A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Technology
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Rockets not carrying fuel.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 31st 03, 04:58 PM
Robert Clark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rockets not carrying fuel.

Posted to sci.astro:

================================================== =============================
From: Robert Clark )
Subject: Rockets not carrying fuel.
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.space.policy, sci.physics
Date: 2003-07-28 20:59:39 PST


From this web page, the weight of the shuttle external tank with the

liquid oxygen and hydrogen is 1.6 million pounds:

EXTERNAL TANK
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/...ewsref/et.html

But the amount of liquid oxygen that is burned is only 2,787 pounds
per second and the amount of hydrogen 465 pounds per second.

Nanotube productions methods are advancing quickly. Suppose it is
possible to make a fuel line of carbon nanotube material hundreds of
kilometers long. Could fuel be pumped up to a rocket accelerating to
orbital velocity?
What would be the fuel requirements for a rocket that did not carry
its own fuel? Say a rocket with the payload capacity of the shuttle
and with engines of the efficiency of the shuttle main engines?



Bob Clark

================================================== =============================

From: Robert Clark )
Subject: Rockets not carrying fuel.
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.space.policy, sci.physics, sci.mech.fluids, sci.engr.mech
Date: 2003-07-30 22:03:44 PST

The total weight of the fuel and pipe would only have to be carried
near the end of the trip. For the lowest part of the trip where
typically according to the rocket equation most of the fuel gets
burned, little mass for the fuel and pipe would have to be carried.
What I wanted to see was how the rocket equation would be changed
when for the great majority of the trip there is little fuel "cost"
for the fuel weight itself.
As for the pipe, I'm estimating according to the strength vs.
lightness characteristics of carbon nanotubes that a thin walled pipe
composed of nanotube material even a hundred kilometers long whould
only weigh in the range of a few thousand kilos. The question then
would be the mass of the fuel that needed to be carried or supported
by the rocket.
The first thing to notice is that when you don't have that huge 1.6
million pound mass attached that needs to be accelerated you might not
need the high efficiency that a liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen engine
offers. Then in that case you might be able to do with just gaseous
hydrogen and without an additional liquid oxygen oxidizer. This page
suggests hydrogen is used in liquid form to save weight and bulk:

Spaceflight :Principles of Rocketry
"Hydrogen and oxygen are gases at ordinary temperatures. But it is not
possible to store them as gases for use in a rocket. They would have
to be compressed to carry them in quantity, and these compressed gases
would have to be held in thick-walled tanks to withstand their
pressure. These tanks would add weight, which is a rocket designer's
enemy, for rocket builders always seek the lightest possible weight.
When these gases are liquefied at low temperatures, the rocket can
carry the largest possible quantities, and the tanks are light in
weight."
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...ockets/SP6.htm

Hydrogen gas is quite light at 1 atm pressure, about .08 kg/m^3. So
even if the pipe were 100km long and .1m wide giving it a volume on
the order of 1000 m^3, the mass of the hydrogen in the pipe would be
only 80 kg. But even liquid hydrogen is not very massive at about 71
kg/m^3 so it's mass within this 100km pipe would be only 71,000 kg,
still quite a difference from 1.6 million pounds.
But what if the rocket never even had to support the mass of the
fuel? This page gives an example of a type of pump known as a ram pump
that works from gravity alone and can raise liquids many times higher
than the distance of the fall of a gravity driven stream:

Contents for the pulser pump section of Gaiatech.
http://members.tripod.com/~nxtwave/g...lser/index.htm

This page gives a more general discussion of ram pumps:

Designing a Hydraulic Ram Pump.
http://www.lifewater.org/wfw/rws4/rws4d5.htm

This method may also be adaptable to work for pumping gases.
For a quite large fluid reservoir on the ground the force for raising
the fuel to the rocket would be provided by the pump on the ground not
the rocket. So the rocket would only be supporting the mass of the
fuel pipe itself. In this case you might even be able to use both
liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen if the rocket did not have to
support the weight of these liquids.
Another possibility for pumping the fuel to the rocket might be to
use the principle of a hydraulic lift. As shown on this page a large
diameter piston moving a short distance can move a thin diameter
piston a long distance via an incompressible fluid:

How Hydraulic Machines Work
http://science.howstuffworks.com/hydraulic1.htm

(though in this case in order to drive the liquid 100km, the weight
you might need to apply to the large piston might be that of a
battleship.)
As for the speed of the fuel and whether it would have to be
accelerated to supersonic speeds. Note that what matters is its speed
with respect to the *pipe*. So you could have the pipe being
accelerated to high speed by the rocket while the fuel is moving at a
rather slow speed *with respect to the pipe*, this speed being
determined by the rocket's fuel requirements.
As for cryogenic requirements, if it turns out you wanted to use a
cryogenic fuel you might be able to insulate the fuel line with a
vacuum jacket and move the fuel fast enough to limit the loss due to
evaporation.



Bob Clark


Uncle Al wrote in message ...
Dan Tilque wrote:

Robert Clark wrote:


But the amount of liquid oxygen that is burned is only 2,787
pounds per second and the amount of hydrogen 465 pounds per
second.


Those numbers don't look right. Shouldn't the LOX be about 8


A boundary layer of raw fuel is pumped down the inner walls of each
combustion chamber to cool the walls. If you look at an apolitical
rocket system launching - the Saturn moon rockets - you note closeup
of the running engines at launch shows a black collar around each
exhaust that flashes white hot a bit later on down. The black is a
sheath of pyrolyzing kerosene that finally combusts.

Nanotube productions methods are advancing quickly. Suppose
it is possible to make a fuel line of carbon nanotube material
hundreds of kilometers long. Could fuel be pumped up to a
rocket accelerating to orbital velocity?


Got to give you credit for thinking outside the box. This
certainly is a unique idea.

But I can't imagine there exists a pump that could do this. Or
even come close. Especially since it has to operate at liquid
oxygen temps.


Turbopumping is no big deal, the Germans had it down pat for the V-2.
Pumping anything at sonic velocities through a long thin pipe is
really stooopid. You plug in the appropriate dimensionless number for
flow, you see where the turbulent flow regime begins, then you
carefully plan the project so you retire before the first shakedown
demo.

What insulates the cryogen from ambient temp? Nothing. Stooopid
idea.


================================================== =============================
  #2  
Old August 1st 03, 12:39 AM
Cameron Dorrough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rockets not carrying fuel.

"Robert Clark" wrote in message
om...

Nanotube productions methods are advancing quickly. Suppose it is
possible to make a fuel line of carbon nanotube material hundreds of
kilometers long. Could fuel be pumped up to a rocket accelerating to
orbital velocity?

[snipped stuff]


An interesting idea. Assuming that a Space Tether is technically feasible
it should be possible to do it with enormous compressors, but as you point
out, there will be a lot of fuel lost on the way up.

Given that it wouldn't be a good idea to run high voltage electrical
equipment (like maintenance cars) anywhere near this pipeline, I'm not sure
how you would maintain it and if it failed (due to lightning strike or
collision) the resulting explosion could be seen for miles!

How about going the other way and putting a liquefaction station in LEO??
AFAIK, there is enough atmosphere up there for this to work (just!)..

Cameron:-)



  #3  
Old August 1st 03, 07:43 PM
Ian Stirling
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rockets not carrying fuel.

Cameron Dorrough wrote:
"Robert Clark" wrote in message
om...

Nanotube productions methods are advancing quickly. Suppose it is
possible to make a fuel line of carbon nanotube material hundreds of
kilometers long. Could fuel be pumped up to a rocket accelerating to
orbital velocity?

[snipped stuff]


An interesting idea. Assuming that a Space Tether is technically feasible
it should be possible to do it with enormous compressors, but as you point
out, there will be a lot of fuel lost on the way up.


I doubt you can actually pump fuel that fast without having the pipe end up
more massive than the tank due to the pressure it needs to contain at the
lower end.

--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
If God hadn't intended us to eat animals,
He wouldn't have made them out of MEAT! - John Cleese
  #4  
Old August 7th 03, 01:22 PM
lin8080
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rockets not carrying fuel.



Cameron Dorrough schrieb:

How about going the other way and putting a liquefaction station in LEO??
AFAIK, there is enough atmosphere up there for this to work (just!)..


Hallo (I'm new here)

When I read this, I remember about planes, based on the "Zeppelin"
technique.

There the idea is to have a plattform in the higher atmosphere, hovering
by heliumtanks in equatorial passat-winds around the earth. Such a
plattform can be used as a fuel store (and other goods), refilled with
ballistic drones from earth, and out of the space the fuel can be
carried by a kind of lifter, like an elevator, or something else.

There can be more than one plattform like this. They can operate remote
controlled like the Helios ultralight aircraft.

As I remember, there where planes in USA, with a ring structure in 1950
or so, but never realized. (At this time the solar panel did not work
like today.) And this year someone in London brings up the idea to do a
sat based internet with balloons over the city (this balloons can also
carry traffic control systems or measure air pollution).

The point is, that there should be installed a long time equipment for
multiple use. The times where a one-way solution is used, seemed to be
passed. So it is necessary to think about the cheapest possibility to do
the transport, that problem will raise in the near future, and there is
not only the way up.

Sorry for my english.

lin


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Iss fuel reserve Allen Thomson Space Station 15 July 27th 04 12:58 AM
Accumulate Fuel at Space Station? [email protected] Science 22 March 16th 04 11:36 PM
African-American engineer gets "cool" fuel to Shuttle Jacques van Oene Space Shuttle 6 February 4th 04 04:35 PM
Bush's plan, future of ISS and lunar transit Peter Altschuler Space Station 3 January 16th 04 02:02 AM
"Why I won't invest in rockets for space tourism ... yet" RAILROAD SPIKE Space Station 0 July 30th 03 12:06 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.