![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Let's say the regulars around sci.space managed to come up with a
near-perfect space launch system and agree about it being the best. Let's say 100M US$ to build a system that launches 1000kg at a time at 5g max accel., launching up to 10M kg/yr directly to LEO without a need for a circularization burn, at an inherent cost below 6 US$/kg, a system powered by electricity on the ground, with efficiency above 90%, low environmental impact, using continuous power, and with marginal tourism value. Unfortunately, the system does not scale down well, so you can't build a very convincing test model on the ground. Alright, where would you go from there? How would you go about getting it built? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
If you really had such a method, funding would not be an issue.
Currently, a single launch can cost that much. Objects the size quoted are currently launched for around $10-$20 M, so investors could see a huge payoff quickly. The way such companies are started, BTW, is that you get a team of experienced people, write a business plan, and visit Venture Capitalists that specialize in aerospace. They will give you suggestions and contacts (and after a lot of work and visits, money). One of the first people you will need is a lawyer. The second is an accountant... allo allo wrote: Let's say the regulars around sci.space managed to come up with a near-perfect space launch system and agree about it being the best. Let's say 100M US$ to build a system that launches This cost sounds very low - you may have made some incorrect assumptions about pricing. This is going to be a red flag - if you can think of this, why hasn't anyone else? Not saying it is impossible, just be prepared to show them extraordinary proof of your extraordinary claim. 1000kg at a time The market for launches this size is relatively small, say $50M per year. Most of the money is in GEO launches, about ten times this size. Since you say your idea scales up, spending $1B to capture the 10 ton market may make more sense. at 5g max accel., Note that normal people will not use such a method. Fine for satelites, though. launching up to 10M kg/yr directly to LEO without a need for a circularization burn, at an inherent cost below 6 US$/kg, Note that the energy cost of current launchers is way down in the noise. Really, what decreases launch costs is to decrease the risk of failure. For example, redundancy or continuous safe abort. a system powered by electricity on the ground, with efficiency above 90%, low environmental impact, using continuous power, and with marginal tourism value. Unfortunately, the system does not scale down well, so you can't build a very convincing test model on the ground. You are already at the small end, you should really think about scaling up, not down. Alright, where would you go from there? How would you go about getting it built? As I have said, form a company, get venture capital. If you want more details, ask specific questions. -David |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
If you really had such a method, funding would not be an issue.
Currently, a single launch can cost that much. Objects the size quoted are currently launched for around $10-$20 M, so investors could see a huge payoff quickly. The way such companies are started, BTW, is that you get a team of experienced people, write a business plan, and visit Venture Capitalists that specialize in aerospace. They will give you suggestions and contacts (and after a lot of work and visits, money). One of the first people you will need is a lawyer. The second is an accountant... allo allo wrote: Let's say the regulars around sci.space managed to come up with a near-perfect space launch system and agree about it being the best. Let's say 100M US$ to build a system that launches This cost sounds very low - you may have made some incorrect assumptions about pricing. This is going to be a red flag - if you can think of this, why hasn't anyone else? Not saying it is impossible, just be prepared to show them extraordinary proof of your extraordinary claim. 1000kg at a time The market for launches this size is relatively small, say $50M per year. Most of the money is in GEO launches, about ten times this size. Since you say your idea scales up, spending $1B to capture the 10 ton market may make more sense. at 5g max accel., Note that normal people will not use such a method. Fine for satelites, though. launching up to 10M kg/yr directly to LEO without a need for a circularization burn, at an inherent cost below 6 US$/kg, Note that the energy cost of current launchers is way down in the noise. Really, what decreases launch costs is to decrease the risk of failure. For example, redundancy or continuous safe abort. a system powered by electricity on the ground, with efficiency above 90%, low environmental impact, using continuous power, and with marginal tourism value. Unfortunately, the system does not scale down well, so you can't build a very convincing test model on the ground. You are already at the small end, you should really think about scaling up, not down. Alright, where would you go from there? How would you go about getting it built? As I have said, form a company, get venture capital. If you want more details, ask specific questions. -David |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
1. I did not expect you to so quickly figure that I figure I have such
a system. 2. I was not aware that 5g acceleration for a person on their back is injurious. 3. Extraordinary proof of an extraordinary claim - well, exactly. I didn't think that investors would provide even $100M to build a system that they wouldn't understand, that has not been made before, and that has no working prototype. 4. I don't understand why you think such a 1000kg launch system needs to be scaled up. I understand that modern sats are pretty light, and if you had such a cheap system you could send up people to assemble sats from 1000kg pieces. Huh? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
allo allo wrote:
1. I did not expect you to so quickly figure that I figure I have such a system. Enough episodes of Black Adder and "I have a Cunning Plan" becomes a predictable part of the script 8-) Not that your idea may not be feasible. But, you aren't the first person to have approached the newsgroups that way. 2. I was not aware that 5g acceleration for a person on their back is injurious. Actually, it isn't really. People are extremely uncomfortable with that level of G for a long period of time, but can make orbital velocity at that accelleration. You don't actually want flat on your back; the head and back tilted "up" by about 30 degrees has the best tolerance. 3. Extraordinary proof of an extraordinary claim - well, exactly. I didn't think that investors would provide even $100M to build a system that they wouldn't understand, that has not been made before, and that has no working prototype. You're going to have to demonstrate the basic physical mechanism somehow first. $100 million is in the range of what can probably be scraped up by investors given a good enough business and technical case being made, though. 4. I don't understand why you think such a 1000kg launch system needs to be scaled up. I understand that modern sats are pretty light, and if you had such a cheap system you could send up people to assemble sats from 1000kg pieces. Huh? Larger geosynchronous satellites are several tons (4 or more). One could make them in orbitally assembleable parts, given easy access to orbit for someone to do the assembly. Manned space station components now are 20-25 tons, though again you could reengineer into smaller components for most of the applications if need be. So, what's the idea? -george william herbert |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"allo allo" wrote:
4. I don't understand why you think such a 1000kg launch system needs to be scaled up. I understand that modern sats are pretty light, and if you had such a cheap system you could send up people to assemble sats from 1000kg pieces. Huh? The problem there, is you start to lose the advantages of cheap launch. A cheap 1000kg satellite is one thing. A 4000kg bird that requires 5 launches for the bird (breaking it down increases the weight of the bird and the waste mass per flight), and another 5 launches for the people has a higher cost. (10 launches rather than 1 or 4.) Breaking things down to the size of the launcher is a good idea, and something that certainly must be done in the future, but it becomes a ludicrous idea below a certain size. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() allo allo wrote: 1. I did not expect you to so quickly figure that I figure I have such a system. If you don't think you are at least headed in that directin, the question is moot. 2. I was not aware that 5g acceleration for a person on their back is injurious. It was actually pretty standard for test-pilots. I was more talking about normal people - your Grandma wouldn't survive it, for example. Normal people would be extremely uncomfortable, a certain percentage of the population may have medical emergencies at this level, etc. It also will not be a pleasant experience for the passenger, even if it is a test-pilot. (5 Gs is normally excepted as the maximum safe extended length accelaration, given special suits and seating.) 3. Extraordinary proof of an extraordinary claim - well, exactly. I didn't think that investors would provide even $100M to build a system that they wouldn't understand, that has not been made before, and that has no working prototype. Well, precisely. The trick is figuring out how to prove the system without actually building it! 4. I don't understand why you think such a 1000kg launch system needs to be scaled up. I understand that modern sats are pretty light, and if you had such a cheap system you could send up people to assemble sats from 1000kg pieces. Huh? As others have said, modern sats are pretty big. For a good idea of what the current market is for various sizes of launch vehicles, go to: http://ast.faa.gov/rep_study/ Current launch costs are on the order of $10,000/lb. Heavier launchers are cheaper per lb, smaller launchers (like pegasus) are more expensive. -David |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Let me clarify:
By 1. I meant that I have a system, but not that system, but I may eventually get from here to there, maybe. By 2. I meant that I know it is not especially injurious as a peak acceleration. Re2 3. : Yes, that is the trick there. Thus the post. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Yes, you do want people tilted up a little bit, that's true.
I have an idea, but not this idea exactly, and I am still working on it, so I'm not publishing it yet, and if I was publishing it, it may be better to go to eg the AIAA. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Yes, $100M would be low, but I am reasonably confident that it's
possible. I'm not some novice who thinks that we should just wait for cheap nanotube rope/that the power switching for electric launch systems is trivial/even that tether capture is trivial. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space Calendar - July 28, 2004 | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 28th 04 06:18 PM |
Space Calendar - March 26, 2004 | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 0 | March 26th 04 05:05 PM |
LSC Room 103, LCCV, UPRCV | Allen Thomson | Policy | 4 | February 6th 04 12:20 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 2nd 04 04:33 AM |
Space Calendar - October 24, 2003 | Ron Baalke | Misc | 0 | October 24th 03 05:38 PM |