Cheap access to space

Conventional rocket launchers are expensive because
they are made by hand by rocket plumbers. I prefer
a much cheaper idea called engine cluster. The engine
cluster can be made by a milling robot which carves
the engine from a monolithic slab of aluminum alloy.
Complete description of the engine cluster is posted at:
http://www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio/S...engine_cluster

Small companies cannot compete with Lockheed Martin
for the same reason that small software companies cannot
compete with Microsoft. A small company cannot make a big
rocket launcher or a computer operating system, but it
can make part of the rocket launcher or the operating
system if these things are modular and standardized.
The engine cluster is modular, so big launchers can be
assembled from small parts made by small machine shops.

My "Earth-to-Orbit Transportation Bibliography"
is the most comprehensive technical reference
about novel CATS ideas. It is posted at:
http://www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio/

Andrew Nowicki wrote:

...

Small companies cannot compete with Lockheed Martin
for the same reason that small software companies cannot
compete with Microsoft. A small company cannot make a big
rocket launcher or a computer operating system, but it
can make part of the rocket launcher or the operating
system if these things are modular and standardized.
The engine cluster is modular, so big launchers can be
assembled from small parts made by small machine shops.
...

I think that modularization and commoditization of parts does lead to
interchangeability and thus increased efficiency in production, but
first you need a general purpose rocket platform that's good.

There are hundreds of computer operating systems available, many of them
written by a single man or woman. Well, there are many operating
systems written by one man, or a small company, for example the guy who
wrote DOS.

I think that cheap access to space is vital for our national and global
interests, and that a coilgun, although "big space", is the way to go,
because it offers cost and launch efficiencies and launch capabilities
unmatched by rocketry. I haven't studied it much since the last
conversations on coilguns here on sci.space.policy, except for designing
and building parts of a toy coilgun, and I don't have much more research
into the problem area of launching ten ton payloads at Mach 30 into
outer space. I did see an article in perhaps Popular Science about
decreasing the sonic boom, but those methods mentioned do not
necessarily apply to the hypersonic shockwave, at pressures where air
superheats. I still think the ionized vacuum or evacuated plasma tunnel
through the atmosphere is a good idea.

An Earth-to-Space Mass Driver would not be accessible to those except
having the ability to construct a ten or further kilometer track and
with access to lots of electricity and the technology to counteract the
hysteresis and back-EMF effects of launching two to forty tons at a time
to the edge of Earth's gravity well where the payload may then waft,
burn, sling, and sail itself to any location in the solar system. So
not everybody would have a launcher, but anybody could design and
manufacture a payload, say an acceleration-hardened gift basket to the
Moon Base, because it would be pennies per Earth pound.

The payload of an ETOMD is subject to 10's to 100's to 1000's of G's.
With a 200 kilometer track it's comfortable for human passengers.

There's lots of hoopla about the space elevator. I guess I'm still on
the side that laughs at the space elevator. If the space elevator is so
great, then there should be an Earth-to-Space mass-driving coilgun, and
a separate space elevator. If a section of the coilgun fails, it is
replaced, if a section of the space elevator fails, the whole thing is
gone. I support primary research into the problem areas of the space
elevator, because single and multi-walled carbon nanotube fibers are
kind of like nylon in replacing silk. There've been several
well-attended conferences about the space elevator over the past several
years, there have been several conferences about electromagnetic launch
for more than a decade, where electromagnetic launch was first
envisioned as a launch technology more than a hundred years ago.

If there's going to be permanent human presence on other planets of this
solar system, we need cheap access to space to launch many hundreds of
tons every year into space, and get a few with people in them returning,
and one of the most feasible ways to do that is the coilgun.

Regards,

Ross F.

If the space elevator is so
great, then there should be an Earth-to-Space mass-driving coilgun, and
a separate space elevator. If a section of the coilgun fails, it is
replaced, if a section of the space elevator fails, the whole thing is
gone.

That would depend where it failed. If it broke near the ground, the thing
would drift up and west, and the loose end could be recaptured. If it broke
above the GEO, maintenance robots could send up more "string" to restore
balance long enough to fix it. At that size nothing happens "fast."

Of course we need both technologies. Coilguns for heavy, compact stuff. Space
elevator for human beings and other payloads that go crunch under high G.

Andrew Nowicki :

Conventional rocket launchers are expensive because
they are made by hand by rocket plumbers. I prefer
a much cheaper idea called engine cluster. The engine
cluster can be made by a milling robot which carves
the engine from a monolithic slab of aluminum alloy.
Complete description of the engine cluster is posted at:
http://www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio/S...engine_cluster

You are starting to sound like a space kook by repeatly pushing this design.
Sorry, but a number of problems with your 'cluster design" have been pointed
out and you have just brushed off the objections. As a blue print the above
design is worthless. When are you going to address some of the design issues?

Small companies cannot compete with Lockheed Martin
for the same reason that small software companies cannot
compete with Microsoft. A small company cannot make a big
rocket launcher or a computer operating system, but it
can make part of the rocket launcher or the operating
system if these things are modular and standardized.
The engine cluster is modular, so big launchers can be
assembled from small parts made by small machine shops.

And a lot of small cheap parts still adds up to big money. Small companies
are not going to build big launchers, they are going to build small ones that
they can afford..

My "Earth-to-Orbit Transportation Bibliography"
is the most comprehensive technical reference
about novel CATS ideas. It is posted at:
http://www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio/

Now you are really starting to sound kooky.

Earl Colby Pottinger
--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

Conventional rocket launchers are expensive because
they are made by hand by rocket plumbers. I prefer
a much cheaper idea called engine cluster. The engine
cluster can be made by a milling robot which carves
the engine from a monolithic slab of aluminum alloy.
Complete description of the engine cluster is posted at:
http://www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio/S...engine_cluster

Small companies cannot compete with Lockheed Martin
for the same reason that small software companies cannot
compete with Microsoft. A small company cannot make a big
rocket launcher or a computer operating system, but it
can make part of the rocket launcher or the operating
system if these things are modular and standardized.
The engine cluster is modular, so big launchers can be
assembled from small parts made by small machine shops.

My "Earth-to-Orbit Transportation Bibliography"
is the most comprehensive technical reference
about novel CATS ideas. It is posted at:
http://www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio/

NASA's APC is second best, but it has lots of
useful info about interplanetary transportation.
It is posted at: http://www.islandone.org/APC/

"Andrew Nowicki" wrote in message
...

My "Earth-to-Orbit Transportation Bibliography"
is the most comprehensive technical reference
about novel CATS ideas. It is posted at:
http://www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio/

For those of us less creative than yourself, how do you manage
to solve so many of the problems in such an innovative way?

When you get through revolutionizing space travel, what is your next
target?

How big an organization do you have developing all these solutions?

Andrew Nowicki :

Conventional rocket launchers are expensive because
they are made by hand by rocket plumbers. I prefer
a much cheaper idea called engine cluster. The engine
cluster can be made by a milling robot which carves
the engine from a monolithic slab of aluminum alloy.
Complete description of the engine cluster is posted at:
http://www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio/S...engine_cluster

Questions you continue to avoid.

Where are the control valves, and how are they activated?

Where and what type of injection system is used?

How do you start the rockets burning, or where are the catalyst keep.

What sizing is needed for the fuel and oxidzer lines?

How does the injector get feed by the fuel and oxidzer lines.

Until you can answer these and other questions you really just have some
pretty pictures and nothing more.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

Conventional rocket launchers are expensive because
they are made by hand by rocket plumbers. I prefer
a much cheaper idea called engine cluster. The engine
cluster can be made by a milling robot which carves
the engine from a monolithic slab of aluminum alloy.
Complete description of the engine cluster is posted at:
http://www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio/S...engine_cluster

Small companies cannot compete with Lockheed Martin
for the same reason that small software companies cannot
compete with Microsoft. A small company cannot make a big
rocket launcher or a computer operating system, but it
can make part of the rocket launcher or the operating
system if these things are modular and standardized.
The engine cluster is modular, so big launchers can be
assembled from small parts made by small machine shops.

My "Earth-to-Orbit Transportation Bibliography"
is the most comprehensive technical reference
about novel CATS ideas. It is posted at:
http://www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio/

NASA's APC is second best, but it has lots of
useful info about interplanetary transportation.
It is posted at: http://www.islandone.org/APC/

Andrew Nowicki :

Conventional rocket launchers are expensive because
they are made by hand by rocket plumbers. I prefer
a much cheaper idea called engine cluster. The engine
cluster can be made by a milling robot which carves
the engine from a monolithic slab of aluminum alloy.
Complete description of the engine cluster is posted at:
http://www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio/S...engine_cluster

You are starting to sound like a space kook by repeatly pushing this design.
Sorry, but a number of problems with your 'cluster design" have been pointed
out and you have just brushed off the objections. As a blue print the above
design is worthless. When are you going to address some of the design issues?

And I will repeat what I said. That was not a design, that is a simple
drawing.

Until you build a working model don't expect people to jump over to your
designs.

Questions you continue to avoid.

What starts the engines, or where are catalyst packs?

Where are the control valves and thier support equipment, and how are they
activated?

Where and what type of injection system is being used?

What sizing is needed for the fuel and oxidzer lines?

How does the injectors get feed by the fuel and oxidzer lines.

The list goes on and on.

Until you can answer these and other questions you really just have some
pretty pictures and nothing more.

Small companies cannot compete with Lockheed Martin
for the same reason that small software companies cannot
compete with Microsoft. A small company cannot make a big
rocket launcher or a computer operating system, but it
can make part of the rocket launcher or the operating
system if these things are modular and standardized.
The engine cluster is modular, so big launchers can be
assembled from small parts made by small machine shops.

And a lot of small cheap parts still adds up to big money. Small companies
are not going to build big launchers, they are going to build small ones that
they can afford..

My "Earth-to-Orbit Transportation Bibliography"
is the most comprehensive technical reference
about novel CATS ideas. It is posted at:
http://www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio/

Now you are really starting to sound kooky.

NASA's APC is second best, but it has lots of
useful info about interplanetary transportation.
It is posted at: http://www.islandone.org/APC/

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

Andrew Nowicki wrote in message ...
....snip...
Small companies cannot compete with Lockheed Martin
for the same reason that small software companies cannot
compete with Microsoft.

Yes, but probably for a reason different from what you
are thinking. The basic reason is clout and occupation
of the territory and access to capital--which says
nothing about quality or capability.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com