Time to Think ‘Horizontal’ for Future Space Launches

On 9/24/2010 10:04 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In ,
says...

Jeff wrote:

In article
tatelephone,
says...

If you are going to land it vertically, all you need to do is stick some
parachutes in the nose and have the weight of the rear plug-nozzle
engine make it fall tail-first towards the landing site.
There's no need for the goofy wings then.

True. You could even eliminate the parachutes and land on engine power
ala DC-X.

In that case what you end up with is very similar to the SASSTO Saturn
IVB stage, with the plug nozzle serving as the heatshield:
http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/sdoc53ani.jpg

True, but then you wouldn't need the inflatable heat shield for the nose
of the ET, so that's not nearly complicated enough for Mook.


I'll merely note that Mookie's calling forth of DC-X as proof of how
easy vertical landing is sort of ignores the small fact that they
cracked the aeroshell on the vehicle on its 8th and final flight.

That was a (somewhat) forgivable mistake. This was an X-vehicle, so the
design was obviously not meant to be quite as optimal as an operational
vehicle. From memory, the landing gear couldn't retract without
disconnecting and reconnecting the hoses used for lowering the landing
gear. Before the final flight, someone forgot to reconnect a hose, so
one of the gear failed to deploy. That sort of gear design shouldn't be
accepted in an operational vehicle where loss of one gear means loss of
vehicle.

My favorite part was that the main designer of the vehicle concept was
sci-fi author Jerry Pournelle.
Couldn't we have gone with Larry Niven, and built the Delta Clipper out
of Puppeteer Hull Metal instead? Then we don't even need a recovery
system - we just let it free-fall back to Earth with the Stasis Field
turned on to protect the crew on impact. ;-)
Something like this happened once before; when the British put together
the Landship Committee in WW I to design what would become tanks, H.G.
Wells thought he should be put in charge of designing them, as he came
up with the original idea in his 1903 story "The Land Ironclads".
If Wells had had been put in charge, they probably would have been a bit
larger than they came out in reality:
http://www.currell.net/models/ironclad.htm
One has to remember that all science fiction authors rely on their
ability to talk their readers into buying highly improbable, or indeed
completely impossible, concepts for their financial success.
Not to put too fine of a point on it, but they live off their ability to
be top-notch bull****ters.
Putting one in charge of designing an actual space launch vehicle is
rather like putting an astrologer in charge of a major space
astrophysics project.
I always got a kick out of one quote Pournelle had about the DC-X; that
being that it was going to take off and land vertically "The way God and
Robert A. Heinlein intended it."
I don't think that the effects of the backblast from the engines exhaust
as it impacted the ground and rose around the rocketship's base was
fully Grokked by the people working on it. :-D.

Pat

On Sep 24, 8:37*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Sep 24, 3:40*pm, William Mook wrote:



On Sep 24, 12:22*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Jeff Findley wrote:

It's amazing to me the things you think will be "easy" when there simply
isn't enough prior art to make it so.

But he's a SUPERgenius, Jeff. *Just ask him. *He'll tell you.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

That ****es you off doesn't it Freddie? *lol. *You really ought to
learn to be nicer to people. *For your own safety dude. *People who
are as persistently rude and hateful as you routinely get into serious
trouble. *You should just stop being so spiteful Freddie. *Just stop
it.

That's like asking the Pope to become Jewish. *Trust me, it isn't
going to happen.

Have you ever gotten one good idea, better lead or interpretation from
Freddie? (I didn't think so)

Is there any technical services or good intentions of his actions ever
being positive/constructive?

Freddie talks as though he's a serious big-time insider with all the
right connections, but has anyone ever benefited from such?

*~ BG

Pope Paul VI visited Israel in 1964, and Pope Benedict XVI visited
Israel in 2010, and the Vatican maintains the Italian Cultural
Institute in Tel Aviv since 1960. So, even though the Pope might
never become Jewish (depending on his mother's faith actually) we can
always hope for civility.

On Sep 24, 10:53*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Sep 24, 12:22*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:

It's amazing to me the things you think will be "easy" when there simply
isn't enough prior art to make it so.

But he's a SUPERgenius, Jeff. *Just ask him. *He'll tell you.

That ****es you off doesn't it Freddie? *lol. *You really ought to
learn to be nicer to people. *For your own safety dude. *People who
are as persistently rude and hateful as you routinely get into serious
trouble. *You should just stop being so spiteful Freddie. *Just stop
it.

You don't like it when people use your own words to describe you? *You
dislike it so intensely you start making death threats?

Get help, Mookie...

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

You think friendly advice to not be so hateful is a death threat. Get
help Freddie.

On Sep 25, 2:34*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 9/24/2010 6:47 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:



True, but then you wouldn't need the inflatable heat shield for the nose
of the ET, so that's not nearly complicated enough for Mook.

There is no need to put a heatshield on the nose; the plug nozzle engine
on the tail is heavy enough to make it fall into the atmosphere pretty
much tail-first anyway,

We looked at that during our design process.

and is already made out of heat resistant
materials to take the heat of the rocket exhaust.

It can be... Bono's Hyperion used this approach, so we looked into it
pretty carefully.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/hypnssto.htm

Back when Philip Bono was coming up with the SSTO plug-nozzle engine
designs for Martin Aerospace like the Pegasus and Ithacus, reentry was
to be handled by ejecting some leftover LH2 from the center of the
bottom of the central plug and letting the cold gas form a sheath over
the bottom of the plug to prevent heating damage during reentry.

Yes, same thing can happen on the nose as well.

That's what's going on in this painting of a Pegasus reentering:http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/p/pegasus2.jpg

Pat

Sure, this approach works for an SSTO or for the orbiter. Its more
problematic for the booster elements. Look at my design;

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum

It involves seven elements, only one of which orbits the Earth. The
other six are recovered downrange, never really leaving the
atmosphere. So, rolling rear end first, involves really large lateral
forces. Not so for orbiting element, but the others definitely so.
That's how the ET burns up. So, to minimize structural mass, and heat
shield, a small inflatable system is attached to the nose, along with
a taper shroud at the tail to maintain orientation without the need of
the highly stressful pitch over to present the tail. The flight
elements I use are based on the proven External Tank airframe. While,
the addition of aerospike engine, and wings move the CG aft you can
see that the CG is further forward than in the Bono designs which were
quite fat at their base. The airframe is quite different as well
making it easier to flip over as you suggest.

Like I said, I looked specifically at pitching tail first mid flight,
and it could work for the orbiter. It isn't the lowest mass system
for the boost elements which never get to orbit. So, a thermal shield
on the nose it how I've gone for the lowest mass system.

On Sep 25, 3:43*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 9/24/2010 6:55 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

The fact that this tail sitting technology has not been used in an
unmanned winged vehicle means you have no valid point.

Oh, it's pretty easy to do nowadays in a fairly small RPV;

I agree.

the problem
here is scale.

Why? The scaling laws are pretty easy to extract, and considerable
flight data exists for this particular airframe. The development
program will start with the computer models I've already created,
follow that up with small flight models - using a single RL-10 pump
set to feed a small aerospike engine - like the AMPS-1, excepting I
will use straight hydrogen and oxygen, not enriched with fluorine or
lithium. This sub-scale system will prove out the avionics and
software.

Flight weight system will have the following specifications;

18,000 lbf thrust 103%
1.25 gee at take off
14,400 lb take off weight
1,800 lb structural weight
1,697.2 lbs hydrogen 3,031 gallons
10,183.8 lbs oxygen 1,117 gallons
30.2 ft length
5.5 ft diam

Development cost $4.5 million - 14 months
Flight test program: $2.5 million - 10 months

Flight test develops and gathers data during flight then analyses that
data to evaluate the flight characteristics of the aircraft and
validate its design, including safety aspects. The flight test phase
accomplishes two major tasks: 1) finding and fixing any aircraft
design problems and then 2) verifying and documenting the aircraft
capabilities for acceptance.

A largely empty ET is a huge, lightweight structure, and like I
mentioned before, any sort of a side wind, especially a gusty one, would
be a recipe for disaster.

You make statements without doing the work to validate any numbers.
That's very unprofessional. What wind loads do you imagine to be a
problem and why? We've done such analysis based on the experience of
other tail sitters, taking into account the area per unit weight, and
differential thrust capability of the engine and come up with a range
of wind speeds that are acceptable for landing. These wind speeds
are greater than that for launch of the Shuttle or landing of Apollo
with parachutes. So, why is it a problem for this vehicle?


One thing here is that the plug-nozzle engine on the bottom of the ET is
the only thing worth recovering from a economic viewpoint.

The ET itself costs $28 million. The RS-68 pumps used for the
aerospike $35 million. The aerospike engine nozzle and thrust chamber
itself $12 million. Wings, TPS, avionics $30 million.

So, what you call the engine is 12% and what you call the ET is 28% of
the total $100 million. The wings, TPS, avionics, pumps - which are
scattered throughout the vehicle - *and proven flight ready through
operational experience* - are the major costs you didn't include in
your analysis.

My goal is radical cost reduction in space launch. This involves
reducing the size of the standing army needed to fly the vehicle
system. This also includes complete recovery of every flight element
at very low cost without throwing anything away.

My goal is to build a vehicle with a $700 million recurring cost,
spend less than $7 million per launch, and carry out 1,000 launches
each 700 tons with a supply chain and design that costs less than $7
billion to establish.

is basically a big aluminum-lithium beer can, and by the time you stuck
effective recovery gear and a TPS on it, you will have raised its weight
so much that you will have severely compromised its ability to carry a
worthwhile payload into orbit.

The ET is not a big beer can. The ET is a lightweight airframe. It
currently masses 26.5 tonnes. I have developed a system that masses
49.6 tonnes that includes inflatable thermal protection, fold away
wings and an aerospike engine using RS-68 pumps, cross-feed,
connectors supports and landing gear.

If you think 49.6 tonnes is wrong you need to come up with the numbers
you believe are right and have some sort of sensible defense of them.
You are so far making totally gratuitous statements.

NASA realized this when they built the
Shuttle, which is why I've never seen a NASA proposal for a recoverable
ET since the Shuttle entered service near three decades ago.

Cite? Do you have a study that reflects this conclusion of yours?

Russia played around with a recoverable core stage for the Energia
launch vehicle with wings on it (very similar to this idea), but ditched
that idea also.

Cite? You claim Russia ditched it. Didn't Russia run out of money?
That's different than ditching it. I'd like to see a citation
supporting this claim of yours that Russia thoroughly studied the
problem and then concluded it was a bad idea because?

And it was going to glide-land horizontally, not try to descend
tail-first.

You still don't get the idea of a tail sitter. The plane flies
horizontally, and then noses up into vertical position and lets down
on its engine's thrust. This takes advantage of the strengths of the
ETs construction - and reuses hold down clamps as points of contact
for taking the landing loads. Landing horizontally as you suggest is
a bad idea since it adds considerable weight and complexity to the ET
to have it land this way and not break apart.

If you stick wings on it, the only reason is to have it
glide-land; if it's going to land vertically, then there is no need to
stick wings on it.

Nonsense. You take off vertically until out of propellant. Then,
drop-away. Continue nose first without pitch over which overly
stresses the vehicle in directions its not designed to take. Deploy a
stabilizing shroud at the base and a heat shield at the nose. Slow to
subsonic speed. When terminal velocity is reached deploy fold away
wings turning the ET into a glider. A tow line is released from the
nose. At the down range location a Boeing 737 outfitted as a tow
plane snags the tow line and tow the glider back to the launch
center. There it is released at a controlled altitude. It then
glides to a mobile recovery platform. Approaching the platform a
landing engine is started and increases thrust, as the aircraft pulls
into a nose up position over the recovery platform. It then descends
by rocket thrust to settle tail first in the mobile recovery
platform. Hold down clamps reattach to the vehicle stabilizing it.
Engine off. The vehicle is ready for processing. The mobile platform
returns to the service center.

We did look at a horizontal landing mode, with a mobile platform
racing down an airstrip at 200 mph under the vehicle. This is one way
to eliminate the weight of the landing gear. But, it didn't eliminate
the need to reinforce the ET for greater horizontal loads. It also
had more failure modes - due to the effect of side winds - which were
more easily handled during a powered vertical descent.

The entire system has been looked at for several years by good people,
and this system is the lowest cost, safest, most reliable, most
capable system possible.

So, why aren't we all flying those big SSTO plug-nozzle reusable
boosters like Philip Bono designed back in the 1960's?

Who knows? Who cares? What matters is that the ET and Aerospike
experience, combined in the manner I describe is the least cost way to
get 10,000 MW power satellites to GEO.

Because there's a repetitive pattern one can notice in the "wonder
rockets" that are going to revolutionize space travel:

I'm not saying I will revolutionize space travel any more than an off
shore drilling platform revolutionizes life at sea. Its a tool for a
job. I designed a system capable of putting up a power satellite that
will make enough money to pay for the entire operation. Period. That
it will do. I will leave the revolution in space travel to someone
else.

Yet, in answer to your question, I recommend C. P. Snow. C. P. Snow
gave a lecture at Harvard in 1960. He decried the fact that over the
past 20 years scientific management has devolved into three groups and
the politics of those groups. The cardinal decisions about major
technology are made by small groups in secret following the letter of
the law. The first is the executive, responding to the politics of
the courtier. The second is the military, following the politics of
the bureaucracy. The third is the scientists, following the politics
of the committee. All are concerned with their local politics. None
are really aware of the other's area of expertise. The military
person and the executive don't understand the science. The scientists
and executive don't understand the military situation. The military
and the scientists don't understand the political situation. Yet all
are expected to function intelligently. All have shrugged off any
responsibility for the future. None value the insights of the
visionary. None value the capabilities of the generalist. All value
badges honor and means of defending their decisions to their
respective power centers. That is all.

This may have some bearing on your observations. Observations which
have nothing to do with what I propose.



1.) Specific impulse of the new rocket engine to be used is overestimated..

My specific impulse is 428.4 seconds, an exhaust speed of 4.2 km/sec
at lift off rising to 438.7 seconds, an exhaust of 4.3 km/sec at
altitude. How is this an overestimate?

I obtained a specific impulse from a careful study of ground tests for
the Rocketdyne 250 k annular aerospike engine using the J2 pumps and
injectors, adjusted for RS-68 volumes and pressures.

2.) Fuel consumption of that engine to produce the desired thrust is
underestimated.

Propellant mass flow rate for engine I describe at lift off is 2,333.8
kg/sec of propellant. This includes 333.4 kg/sec hydrogen and 2,000.4
kg/sec of oxygen. The thrust estimated at lift off is 9.802
Meganewtons (1,000,000 kgf)

Thrust is an inverse function of #1 - Specific impulse is the number
of seconds a pound of propellant produces a pound of thrust. Re-
arrange the formula you obtain pounds of propellant per second to
produce a pound of thrust to get propellant consumption (fuel and
oxidizer). In engineering terms its the same thing. Any engineer
would know this. Why don't you?

Again, the answer is the same, I use fuel consumption for a given
thrust based on ground tests of the Rocketdyne 250k annular aerospike
engine using J2 pumps and injectors and the modify for the RS-68 pumps
I've specified for construction.



...and the big one:

3.) Total structural weight of the vehicle is _way_ underestimated,
particularly when its TPS weight enters the equation.

Citation?

Here's my mass budget;

26.5 metric tons ET
10.8 metric tons AEROSPIKE
5.3 metric tons WINGS
3.0 metric tons THERMAL PROTECTION
1.2 metric tons TAIL
0.8 metric tons FLIGHT CONTROL
0.2 metric tons INSTRUMENTATION
0.3 metric tons HYDRAULIC/PNEUMATIC
0.9 metric tons ELECTRICAL
0.6 metric tons AVIONICS

What is under-estimated in your opinion and why?

That's why you end up with things like Black Horse

We're not talking about the Black Horse. We're talking about my
system

that somehow has a
mass ratio identical to a Atlas ICBM, despite having wings, a cockpit,
landing gear, non-integral non-pressure rigidized propellant tanks, and
a TPS on it.

I agree. I thought Black Horse would never work for all the reasons
you indicate.

That is one of the silliest things I've ever seen in my life, and why
people ever took it seriously for even a moment is completely beyond me,

Yep.

particularly given its kerosene-hydrogen peroxide choice of propellants,
which hearkens back to the 1950s.

I agree generally. Hydrogen Peroxide and Kerosene were used in the
Black Arrow rocket,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Arrow

Which massed 18.3 tonnes at lift off and carried a 0.1 tonne satellite
to orbit.

A few classified programs looked at HTP and Kerosene for portable
SSTO 'brick lifters' to put up quick response nano satellites of 0.01
tonne using vehicles that massed 3 tonnes at lift off, and could be
carried in the back of a truck. The SSTO used advances in pump
design, and took advantage of MEMS type miniaturization to achieve
phenomenal thrust to weight - which won't happen in a Black Horse type
vehicle which is very large by comparison.


Pat

None of the objections you cite really apply to my system. So, I
would suggest you do at lest as much work as I before dumping on it.
Then maybe you'll have something interesting or useful to say. So far
you are coming across like a clueless jerk.

On Sep 25, 4:39*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 9/24/2010 10:04 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:



In ,
says...

Jeff *wrote:

In article
tatelephone,
says...

If you are going to land it vertically, all you need to do is stick some
parachutes in the nose and have the weight of the rear plug-nozzle
engine make it fall tail-first towards the landing site.
There's no need for the goofy wings then.

True. *You could even eliminate the parachutes and land on engine power
ala DC-X.

In that case what you end up with is very similar to the SASSTO Saturn
IVB stage, with the plug nozzle serving as the heatshield:
http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/sdoc53ani.jpg

True, but then you wouldn't need the inflatable heat shield for the nose
of the ET, so that's not nearly complicated enough for Mook.

I'll merely note that Mookie's calling forth of DC-X as proof of how
easy vertical landing is sort of ignores the small fact that they
cracked the aeroshell on the vehicle on its 8th and final flight.

That was a (somewhat) forgivable mistake. *This was an X-vehicle, so the
design was obviously not meant to be quite as optimal as an operational
vehicle. *From memory, the landing gear couldn't retract without
disconnecting and reconnecting the hoses used for lowering the landing
gear. *Before the final flight, someone forgot to reconnect a hose, so
one of the gear failed to deploy. *That sort of gear design shouldn't be
accepted in an operational vehicle where loss of one gear means loss of
vehicle.

My favorite part was that the main designer of the vehicle concept was
sci-fi author Jerry Pournelle.
Couldn't we have gone with Larry Niven, and built the Delta Clipper out
of Puppeteer Hull Metal instead? Then we don't even need a recovery
system - we just let it free-fall back to Earth with the Stasis Field
turned on to protect the crew on impact. ;-)
Something like this happened once before; when the British put together
the Landship Committee in WW I to design what would become tanks, H.G.
Wells thought he should be put in charge of designing them, as he came
up with the original idea in his 1903 story "The Land Ironclads".
If Wells had had been put in charge, they probably would have been a bit
larger than they came out in reality:http://www.currell.net/models/ironclad.htm
One has to remember that all science fiction authors rely on their
ability to talk their readers into buying highly improbable, or indeed
completely impossible, concepts for their financial success.
Not to put too fine of a point on it, but they live off their ability to
be top-notch bull****ters.
Putting one in charge of designing an actual space launch vehicle is
rather like putting an astrologer in charge of a major space
astrophysics project.
I always got a kick out of one quote Pournelle had about the DC-X; that
being that it was going to take off and land vertically "The way God and
Robert A. Heinlein intended it."
I don't think that the effects of the backblast from the engines exhaust
as it impacted the ground and rose around the rocketship's base was
fully Grokked by the people working on it. :-D.

Pat

The fact that top notch bull****ters were taken seriously is an
indictment of leadership in the rocket community ever since the powers
that be sidelined vonBraun in 1969. Its a measure of the power
vacuum that exists.

Also, the fact that crappy designs routinely emerge isn't an
indictment of ALL designs. Zubrin's Mars Direct proposals are well
thought out by comparison to these. So, if you are going to make a
specific statement about my system, you would do well to trouble
yourself to study it enough to see that its workable.

On Sep 25, 10:18*am, William Mook wrote:
On Sep 24, 8:37*pm, Brad Guth wrote:



On Sep 24, 3:40*pm, William Mook wrote:

On Sep 24, 12:22*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Jeff Findley wrote:

It's amazing to me the things you think will be "easy" when there simply
isn't enough prior art to make it so.

But he's a SUPERgenius, Jeff. *Just ask him. *He'll tell you.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

That ****es you off doesn't it Freddie? *lol. *You really ought to
learn to be nicer to people. *For your own safety dude. *People who
are as persistently rude and hateful as you routinely get into serious
trouble. *You should just stop being so spiteful Freddie. *Just stop
it.

That's like asking the Pope to become Jewish. *Trust me, it isn't
going to happen.

Have you ever gotten one good idea, better lead or interpretation from
Freddie? (I didn't think so)

Is there any technical services or good intentions of his actions ever
being positive/constructive?

Freddie talks as though he's a serious big-time insider with all the
right connections, but has anyone ever benefited from such?

*~ BG

Pope Paul VI visited Israel in 1964, and Pope Benedict XVI visited
Israel in 2010, and the Vatican maintains the Italian Cultural
Institute in Tel Aviv since 1960. *So, even though the Pope might
never become Jewish (depending on his mother's faith actually) we can
always hope for civility.

Hope is fading faster than we can bogus or false-flag accuse others of
hiding WMD, though only as an excuse to get away with doing other
things.

The rich and powerful always have their poor, Hispanic and dark-
skinned kids to do all their fighting and otherwise the rest of us in
order to pay for everything. However, at this point I'm not sure we
can afford to even defend ourselves should WW3 bust loose, unless we
use the preemptive method of catching others off guard. Either way,
the outcome will set us back at least a good few centuries and we'll
owe just about every nation on Earth, ten fold more than we can
possibly afford.

If we only had cheaper, cleaner and mostly renewable energy that
wasn't being speculated to death, as such, a lot of good and
constructive things would happen shortly thereafter. You do realize
this country of ours still has small towns and their communities
without indoor plumbing or electrical service, and many other
locations so marginal that it takes next to nothing to take them
down. Energy has simply gotten too spendy for a large (1/3rd) portion
of our population, and city water for some that simply can't afford to
live or get by as is will start costing them more than a cent per
gallon.

With cheaper energy we need to keep that spendy fresh water well below
0.1 cent/gallon, and the cost per kwhr as low as one cent for those
that use the least to get by on (say 1024 kwhrs/month and otherwise
the second 1024 kwhrs can cost twice as much, means that those that
use the most get to subsidize those that use the least). Natural gas
appliances simply need to be eliminated from all but commercial
buildings that are specially certified and where a full time licensed
engineer is always in charge, which means all residential appliances
need to be electric unless new failsafe industry codes and mandatory
upgrades can resolve any chance of interior or exterior leakage/
explosions taking place, as well as insuring that secondary risk
factors causing harm to humans, animals or the environment are
minimized.

~ BG

The small scale system I described earlier that consists of up to
seven elements;

30.2 ft length
5.5 ft diameter

1,800 lbs - empty weight
1,697.2 lbs - hydrogen
10,182.8 lbs - oxygen

That cost $4.5 million each - and can carry out an interesting flight
test program with only a single experimental unit. Subsonic flight
testing involves very modest delta vee. Even so, a single vehicle is
capable of achieving an ideal speed of 16,300 mph. Not orbital speed,
but high enough to test the re-entry system at this scale and estimate
very accurately air drag and gravity drag losses.

A seven element launch system - costing $35 million - masses 106,375
lbs at lift off producing 126,000 lbs of thrust. The system carries
5,575 lbs to LEO, and 2,250 lbs to a direct ascent orbit to the Moon,
or to a minimum energy transfer orbit to Mars .

For a LEO flight the first four elements out of the seven burn out at
5,580 mph (ideal not counting gravity drag or air drag losses, which
subtract out 1,100 mph at this point). The next two elements of the
three remaining burn out and carry the vehicle and payload to 11,940
mph (again ideal not counting gravity and air drag losses, which
subtract another 900 mph at this point) The final element carries the
payload to 20,588 mph (ideally, air drag and gravity losses subtract
500 mph at this point) The final speed minus air drag and gravity
losses is 18,088 mph for 5,575 lbs.

Each element in production is $4.2 million in this quantity (counting
for learning curve effects) and an additional $0.8 million for flight
testing.

Propellants - $0.50 per lb for oxygen. $1.50 per lb of hydrogen.
$2,600 for hydrogen. $5,100 for oxygen. $7,700 for propellant
costs. Another $34,000 for recovery and processing.

At $10,000 per pound selling price. Each launch $55,750,000. With
the system proven in flight, and with 24 hour response times - similar
to the DC-X - we have a more reliable system with more rapid response
than any ELV out there with far fewer 'holding' costs.

The sale of a single launch will pay for the development of the
subscale launcher, with as little at 8% down to prove out all the
features.

Once the system has been proven in flight, this system continues
operation - earning substantial profit.

There are about 2 commercial launches per month that would benefit
from this sized launcher, with this reliability and flexibility

http://www.satelliteonthenet.co.uk/i...aunch-schedule

the entire launch infrastructure is highly mobile. So, launches could
be scheduled at Vandenberg, New Mexico Spaceport, or Kennedy, as
needed.

So, this would be a very interesting program, leading to larger
systems.

5,575 lbs on orbit - Alpha (5.5 ft diam, 30.2 ft length) - 1
RL10 per element
77,000 lbs on orbit - Beta (12.9 ft diam, 71.7 ft length) - 14
RL10 per element
1,529,000 lbs on orbit - Gamma (ET derived/sized) - 3 RS68 per element

BETA

The 77,000 lbs to orbit would allow placement of large satellite
networks to implement a global wireless hot spot. This would generate
$100 billion per year when fully deployed. The larger launcher would
also deploy 500 MW power satellites to test the concepts for larger
satellites. Each power satellite powers 400 ground stations
simultaneously at 1.25 MW each. 77,000 lbs is also enough to put up
Mars and Lunar expeditions, and resupply the Space Station. (relying
on Soyuz for putting up astronauts) as well as deploy heavier
satellites needed in the future.

At $4,000 per pound, each launch earns $308,000,000 - and costs only a
small fraction.

Global Wireless Internet
600 satellites - 38,500 lbs each - two per launch - 300 launches
$92.4 billion cost - $100 billion per year revenues.

Power Satellite Test Program
250 satellites - 77,000 lbs each - 4,000 ground stations - 250
launches
$77.0 billion cost - $54.8 billion per year revenues (at $0.05 per
kWh)

Other Launches
450 launches (as needed)
$138.6 billion cost

GAMMA

The 1,529,000 lb launcher will charge $1,600 per lb and charge
$2,446,400,000 per launch. This supports the full-scale power
satellite. It can also support launching large payloads for clients
at a very low cost. Revenues will also pay for 'pilot-rating' the
smaller units if required to replace the Soyuz launcher.

Power Satellite
100 satellites - 1,529,000 lbs each - 800,000 ground stations
$244.7 billion cost - $438.4 billion per year revenues

Advanced Power Satellites
140 satellites 768,500 lbs each - 14 billion ground stations - 70
launches
$171.3 billion cost - $2,600 billion per year revenues (all power
on planet)

PILOT RATING

Rating systems for piloted operation is a costly and wasteful step for
systems designed to launch fully automated flight systems. Even so,
there may be a demand for piloted systems. The three launch platforms
described here would be capable of supporting the following flight
crews, assuming they were pilot rated;

Alpha - 5,575 lbs - 3 crew
Beta - 77,000 lbs - 32/3 passenger/crew
Gamma 1,529,000 lbs - 680/20 passenger/crew

The addition of these capabilities, triple cost of hardware, and
increase cost of operations. They expand operations in space at great
cost. They are not part of my basic plan, but they are part of
advanced planning beyond Gamma.

LASER DELTA - SSTO AND BEYOND

The presence of advanced solar power satellites on orbit - producing
220 billion watts of continuous infrared laser energy - creates a
means to power a rocket with laser beam. Exhaust speed (specific
impulse) of laser driven rocket systems can be quite high. With 1,000
sec Isp and a 220 billion watt jet power total thrust is no more than
10,000,000 lbf. A single stage vehicle massing 7,200,000 lbs at lift
off carrying 4,552,000 lbs of hydrogen in 900,000 lbs structure
containing 8,129,000 gallons of capacity 244 ft long and 44 ft in
diameter which carries 1,747,850 lbs of payload to orbit.

It launches vertically, re-enters ballistically, deploys wings and
glides horizontally, and lands vertically tail sitter mode like its
predecessors.

A seven element system, powered by seven advanced power satellites, is
capable of putting up 15,250,000 lbs into LEO with a vehicle that
masses 53.4 million pounds at launch.

A 5,000,000 lbs payload is projected through a total delta vee of
34,465 mph minus air drag and gravity losses - with this sort of
vehicle. This is sufficient for a round trip to the moon and back, or
a round trip to Mars, the Asteroid Belt, Venus orbit or Mercury and
back.

This is sufficient to orbit large payloads large enough to develop the
industrial potential of the solar system. Including larger power
satellites as well as tele-robotic solar powered factories on orbit,
to process asteroids returned to Earth for processing into products
useful on Earth and wherever humans travel throughout the inner solar
system.

At $640 per pound each launch costs $9.46 billion. Missions include
super size advanced power satellites - capable of radically expanding
energy use on Earth and providing further reduction in launch costs
while expanding capabilities - and placement of telerobotic space
based factories that are solar powered. Advanced power satellites are
used to capture and safely place into Sun Synch Polar Orbits - rich
asteroid fragments that are processed by telerobotic factories.
Materials recovered at $0.01 per pound from the asteroids to Earth
orbit, processed on orbit and delivered anywhere needed on Earth. At
15 kW per ton per year - all current material needs of mankind may be
provided from the asteroid belt. All future needs as well - easing
stress on Earth environment even as living standards improve
dramatically.

Fleets sized to provide three launches per day transfer all industrial
activity off world within five years of fleet operations. Continued
operations expand human presence beyond Earth orbit.

EPSILON - MEMS BASED PERSONAL SPACESHIP

With quadrillions of watts of controlled laser energy produced near
the sun by sun orbiting power satellites, and beamed to where needed
anywhere in the inner solar system, at fractions of a cent per
megawatt hour, laser powered MEMS based rockets are a real
possibility. At $0.02 per lb of thrust, (50 lbs per square inch) and
millions of reuses, a laser powered MEMS rocket array - capable of
5100 sec Isp, a vehicle 2,832 lb vehicle carrying up to 2,000 lbs
payload to orbit and weighing only 354 lbs and 476 lbs of inert
payload like delrin or water. It produces up to 5,000 lbs of thrust -
from 100 square inches of MEMS rocket arrays strategically placed on
its surface, costing only $250 and weighing only 5 lbs - powered by
765,000 horsepower laser beam at full thrust!!

Entering the market at $25 per pound, each flight to orbit costs
$50,000 - and up to 5 people. Costs come down from there as numbers
of vehicles and capabilities increase over time against this basic
airframe. The vehicle carries 5 people to orbit every few hours.
Infrastructure on orbit provides many reasons for people to travel
there routinely. 15 to 20 people per day per vehicle - support high
profit per vehicle and infrastructure to operate it.

Beyond this point the markets that must exist to support development
of the vehicles described is at present speculative. Not speculative
is the technology that makes the vehicles possible.

Enthusiasts believe if you build it they will come. Earning trillions
of dollars each year in the information, energy and raw material
businesses, and tens of trillions of dollars each year in
manufacturing retail and banking, using off world assets and
resources, it may make sense to see if these markets might be
developed leading to a diaspora of humanity off world.

ZETA - LASER LIGHT SAIL

2 trillion watt power satellite orbiting near the sun - provides
enough power to generate 3,315 lbf of thrust continuously without use
of propellant. The delta vee from the asteroid belt to Earth orbit is
less than 44,000 mph. Over a year this satellite can deliver 51,270
lbs to Earth orbit without use of propellant mass.

Each satellite accelerates 10,000 lbs to 1/3 light speed per year -
sufficient speeds to send probes to survey nearby stars.


ETA - ADVANCED LASER ROCKET

72 million pound laser rocket supports the delivery of 150 million
pound payloads to orbit from Earth's surface if required. This
allows construction and deployment of 20 trillion watt power
satellites. However, growing industrial capacity on Earth orbit,
provides a means to circumvent the need for larger launchers on
Earth. This rocket would consist of flight elements that are 95 ft in
diameter and 525 ft long. Small when compared to super tankers on
Earth. Large when compared to any flight system operating today.

THETA - ADVANCED LASER LIGHT SAIL

A 2 quadrillion watt laser power satellite capable of beaming energy
to 1,000 AU - and then redirecting that laser energy using solar
gravity to any point in the cosmos - provides 3,315,000 lbf of
thrust. Each satellite delivers 51,270,000 lbs of raw material each
year to Earth orbit from the asteroid belt without use of propellant.
Each satellite accelerates 10,000,000 lbs to 1/3 light speed -
providing a means for piloted travel to nearby stars - or 1 gee
acceleration across interplanetary space.


IOTA - THE OPPOSITE OF SMALL

A 2 quadrillion watt laser beam supports the operation of a 72 billion
pound thrust rocket - lofting 150 billion pound payloads off world.
These vehicles operating on the surfaces of high gee worlds, like
Venus, Earth, Mars, the Moon, Mercury, the Moons of the outer solar
system, and even on the Gas Giants of the outer solar system - provide
a means to process any solar system resource on an industrial scale
larger than we now process materials on Earth.

KAPPA - STELLAR POWER SATELLITE

The same power satellites that operate around the Sun to transform
human presence in interplanetary space, may be dispatched in two
decades, to nearby stars and operate there. This provides a 'full
duplex' transport capacity - to send industrial payloads to nearby
stars and back, along with materials found there of interest.

Given the unfortunate statements made by George Bernard Shaw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bernard_Shaw

who was a Nobel Prize winner and founder of the London School of
Economics, it is entirely likely that there are those working in one
or more nation's secret service, dedicated to depopulating the Earth
in deniable ways so as to preserve the standard of living enjoyed by
those they work for.

Obviously, those that contribute least to the prosperity of society
are a burden, and are the ones that would be likely to be targeted for
elimination.

Clearly, a disease that was costly to treat, and fatal if untreated,
would fulfill this role.

If it were felt that this 'depopulation bomb' - to use Shaw's phrase -
arose naturally - there would be high degree of deniability - and the
provision of money for treatment would be another lever whereby
wealthy nations could exercise control over poorer nations.

This all fits in with Shaw's rather bleak world view.

He died in 1950 and didn't credit anything to do with space travel or
off world assets. He dealt strictly on this world.

Now, what if this were true?

What if there were a dedicated cadre of folks in the secret services
somewhere who cooked up diseases that would be costly to treat and
provide us with Shaw's depopulation bomb - easy to spread costly to
treat - always fatal.

AIDS is a likely candidate for being a depopulation bomb created by
the US military in the 1960s. It meets all the criterion.

If there were a massive die off and the survivors were immune after a
few generations - it would serve its purpose - provided those
survivors were in your country.

What if we were to expand into interplanetary space and tap into the
resources that are there? Unlimited energy! Unlimited raw
materials! Unlimited space for growing crops, trees, and people!

Those who unleashed the depopulation bomb would feel rather foolish.
They may even be 'outed'!

This would then attract negative attention to the governments that
supported the program, and put them at a disadvantage - something the
program was not intended to do.

So, they would likely oppose anything that reduced the deniability of
their program - if the program indeed exists.

Of course such opposition if it exists would itself be deniable. This
means it is characterized as something else. Nuclear and missile
controls would fit the bill. Making sure aerospace doesn't shake its
leash to the government. etc.

We cannot know these things, they are highly speculative. They do
form a consistent pattern though that is vaguely reflected in events
over the past 50 years.

The only thing we can do as supporters of space development, is focus
on the things we want to do, and make sure they can be done with
technology at hand. Once a foothold is gained, then things will
unfold revealing themselves to be what they are - whatever that is.

Pat Flannery ) writes:
On 9/24/2010 10:04 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In ,
says...

Jeff wrote:

[...]

That was a (somewhat) forgivable mistake. This was an X-vehicle, so the
design was obviously not meant to be quite as optimal as an operational
vehicle. From memory, the landing gear couldn't retract without
disconnecting and reconnecting the hoses used for lowering the landing
gear. Before the final flight, someone forgot to reconnect a hose, so
one of the gear failed to deploy. That sort of gear design shouldn't be
accepted in an operational vehicle where loss of one gear means loss of
vehicle.

My favorite part was that the main designer of the vehicle concept was
sci-fi author Jerry Pournelle.
Couldn't we have gone with Larry Niven, and built the Delta Clipper out
of Puppeteer Hull Metal instead? Then we don't even need a recovery
system - we just let it free-fall back to Earth with the Stasis Field
turned on to protect the crew on impact. ;-)
Something like this happened once before; when the British put together
the Landship Committee in WW I to design what would become tanks, H.G.
Wells thought he should be put in charge of designing them, as he came
up with the original idea in his 1903 story "The Land Ironclads".
If Wells had had been put in charge, they probably would have been a bit
larger than they came out in reality:
http://www.currell.net/models/ironclad.htm
One has to remember that all science fiction authors rely on their
ability to talk their readers into buying highly improbable, or indeed
completely impossible, concepts for their financial success.
Not to put too fine of a point on it, but they live off their ability to
be top-notch bull****ters.
Putting one in charge of designing an actual space launch vehicle is
rather like putting an astrologer in charge of a major space
astrophysics project.
[...]

I'm not a big Pournelle fan but I believe he does have some engineering
qualifications, maybe a PhD (more than Wells did, having being trained in
biology).

--John Park