A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

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

The 100/10/1 Rule.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 2nd 07, 04:30 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default The 100/10/1 Rule.

I've been simulating single stage to orbit (SSTO) launch to low earth
orbit (LEO) in orbiter space flight simulator for a little while now.

Consider your basic space shuttle main engine (SSME) powered single
stage to orbit (SSTO) rocket. Hydrogen is the most powerful chemical
rocket fuel known (excluding exotics). To reach low earth orbit with a
cryogenic fuel of this nature, a mass ratio of 10 to 1 is required (the
10/1 rule). That is 10 parts of fuel and oxidizer to one part rocket.
After accelerating to a stable orbit roughly 1% of the fuel is remaining
(more or less, depending upon the ascent trajectory profile, the launch
latitude, and final orbit inclination and altitude). That's roughly 100
parts gross liftoff weight to 1 part residual fuel (the 100/1 rule) or
10 parts empty weight to 1 part residual fuel (yet another 10/1 rule).

Thus the usable payload delivered to an orbital station or spaceport is
roughly 1% of the gross liftoff weight, and 10% of vehicle empty weight.
In this case this is fuel which can be immediately converted into energy
and water (via a fuel cell), and water that can then be reconverted back
(using solar energy) into propellant and oxygen. This isn't very much.

However that's the reality of climbing the gravity well of Planet Earth.

In order to increase this payload, the obvious solution is converting
the rocket itself into payload. In this scheme the engine is removed
from the vehicle (roughly 20 percent of empty weight) and returned to
Earth in a cleverly designed nose cone engine carrier, and the tankage,
the oxygen, hydrogen, pressurization, residual fuel tanks and the RCS -
reaction control system, is then immediately pressed into service as
payload for infrastructure in constructing the space station or orbital
spaceport itself. Thus, the usable payload fraction is then increased by
a factor of seven (7) or so, dependent upon the amount of equipment or
infrastructure necessary to successfully reenter and recover a seven
thousand pound space shuttle main engine (SSME) from low earth orbit.

For a reasonably designed single space shuttle main engine powered
single stage to orbit launch vehicle, this represents 3500 pounds of
residual fuel and 25,000 pounds of infrastructure. This is not trivial.

Plus, you get the engine back. Adding some GEM-60s improves the numbers.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
Ads
  #2  
Old March 2nd 07, 08:50 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default The 100/10/1 Rule.

Does this take into account the efficiency changes during ascent, and I
wonder who would reuse an engine probably dumped in the Atlantic? I mean
solids are one thing, but...

Not sure about using the bits of the vehicle as payload, Surely you would
eventually have enough spare rcs etc, in orbit to start a space spares shop!

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"kT" wrote in message
...
I've been simulating single stage to orbit (SSTO) launch to low earth
orbit (LEO) in orbiter space flight simulator for a little while now.

Consider your basic space shuttle main engine (SSME) powered single stage
to orbit (SSTO) rocket. Hydrogen is the most powerful chemical rocket fuel
known (excluding exotics). To reach low earth orbit with a cryogenic fuel
of this nature, a mass ratio of 10 to 1 is required (the 10/1 rule). That
is 10 parts of fuel and oxidizer to one part rocket. After accelerating to
a stable orbit roughly 1% of the fuel is remaining (more or less,
depending upon the ascent trajectory profile, the launch latitude, and
final orbit inclination and altitude). That's roughly 100 parts gross
liftoff weight to 1 part residual fuel (the 100/1 rule) or 10 parts empty
weight to 1 part residual fuel (yet another 10/1 rule).

Thus the usable payload delivered to an orbital station or spaceport is
roughly 1% of the gross liftoff weight, and 10% of vehicle empty weight.
In this case this is fuel which can be immediately converted into energy
and water (via a fuel cell), and water that can then be reconverted back
(using solar energy) into propellant and oxygen. This isn't very much.

However that's the reality of climbing the gravity well of Planet Earth.

In order to increase this payload, the obvious solution is converting the
rocket itself into payload. In this scheme the engine is removed from the
vehicle (roughly 20 percent of empty weight) and returned to Earth in a
cleverly designed nose cone engine carrier, and the tankage, the oxygen,
hydrogen, pressurization, residual fuel tanks and the RCS - reaction
control system, is then immediately pressed into service as payload for
infrastructure in constructing the space station or orbital spaceport
itself. Thus, the usable payload fraction is then increased by a factor of
seven (7) or so, dependent upon the amount of equipment or infrastructure
necessary to successfully reenter and recover a seven thousand pound space
shuttle main engine (SSME) from low earth orbit.

For a reasonably designed single space shuttle main engine powered single
stage to orbit launch vehicle, this represents 3500 pounds of residual
fuel and 25,000 pounds of infrastructure. This is not trivial.

Plus, you get the engine back. Adding some GEM-60s improves the numbers.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html


  #3  
Old March 2nd 07, 05:11 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Michael Turner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 240
Default The 100/10/1 Rule.

On Mar 1, 7:30 pm, kT wrote:
I've been simulating single stage to orbit (SSTO) launch to low earth
orbit (LEO) in orbiter space flight simulator for a little while now.

Consider your basic space shuttle main engine (SSME) powered single
stage to orbit (SSTO) rocket. Hydrogen is the most powerful chemical
rocket fuel known (excluding exotics). To reach low earth orbit with a
cryogenic fuel of this nature, a mass ratio of 10 to 1 is required (the
10/1 rule). That is 10 parts of fuel and oxidizer to one part rocket.
After accelerating to a stable orbit roughly 1% of the fuel is remaining
(more or less, depending upon the ascent trajectory profile, the launch
latitude, and final orbit inclination and altitude). That's roughly 100
parts gross liftoff weight to 1 part residual fuel (the 100/1 rule) or
10 parts empty weight to 1 part residual fuel (yet another 10/1 rule).

Thus the usable payload delivered to an orbital station or spaceport is
roughly 1% of the gross liftoff weight, and 10% of vehicle empty weight.
In this case this is fuel which can be immediately converted into energy
and water (via a fuel cell), and water that can then be reconverted back
(using solar energy) into propellant and oxygen. This isn't very much.

However that's the reality of climbing the gravity well of Planet Earth.

In order to increase this payload, the obvious solution is converting
the rocket itself into payload. In this scheme the engine is removed
from the vehicle (roughly 20 percent of empty weight) and returned to
Earth in a cleverly designed nose cone engine carrier, and the tankage,
the oxygen, hydrogen, pressurization, residual fuel tanks and the RCS -
reaction control system, is then immediately pressed into service as
payload for infrastructure in constructing the space station or orbital
spaceport itself. Thus, the usable payload fraction is then increased by
a factor of seven (7) or so, dependent upon the amount of equipment or
infrastructure necessary to successfully reenter and recover a seven
thousand pound space shuttle main engine (SSME) from low earth orbit.

For a reasonably designed single space shuttle main engine powered
single stage to orbit launch vehicle, this represents 3500 pounds of
residual fuel and 25,000 pounds of infrastructure. This is not trivial.

Plus, you get the engine back. Adding some GEM-60s improves the numbers.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html


Using big parts of the vehicle as payload would seem to be a big win.
Proposals to use the Shuttle's external tanks to build a big, rotating
space station go way back. But you have to design the whole program
around such a goal. And they didn't. Back when the Shuttle was being
designed, they probably waved away a lot of possibilities by saying
"It'll launch things so cheaply we don't have to worry about that.
And besides, a bare shell of a tank still has to be furnished, so
there'll be several shuttle loads for each tank just to make it
useful." Etc., etc. Vehicle-as-payload might make a lot of sense in
a scenario of more ambitious commitments, but ... well, that takes us
right back to some other major discussions recently, doesn't it?

-michael turner

  #4  
Old March 2nd 07, 10:03 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default The 100/10/1 Rule.

Brian Gaff wrote:

Does this take into account the efficiency changes during ascent, and I
wonder who would reuse an engine probably dumped in the Atlantic? I mean
solids are one thing, but...


It's already been demonstrated by Boeing. It's not a problem.

I'm aiming for the Bahama plateau, the Great Bahama Bank. The engine
won't even get wet, and the slashdown should be very soft. Plus the
nozzle is facing upwards, surrounded by airbags and flotation devices.

Not sure about using the bits of the vehicle as payload, Surely you would
eventually have enough spare rcs etc, in orbit to start a space spares shop!


There is never enough redundancy in space. We're talking about very
large structures, which would eventually be parted out as numerous very
small craft. You want to colonize space, right? The limiting factor is
water for fuel, but water that is recycled never really goes away, so
eventually enough water will be accumulated to allow missions to Ceres.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
  #5  
Old March 2nd 07, 10:42 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default The 100/10/1 Rule.

Alan Jones wrote:
On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 21:30:27 -0600, kT wrote:

I've been simulating single stage to orbit (SSTO) launch to low earth
orbit (LEO) in orbiter space flight simulator for a little while now.


In order to increase this payload, the obvious solution is converting
the rocket itself into payload. In this scheme the engine is removed
from the vehicle (roughly 20 percent of empty weight) and returned to
Earth in a cleverly designed nose cone engine carrier, and the tankage,
the oxygen, hydrogen, pressurization, residual fuel tanks and the RCS -
reaction control system, is then immediately pressed into service as
payload for infrastructure in constructing the space station or orbital
spaceport itself. Thus, the usable payload fraction is then increased by
a factor of seven (7) or so, dependent upon the amount of equipment or
infrastructure necessary to successfully reenter and recover a seven
thousand pound space shuttle main engine (SSME) from low earth orbit.


As long as you are thinking outside the box and sacrificing much of
your SSTO vehicle, why not use it as fuel? Build the fuel tanks and
sacrificial structure out of diamond. Pulverize the no longer needed
diamond structural material and feed it into the combustion chamber.
You can consume small amounts of Aluminum as well, but it is much
harder to pulverize or powder. You could use carbon fiber or
nanotubes as well, but the fantasy engineering becomes more difficult.


Well, because once on orbit, vastly more efficient solar powered
electric thruster can operate, and theoretically hydrogen is the most
efficient fuel for such thrusters. The only reason they use Xenon is
that it is easily ionized, and inert. Nobody in their right mind would
suggest what you have suggested as a credible solution in the near term.

Using a hydrogen tank for a habitat, an oxygen tank for an oxygen tank,
pressurization tanks for residual fuel, and reaction control systems for
primary propulsion, is not fantasy engineering, it's merely engineering.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
  #6  
Old March 4th 07, 05:28 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Frogwatch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 147
Default The 100/10/1 Rule.

On Mar 2, 4:42 pm, kT wrote:
Alan Jones wrote:
On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 21:30:27 -0600, kT wrote:


I've been simulating single stage to orbit (SSTO) launch to low earth
orbit (LEO) in orbiter space flight simulator for a little while now.


In order to increase this payload, the obvious solution is converting
the rocket itself into payload. In this scheme the engine is removed
from the vehicle (roughly 20 percent of empty weight) and returned to
Earth in a cleverly designed nose cone engine carrier, and the tankage,
the oxygen, hydrogen, pressurization, residual fuel tanks and the RCS -
reaction control system, is then immediately pressed into service as
payload for infrastructure in constructing the space station or orbital
spaceport itself. Thus, the usable payload fraction is then increased by
a factor of seven (7) or so, dependent upon the amount of equipment or
infrastructure necessary to successfully reenter and recover a seven
thousand pound space shuttle main engine (SSME) from low earth orbit.


As long as you are thinking outside the box and sacrificing much of
your SSTO vehicle, why not use it as fuel? Build the fuel tanks and
sacrificial structure out of diamond. Pulverize the no longer needed
diamond structural material and feed it into the combustion chamber.
You can consume small amounts of Aluminum as well, but it is much
harder to pulverize or powder. You could use carbon fiber or
nanotubes as well, but the fantasy engineering becomes more difficult.


Well, because once on orbit, vastly more efficient solar powered
electric thruster can operate, and theoretically hydrogen is the most
efficient fuel for such thrusters. The only reason they use Xenon is
that it is easily ionized, and inert. Nobody in their right mind would
suggest what you have suggested as a credible solution in the near term.

Using a hydrogen tank for a habitat, an oxygen tank for an oxygen tank,
pressurization tanks for residual fuel, and reaction control systems for
primary propulsion, is not fantasy engineering, it's merely engineering.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html


Mr KT and I have disagreed about ohter things and maybe we will here
too. This sounds an awful lot like trying to make a home from what
you find in a junkyard.

  #7  
Old March 4th 07, 05:29 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Frogwatch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 147
Default The 100/10/1 Rule.

On Mar 4, 11:28 am, "Frogwatch" wrote:
On Mar 2, 4:42 pm, kT wrote:



Alan Jones wrote:
On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 21:30:27 -0600, kT wrote:


I've been simulating single stage to orbit (SSTO) launch to low earth
orbit (LEO) in orbiter space flight simulator for a little while now.


In order to increase this payload, the obvious solution is converting
the rocket itself into payload. In this scheme the engine is removed
from the vehicle (roughly 20 percent of empty weight) and returned to
Earth in a cleverly designed nose cone engine carrier, and the tankage,
the oxygen, hydrogen, pressurization, residual fuel tanks and the RCS -
reaction control system, is then immediately pressed into service as
payload for infrastructure in constructing the space station or orbital
spaceport itself. Thus, the usable payload fraction is then increased by
a factor of seven (7) or so, dependent upon the amount of equipment or
infrastructure necessary to successfully reenter and recover a seven
thousand pound space shuttle main engine (SSME) from low earth orbit.


As long as you are thinking outside the box and sacrificing much of
your SSTO vehicle, why not use it as fuel? Build the fuel tanks and
sacrificial structure out of diamond. Pulverize the no longer needed
diamond structural material and feed it into the combustion chamber.
You can consume small amounts of Aluminum as well, but it is much
harder to pulverize or powder. You could use carbon fiber or
nanotubes as well, but the fantasy engineering becomes more difficult.


Well, because once on orbit, vastly more efficient solar powered
electric thruster can operate, and theoretically hydrogen is the most
efficient fuel for such thrusters. The only reason they use Xenon is
that it is easily ionized, and inert. Nobody in their right mind would
suggest what you have suggested as a credible solution in the near term.


Using a hydrogen tank for a habitat, an oxygen tank for an oxygen tank,
pressurization tanks for residual fuel, and reaction control systems for
primary propulsion, is not fantasy engineering, it's merely engineering.


--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html


Mr KT and I have disagreed about ohter things and maybe we will here
too. This sounds an awful lot like trying to make a home from what
you find in a junkyard.


BTW, why ssto, wouldnt tsto give better payload ratio?

  #8  
Old March 5th 07, 02:39 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Sylvia Else
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,063
Default The 100/10/1 Rule.

Frogwatch wrote:

On Mar 4, 11:28 am, "Frogwatch" wrote:


BTW, why ssto, wouldnt tsto give better payload ratio?


It's all about the overall cost of putting payload into orbit. A TSTO
would presumably give a better payload ratio, but with extra complexity
(equals dollars) both in the vehicles themselves, and in handling the
vehicles when they're in use. So the net cost per kg in orbit may be
higher for a TSTO than for an SSTO despite the higher payload ratio.

An airliner style operation using a single vehicle per mission is very
attractive if it's achievable. After the vehicle lands, you just refuel
it, put in the next mission's payload and you're ready to launch again.

Sylvia.

  #9  
Old March 5th 07, 03:16 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,516
Default The 100/10/1 Rule.

On Mar 4, 8:39?pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
On Mar 4, 11:28 am, "Frogwatch" wrote:
BTW, why ssto, wouldnt tsto give better payload ratio?


It's all about the overall cost of putting payload into orbit. A TSTO
would presumably give a better payload ratio, but with extra complexity
(equals dollars) both in the vehicles themselves, and in handling the
vehicles when they're in use. So the net cost per kg in orbit may be
higher for a TSTO than for an SSTO despite the higher payload ratio.

An airliner style operation using a single vehicle per mission is very
attractive if it's achievable. After the vehicle lands, you just refuel
it, put in the next mission's payload and you're ready to launch again.

Sylvia.


well supposedly there was or is a manned DOD launcher that starts as a
airliner, then detaches to optain orbit.

the info was leaked after columbia.

it would of been a alternative return for the crew.

  #10  
Old March 5th 07, 03:46 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default The 100/10/1 Rule.

Sylvia Else wrote:

It's all about the overall cost of putting payload into orbit. A TSTO
would presumably give a better payload ratio, but with extra complexity
(equals dollars) both in the vehicles themselves, and in handling the
vehicles when they're in use. So the net cost per kg in orbit may be
higher for a TSTO than for an SSTO despite the higher payload ratio.

An airliner style operation using a single vehicle per mission is very
attractive if it's achievable. After the vehicle lands, you just refuel
it, put in the next mission's payload and you're ready to launch again.


And I posit we must approach that SSTO RLV launch scenario
incrementally. The 100/10/1 puts the masses involved in perspective.

However, one can argue that the expendable SSTO approach puts almost an
order of magnitude more mass into orbit, which is what I am suggesting.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The 100/10/1 Rule. kT Space Shuttle 156 March 28th 07 03:25 AM
Going Forth to Rule the World Warhol Misc 0 May 22nd 06 05:19 PM
Is this like some kind of rule? Rich Amateur Astronomy 7 January 16th 06 01:59 PM
Republicans Rule Mark Misc 5 May 28th 04 12:56 PM
Does Religion Rule ? G=EMC^2 Glazier Misc 2 March 4th 04 12:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.