Time to Think ‘Horizontal’ for Future Space Launches

On Sep 28, 3:13*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 9/28/2010 4:36 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

I'm not saying this would absolutely work because the devil is in the
details. *Based on the sheer size of Mook's ET derived stage, I'd say
you'd need something along the lines of an AN-225 to pull this off
simply due to the massive drag that the ET derived stage will cause.

Which begs the question of how well you expect the ET to glide, being
that big and light and draggy, wings or no wings.
The Soviets did carry their Energia core tankage around by air:http://www..buran-energia.com/vmt-atlant/vmt-desc.php

Pat

The 7.7 meter diameter core was based on the booster handling
equipment of the N-1 program. This is slightly smaller than the ET
8.4 m diameter.

Well, you've got form drag and induced drag both of which contribute
to total drag. This is at a minimum at 250 mph - where we have L/D of
12:1 - so a 108,900 lb weight generates 9,175 lbf drag - which is
easily handled by the B-737 at this speed.

On Sep 28, 2:43*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 10380113-a138-4a00-b214-2f67383bb027
@m15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says...





On Sep 28, 11:35*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article bbbbb939-3b2d-4e33-b518-
, says....

On Sep 28, 8:13*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 14b39657-93cd-4e67-9472-6773e59eac66
@r10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com, says...

On Sep 27, 5:05*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
What's wrong with your design is that it's "unique" to put it
lightly. *

In what way?

Really? *For someone who claims to be practicing "real engineering", you
really don't grasp the concept that things that are different just
aren't the same. *Again, good luck.

Jeff, you didn't answer the question. *How is what I'm doing with my
launcher unique? *

I've pointed the "unique" ares of your design out to you several times. *

Not in any convincing way. * Others believe them not to be unique
enough to patents. *What are they missing?

I'm not talking about patents, I'm talking about the state of the art in
launch vehicle technologies.

Yet, you're using the world 'unique' - which the patent examiner is
also using. One of you has to be wrong. Which is it?




Specifically, they are the R&D programs that will be required for
each
of your non-spaceflight proven technologies. *

R&D is required for any new spaceflight system. *There is nothing to
suggest what I propose makes anything harder than it otherwise might
for a system of this size.

Your "design" is "unique" enough to scare away investors.

haha - so now you're an advisor on investor psychology? lol.

*Let us know
when you've crossed the $1 billion mark for money raised for your R&D.


Why?


Anything not flight proven
is considered "unique" in aerospace. *

Well, that's a usage of the term that isn't followed by the patent
examiner who is an aerospace engineer.

Again, I'm not talking about patents. *

Yet you are using the word unique in a way that others don't. Why is
that?

You seem to think that patents
are more important than actually building and flying launch vehicles.

No, I never said that. I did say that your usage of unique is
wrong.

*I
see now.

Nonsense.

*I think perhaps you are a patent squatter. *

Nonsense. Now you are making **** up.

You don't want to
actually build and fly anything,

Nonsense. You are refusing to define your terms and then going off
talking out of your ass saying all sorts of things you know nothing
about - just to say hateful mean spirited things about me and my
intentions.

you just want to patent all of your
"unique" ideas and wait for someone to someone to sue. *

Nonsense. You're just making this up out of whole cloth because you'd
rather not answer a direct question - why do you find something unique
that another person competent in aerospace engineering finds not
unique?

You're a patent
squatter, aren't you?

Nonsense.

Jeff
--
42

On Sep 28, 1:12*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article
tatelephone,
says...



On 9/28/2010 4:36 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

I'm not saying this would absolutely work because the devil is in the
details. *Based on the sheer size of Mook's ET derived stage, I'd say
you'd need something along the lines of an AN-225 to pull this off
simply due to the massive drag that the ET derived stage will cause.

Which begs the question of how well you expect the ET to glide, being
that big and light and draggy, wings or no wings.
The Soviets did carry their Energia core tankage around by air:
http://www.buran-energia.com/vmt-atlant/vmt-desc.php

True, but this wasn't necessarily easy. *As far as drag and thrust goes,
the article says:

* *The aircraft was re-engined with more powerful Dobrynin VD-7MD
* *non-afterburning turbojets rated at 10,750 kgp for take off.

Sounds like the original engines weren't up to the task.

The text also said:

* *In fact the 3M-T undergo so many modifications that it's not a
* *simple evolution of the 3M but a new plane.

This is backed up by a drawing which shows how much of the structure was
unmodified versus the rest of the plane which was a mixture of modified
sections and some completely new sections. *

It certainly looks like it was a huge undertaking to design, build, and
fly this aircraft. *It's my opinion that Mook's B-737 used to snag and
tow his ET derived stages may prove to be a similar undertaking,
resulting in a very unique, possibly expensive to maintain, aircraft.

Jeff
--
42

We will certainly build subscale test articles and tow them into the
sky with appropriately sized aircraft this following wind tunnel
studies. I mentioned before that the ET derived airframes would be
the third iteration of an increasingly larger sized system. The first
starts with a single RL-10 pump set on a 5.5 ft diameter 32 ft long
airframe. The towing tests won't even have a rocket engine
initially. A few million is all that's needed. Then, static tests
of the landing engine and flight engine. Then tow aloft and landing.
Then rocket launch and landing. All with a single element. Then, the
thermal system - and loading for higher speed flight. Once that is
working, we'll build two more flight elements, test them, and mate
them for the first orbital test. Then, four more flight elements, and
a larger payload to orbit (5,575 lbs)

Then do the whole thing again with a larger vehicle using 12 RL10 pump
sets per element...

Then do the whole thing again with the ET derived system with 3 RS-68
pump sets per element

In the end we'll have three fleets of three differently sized vehicles
- capable of operating through a wide range of launch capabilities.

On 9/28/2010 4:36 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

I'm not saying this would absolutely work because the devil is in the
details. Based on the sheer size of Mook's ET derived stage, I'd say
you'd need something along the lines of an AN-225 to pull this off
simply due to the massive drag that the ET derived stage will cause.

Which begs the question of how well you expect the ET to glide, being
that big and light and draggy, wings or no wings.
The Soviets did carry their Energia core tankage around by air:
http://www.buran-energia.com/vmt-atlant/vmt-desc.php

Pat

In sci.space.policy message , Sun, 26 Sep
2010 22:09:31, John Park posted:


I'm not a big Pournelle fan but I believe he does have some engineering
qualifications, maybe a PhD (more than Wells did, having being trained in
biology).

Wikipedia knows : Afterwards, he obtained advanced degrees: M.S. degrees
in both experimental statistics and systems engineering, and Ph.D.'s in
both psychology and political science, all from the University of
Washington.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

On Sep 21, 11:55*am, wrote:
"Is firing a rocket from the ground straight up
into space the right way to do things?

It sure was in the 1950s and ‘60s and it
persists today. But it’s still expensive, fraught
with technical risk and dwindling into
obsolescence.

There could be an alternative on the horizon,
however, that incorporates the concepts of
railguns, scram jets and kinetic launching
into an innovative, reusable space launch
system for unmanned cargo."

See:

http://defensetech.org/2010/09/21/ti...tal-for-future...

I tend to think the simpler the better.

A rocket that takes off horizontally and makes use of aerodynamic
lift to climb to high altitude before going into rocket mode can drop
as much as 1.2 km/sec to the total 9.2 km/sec delta vee.

A rocket with a very low structural fraction has the potential to be a
single stage to orbit (SSTO) vehicle at the price of being very large
per unit payload.

A rocket with a high specific impulse (a measure of exhaust velocity)
has the potential to be a single stage to orbit, and be somewhat
smaller.

To this end I've often thought, not as a near term thing, but as
something that's easily doable once I'm making money providing rocket
launch with the ET derived vehicle I've been discussing elsewhere in
this thread.

The horizontal launcher combines the following;

(1) Oblique wing - its how you do the flying wing supersonically.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gHJa_hv6P4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE78BTLmBlA

Here's the flying wing for comparison;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub6U9CL0K_A

(2) MEMS jet/rocket - instead of a conventional jet engine or rocket
engine, you use micro-electro-mechanical rockets and jets and fans.
50 pounds per square inch! $1 per square inch production cost.
Create a *propulsive skin* to control the flow around an air frame and
paint force vectors across its surface as easily as we now paint color
3D pictures on flat screen HDTVs


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzXwctPXT4c

pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMJPC2005_1177/PV2005_3650.pdf

http://design.caltech.edu/micropropulsion/

With thrust to weight of 1000 to 1 these are truly remarkable
improvements over existing rocket technology, yet, because they
combine two well established fields of knowledge, the path to
successfully using this approach to produce amazing results is well
defined.

(3) colloidal suspension of lithium particles in hydrogen to
increase density and specific energy

(4) adding liquid fluorine as oxidizer along with liquid oxygen to
increase density and specific energy

Adding lithium to your fuel, and fluorine to your oxidizer increases
the specific energy of your propellant and ultimately your specific
impulse. Impulses up to 530 seconds are possible with this system.
The bad news is the exhaust is poisonous. So launching with this
combination is hazardous. By having separate oxygen and fluorine
oxidizer tanks, we can take off with oxygen and produce only water
vapor, and as we gain altitude, we switch to fluorine - avoiding
problems with exhaust products during take off.

http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?page...aper&gID=40999

Instead of having molten lithium in a separate tank, produce very tiny
lithium powder encased in solid methane - and suspend it in liquid
hydrogen. The result looks like a milkshake, and is higher density
and energy density than hydrogen alone. When the suspended powder
ignites in the combustion chamber uniting with the fluorine is
provides a kick to the system as described in the paper.

This provides a means to raise specific impulse from 430 sec Isp to
530 sec Isp to produce a single stage to orbit horizontal take off
horizontal landing spacecraft that is reasonably sized.

STRUCTURE

NASA has studied extensively the SC(2)-0714 supercriticai airfoil
section at all spanwise stations with an elliptical planform at
various angles of attack, and slew angles through a wide range of
speeds.

We can plug this into automated wing design software and get some
preliminary estimates of performance

http://inderscience.metapress.com/ap...lts,1:110895,1

With an average propellant density of 0.6 metric tons per cubic meter,
we conclude that a wing, with MEMS based thermal protection, would
constitute an estimated 5.7% of the total vehicle weight.

Setting the weight equal to the 747's main wing - 43 tonnes - sizes
the whole thing - 754.3 tonnes total weight. Nearly double the
maximum take off weight of a 747.

With 10% of the impulse being applied by 430 sec Isp propellant
combination and 90% of the impulse being applied with fluorine/lithium
improvements achieving 530 sec Isp, we have a 520 sec Isp average.

This is an averaged 5,097 m/sec exhaust speed.

The delta vee required to match the Space Shuttle's 9.2 km/sec ideal
delta vee for this aircraft is assumed to 8.5 km/sec delta vee due to
the efficient use of wing lift during initial climb out.

So, the propellant fraction for this one stage vehicle is

1 - 1 /exp(8.5/5.097) = 0.811307 ~ 0.81.2 %

Applying this to the 754.3 tonne estimated take off weight we have
612.1 tonnes propellant

754.3 tonnes TOW
612.1 tonnes propellant weight
43.0 tonnes structure

99.2 tonnes payload

About that a Saturn V rocket, or a Boeing 747 aircraft - 3 to 6
intermodal containers.

At $10 million per ton each vehicle in quantity would cost $430
million. The propellant is expensive about $5,200 per ton - which
adds up to $3.2 million per flight. Fluorine is very difficult to
handle and adds substantially to the recurring costs. Still, each
flight is likely to cost less than $4.3 million per launch - including
cost of fuel. 1,000 flights over the course of 30 years (1 flight per
10 days) adds another $640,100 per flight in capital cost (at 3.5%
discount rate) - making the total cost per launch less than $5
million. Or $50 per kg, or with 500 passengers - $10,000 per
passenger.

Development cost is likely to be around 8x the cost of each unit, or
$3.44 billion due to the massive research efforts to bring these
features to production. But, once in production, recurring costs of
$430 million and less can be expected.

A fleet of 10 therefore would require a program costing $7.74 billion
- and support an average flight rate of one launch per day at $5
million per day.

The cost of the payloads would dominate such a program over the 30
year life span of the fleet.

The power satellite I've described elsewhere would have to be reduced
from 5.2 km in diameter and 10,000 MW to 2.0 km in diameter and 1,435
MW.

Emitter size is reduced from 125 meters to 48 meters. This increases
the size of the ground station receivers and increases the cost of the
power sat program.

It leaves other programs unaffected.

Flying the vehicle from one place on Earth to another, or flying to a
convenient launch location to reduce on orbit maneuver requirements is
also possible.

Two aircraft operating jointly, can support a flight to orbit of one
of the aircraft from any location on Earth, and return the support
craft to the main launch center.

I've produced a sketch of the Oblique Wing SSTO propelled by Fluorine
and Lithium (along with Hydrogen and Oxygen) using MEMS propulsive
skin with 1,000 to 1 Thrust to weight. (2,000 kg of propulsive
elements produce 2,000,000 kgf thrust!)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38432558/Obliqe-Wing-SSTO

A little more detail about my 'cross-feed' arrangement for my ETDHLRLV
- which I've described elsewhere. The system uses the same 17 inch
diameter lines used on the Shuttle ET along with a slightly modified
RS-68 pump for LOX/LH2.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38432542/M...lement-Staging

Perhaps 'cross-feed' is a misnomer, since I'm not filling one tank
with another. What I'm doing is feeding propellant to a pump
operating in another tank directly. Just as the ET feeds propellant
in another tank. The advantage of this is that we don't replicate
pumps. The only thing are added valves, which are pretty light
weight, and disconnect hardware, which is also lightweight. These
valves and disconnect hardware are already flying on the Shuttle.

THE YACHT

The Oblique SSTO puts up about 100 tons of payload to the same orbit
as the Shuttle. A $8 billion program gives us a fleet of 10 vehicles
and daily flights for $5 million each. $50 per kg. $10,000 per
passenger.

THE FREIGHTER

The ETDHLRLV puts up about 700 tons of payload to the same orbit s the
Shuttle. A $7 billion program gives us a fleet of 5 vehicles and
twice weekly flights for $3.5 million each. $5 per kg. $1,000 per
passenger.

The major difference is the cost of propellant and processing
resulting from propellant.

On Sep 29, 3:44*pm, William Mook wrote:
I've produced a sketch of the Oblique Wing SSTO propelled by Fluorine
and Lithium (along with Hydrogen and Oxygen) using MEMS propulsive
skin with 1,000 to 1 Thrust to weight. *(2,000 kg of propulsive
elements produce 2,000,000 kgf thrust!)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38432558/Obliqe-Wing-SSTO

A little more detail about my 'cross-feed' arrangement for my ETDHLRLV
- which I've described elsewhere. *The system uses the same 17 inch
diameter lines used on the Shuttle ET along with a slightly modified
RS-68 pump for LOX/LH2.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38432542/M...lement-Staging

Perhaps 'cross-feed' is a misnomer, since I'm not filling one tank
with another. *What I'm doing is feeding propellant to a pump
operating in another tank directly. *Just as the ET feeds propellant
in another tank. *The advantage of this is that we don't replicate
pumps. *The only thing are added valves, which are pretty light
weight, and disconnect hardware, which is also lightweight. *These
valves and disconnect hardware are already flying on the Shuttle.

THE YACHT

The Oblique SSTO puts up about 100 tons of payload to the same orbit
as the Shuttle. *A $8 billion program gives us a fleet of 10 vehicles
and daily flights for $5 million each. * $50 per kg. $10,000 per
passenger.

THE FREIGHTER

The ETDHLRLV puts up about 700 tons of payload to the same orbit s the
Shuttle. *A $7 billion program gives us a fleet of 5 vehicles and
twice weekly flights for $3.5 million each. * $5 per kg. *$1,000 per
passenger.

The major difference is the cost of propellant and processing
resulting from propellant.

So why so do we need DARPA or NASA, or for that matter why can't we
replace our USAF space/orbital capability with Mok?

~ BG

On Sep 29, 8:00*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Sep 29, 3:44*pm, William Mook wrote:





I've produced a sketch of the Oblique Wing SSTO propelled by Fluorine
and Lithium (along with Hydrogen and Oxygen) using MEMS propulsive
skin with 1,000 to 1 Thrust to weight. *(2,000 kg of propulsive
elements produce 2,000,000 kgf thrust!)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38432558/Obliqe-Wing-SSTO

A little more detail about my 'cross-feed' arrangement for my ETDHLRLV
- which I've described elsewhere. *The system uses the same 17 inch
diameter lines used on the Shuttle ET along with a slightly modified
RS-68 pump for LOX/LH2.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38432542/M...lement-Staging

Perhaps 'cross-feed' is a misnomer, since I'm not filling one tank
with another. *What I'm doing is feeding propellant to a pump
operating in another tank directly. *Just as the ET feeds propellant
in another tank. *The advantage of this is that we don't replicate
pumps. *The only thing are added valves, which are pretty light
weight, and disconnect hardware, which is also lightweight. *These
valves and disconnect hardware are already flying on the Shuttle.

THE YACHT

The Oblique SSTO puts up about 100 tons of payload to the same orbit
as the Shuttle. *A $8 billion program gives us a fleet of 10 vehicles
and daily flights for $5 million each. * $50 per kg. $10,000 per
passenger.

THE FREIGHTER

The ETDHLRLV puts up about 700 tons of payload to the same orbit s the
Shuttle. *A $7 billion program gives us a fleet of 5 vehicles and
twice weekly flights for $3.5 million each. * $5 per kg. *$1,000 per
passenger.

The major difference is the cost of propellant and processing
resulting from propellant.

So why so do we need DARPA or NASA, or for that matter why can't we
replace our USAF space/orbital capability with Mok?

*~ BG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Manned NASA has worked hard at becoming just a irrevelant jobs pork
program.

The ARES design is just the latest example of pure pork piggie payoffs
to shuttle contractors.

the design was too big too expensive and took too long to build....

all driven by pork piggie needs.

In article 4a8a914b-2c0a-4869-b57f-6403ee882406
@w9g2000prc.googlegroups.com, says...

On Sep 29, 3:44*pm, William Mook wrote:
I've produced a sketch of the Oblique Wing SSTO propelled by Fluorine
and Lithium (along with Hydrogen and Oxygen) using MEMS propulsive
skin with 1,000 to 1 Thrust to weight. *(2,000 kg of propulsive
elements produce 2,000,000 kgf thrust!)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38432558/Obliqe-Wing-SSTO

A little more detail about my 'cross-feed' arrangement for my ETDHLRLV
- which I've described elsewhere. *The system uses the same 17 inch
diameter lines used on the Shuttle ET along with a slightly modified
RS-68 pump for LOX/LH2.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38432542/M...lement-Staging

Perhaps 'cross-feed' is a misnomer, since I'm not filling one tank
with another. *What I'm doing is feeding propellant to a pump
operating in another tank directly. *Just as the ET feeds propellant
in another tank. *The advantage of this is that we don't replicate
pumps. *The only thing are added valves, which are pretty light
weight, and disconnect hardware, which is also lightweight. *These
valves and disconnect hardware are already flying on the Shuttle.

How much pressure loss will the additional plumbing cause? What does
adding all those extra valves do to safety? Have you modeled the
pressure transients in the lines when you're opening and closing all
these valves? How do you insure a continuous flow of propellants while
minimizing the leftover fuel in a tank while also insuring you don't
start sucking vacuum and destroy the turbo-pumps for your engines?

This is not the same *system* as the shuttle, even though you claim to
use some of the parts. You have to prove that this *system* will work
safely and reliably.

One of the reasons that the shuttle's *system* is so safe is that all of
the main engines are started on the ground and you're not closing valves
until the SSME's are commanded to shut down. You're proposing opening
and closing valves during flight. That introduces failure modes, and
your drawing shows absolutely no redundancy in case a valve fails open
or closed.

Things that are different, just aren't the same.

THE YACHT

The Oblique SSTO puts up about 100 tons of payload to the same orbit
as the Shuttle. *A $8 billion program gives us a fleet of 10 vehicles
and daily flights for $5 million each. * $50 per kg. $10,000 per
passenger.

More napkin drawings with figures you're pulling out of thin air.

THE FREIGHTER

The ETDHLRLV puts up about 700 tons of payload to the same orbit s the
Shuttle. *A $7 billion program gives us a fleet of 5 vehicles and
twice weekly flights for $3.5 million each. * $5 per kg. *$1,000 per
passenger.

The major difference is the cost of propellant and processing
resulting from propellant.

They do share the similarity that neither exist in the real world.

So why so do we need DARPA or NASA, or for that matter why can't we
replace our USAF space/orbital capability with Mok?

Because he's nuts and his "design" for an ET derived launch vehicle is
nothing but high level parametric analyses and drawings that a high
school student could have created. His flight profile consists of so
many different flight modes and transitions between them that a safety
engineer at JSC would go absolutely crazy over.

Jeff
--
42