A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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

The 100/10/1 Rule.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old March 9th 07, 09:52 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default The 100/10/1 Rule.

Herb Schaltegger wrote:

P.S. Your engineering is as lacking as your powers of observation and
deduction.


What the **** is there to engineer, you have an upper stage, whether it
is a SSTO booster stage, or an EELV upper stage, it's already in orbit.

What the **** are you gonna do with it, let it drift until it explodes?

What the **** is wrong with you people?

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
Ads
  #62  
Old March 9th 07, 11:05 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,466
Default The 100/10/1 Rule.



kT wrote:


What the **** are you gonna do with it, let it drift until it explodes?



What are you going to do with it?
1.) Make a space station module out of it?
2.) Refuel it and use it to go somewhere?
3.) Cut it up and use the pieces?
Because that's about the limits of what it's good for.
The ET has the foam on it, and one of the things that mitigated against
its use as a space station module is that the foam is going to start to
debond after a while in space, as it wasn't designed to take the solar
radiation and atomic oxygen.

Pat

  #63  
Old March 9th 07, 11:52 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default The 100/10/1 Rule.

Pat Flannery wrote:


kT wrote:


What the **** are you gonna do with it, let it drift until it explodes?



What are you going to do with it?


Keep it with me at all times, until which time it is to reenter.

1.) Make a space station module out of it?


That immediately comes to mind. Basically Krafft Ehricke envisioned
entering into the hydrogen tank with a space suit, from the capsule
side. I'm building a freaking capsule to go onto a five meter tank, so
I'm damn well going to install my hooks on the factory floor. It's a
very clear shot into the top of the hydrogen tank, and it's right there,
I can talk to Mitsubishi directly about the interface modification.

2.) Refuel it and use it to go somewhere?


Na, I'm just going to breathe the oxygen, and enjoy the water and
electricity while it lasts. The food will eventually run out anyways.

3.) Cut it up and use the pieces?


Are you nuts, it's all going to be worked out on the factory floor.

Because that's about the limits of what it's good for.


That's all I want to do, breathe, drink, stay warm and grow plants in
little grow rooms inside of Mitsubishi hydrogen tanks. The SSME SSTO
part of it is just so I can get larger and larger hydrogen tanks. I want
to get the efficiency down to the point where I can just hang some solar
panel sunshade arrays onto them, and start ganging them together for
larger and larger spacecraft. But the visiting thing is only going to be
for the delivery of cargo (upper stages, fuel, water, electricity,
heat and tourists and enough meals to cover the trip, plus a tip for the
long duration crew, various sundries and delights, you wouldn't know
about these things unless you've done these kinds of long tours in the
bush).

The ET has the foam on it, and one of the things that mitigated against
its use as a space station module is that the foam is going to start to
debond after a while in space, as it wasn't designed to take the solar
radiation and atomic oxygen.


The foam is definitely out. I've been looking at some ideas like massive
gravity feed from high storage, and various fast fill technologies, and
I'm not particularly worried about any booster blowoff anyways. I want
bare metal and passively shielded with solar arrays. Just very basic.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
  #64  
Old March 10th 07, 01:02 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,466
Default The 100/10/1 Rule.



kT wrote:

That immediately comes to mind. Basically Krafft Ehricke envisioned
entering into the hydrogen tank with a space suit, from the capsule side.


On the Atlas that was the LOX tank.

I'm building a freaking capsule to go onto a five meter tank, so I'm
damn well going to install my hooks on the factory floor. It's a very
clear shot into the top of the hydrogen tank, and it's right there, I
can talk to Mitsubishi directly about the interface modification.


Unless you are going to go down a tunnel into the LH2 tank, you are
going to arrive at the LOX tank before you get to the LH2 tank, as the
LOX is on top on the ET also.
Due to it's higher mass than LH2 per volume, the LOX will end up on top
in pretty much any design you use, for balance purposes during ascent.
You want the CG as far forward as possible.

Pat
  #65  
Old March 10th 07, 01:52 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default The 100/10/1 Rule.

Pat Flannery wrote:


kT wrote:

That immediately comes to mind. Basically Krafft Ehricke envisioned
entering into the hydrogen tank with a space suit, from the capsule side.


On the Atlas that was the LOX tank.

I'm building a freaking capsule to go onto a five meter tank, so I'm
damn well going to install my hooks on the factory floor. It's a very
clear shot into the top of the hydrogen tank, and it's right there, I
can talk to Mitsubishi directly about the interface modification.


Unless you are going to go down a tunnel into the LH2 tank, you are
going to arrive at the LOX tank before you get to the LH2 tank, as the
LOX is on top on the ET also.


How many ****ing times do I have to say it - I am not using an ET!

On an EELV upper stage, oxygen, on a hypothetical SSTO - hydrogen. Even
if it is the oxygen tank, I don't care, I just want to get in the tank.

Due to it's higher mass than LH2 per volume, the LOX will end up on top
in pretty much any design you use, for balance purposes during ascent.
You want the CG as far forward as possible.


Actually, I thought we wanted it farther back. That's the way it is with
upper stages. I want the center of pressure to be just right behind it.
By the time the fuel is depleted, I don't care anymore anyways, but the
farther back it is the better. If I want to move it forward, I'll just
add more payload.

I mean really, haven't you guys simulated any of this at all?

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
  #66  
Old March 10th 07, 02:58 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,466
Default The 100/10/1 Rule.



kT wrote:

I mean really, haven't you guys simulated any of this at all?



In the case of the LOX/LH2 combo, the differences in weight per volume
of the two propellants is so great that the LOX is almost certainly
going to end up forward for stability reasons, even on SSTO designs.
If you are going to use a LOX/LH2 propellant combo, then you want to
move into the LH2 tank, as that's going to be around four times the size
of the LOX tank.
This was how Skylab, the closest thing to the Krafft Ehricke Atlas
station, was built (it would have been even closer in the original
"wetlab" concept).
Using any other propellant combination than LOX/LH2 (barring exotics
like fluorine or ozone) will give you an inferior Isp, and make the
whole SSTO concept probably unworkable with any useful payload at all.
So assuming the capsule is on top, you are going to want to have a
insulated tunnel through the LOX tank down to the LH2 tank.
The alternative is to jettison any remaining propellants on-orbit, and
after everything has warmed up head down through the LOX tank into the
LH2 tank, but I thought you might want to keep some of the LOX for
breathing.
Even then though you are going to have to do something to store it, as
it will boil off fairly quickly once the sun starts warming the exterior
of the LOX tank.

Pat
  #67  
Old March 10th 07, 03:05 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,170
Default The 100/10/1 Rule.

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:
LOX is on top on the ET also.
Due to it's higher mass than LH2 per volume, the LOX will end up on top
in pretty much any design you use, for balance purposes during ascent.
You want the CG as far forward as possible.


You might like it there, but other considerations can intervene, like the
extra structural weight incurred by putting most of the propellant mass up
high. The LOX was on the bottom in the S-II, the S-IV/S-IVB, and the
Ariane 1/2/3/4 third stage, and still is in the Centaur, the Delta IV
upper stage, and the GSLV third stage. It might have ended up on the
bottom in the ET, too, had it not been for the asymmetric vehicle
configuration -- keeping the ET's changing center of mass within the
limited gimbal range of the SSMEs absolutely dictated putting the LOX tank
as far away from the SSMEs as humanly possible.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |
  #68  
Old March 10th 07, 03:48 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default The 100/10/1 Rule.

Pat Flannery wrote:


kT wrote:

I mean really, haven't you guys simulated any of this at all?



In the case of the LOX/LH2 combo, the differences in weight per volume
of the two propellants is so great that the LOX is almost certainly
going to end up forward for stability reasons, even on SSTO designs.
If you are going to use a LOX/LH2 propellant combo, then you want to
move into the LH2 tank, as that's going to be around four times the size
of the LOX tank.


I'm not really concerned about it at this point, because obviously I'm
going to be flying a Delta IV upper stage to rendezvous, so the hydrogen
tank is what I've got there. As far as a SSTO booster, since I intend to
reuse the engines, I'll soon have more tanks than I know what to do
with. I was interested in the discussion on mass charge ratio of
propellants, so I am interested ultimately in some novel hydrogen
acceleration strategies. Certainly I can store water in the hydrogen
tank, anyways, and maybe I can get in through the intertank segment.
Remember, I'm also removing the engine, but retaining pressurization.

This was how Skylab, the closest thing to the Krafft Ehricke Atlas
station, was built (it would have been even closer in the original
"wetlab" concept).


I'm flying hundreds of high fidelity simulated SSTO flights a day.

Using any other propellant combination than LOX/LH2 (barring exotics
like fluorine or ozone) will give you an inferior Isp, and make the
whole SSTO concept probably unworkable with any useful payload at all.
So assuming the capsule is on top, you are going to want to have a
insulated tunnel through the LOX tank down to the LH2 tank.


For a really big tank, for instance, a 7 engine SSTO, that would work.

The alternative is to jettison any remaining propellants on-orbit, and
after everything has warmed up head down through the LOX tank into the
LH2 tank, but I thought you might want to keep some of the LOX for
breathing.


Of course, that's the whole point, buff out the intertank and thrust
structure with small residual fuel tanks, and run sustainer engines to
get the fuel where you want it while they're circularizing the orbit.

Even then though you are going to have to do something to store it, as
it will boil off fairly quickly once the sun starts warming the exterior
of the LOX tank.


I'll shade it then, and use it up as fast as possible. So basically I'll
be rendezvousing with a large oxygen tank, on a large tank farm, and
spending a couple of weeks retrofitting a habitat while the engines are
being swapped out. The habitats are converted into solar powered growing
rooms, and the entire structure is migrated up to geosynchronous using
some exotic solar powered atomic mass driving thingum. Or whatever.

The astronauts will have to fly direct. That's why we need an RL-60.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
  #69  
Old March 10th 07, 05:11 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Mr Jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default The 100/10/1 Rule.


"Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 20:46:23 -0600, kT wrote:


Has anyone ever put anything into orbit with a single stage? I know
we've managed SSTS, Single Stage To Space, but I don't think we've
managed SSTO.

Mary "Haven't thought about this for years"
--


Does Project Score count? That was a specially-prepared Atlas B launched in
December of 1958 which put the booster (less the so-called stage zero
booster engines, of course) in orbit, with a radio transmitter/tape player
package that broadcast a recorded "message of peace" from President
Eisenhower. "Atlas - the ultimate weapon" has a chapter on it, with excerpts
from a BIPS article ("the talking satellite") about the mission.

A special team was assigned, who chose "hotrod" engines and went to great
lengths to reduce the missle's weight - lighter-weight nose cone, adapter,
pod covers, antennas and other components then being prepared for the
C-model missles. They assembled 4 "hotrod B" missles, swapping engines and
parts around to get one tuned for maximum performance and minimum weight. A
new trajectory was designed and changes were made to the guidance system
(apparently that involved physical changes to cams and other mechanical
parts). Range safety and telemetry systems were deleted. If the article is
to be believed, the thing actually was launched from the Cape without the
range safety package, a grave risk even then. Shows what a state folks were
in, post-Sputnik.

The Army Signal Corps prepared the transmitter and tape playback package.
Per the reference, its chassis was made of "...aluminum foil to save the
weight of a conventional stiff metal chassis." They'd estimated the payload
at a mere 150 lbs. IIRC, Atlas Bs weighed about a quarter-million pounds at
launch.

The book says the missle weighed 8,660 pounds after burnout, LOX residuals
having been underestimated - they'd calculated for a burnout weight of 8,050
lbs. The orbited vehicle was little more than a stripped tank, sustainer
engine, adapter and the tiny payload. It stayed up over a month.

J


  #70  
Old March 10th 07, 06:54 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,170
Default The 100/10/1 Rule.

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:
Using any other propellant combination than LOX/LH2 (barring exotics
like fluorine or ozone) will give you an inferior Isp, and make the
whole SSTO concept probably unworkable with any useful payload at all.


Not necessarily. The lower Isp is more than made up for by the higher
propellant density and the better engine T/W ratio. Sure, you need a
higher mass ratio, but it's actually easier to do. Dense-propellant
stages with SSTO-class performance were built years before LOX/LH2 ones
started to show up, and with considerably less difficulty.

Also note that the mass-ratio disparity is not as large as you'd think,
because a dense-propellant SSTO needs less delta-V to reach orbit. Lower
Isp, and thus higher propellant mass-flow rate, means it loses mass
faster, thus reaches higher accelerations sooner, thus suffers smaller
gravity losses. It's not a big advantage -- circa 300m/s -- but it's on
the steep part of the curve, so it drops the required mass ratio quite
substantially. (This effect was known in the early 60s, but got forgotten
in the rush of enthusiasm for hydrogen the wonder fuel.)
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |
 




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
The 100/10/1 Rule. kT Space Shuttle 156 March 28th 07 03:25 AM
Going Forth to Rule the World Warhol Misc 0 May 22nd 06 05:19 PM
Is this like some kind of rule? Rich Amateur Astronomy 7 January 16th 06 12:59 PM
Republicans Rule Mark Misc 5 May 28th 04 12:56 PM
Does Religion Rule ? G=EMC^2 Glazier Misc 2 March 4th 04 11:34 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.