A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Super-heavy lift reusable launcher



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 9th 08, 02:00 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Alan Erskine[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,316
Default Super-heavy lift reusable launcher

"Martha Adams" wrote in message
news:gYenk.460$EL2.343@trnddc01...
"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Imagine a hydrogen oxygen rocket engine with an exit nozzle diameter
of 17 meters in diameter, 36 meters long and produces a thrust of
53,300 tonnes with a specific impulse of 450 seconds.


Not even if I were using drugs would I be able to imagine something so
ridiculous as this.


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

"Ridiculous" is a very bad word, because it shuts-off
thinking. I might go for "extravagant," but I'd like
to point out, if it's out toward the far end of a
good imagination, it's realistic, and I have guessed
a scenario where the national effort would be directed
to building a "small" fleet of these things. If you
restart your thinking, maybe you can guess something
too.


17 metre diameter rocket nozzle? Rocket engine over 100ft long? 53
THOUSAND tons of thrust? Regardless of what Mookie says about the possible,
the practical must hold sway. Oh, and don't forget that you'll never
(NEVER!) get an ISP of 450 at sea level; that means that Mookie is referring
to a second stage (100 times the thrust of the S-II of the Saturn V)- the
first stage would be even larger.

Hell, we're arguing on these forums against the Ares V being too big. With
as much thrust as Mookie suggests, you'd be able to launch a payload of
11,800 tonnes into LEO (based on the thrust of the second stage of the
Saturn V). And then there's the support infrastructure - where do you build
the engine (not to mention the propellant tanks and other structures). And
where do you launch it; at The Cape or out at sea? The noise would be
incredible, not to mention the probably seismic effects.

Now, we can always assume ("never 'assume'; you make an 'ass' out of 'u' and
'me'" - The Odd Couple) that it's intended to be launched from the Moon or
Mars or whatever, but geez, assumption leaves all sorts things in the ball
park. Then again, the (proposed) nuclear fusion rocket would be even better
(forget the effects of radiation) and then there's the (proposed) engine for
the BIS Daedulus - nuclear BOMBS! Proposals are one thing; making them
practical and useable are two entirely different things.

And I didn't say it was impossible, just ridiculous. For the reasons above,
Mookie's suggestion is unrealistic. Not impossible mind you, just
unrealistic.

If Mookie wanted to build his SSP's, it would be more economical to use the
resourses of the Moon - combined with an electromagnetic launcher (they're
planning that for the next series of U.S. Navy aircraft carriers - they use
something called an 'ultracapacitor' to store electricity until the 'shot' -
fascinating stuff).

We don't need SSP's anyway. Check out a process called TDP; I first heard
about it on the sci.space forums a couple of years ago (2003?) and I've been
captivated by it ever since. It provides liquid fuels (diesel for trucks,
buses, trains and ships; kerosene for aircraft and petrol [gasoline] for
cars) for our transport needs without any changes in infrastructure from the
refinery to the fuel tanks and no changes to engines either (the same
doesn't apply to any other alternative energy - ethanol, electricity etc).
It's also carbon negative (just in case all the doom-sayers [mainly the
mass-media] are right about climate change) and can even be used to increase
crop production by utilising something called 'biochar'.

All at the same time.

From landfill waste (food scraps, garden waste, plastic, rubber, waste oils
and chemicals), agricultural waste (straw, chaff and animal waste) and even
sewage (at the same time, water released from the plant contains no bacteria
at all, let alone any that are alive, unlike normal sewage treatment).

TDP also produces gas which can be burned in a gas turbine to produce
electricity (I know, the gas turbine doesn't produce the electricity...).
Starting with an investment of $1 billion Australian, Melbourne (3.8 million
people) would be able to close all its landfills within five years of
go-ahead. From then on, there would be over $200 million per year (profit
from selling the TDP oil to refineries) to build additional TDP plants -
Australia could stop using crude oil for transport fuels altogether within
ten years of go-ahead, and export twice the amount of liquid transport fuels
we currently consume (not just imports either, but all of it).
Alternatively, the excess oil can be burned to displace coal for electricity
generation (Victoria has about 500 years of brown coal at the current rate
of consumption). The heat from the gas turbines is used in the process
itself.

Biochar has been shown to increase wheat production by two times and soy
bean production by three times. Ten years after biochar starts being
applied to fields, it could be used to double the productivity of over 32
million hectares (just starting with landfill waste-derived biochar and
adding the crop residue from the 'treated' land to the TDP plant) and that's
just with the biochar made from Melbourne's landfill waste.

Mookie's off-target.


  #12  
Old August 9th 08, 03:31 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Martha Adams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 371
Default Super-heavy lift reusable launcher


"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
...
"Martha Adams" wrote in message
news:gYenk.460$EL2.343@trnddc01...
"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Imagine a hydrogen oxygen rocket engine with an exit nozzle
diameter
of 17 meters in diameter, 36 meters long and produces a thrust of
53,300 tonnes with a specific impulse of 450 seconds.

Not even if I were using drugs would I be able to imagine something
so ridiculous as this.


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

"Ridiculous" is a very bad word, because it shuts-off
thinking. I might go for "extravagant," but I'd like
to point out, if it's out toward the far end of a
good imagination, it's realistic, and I have guessed
a scenario where the national effort would be directed
to building a "small" fleet of these things. If you
restart your thinking, maybe you can guess something
too.


17 metre diameter rocket nozzle? Rocket engine over 100ft long? 53
THOUSAND tons of thrust? Regardless of what Mookie says about the
possible, the practical must hold sway. Oh, and don't forget that
you'll never (NEVER!) get an ISP of 450 at sea level; that means that
Mookie is referring to a second stage (100 times the thrust of the
S-II of the Saturn V)- the first stage would be even larger.

Hell, we're arguing on these forums against the Ares V being too big.
With as much thrust as Mookie suggests, you'd be able to launch a
payload of 11,800 tonnes into LEO (based on the thrust of the second
stage of the Saturn V). And then there's the support infrastructure -
where do you build the engine (not to mention the propellant tanks and
other structures). And where do you launch it; at The Cape or out at
sea? The noise would be incredible, not to mention the probably
seismic effects.

Now, we can always assume ("never 'assume'; you make an 'ass' out of
'u' and 'me'" - The Odd Couple) that it's intended to be launched from
the Moon or Mars or whatever, but geez, assumption leaves all sorts
things in the ball park. Then again, the (proposed) nuclear fusion
rocket would be even better (forget the effects of radiation) and then
there's the (proposed) engine for the BIS Daedulus - nuclear BOMBS!
Proposals are one thing; making them practical and useable are two
entirely different things.

And I didn't say it was impossible, just ridiculous. For the reasons
above, Mookie's suggestion is unrealistic. Not impossible mind you,
just unrealistic.

If Mookie wanted to build his SSP's, it would be more economical to
use the resourses of the Moon - combined with an electromagnetic
launcher (they're planning that for the next series of U.S. Navy
aircraft carriers - they use something called an 'ultracapacitor' to
store electricity until the 'shot' - fascinating stuff).

We don't need SSP's anyway. Check out a process called TDP; I first
heard about it on the sci.space forums a couple of years ago (2003?)
and I've been captivated by it ever since. It provides liquid fuels
(diesel for trucks, buses, trains and ships; kerosene for aircraft and
petrol [gasoline] for cars) for our transport needs without any
changes in infrastructure from the refinery to the fuel tanks and no
changes to engines either (the same doesn't apply to any other
alternative energy - ethanol, electricity etc). It's also carbon
negative (just in case all the doom-sayers [mainly the mass-media] are
right about climate change) and can even be used to increase crop
production by utilising something called 'biochar'.

All at the same time.

From landfill waste (food scraps, garden waste, plastic, rubber, waste
oils and chemicals), agricultural waste (straw, chaff and animal
waste) and even sewage (at the same time, water released from the
plant contains no bacteria at all, let alone any that are alive,
unlike normal sewage treatment).

TDP also produces gas which can be burned in a gas turbine to produce
electricity (I know, the gas turbine doesn't produce the
electricity...). Starting with an investment of $1 billion Australian,
Melbourne (3.8 million people) would be able to close all its
landfills within five years of go-ahead. From then on, there would be
over $200 million per year (profit from selling the TDP oil to
refineries) to build additional TDP plants - Australia could stop
using crude oil for transport fuels altogether within ten years of
go-ahead, and export twice the amount of liquid transport fuels we
currently consume (not just imports either, but all of it).
Alternatively, the excess oil can be burned to displace coal for
electricity generation (Victoria has about 500 years of brown coal at
the current rate of consumption). The heat from the gas turbines is
used in the process itself.

Biochar has been shown to increase wheat production by two times and
soy bean production by three times. Ten years after biochar starts
being applied to fields, it could be used to double the productivity
of over 32 million hectares (just starting with landfill waste-derived
biochar and adding the crop residue from the 'treated' land to the TDP
plant) and that's just with the biochar made from Melbourne's landfill
waste.

Mookie's off-target.


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

I understand some people need small ideas. Maybe some
personal environment causes that. But size can have
useful consequences, not to say Mookie proposes a whole
new topic area for space opera. For my part, the more
I think on these very large machines, the better I feel
about it. At the least, it's a remedy for the inner
vacuum I've been feeling since Apollo was killed to free
up a little money for the Vietnam war.

A booster so large its liftoff has seismic consequences.
Wonderful! How close to this thing lifting off could
you be and survive to tell of it? *That* is where I'd
like to watch it from.

A good thing about so much hydrogen and oxygen is, it
burns without creating pollution. (But I think the
launch site might be kind of foggy for a day or two.)

The problems I see are, 1) where does the energy come
from that makes all that fuel? And, 2) how do you
store that much cryogenics stuff?

I can see a rapid evolution of high-speed pump tech in
this large-booster technology.

I like big ideas, but few so big are realistic. This
one has made my day.

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2008 Aug 08]


  #13  
Old August 9th 08, 04:44 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Super-heavy lift reusable launcher

On Aug 9, 9:00*am, "Alan Erskine" wrote:
"Martha Adams" wrote in message

news:gYenk.460$EL2.343@trnddc01...





"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
....
Imagine a hydrogen oxygen rocket engine with an exit nozzle diameter
of 17 meters in diameter, 36 meters long and produces a thrust of
53,300 tonnes with a specific impulse of 450 seconds.


Not even if I were using drugs would I be able to imagine something so
ridiculous as this.


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


"Ridiculous" is a very bad word, because it shuts-off
thinking. *I might go for "extravagant," but I'd like
to point out, if it's out toward the far end of a
good imagination, it's realistic, and I have guessed
a scenario where the national effort would be directed
to building a "small" fleet of these things. *If you
restart your thinking, maybe you can guess something
too.


17 metre diameter rocket nozzle? *Rocket engine over 100ft long? *53
THOUSAND tons of thrust? *



http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...973065121..pdf


This is only 70x larger than the M1 - which was built and test fired -
which means the size of the engine is about 8 times the diameter of M1
with the same area ratios and so forth. The real issue is the size of
the turbo machinery. Scaling laws for such machinery show that we can
make something the size needed. After all we already make
turbomachinery and engines the size of the turbomachinery now anyway
in other applications. There is no reason in principle that we cannot
make rocket engines the size indicated.

http://people.bath.ac.uk/ccsshb/12cyl/

Look at the size of the engine here. There is no reason we cannot
build turbomachinery on a comparable scale.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nhodges...7601337385711/

Check out the size of this wind turbine

http://www.organiclightsculptures.co...d-turbine..jpg

A careful analysis of the details involved reveals no reason we cannot
in principle build airframes the size needed, turbomachinery the size
needed, or rocket nozzles the size needed. We already build ships
that size and components that size - routinely...

Regardless of what Mookie says about the possible,


Its not me saying it, its DOD and then NASA saying it - in
declassified literature that's over 50 years old. A quick look at the
largest intricate machinery we build today indicates that we have the
means to make turbomachinery nozzles and airframes of the requisite
size. In fact, a careful review of the scaling laws associated with
cost, indicates this is nearly the optimal size.

the practical must hold sway. *


2 and 3 meter diameter pistons in diesel engines, 20 meter diameter
flow nozzles in turbines, 100 meter impeller blades in other
turbines.. these things are ROUTINELY built today. The scale isn't
the problem. Create turbomachinery along the lines shown in the M1 on
the appropriate scale - computer model the details to avoid the
problems the F1 had with vibrations - and you're there man.

Oh, and don't forget that you'll never
(NEVER!) get an ISP of 450 at sea level;


Obviously this is an average over the entire flight cycle which is
easily achieved. Clearly a prelminary study is not the same as a
complete study. haha.. So, alan is grasping at straws trying to
present things as they are not. Fact is, a detailed engineering
analysis would next do a calculus of variation analysis to determine
ideal staging fractions and so forth.

When that is done in order to increase mass flow rate (and hence
thrust) at lift off - using minimal turbormachinery - you don't need
high Isp (specific impulse) That's why they use SRBs on the
shuttle.

On this vehicle you do something more advanced . Something that has
been suggested by rocket designers for 50 years. haha.. Namely mix
methane solids in with the hydrogen to create a milkshake like
slurry.

Here's a recent (11 year old) review

http://sbir.grc.nasa.gov/launch/GELLED.htm

Mix methane/hydrogen in with your hydrogen - and layer it so the
propellant is denser at the bottom of the tank. This gives you more
propellant and better structural fraction at lift off - and you start
out around 380 sec Isp and end up 465 Isp at the end - this is a way
to modulate fuel flow rate and thrust - with very little change in
turboequipment - which makes the system more reliable.

Since you can optimize chamber pressure and do a number of other
things when you do this trick - it produces a vastly superior
system..

I didn't do all these calculations, but obviously I will as I
proceed. In any event, clearly a 450 sec Isp over the entire flight
cycle in this preliminary analysis is well justified.

that means that Mookie is referring
to a second stage (100 times the thrust of the S-II of the Saturn V)- the
first stage would be even larger.


No it doesn't. It means I'm referring to the entire ascent curve and
averaging the Isp to get a preliminary estimate of vehicle size and so
forth. The level of detail you're talking about comes next - you do a
calculus of variation - with Isp compensated for altitude along the
ascent profile and vary that profile to optimize it - then you vary
the stage separation to optimize that - then, you vary the propellant
mix as described to optimize that - and then do that spin over and
over again, until you close in on the optimal stage fractions, and so
forth.

The point is,

1) the stage fractions will be within 10% of those already given,
2) the Isp will likely be higher ON AVERAGE than the AVERAGE given.

Hell, we're arguing on these forums against the Ares V being too big. *


So? Its mission requirements are different.

With
as much thrust as Mookie suggests, you'd be able to launch a payload of
11,800 tonnes into LEO (based on the thrust of the second stage of the
Saturn V). *


This vehicle, if you actually use the rocket equation with
understanding will put over 50,000 tons into LEO - and 10,000 tons
into GEO - or send 5,000 tons directly to the moon - and return it -
or 5,000 tons to Mars and return it - and recover all the pieces
involved.

And then there's the support infrastructure - where do you build
the engine (not to mention the propellant tanks and other structures).


You build the supply chain for it. The first step is to get the
money. That's done by building a terrestrial based solar hydrogen
production unit that hydrogenates coal and produces 200,000 b/d of
gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel. The $8 billion facility, using
waste coal on a 500 sq km spent coal field - generates $7 billion per
year in free cash flow - of which only 40% is leveraged to raise the
original $8 billion. The remaining $4.2 billion in free cash flow is
directed toward building other facilities, and R&D on interesting
projects - like this one.

I start with a warchest of about $50 million - and contact folks like
Enercon

http://www.enercon.de/en/_home.htm

to build large airframe parts

or Aioi Works of Japan's Diesel United for large
turbomachinery,actuators, hydraulics and so forth or

Sumitomo Heavy Industries for airframe and so forth

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

spend a few tens of millions of dollars to detail things out - and by
that time, I have a half dozen facilities operating - generating $30
billion per year in free cash flow for me - and from that I start
buying up or partnering with - creating a consortium - to build the
supply chain needed for building maintaining and operating this fleet-
and its payloads (power satellites initially)

Along the way a subscale version of the spacecraft is built that lofts
a mere 500 tons to LEO - this orbits subscale powersats, but more
importantly it lofts large numbers of large comsats that provide the
world with a global wireless internet service - 50 billion channels -
each channel sold on average for $6 per year - generating $300 billion
per year - in free cash flow - the system costing less than $60
billion to build. This adds to the cash warchest.
.
*And
where do you launch it; at The Cape or out at sea? *


I have an equatorial island chain chosen owned by Indonesia. The
islands are uninhabited, and the Indonesian government would be very
keen on developing them, if they got to build a portion of it, and
have nationals operate it.

The first stage booster would re-enter and land near Manus - the falls
on the Amazon river. There, the Brazilian government would allow the
operation of a rocket field. The booster lands, is refueled and
'bounced back' to the launch center as described above.

The Manus equatorial facility also operates a launch complex, with its
booster coming down in Gabon - on the Haut-Ogooué Province - using the
well-established cargo ships that support the mining industry there to
bring in supplies.

I would build the ships and launch infrastructure and parts in Asia,
and float them - like off shore drilling platform parts - to shore
side facilities where they would then be assembled into a launch
center.

The Brazilian facility would be floated up the Amazon,and the Gabon
faclity would be floated up the Congo.

http://www.diamondoffshore.com/ourCo...erigbasics.php

Watch these videos to get an idea of how that works.


The noise would be
incredible,


Yes.

not to mention the probably seismic effects.


http://www.diamondoffshore.com/ourCo...erigbasics.php

Since we already use siesmic detectors to detect the launch of
ballistic missiles, I am absolutely certain that these rockets will
also be detected that way. Obviously the ability to detect these
missiles seismically has no bearing on their practicality or utility
in developing space based assets off world..

Now, we can always assume ("never 'assume'; you make an 'ass' out of 'u' and
'me'" - The Odd Couple) that it's intended to be launched from the Moon or
Mars or whatever,


Obviously, rockets built on Earth have been used to land people on the
moon and then carry them back to Earth. Clearly, a 10,000 ton payload
on a lunar free return trajectory, with all parts reusable - has the
capacity to establish a significant transport capability between Earth
and moon. Ditto for Earth and Mars.

Of course this isn't the reason it was orignally built - but it is
easily adapted to this purpose.

but geez, assumption leaves all sorts things in the ball
park. *


??? so, you are saying because alternatives to this proposed system
pale in comparison to it we shouldn't do it? No matter how much money
is made generating energy and communications off world using it?
Obviously your idea makes no sense whatever.

Then again, the (proposed) nuclear fusion rocket would be even better


We don't know how to build fusion rockets - excepting nuclear pulse
rockets that have fission triggers.

(forget the effects of radiation)


Why? Detractors won't. Plainly this system has none of those
shortcomings. Clearly successfully operating these vehicles without
incident establishes the need for super heavy lift capacity - while
showing its safety. Obviously this is the first step to even larger
lift capacity.

and then there's the (proposed) engine for
the BIS Daedulus - nuclear BOMBS! *


The only fusion reaction we've been able to reliably engineer.

Proposals are one thing; making them
practical and useable are two entirely different things.


Right, and the obvious way to achieve these later goals is to take a
step toward them - with an intermediate goal. Clearly the proposed
super launcher is that step.

And I didn't say it was impossible,


That is wise.

just ridiculous.


Why?

*For the reasons above,


None of those hold water.

Mookie's suggestion is unrealistic.


No it isn't.

*Not impossible mind you,


Agreed.

just
unrealistic.


Not at all - in fact application of the scalaing laws and examination
of the skill sets already out there in the world indicate this is
nearly an optimal size. Sure, subscale systems will be built and
tested - and likely find use in space launch and as tenders to larger
payloads launched by the heavies - but these will be the workhorses
until better engines are built - laser engines, and fusion engines as
you pointed out.


If Mookie wanted to build his SSP's, it would be more economical to use the
resourses of the Moon -


No it wouldn't.

combined with an electromagnetic launcher


How do you plan to get it up there?

(they're
planning that for the next series of U.S. Navy aircraft carriers -


yes, electromagnetic rail guns - they'll offload the research by
painting pretty pictures (remember when nuclear power would be too
cheap to meter - that's when the DOD needed money for nuclear
research) - and when they got what they wanted, they'll classify it
and deny they ever said anything about it - and call anyone who
reminds them of it - crazy or misinformed. lol.

launchers of the type you envision have a number of interesting
applications - and evne interesting space applications. But starting
from where we are, it makes a lot more sense to have Sumitomo think
about the airframe and Aioi think about the turbomachinery and rocket
nozzle - and let diamond offshore think about big ass test stands and
launch centers - if you want to actually build something today that
works at a reasonable cost.

Once your shipping 5,000+ metric tons to the moon every day - THEN you
can think about what the benefit of a rail gun is. But, once you've
got this sort of capacity on orbit, it makes more sense to use rail
guns on Ceres or other rich asteroids and send a stream of material
back to Earth orbit - and bring it into orbit here - use teleoperated
robots in orbiting factories placed by these rockets, and solar power
from satellites put up by these rockets to process that stuff into
consumer goods, food and fiber - and deorbit it directly to
consumers. With the profits from that operation, then you expand
space launch to include a laser rocket ship in every garage -and then
build space homes on orbit - but not before building and deorbiting
cloud nine floating cities - to provide refuge for those stuck in bad
places.

they use
something called an 'ultracapacitor' to store electricity until the 'shot' -
fascinating stuff).


Yep, I worked at Ohio State with Dr. Turchi, we had a room filled with
capacitors that we charged up at night when everyone was asleep, and
then shorted them through a variety of interesting stuff we built at
the machine shop. We compressed deplete uranium in MHD tests, and we
fired some rail guns - this was back in the 80s. So, I know a little
about this subject. The problem is, that's not where you start. You
start with the sort of vehicles I'm talking about, plugged into the
sort of program I'm talking about. You start solving the world's
energy needs, and then its raw material needs, then its food and fiber
needs, its job needs, its communications and financial service needs -
all iwth space based assets and off world resources.

This is the way to proceed.

We don't need SSP's anyway. *


Yes we do.

Check out a process called TDP;


This is a way to do coal to liquids. The problem is where do you get
your hydrogen? and oxygen? If you get your hydrogen from the shift
reaction - you make 44 tons of CO2 for each ton of hydrogen you use.
And then make more CO2 running the TDP process - BEFORE you even burn
the fuel. Yeilds are as a result, very low.

If you get your hydrogen and oxygen from the electrolytic reduction of
water, and get your heat and electricity from either a solar or
nuclear source - then you don't have any pollution and you have far
higher yeilds.

This is what I do!!

http://www.usoal.com

haha.. This is the first step.

I use very low cost solar collectors, to make hydrogen and oxygen,
then use direct hydrogenation processes to convert coal into liquids
very efficiently.

Its ludicrous to say TDP will solve our energy problems, since TDP
doesn't create a primary source of energy. It NEEDS a primary source
of energy to work. If you use coal as the primary source, or a
combination of coal and natural gas - you are adding to the carbon
burden of our air,and decreasing the value of coal.

By tapping into a pollution free source of primary energy - like
nuclear or solar - TDP is a step in a direct hydrogenation process
that increases coals value by adding solar energy to it - while
reducing our carbon footprint.

Check it out - using my approach of tapping into solar to make
hydrogen and oxygen from sunlight and water - we convert 5.5 bilion
tons of coal each year into 38 billion barrels of gasoline, diesel
fuel and jet fuel. We eliminate 18 bilion tons of carbon dioxide - by
supplying 867 million tons of hydrogen to the coal fired plants to
replace teh coal - and eliminate our need for conventional oil.

I first heard
about it on the sci.space forums a couple of years ago (2003?) and I've been
captivated by it ever since. *


Its a chemcial conversion process - not a primary energy source. How
you power it determines whether or not it can be beneficial. Power it
with my solar panels, and it makes sense - power it with coal and it
makes things worse.

It provides liquid fuels (diesel for trucks,
buses, trains and ships; kerosene for aircraft and petrol [gasoline] for
cars) for our transport needs without any changes in infrastructure from the
refinery to the fuel tanks and no changes to engines either (the same
doesn't apply to any other alternative energy - ethanol, electricity etc)..
It's also carbon negative (just in case all the doom-sayers [mainly the
mass-media] are right about climate change) and can even be used to increase
crop production by utilising something called 'biochar'.



Converting biomass into industrial fuels starves billions, lowers food
quality, while increasing the cost of those fuels it makes.

Converting coal into industrial fuels, increases electricity prices,
creates electricity shortages, impoverishes the coal and utlities,
while increasing the cost of liquid fuels while increasing pollution..

Using solar energy generated at 1/5th cent per kWh - to reduce water
into hydrogen and oxygen -and using the hydrogen to replace coal in
stationary power plants, while converting the released coal to liquid
fuels with more hydrogen, increases teh value of coal, and reduces the
cost of liquid fuels - while eliminating pollution.

Furthermore, low cost hydrogen combined with air makes fertilizer at
very low cost increasing volume and quality of food while reducing its
costs.

Finally, low cost solar water desalination, creates water at extremely
low cost - allowing the irrigation of marginal lands and abundant
water everywhere - increasing quality of life, lowering water
costs,and increasing crop yeilds.

All at the same time.


You have ignored where the primary energy is coming from. Details
count, and this is an important detail. TDP is a chemical process
that is very efficient - and I use a version of it in my direct coal
hydrogenation processes. Howeve,r HOW its powered, WHAT it is used
for - determines its ultimate utility.

Now, obviously generating hydrogen from sunlight is the best way to
go. Clearly, once large tracts of solar collectors are in place,they
are easily improved by adding a bandgap matched laser beam on orbit to
illuminate the panels 24/7 - Plainly this is an obvious next step once
a number of coal-to-liquid facilities are built.

http://www.bni.co.id/Portals/0/Document/Coal.pdf
http://www.mitrais.com/mining/miningNews060818.asp

From landfill waste (food scraps, garden waste, plastic, rubber, waste oils
and chemicals), agricultural waste (straw, chaff and animal waste) and even
sewage (at the same time, water released from the plant contains no bacteria
at all, let alone any that are alive, unlike normal sewage treatment).


Humanity today uses 28.3 billion barrels of liquid fuels. It takes
liquid fuel to make plastics, paper, and other waste. So, the volume
of waste is far smaller than the volume of fuel we use. Converting
that waste may be a good way to get rid of the waste by reusing it,
but in total, it does little to change our energy supply situation.
Furthermore, by focusing on waste streams which have a very high cost
of recovery - we increase the cost of liquid fuels- which is fine by
the oil companies - but not pointing us in the right direction.

From 1870 to 1960 the price of oil dropped 5% per year throughout the
entire period. A barrel fo oil in the 1950s and 60s cost less than a
gallon of gas does today!! Since the US peaked in oil output in the
1970s our economy has suffered tremendously, and the price of oil has
risen at an average compoound rate of 11% - nothing that has been
seriously proposed challenges this view. All those programs that have
the potential to challenge the price of oil today - and put us back on
a trend toward low cost energy - are opposed and marginalized by a
dedicated cadre of people who know better. Why? Because it undercuts
the value of oil that's why.

Ultra-low-cost terrestrial solar power - making hydrogen for coal
conversion - reduces the cost of oil and provides more oil than we use
today. Management of this technology allows us to sustain 7% or more
increases per year in energy use worldwide, while reducing our carbon
footprint -

High temperature nuclear reactors - making hydrogen for coal
conversion - achieve much the same ends.

Using wastes and biomass - is at best marginal and raises the cost of
food.
.
Wind power is at best marginal.

Coal to liquid using shift reaction - triples pollution levels and
wastes 2/3 of our coal while raising the price of oil and dpressing
the price of coal.

TDP also produces gas which can be burned in a gas turbine to produce
electricity (I know, the gas turbine doesn't produce the electricity.).


TDP is a chemical process - its not a source of primary energy. You
need a carbon source and a hydrogen source. Solar provides that -
without the solar source this is not a solution by itself.

Starting with an investment of $1 billion Australian, Melbourne (3.8 million
people) would be able to close all its landfills within five years of
go-ahead. *From then on, there would be over $200 million per year (profit
from selling the TDP oil to refineries) to build additional TDP plants -
Australia could stop using crude oil for transport fuels altogether within
ten years of go-ahead, and export twice the amount of liquid transport fuels
we currently consume (not just imports either, but all of it).
Alternatively, the excess oil can be burned to displace coal for electricity
generation (Victoria has about 500 years of brown coal at the current rate
of consumption). *The heat from the gas turbines is used in the process
itself.


http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/20...30/index..html

Over this period 3.8 million australians used 970 million GJ of
energy. Converted to oil at 6.1 GJ per barrel we have 159 million
barels. At $200 australian per barrel we have $31.8 billion
Australian.

Now, your TDP program that converts the waste from those 3.8 milion
australians to $0.2 bilion worth of liquid fuels - may be a good thing
to do - but it isn't even a drop in the proverbial bucket.
furthermore since the costs of collecting the waste - which was off-
loaded to the government in order to make the profits (there was a
political fight about that in melbourne) you are ignoreing the fact
that this source of oil is MORE costly than buying it today. That's
why the oil companies don't object to it. There's not enough made to
really challenge the market price, and the cost of production is way
higher.

Not so with solar assisted conversion of coal at $8.57 per barrel -
that's why you don't hear about it much.

Biochar has been shown to increase wheat production by two times and soy
bean production by three times. *


Depends on the details - biochar can contain metals and radioactive
materials in greater abundance than isnaturally found in soil.

http://newenergynews.blogspot.com/20...economics.html

Even if this is resolved, it doesn't change the fundamentals. Yes, we
might be able to process our wastes in this way to make our economy
slightly more efficient - by less than 1% - but it will cost far more
than 1% of what we spend on generating energy to do -(which is why it
hasn't been done) it won't materially affect our supply situation (you
need waste made from energy processes in the first place for it to
work) - so its not the answer as you wrongly say.

Its a useful chemical process - one I have adapted to my systems - but
you need to ask the basics. Where are you getting the energy and what
does it cost?

solar panels and coal combine to create a real challenge to the oil
monopolies and have a real chance to bring costs down while reducing
carbon emissions. once you have large solar arrays beaming bandgap
matched laser energy to those arrays is an obvious way to increase
their output of hydrogen, and create a hydrogen economy. improved
optics on the laser powersats provide a means to eventually displace
or augment hydrogen with laser power networks.

Ten years after biochar starts being
applied to fields, it could be used to double the productivity of over 32
million hectares (just starting with landfill waste-derived biochar and
adding the crop residue from the 'treated' land to the TDP plant) and that's
just with the biochar made from Melbourne's landfill waste.


If we took ALL our wastes and processed them into liquid fuels, and
used biochar cleaned of metals and radioactives to cover our fields,
we'd increase our efficiency by about 1% - and cover about 20% of our
fields - our basic supply situation won't be materially affected.

if we however cover 210,000 sq miles of mine lands in deserts (owned
by a handful of people) with solar collectors at $0.07 per peak watt -
we would make 3.34 billion tons of hydrogen from 30 billion tons of
water each year - enough to displace all fossil fuels everywhere - at
a cost equivalent to $4 per barrel. Before that however, we will
begin by converting waste coal to oil with hydrogen and oxygen made
with solar collectors covering stripped out surface mines - using
cleaned up run off water for the hydrogen source - and make oil at $8
per barrel. As the system expands, we displace coal in coal fired
power plants with hydrogen, eliminating carbon emissions - and use
hydrogen with that coal to make more liquid fuels at $9 per barrel.
Converting ALL coal fired power plants to hydrogen, and all stranded
coal to liquid fuels, generates 38 billion barrels of liquid fuels per
year - more than is currently consumed. Which means, prices willl
drop for liquid fuels! Economies will expand. Within 15 years of
general expansion, there will be a NEED to take those converted
surface mines and increase their power output 15 times - by orbiting
solar power satellites to feed them bandgap matched laser energy - and
increase the energy supplies of this world to 15x their current
level. When the world has grown to need more energy it wil then be
supplied by advanced lasers beaming energy directly to users anywhere.


Mookie's off-target.- Hide quoted text -


No you are. You droned on and on and on about TDP - but proved
incapable of seeing the essential fact that TDP is a chemical
conversion process, not a source of primary energy. It needs a source
of hydrogen and oxygen adn carbon to work. Biomass can be that source
of carbon - but the shift reaction is typically the source of hydrogne
- and when that's the case, its a dirty process indeed.

Details count, when you don't get the details right, you are off
target. This has been your problem from the outset. You really need
to address it in yourself, before calling me names! lol.

- Show quoted text -


  #14  
Old August 9th 08, 05:03 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default Super-heavy lift reusable launcher

On 9 Aug, 12:33, wrote:

You are assuming that heavy lift is need for SSP. In fact what you
require is the phase locking of small (a few Kw) units.



Not when you look at lowest system cost. * There are cost differences
when scale changes. * While it is feasible to build on the scale you
speak of, it is not AS cost effective. * Demonstration projects using
subscale systems - will certainly be built as you suggest.

I am not talking about a sub scale system. Phase linking produces a
full size system. There is one other point too. The system must be
engineered to fail soft. This means that we need to divide up both
solar power and computer power. The Internet is composed of a lot of
small units. The Internet has never failed even if individual units
have.

The optimal size for a transportation system is far from being clear
cut. Weight goes up as L^3 whereas strength goes up only as L^2. Large
units go better through the lower atmosphere, bur small units reenter
better.

I think we need to concentrate on $/Kg at LEO and on building an ion
drive from LEO to GEO. Plus of course material from space.

The size I propose here is nearly optimal to transition from chemical
launcher, to chemical/laser launcher, and deep space laser probes, and
laser recovery of asteroidal feedstock.

haha.. *even at 200 GW per satellite - which is broken down using
conjugate optics into many many beams some as small as 10 kW - you
still have to combine 100s of satellites to do heavy lifting with
laser energy - so 200 GW satellite size WILL also operate in phase
locked mode - sharing a common pilot beam from a common receiver to
usefully combine energies to do heavy lifting.


As I said $/Kg not Kg at one go. You need to ask the cost of the TOTAL
weight. Can the weight be reduced by contributions from space? I am
not convinced you need more than 1000Kg at one go.

What's interesting is if you look at the consumption curve of each
person throughout the day and by season at each latititude in an
industrial society, and then you shift that curve by longitude and
latitutde for each person - and then sumall the component curves - to
get a global energy demand curve - you end up with something like 210
TW average power - which peaks at over 300 TW and drops to less than
100 TW - throughout the day. * * This means there will be 1,500
satellites of this size!! *So, they'll certainly operate in a variety
of modes - including combining their outputs for space workmostly.
Harvesting asteroids, sending out space probes, sending out
interstellar probes, and so forth.

If you choose a laser you can in fact supplement terrestrial
photovoltaics from space. This is quite interestin. I think you wil
find that peak demand tends to be daylight hours. Space would be very
useful in the early evening.

This means that there are certain times of the day that you'll have
the 33 TW available for launch for 10 minutes or so at a time. *You'll
be limited to launching fewer than 6 vehicles per day - once your
system is fully use and integrated into the world's economy.

Ultimately - 100 or so of the 200 GW satellites will be permanently
dedicate to supporting space operations.- Hide quoted text -

- Ian Parker

  #15  
Old August 9th 08, 05:32 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Super-heavy lift reusable launcher

On Aug 9, 10:31*am, "Martha Adams" wrote:
"Alan Erskine" wrote in message

...





"Martha Adams" wrote in message
news:gYenk.460$EL2.343@trnddc01...
"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
....
Imagine a hydrogen oxygen rocket engine with an exit nozzle
diameter
of 17 meters in diameter, 36 meters long and produces a thrust of
53,300 tonnes with a specific impulse of 450 seconds.


Not even if I were using drugs would I be able to imagine something
so ridiculous as this.


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


"Ridiculous" is a very bad word, because it shuts-off
thinking. *I might go for "extravagant," but I'd like
to point out, if it's out toward the far end of a
good imagination, it's realistic, and I have guessed
a scenario where the national effort would be directed
to building a "small" fleet of these things. *If you
restart your thinking, maybe you can guess something
too.


17 metre diameter rocket nozzle? *Rocket engine over 100ft long? *53
THOUSAND tons of thrust? *Regardless of what Mookie says about the
possible, the practical must hold sway. *Oh, and don't forget that
you'll never (NEVER!) get an ISP of 450 at sea level; that means that
Mookie is referring to a second stage (100 times the thrust of the
S-II of the Saturn V)- the first stage would be even larger.


Hell, we're arguing on these forums against the Ares V being too big.
With as much thrust as Mookie suggests, you'd be able to launch a
payload of 11,800 tonnes into LEO (based on the thrust of the second
stage of the Saturn V). *And then there's the support infrastructure -
where do you build the engine (not to mention the propellant tanks and
other structures). *And where do you launch it; at The Cape or out at
sea? *The noise would be incredible, not to mention the probably
seismic effects.


Now, we can always assume ("never 'assume'; you make an 'ass' out of
'u' and 'me'" - The Odd Couple) that it's intended to be launched from
the Moon or Mars or whatever, but geez, assumption leaves all sorts
things in the ball park. *Then again, the (proposed) nuclear fusion
rocket would be even better (forget the effects of radiation) and then
there's the (proposed) engine for the BIS Daedulus - nuclear BOMBS!
Proposals are one thing; making them practical and useable are two
entirely different things.


And I didn't say it was impossible, just ridiculous. *For the reasons
above, Mookie's suggestion is unrealistic. *Not impossible mind you,
just unrealistic.


If Mookie wanted to build his SSP's, it would be more economical to
use the resourses of the Moon - combined with an electromagnetic
launcher (they're planning that for the next series of U.S. Navy
aircraft carriers - they use something called an 'ultracapacitor' to
store electricity until the 'shot' - fascinating stuff).


We don't need SSP's anyway. *Check out a process called TDP; I first
heard about it on the sci.space forums a couple of years ago (2003?)
and I've been captivated by it ever since. *It provides liquid fuels
(diesel for trucks, buses, trains and ships; kerosene for aircraft and
petrol [gasoline] for cars) for our transport needs without any
changes in infrastructure from the refinery to the fuel tanks and no
changes to engines either (the same doesn't apply to any other
alternative energy - ethanol, electricity etc). It's also carbon
negative (just in case all the doom-sayers [mainly the mass-media] are
right about climate change) and can even be used to increase crop
production by utilising something called 'biochar'.


All at the same time.


From landfill waste (food scraps, garden waste, plastic, rubber, waste
oils and chemicals), agricultural waste (straw, chaff and animal
waste) and even sewage (at the same time, water released from the
plant contains no bacteria at all, let alone any that are alive,
unlike normal sewage treatment).


TDP also produces gas which can be burned in a gas turbine to produce
electricity (I know, the gas turbine doesn't produce the
electricity...). Starting with an investment of $1 billion Australian,
Melbourne (3.8 million people) would be able to close all its
landfills within five years of go-ahead. *From then on, there would be
over $200 million per year (profit from selling the TDP oil to
refineries) to build additional TDP plants - Australia could stop
using crude oil for transport fuels altogether within ten years of
go-ahead, and export twice the amount of liquid transport fuels we
currently consume (not just imports either, but all of it).
Alternatively, the excess oil can be burned to displace coal for
electricity generation (Victoria has about 500 years of brown coal at
the current rate of consumption). *The heat from the gas turbines is
used in the process itself.


Biochar has been shown to increase wheat production by two times and
soy bean production by three times. *Ten years after biochar starts
being applied to fields, it could be used to double the productivity
of over 32 million hectares (just starting with landfill waste-derived
biochar and adding the crop residue from the 'treated' land to the TDP
plant) and that's just with the biochar made from Melbourne's landfill
waste.


Mookie's off-target.


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

I understand some people need small ideas. *Maybe some
personal environment causes that. *But size can have
useful consequences, not to say Mookie proposes a whole
new topic area for space opera. *For my part, the more
I think on these very large machines, the better I feel
about it. *At the least, it's a remedy for the inner
vacuum I've been feeling since Apollo was killed to free
up a little money for the Vietnam war.

A booster so large its liftoff has seismic consequences.
Wonderful! *How close to this thing lifting off could
you be and survive to tell of it? **That* is where I'd
like to watch it from.

A good thing about so much hydrogen and oxygen is, it
burns without creating pollution. *(But I think the
launch site might be kind of foggy for a day or two.)

The problems I see are, 1) where does the energy come
from that makes all that fuel? *And, 2) how do you
store that much cryogenics stuff?

I can see a rapid evolution of high-speed pump tech in
this large-booster technology.

I like big ideas, but few so big are realistic. *This
one has made my day.

Titeotwawki -- mha *[sci.space.policy 2008 Aug 08]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


The vibrations of the 1.5 milion lbf M1 rocket engine were far less
than the F1 engine - because hydrogen has different combustion
characteristics relative to kerosene. Also advanced computer
modelling available today, with modern materials, mean that these 100
million lb thrust engines will not be 60x noisier - though they will
be noisier.

I have thought this through pretty much - I have even met with
government officials in Brazil, Gabon and Indonesia about it. I have
even visited the islands and inland sites that I intend to use. (see
my reply to Alan nearby)

A set of 3 launch centers means that the 'bounce back' maneuver I've
described elsewhere, will be obsolete by the time all the launch
centers are fully functional - that is a booster will fly 1/3 the way
around the world - and re-enter downrange. There a rocket base will
refurbish and reuse the booster again - and it will be reocvered 1/3
the way around the world. Arriving after the second launch at its
starting point. 'working' its way around the world. That's most
efficient.

120 ships of tihs size, operating out of 3 fields, provide 1 launch to
orbit every 8 hours - and provide a natural duty cycle to the 30,000
people involved - and puts up 30,000 tons per day - beyond LEO -
150,000 tons per day TO LEO.

This is likely to take 15 years to 20 years to get started, and 20 to
30 years to complete the fleet build out.

Today we need 17TW of power to run our economy. Growing at 7% per
year means that need doubles every 10.7 years. We need 85 of the
10,000 ton satellites on GEO to meet TODAY's needs. In 20 years -
we'll need 340 satellites - that's when we start - if we are to
support continuous rapid pollution free growth.

In 30 years we'll need 680 satellites. In 40 years, 1,400
satellites.

This is for terrestrial use.

The 210,000 sq miles oflands from a handful of today's large surface
mine operators located in sunny regions - provide the receivers and
basic infrastructure. Developoing this develops revenue streams and
energy from terrestrial solar, and funds the development of the space
leg.

Once we get our economy back on track, - we'll find there are
shortages in other things than energy. Raw materials. This will
require a stream of materials harvested from the asteroid belt - using
laser rockets powered by solar energy. This kicks demand up a notch -
and begins to decouple power sat from energy needs, and starts
involving it in material needs as well.

This kicks demand up multiplying it - requiring the large rocket fleet
within 30 years or so - when we fully populate GEO with power sats -
we will have to adapt the laser targets at the focal point of each
concentrator - to operate as free flying satellites - orbiting around
the sun inside the orbit of mercury.

Just as the terrestrial solar panel arrays were adapted to become
powerful and efficient recievers of power from space, so too will the
GEO based satellite fleet be adapted to reform powerful laser beams
generated near the sun - this provides an additional factor of 100x to
the powersat fleet's output - which allows it to easily handle all our
material and factory needs as they develop on orbit.

In sunsync polar orbit down around 1,100 km above Earth - a ring of
rich asteroidal fragments, act as shepherd moons to a growing
collection oflarge pressure vessels built on orbit. These start out
as factories and smelting plants - but develop into farming
satellites, forestry satellites,- built largely on orbit -and operated
by telerobotic links from the ground - via satellite lbroadband.
Products food, wood and paper, rain down in response to demand.
Large pressure vessels are built and folded for entry into the Earth's
atmosphere. There they deploy as they fall, creating floating cloud
nine cities - that are powered by space laser beams, and fly through
the skies of Earth as hot air dirigibles - carrying cities of 50,000
to 150,000 each. 30,000 of these citeis are eventually built and
deployed, and provide an important stepping stone for the betterment
of the poorest 1/3 of the human population. Eventualy the pressure
vessels are built as private space homes robotically by the billions -
and people by the billions will arrive in personal laser powered
spacecraft to live and work on orbit. Laser and nuclear powered
rockets will be purchased by many to move their space homes across the
solar system. Laser light sails of tremendous capacity will be
attached to space homes to move them beyond the solar system to the
nearby stars beyond.

This is our future. I am working on it today. I will be done within
80 years. I fully intend to be here then -

haha- longevity research is advancing rapidly! - even so, human
numbers will peak late 21st century and fall gradually thereafter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey
  #16  
Old August 9th 08, 05:51 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Super-heavy lift reusable launcher



Alan Erskine wrote:
wrote in message
...

Imagine a hydrogen oxygen rocket engine with an exit nozzle diameter
of 17 meters in diameter, 36 meters long and produces a thrust of
53,300 tonnes with a specific impulse of 450 seconds.


Not even if I were using drugs would I be able to imagine something so
ridiculous as this.


At least Sea Dragon got into that engine size category:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/searagon.htm

Pat
  #17  
Old August 9th 08, 06:48 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Super-heavy lift reusable launcher

On Aug 9, 12:03*pm, Ian Parker wrote:
On 9 Aug, 12:33, wrote:

You are assuming that heavy lift is need for SSP. In fact what you
require is the phase locking of small (a few Kw) units.


Not when you look at lowest system cost. * There are cost differences
when scale changes. * While it is feasible to build on the scale you
speak of, it is not AS cost effective. * Demonstration projects using
subscale systems - will certainly be built as you suggest.


I am not talking about a sub scale system.


I know.

Phase linking produces a
full size system.


Yes. The question then is, what is the optimal size per module?

There is one other point too. The system must be
engineered to fail soft.


Yes.

This means that we need to divide up both
solar power and computer power.


You understand about phase linking. Do you understand conjugate wave
formation and wave mixing? Nonlinear optics? In my system a pilot
beam arrives from a receiver demanding power. That beam arrives at
the laser window and creates a nonlinear optical effect. This mixes
with the power laser beam and a portion of it is directed precisely
along matched to the conjugate of the phase of the incoming beam.
This means its phase locked to the weaker pilot beam, but travelling
in the opposite direction. So, even if the pilot beam is distorted -
the power beam is predistorted at its source, to arrive at the
receiver - undistorted. If the pilot beam is interrupted for any
reason, the power beam is cut off. If the pilot beam moves, the power
beam follows.

Please note there is no electronic computing or software involved at
this point. Its all a matter of optics.

So, given this system, what we're really talking about is the optimal
window size to fabricate and launch using current technology.

The Internet is composed of a lot of
small units.


Yes, so is the nonlinear window that works with the nonlinear
reflector within the power laser's fabry-perot cell to generate
powerful and controlled conjugate beams in response to weak pilot
beams.

The Internet has never failed even if individual units
have.


Same here- except on the atomic level. Light impacts the medium by
changing its refractive index. The changing refractive index changes
the path of light. These two operate together - along with the lasing
cavity optics and the receiver optics - to create a fail safe system.

The optimal size for a transportation system is far from being clear
cut.


Until you design a representative system - such as the one I've
described.

Weight goes up as L^3 whereas strength goes up only as L^2. Large
units go better through the lower atmosphere, bur small units reenter
better.


This is one of many factors. The ability to fold thin films factors
into this.

I think we need to concentrate on $/Kg at LEO and on building an ion
drive from LEO to GEO. Plus of course material from space.


Yes. When you do that you find - what every other rocket scientist
has found since the beginning of rocket science;

1) make the launch system reusable
2) increase the flight rate
3) increase the vehicle size

That's why the Army, then the Air Force, then NASA, were building 1.5
million pound thrust engines on test stands back in 1959. The F1 and
the M1. NASA inherited this work, and built the Saturn V around it.

They were originally validating the scalaing laws for rocket engines -
to see where they might go in the future. Those early studies suggest
100 million pound thrust engines are nearly optimal for interplanetary
space operations done on a large scale.

The size I propose here is nearly optimal to transition from chemical
launcher, to chemical/laser launcher,


Yes. I spoke with a few people about Laser Sustain Detonation
launchers a few decades ago - and others about rail gun launchers. It
makes an interesting system. On one end you have systems that are the
size of dust motes - smart smoke one researcher called them. On the
otheryou have systems that are the size of planets - these are the
optical systems proposed by Bob Forward to beam energy to interstellar
vehicles tens of light years away.

Now, what's optimal depends on the details of how you do things. In
any system that's never been done there are open issues - and
estimates of the level of work required to resolve them - and the
probability of success. Smart smoke level systems - the size of ICs
or smaller - have distinct problems in maintaining phase lock across
large populations - they're likely solvable but they're not
resolved. They're a barrier to getting the job done. But, if you
can build them, and operate them efficiently - yeah - you can use
steam cannons, rail guns or laser launch capacity to fire them off
like machine gun bullets into orbit. Are they the lowest cost way to
go? Well, you can do it more cheaply than rockets today - AT A
CERTAIN SCALE - WHEN THE PROBLEMS ARE RESOLVED. Until then, they're
fantasy. But after - they're competitive in certain conditions. I
can imagine a family having a packaged smart smoke dispenser aboard
their space station that they land on a new world and deploy it.
There are even designs I've studied that involve tiny wing shaped
solar panels forming rotors - and two counter-rotating-rotors produce
lift. Since the weight scales as the cube of dimension and the
collector area scales as the square of dimension - smaller systems
tend to have higher power to weight. So something the size of
bumblebees can fly freely through the air and hav spare power to beam
to a central collector. They all fly back to power center at the end
of the day, to resume flight in the morning. You can even dispense
with the MEMs based lasers and replace them with MEMS or nanoscale
chemical processing centers, so the free flying solar aircraft
accumulate fuel during daylight hours and dump it in a hopper at
sunset. These are all possible, but they all have open issues that
need to be resolved in order to be practical. The non-recurring level
of effort impacts their value today. Iam certain given their
advantages, they will one day be an important aspect to a solar power
economy, but they will not lead the way, or be central on Earth -
though they may be very important on the development of Mars or the
Moon - or free flying colonies - in the future.

Alright, now, we look at minature stuff - the size of ICs to Coffee
Cups or bread baskets. These things have a different launch cost -
and are most easily adapted to today's rockets. Especially using MIRV
type technology - a nice little bus to hold all the pieces in place
during ascent. This is one of the most costlyways to go.

Now, as you get larger, something the size of automobiles or bigger -
you can't use today's launchers easily, so you've got to start
thinking about BIG launchers. The bigger you go, the problems of the
smart smoke phase control go away. Lots of problems that the smaller
systems go away - to be replaced by the bigger systems. Here,you have
large collector areas, but in order to reduce costs, you have thin
films - and fold those filmsinto compact forms the size required.

When you start looking at chemical rockets - the kind we can build
today - and start asking questions about what's the optimal size -
then you are led inevitably to building bigger ships. Why do you
think there is a push to build bigger sea going vessels? bigger
airplanes? The efficiencies of scale. That's why you have 400,000
ton tanker ships that are nearly half a kilometer long plying the
seas. That is also why the cheapest way to loft things off-world will
be big ass rockets. Now there will be rail guns and laser launchers
firing pellets into space at a rapid rate - just like there are
pipelines and slurry lines - next to highways - but of all the things
we have to build - we have to ask, what do we build first to get the
biggest bang for the buck, and establish a dominant market position?

The answer is, 1.5 million ton launchers lofting 10,000 tons ot GEO
which is sufficient to loft a 200 GW powersat.

and deep space laser probes, and
laser recovery of asteroidal feedstock.


haha.. *even at 200 GW per satellite - which is broken down using
conjugate optics into many many beams some as small as 10 kW - you
still have to combine 100s of satellites to do heavy lifting with
laser energy - so 200 GW satellite size WILL also operate in phase
locked mode - sharing a common pilot beam from a common receiver to
usefully combine energies to do heavy lifting.


As I said $/Kg not Kg at one go.


Right. And $/kg is the driving factor. Similarly its $/kg not $ per
launch.

You need to ask the cost of the TOTAL
weight.


Yes.

Can the weight be reduced by contributions from space?


That cannot be done until an infrastructure is established and the
weight of that infrastructure is known -

I am
not convinced you need more than 1000Kg at one go.


Why? I agree with that, and I have solid scaling calcualtions to
prove it. But what convinced you? You seem to be unaware of these
sorts of things, so I'm curious.

What's interesting is if you look at the consumption curve of each
person throughout the day and by season at each latititude in an
industrial society, and then you shift that curve by longitude and
latitutde for each person - and then sumall the component curves - to
get a global energy demand curve - you end up with something like 210
TW average power - which peaks at over 300 TW and drops to less than
100 TW - throughout the day. * * This means there will be 1,500
satellites of this size!! *So, they'll certainly operate in a variety
of modes - including combining their outputs for space workmostly.
Harvesting asteroids, sending out space probes, sending out
interstellar probes, and so forth.


If you choose a laser you can in fact supplement terrestrial
photovoltaics from space.


Yes, if you can accurately beam laser energy to the photovoltaics
without loss. or with minimal loss. The pilot beam/power beam trick
achieves this - but there is an optimal area for that as well - with
today's optics. With tomorrows optics assuming certain advances -
receivers will get smaller, intensities higher - optimal window sizes
will fall - direct beaming to end users will be possible. All these
things will happen - but not at first.

This is quite interestin. I think you wil
find that peak demand tends to be daylight hours.


yes - for each latitude. What time of day is it where you live when
the entire earth's power demand is lowest? When it is highest?
There is such a time for each of us. Do you know what it is?
That's what I'm talking about.

Space would be very
useful in the early evening.



Laser energy generated anywhere in GEO can find its way to any point
on Earth when needed. When its early evening in Hawaii, its early
morning in India, and midnight in New York, and Noon in Sydney.

What I'm talking about is the total demand for the entire Earth and
how that varies. This is a function of distribution of population
across the Earth.

This means that there are certain times of the day that you'll have
the 33 TW available for launch for 10 minutes or so at a time. *You'll
be limited to launching fewer than 6 vehicles per day - once your
system is fully use and integrated into the world's economy.


Ultimately - 100 or so of the 200 GW satellites will be permanently
dedicate to supporting space operations.- Hide quoted text -


* - Ian Parker


I think we're talking past each other in many ways. I have looked at
small systems and once certain open issues are resolved they have
great potential. ITs not something we can do easily today. Larger
satellites built around inflatable optics - are far easier and cheaper
to do - and have the least time to revenue and the lowest cost ot
revenue, while ;providing very little room for competitors to do a
technological end run around you while building a powerful barrier to
entry in a variety of ways.

  #18  
Old August 9th 08, 07:07 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Super-heavy lift reusable launcher

The 37 meter diameter torus at the base of the payload shroud might
also carry up to 200 tourists who would pay to ride aboard the ship as
it deployed the power satellite. They might also go on a space
walk.

Also a portion of the 90 teleoperated robots would deploy on the
powersat to provide continuing maintenance capability from the ground.

  #19  
Old August 9th 08, 09:51 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default Super-heavy lift reusable launcher

I got 1000Kg basically by balancing probable lift capabilities. In
fact theoretically you need a lot less but 1000Kg is a fairly easy
figure to handle both from the balacing of lift and number of
elements.

Phase conjugation. If wave equation is exp(ikx)

It follows that if we emit exp(-ikx) we will get reinforcement at the
source. Hence we have to take the complex conjugate. In the case of
microwaves this is fairly simple. With light you STILL need sone
element of computation. You need to send a signal from some point to
your individual lasers and then compute the phase angle knowing the
phase angle introduced by your beat source.

Also you need to do a phase calculation for EACH laser diode. An
individual diode will only emit a few watts. Basically the size and
angular spread of an individual diode will depend on the total area
covered. This could be the size of a hemisphere of Earth giving quite
a large angle.

I think it iis important for everone to appreciate though that this is
very much a soft failing system, and that this system is intrinsically
very safe. Thinking about it I like it as there is NEVER a danger of
out of control beams.

Rand is perfectly correct in supposing that you don't need to be at
GEO. MEO is as good. LEO is not really feasible as you can't operate
at night. If you rely on conjugation you can have positions constantly
changing.


- Ian Parker
  #20  
Old August 9th 08, 11:35 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,736
Default Super-heavy lift reusable launcher

Ian Parker wrote:
:
:You are assuming that heavy lift is need for SSP. In fact what you
:require is the phase locking of small (a few Kw) units.
:

That may be what YOU require, but is anyone proposing building one
that way?

Why do I doubt it?

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
 




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
Small, cheap, reusable rocket launcher Andrew Nowicki Technology 20 September 3rd 06 12:29 PM
SpaceX Announces the Falcon 9 Fully Reusable Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle [email protected] News 0 September 12th 05 05:21 PM
Any word on heavy lift? MattWriter Policy 4 August 29th 04 11:43 PM
Heavy Lift launcher is allready here serge Policy 27 February 13th 04 07:03 PM
"Off the shelf" heavy lift??? Phil Paisley Technology 3 November 23rd 03 07:49 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:02 PM.


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.