folly.

What about evacuated tube systems? Would use of high velocity gas
ejectors
and MHD systems to minimize air infiltration and maintain a vacuum be
currently doable technology? If not how far out is it compared to fully
reusable rocketry, laser/maser powered space planes or other Earth-to-LEO
schemes? If a space plane was maser powered I would think that would
necessitate a transfer of cargo at high altitude from one plane to another
designed for high altitudes (if even this would work).


My "wild" ideas can be found he

om
or
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...a8361600615baf


It's pointless to talk about ideas like these since, in the near term,
they're simply not going to be pursued in any meaningful way.

Instead, look at the companies building real hardware. Look into the
economic viability of something like a fully reusable, liquid fueled rocket
powered, TSTO. Note that the cost of fuel for a liquid rocket engines is a
*very* small part of total launch costs. The US launch industry would be
doing very well if it could get the costs down to some small multiple of
fuel costs using existing liquid fueled rocket engine technology.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

Jeff Findley wrote:

Instead, look at the companies building real hardware. Look into the
economic viability of something like a fully reusable, liquid fueled rocket
powered, TSTO. Note that the cost of fuel for a liquid rocket engines is a
*very* small part of total launch costs. The US launch industry would be
doing very well if it could get the costs down to some small multiple of
fuel costs using existing liquid fueled rocket engine technology.

That's going to be tough. Even capsule development costs are very high.

I would go even further and notice that people are lining up for Soyuz
rides to the ISS at $20 million dollars a seat. Even if putting a six
person capsule on the Delta IV or Atlas V comes in at 20 million a seat,
I would run with that. We are already turning away paying passengers.

Cost reduction can only come from stage and a half or SSTO, with the
engines being reusable and the tankage and residuals remaining in orbit.

--
The Tsiolkovsky Group : http://www.lifeform.org

My Planetary BLOB : http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :

http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

Bill Haught wrote:
What do you think are the current (or at least most near-term) TECHNICALLY
feasible low cost Earth to LEO solutions? Let's hand-wave the politics and
economic arguments in this thread.

A rotovator, with a tip speed of about 4km/s, except that makes it
cheaper to get to High Earth Orbit than Low Earth Orbit

Jeff Findley wrote:
"Bill Haught" wrote in message
om...
What do you think are the current (or at least most near-term) TECHNICALLY
feasible low cost Earth to LEO solutions? Let's hand-wave the politics and
economic arguments in this thread.

How can you discuss "low cost" LEO launch vehicles and "hand wave" the
"economic arguments"?

I was thinking largely in terms of the political end of the arguements.


Instead, look at the companies building real hardware. Look into the
economic viability of something like a fully reusable, liquid fueled rocket
powered, TSTO. Note that the cost of fuel for a liquid rocket engines is a
*very* small part of total launch costs. The US launch industry would be
doing very well if it could get the costs down to some small multiple of
fuel costs using existing liquid fueled rocket engine technology.

Jeff

Which would require designing a rocket that is a vast improvement over
the ones we have now which burn up on first use.

Joe Strout wrote:
In article ,
"Bill Haught" wrote:

What do you think are the current (or at least most near-term) TECHNICALLY
feasible low cost Earth to LEO solutions? Let's hand-wave the politics and
economic arguments in this thread.

OK, what we need then are rockets that launch pretty much daily. That's
it -- the high cost (and poor reliability) of rocket launch stems mainly
from the fact that it's so rare. Things like space piers, space
elevators, etc., that assume a huge launch rate in order to economically
justify themselves, often fail to notice that the same huge launch rate
would dramatically lower the cost of rocket launch too.

Things with the high fixed costs, lower variable costs (hopefully even
with maintenance) would force the launch rate issue.


But this points out the chicken & egg problem: rocket launches are rare
because they're so expensive, and they're expensive because they're so
rare. Such problems do eventually crack, but it takes either a lot of
patience, or a lot of pushing (or both).

Folks like Elon Munsk are doing their best to push from the supply side.

Like the Federal Reserve back in 1932 -- it's like pushing on a string.


The government could push from the demand side, say by setting up an
orbital fuel depot and paying for the delivery of large amounts of water.

If they do something like that they should pay for water obtained in
space.


From the commercial demand side, space tourism seems like the most
likely bet -- though that will start out suborbital, it will involve a
high flight rate, and I'm hopeful that customers will demand
longer/higher/faster flights all the way to orbit.

Best,
- Joe

There is one way to recover the 50% or so of the wealth the top 1%
stole by various means you don't hear about on Reich wing mainscream
media. Come take a trip on our suborbital planes, before the Islamic
fundies fly a jumbo jet into the building you work at.

Alex Terrell wrote:
Bill Haught wrote:
What do you think are the current (or at least most near-term) TECHNICALLY
feasible low cost Earth to LEO solutions? Let's hand-wave the politics and
economic arguments in this thread.

A rotovator, with a tip speed of about 4km/s, except that makes it
cheaper to get to High Earth Orbit than Low Earth Orbit


I like this one too. It would take a number of payloads launched into
space and in-space assembly work though. The mass of the tether is
something like two orders of magnitude of the payload (if using
Spectra). As I recall, Tethers Unlimited wanted to use a space plane
to reach a tether made out of Spectra 2000. In order to reach their
proposed tether a space plane better than an experimental plane
(Boeing, I think) was working on would be needed. Perhaps focusing on
Earth to LEO or HEO over shooting payloads to other planets would help.

If I remember right 4 km/s is half orbital velocity. That would
lighten the demands on rocketry making fully reuseable systems more
acheivable from what I keep hearing. How about a 100 km tower? Could
carbon fiber or something else be used so that payloads can be lifted
from a tower? I assume that use of nanotubes/nanoscrolls is a ways
away.

Here is another idea, following the basic logic (integrate various
ideas and systems into a full-scale storm-the-beaches program) of one
of my long postings that has received no meaningful comments. A
StarTram or space pier-like system that is shorter and operates at say
30gs could be used to send up the tether in sections to be assembled in
space. An inflatable ship for the assembly work could be launched too.

Capacity is likely to be lower (at least the launch rate). With a high
enough launch rate (that is probably difficult to acheive with tethers)
one would need a lot of towers anyway (unless of course you use planes
or rockets) which is the way you probably want to go (or would at least
make you satisfied).

Alex Terrell wrote:
Bill Haught wrote:
What do you think are the current (or at least most near-term) TECHNICALLY
feasible low cost Earth to LEO solutions? Let's hand-wave the politics and
economic arguments in this thread.

A rotovator, with a tip speed of about 4km/s, except that makes it
cheaper to get to High Earth Orbit than Low Earth Orbit


I like this one too. It would take a number of payloads launched into
space and in-space assembly work though. The mass of the tether is
something like two orders of magnitude of the payload (if using
Spectra). As I recall, Tethers Unlimited wanted to use a space plane
to reach a tether made out of Spectra 2000. In order to reach their
proposed tether a space plane better than an experimental plane
(Boeing, I think) was working on would be needed. Perhaps focusing on
Earth to LEO or HEO over shooting payloads to other planets would help.

If I remember right 4 km/s is half orbital velocity. That would
lighten the demands on rocketry making fully reuseable systems more
acheivable from what I keep hearing. How about a 100 km tower? Could
carbon fiber or something else be used so that payloads can be lifted
from a tower? I assume that use of nanotubes/nanoscrolls is a ways
away.

Here is another idea, following the basic logic (integrate various
ideas and systems into a full-scale storm-the-beaches program) of one
of my long postings that has received no meaningful comments. A
StarTram or space pier-like system that is shorter and operates at say
30gs could be used to send up the tether in sections to be assembled in
space. An inflatable ship for the assembly work could be launched too.

Capacity is likely to be lower (at least the launch rate). With a high
enough launch rate (that is probably difficult to acheive with tethers)
one would need a lot of towers anyway (unless of course you use planes
or rockets) which is the way you probably want to go (or would at least
make you satisfied).

Alex Terrell wrote:
Bill Haught wrote:
What do you think are the current (or at least most near-term) TECHNICALLY
feasible low cost Earth to LEO solutions? Let's hand-wave the politics and
economic arguments in this thread.

A rotovator, with a tip speed of about 4km/s, except that makes it
cheaper to get to High Earth Orbit than Low Earth Orbit


I like this one too. It would take a number of payloads launched into
space and in-space assembly work though. The mass of the tether is
something like two orders of magnitude of the payload (if using
Spectra). As I recall, Tethers Unlimited wanted to use a space plane
to reach a tether made out of Spectra 2000. In order to reach their
proposed tether a space plane better than an experimental plane
(Boeing, I think) was working on would be needed. Perhaps focusing on
Earth to LEO or HEO over shooting payloads to other planets would help.

If I remember right 4 km/s is half orbital velocity. That would
lighten the demands on rocketry making fully reuseable systems more
acheivable from what I keep hearing. How about a 100 km tower? Could
carbon fiber or something else be used so that payloads can be lifted
from a tower? I assume that use of nanotubes/nanoscrolls is a ways
away.

Here is another idea, following the basic logic (integrate various
ideas and systems into a full-scale storm-the-beaches program) of one
of my long postings that has received no meaningful comments. A
StarTram or space pier-like system that is shorter and operates at say
30gs could be used to send up the tether in sections to be assembled in
space. An inflatable ship for the assembly work could be launched too.

Capacity is likely to be lower (at least the launch rate). With a high
enough launch rate (that is probably difficult to acheive with tethers)
one would need a lot of towers anyway (unless of course you use planes
or rockets) which is the way you probably want to go (or would at least
make you satisfied).