|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel tank rules of thumb
In article ,
Iain McClatchie wrote: ...Once you've achieved low earth orbit, if you wanted significant delta-V from there, say, to get to an outer planet, wouldn't you use a small, low pressure engine with a huge expansion ratio, pressure-fed from tanks? Maybe, and maybe not. There are still performance advantages to doing *relatively* short burns. Being in orbit reduces the pressure to do things quickly, but doesn't eliminate it. You can think in terms of 0.1G rather than 3G, but you don't want to take it too much farther down or various problems surface. Also, if you want a large delta-V, meaning big tanks, you can still see a performance gain from pump feed. Designers accept remarkable mass penalties out of superstitious fear of pumps. -- MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. | |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel tank rules of thumb
In article ,
Gordon D. Pusch wrote: ...OTOH, long burns lead to high gravity losses, and you lose some of the benefits of the "Oberth Effect"... Use perigee kicks. Minimizes gravity losses from low thrust systems. ...At the price of having to make a large number of restarts, any one of which may fail ... plus multiple passages through the van Allens... Plus the fact that it just plain takes a godawful long time if your thrust is really low. Once your orbit is highly elliptical, you pass through perigee very quickly -- meaning that your available burn time is short -- and those brief perigees are days or even weeks apart. More fundamentally, though, a multiple-perigee-kicks strategy has limits, because *it requires perigees*. In other words, it can only get you up to slightly over escape velocity, because once you reach escape velocity, you *don't come back* for another perigee. This sucks if you want to achieve a planetary trajectory, because now the hyperbolic excess (extra velocity beyond escape velocity) has to be acquired after departure. I have studied this at some length, looking at using electrothermal thrusters to go from GTO to planetary trajectories. The low-thrust penalties are really pretty bad. Acquiring the necessary hyperbolic excess using *cold gas jets* at the final perigee can actually be better than using an Isp=800s electrothermal rocket after escape. -- MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. | |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Lunar-Earth Flyby to Mars WAS:( Fuel tank rules of thumb)
Henry Spencer wrote:
In article , Gordon D. Pusch wrote: ...OTOH, long burns lead to high gravity losses, and you lose some of the benefits of the "Oberth Effect"... Use perigee kicks. Minimizes gravity losses from low thrust systems. ...At the price of having to make a large number of restarts, any one of which may fail ... plus multiple passages through the van Allens... Plus the fact that it just plain takes a godawful long time if your thrust is really low. Once your orbit is highly elliptical, you pass through perigee very quickly -- meaning that your available burn time is short -- and those brief perigees are days or even weeks apart. More fundamentally, though, a multiple-perigee-kicks strategy has limits, because *it requires perigees*. In other words, it can only get you up to slightly over escape velocity, because once you reach escape velocity, you *don't come back* for another perigee. This sucks if you want to achieve a planetary trajectory, because now the hyperbolic excess (extra velocity beyond escape velocity) has to be acquired after departure. I have studied this at some length, looking at using electrothermal thrusters to go from GTO to planetary trajectories. The low-thrust penalties are really pretty bad. Acquiring the necessary hyperbolic excess using *cold gas jets* at the final perigee can actually be better than using an Isp=800s electrothermal rocket after escape. I've always thought the best way to go to the planets would be a combination low-thrust with final high-thrust kick at the end. Basically, to use a low-thrust extremely high ISP ion engine to slowly climb out of the earth's gravity well. You do this with all the massive stuff your taking, for example human exploration of Mars. Then use a couple of passes by the Moon (one outbound, and one inbound) to change the your orbit from an extremely high circular orbit to a highly elliptical, possibly hyperbolic orbit with a perigee of a couple of hundred miles. Then at Earth perigee do your final High thrust Low ISP chemical burn. You get the best of both world, extremely high ISP to get most of your velocity with a continuous burn from the Earth to the Moon. Then use the Moon to change your orbit, giving one last pass by the Earth. Falling back deep into the gravity well to do a final high thrust low ISP burn where it does the most good. If it's a manned mission, they could leave later, just as the massive payload is approaching the moon for the second time. The men could fly around the moon at the right time, then they would have 5 days or so to rendezvous with the equipment/fuel payload before the final Earth perigee burn. This concept supports Holman transfers to Mars for equipment and much faster transfers for humans (bigger final burn). Additionally, the large ion engine could be aerobraked back into low earth orbit to be refueled and repaired to start lifting the next massive resupply payload. I've never thought of it as a low thrust penalty, but rather a deep gravity well bonus. Craig Fink |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Ion to Lunar-Earth Burn-Lunar assist Lunar-Earth Flyby to Mars WAS:( Fuel tank rules of thumb)
Craig Fink wrote:
Henry Spencer wrote: In article , Gordon D. Pusch wrote: ...OTOH, long burns lead to high gravity losses, and you lose some of the benefits of the "Oberth Effect"... Use perigee kicks. Minimizes gravity losses from low thrust systems. ...At the price of having to make a large number of restarts, any one of which may fail ... plus multiple passages through the van Allens... Plus the fact that it just plain takes a godawful long time if your thrust is really low. Once your orbit is highly elliptical, you pass through perigee very quickly -- meaning that your available burn time is short -- and those brief perigees are days or even weeks apart. More fundamentally, though, a multiple-perigee-kicks strategy has limits, because *it requires perigees*. In other words, it can only get you up to slightly over escape velocity, because once you reach escape velocity, you *don't come back* for another perigee. This sucks if you want to achieve a planetary trajectory, because now the hyperbolic excess (extra velocity beyond escape velocity) has to be acquired after departure. I have studied this at some length, looking at using electrothermal thrusters to go from GTO to planetary trajectories. The low-thrust penalties are really pretty bad. Acquiring the necessary hyperbolic excess using *cold gas jets* at the final perigee can actually be better than using an Isp=800s electrothermal rocket after escape. I've always thought the best way to go to the planets would be a combination low-thrust with final high-thrust kick at the end. Basically, to use a low-thrust extremely high ISP ion engine to slowly climb out of the earth's gravity well. You do this with all the massive stuff your taking, for example human exploration of Mars. Then use a couple of passes by the Moon (one outbound, and one inbound) to change the your orbit from an extremely high circular orbit to a highly elliptical, possibly hyperbolic orbit with a perigee of a couple of hundred miles. Then at Earth perigee do your final High thrust Low ISP chemical burn. You get the best of both world, extremely high ISP to get most of your velocity with a continuous burn from the Earth to the Moon. Then use the Moon to change your orbit, giving one last pass by the Earth. Falling back deep into the gravity well to do a final high thrust low ISP burn where it does the most good. If it's a manned mission, they could leave later, just as the massive payload is approaching the moon for the second time. The men could fly around the moon at the right time, then they would have 5 days or so to rendezvous with the equipment/fuel payload before the final Earth perigee burn. This concept supports Holman transfers to Mars for equipment and much faster transfers for humans (bigger final burn). Additionally, the large ion engine could be aerobraked back into low earth orbit to be refueled and repaired to start lifting the next massive resupply payload. I've never thought of it as a low thrust penalty, but rather a deep gravity well bonus. Craig Fink For pure payload, Lunar-Earth burn-Lunar would make the most sense. The first Lunar pass to change the orbit to highly eliptical. Burn at perigee of Earth, with a Lunar assist on the way out. It doesn't give the oportunity for people to join the expedition before the escape burn, but would be more efficient. Ion engines are just so much more efficent in terms of required mass to orbit and climbing out of the gravity well. Craig Fink |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
MEDS Created "Window of Vulnerability" Safety Risk | Stuf4 | Space Shuttle | 9 | September 27th 03 02:08 AM |
NEWS: NASA manager who oversaw shuttle fuel tank is removed | Rusty B | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 27th 03 10:02 PM |
Rockets not carrying fuel. | Robert Clark | Technology | 3 | August 7th 03 01:22 PM |
OPINION (Oberg): "Post-Columbia NASA hunkers down" | James Oberg | Space Shuttle | 56 | August 6th 03 09:31 AM |
Pressure Tank Mass (was Basci question about rocket shapes. | Vincent Cate | Technology | 0 | July 24th 03 06:47 AM |