Modest Proposal - Common Interplanetary Booster

I want to talk about airframes and engines.

I want to talk first about the M1

Its a 1.5 million to 1.8 million lbf rocket engine developed the US
Army/Air Force back in the day, and turned over to NASA in 1960.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-1_(rocket_engine)

Then, there was the J2 rocket engine with 200,000 lbf to 230,000 lbf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-2_(rocket_engine)

This was used on the S-II and S-IVB stages of the Saturn V
moonrocket. The S-II was a 1,0060,000 lb mass system and the S-IVB
was a 253,000 lb mass system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IVB

Special mention should be made of the S-IV's original configuration -
with 6 RL-10 engines. The RL-10 is a deeply throttable engine - and
restartable - perfect for a high performance lunar landing vehicle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RL-10

Now I also want to discuss a little bit, the aerospike engine. This
is an inside out nozzle arrangement that allows any engine pumpset to
operate in a wide range of pressure conditions.

In fact aerospike engines have been produced using existing pumpsets

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:A...-Aerospike.jpg

Finally, there are innovations that were developed by legendary
aerospace engineering pioneer, Phillip Bono

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Bono
http://www.google.com/patents?id=CpV...bstract&zoom=4

Here we have a spacecraft that launches vertically and re-enters tail
first, and lands vertically under rocket power using an aerospike
engine, a method very similar to the DC-X and Delta Clipper designs 35
years later (but without the altitude compensating nozzle)

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

So, here's the deal,

Three elements, built around 7 M-1 pumpsets, into a single large
annular aerospike engine. Each element produces 12.6 million pounds
of thrust and masses 9.7 million pounds fully loaded and 1.2 million
pounds empty. These three elements are lashed together like a Delta
IV Heavy, but the two outboard elements are equipped to feed
propellant to the core stage, while the entire system lifts off.

Thus all engines fire at lift off, which is a good thing, and the two
outboard elements are drained forming in effect a first stage.

Furthermore, we get two stages for the price of one smaller stage,
because all three flight elements are nearly identical.

The entire system masses 31.3 million pounds at lift off, and
generates 37.8 million pounds of thrust. It burns 29.1 million pounds
of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen and accelerates to 3.5 km/sec -
not counting gravity and air drag losses during the ascent.

The two outboard elements fall away, and re-enter downrange. There
they deploy fold-away wings, and glides subsonically with GPS
assistance, to each meet up with their own B737 tow plane. The tow
plane snags the glider with a tow line, and each tow each stage back
to the launch center for release - and automatic landing.

Meanwhile, the core booster continues on its flight to orbit, pushing
two fully loaded S-IIs and a 280,000 lb payload.

When the core booster is emptied, it releases its stack, located on
the nose of the core booster, and descends toward the launch center
for a recovery very similar to that of the outboard boosters. All
three flight elements are returned to the launch center within 90
minutes of launch. Ideal delta vee is 9.08 km/sec not counting air
drag and gravity losses.

The first S-II in the stack, does a brief burn to circularize the
orbit. This S-II is capable of boosting the rest of the stack on any
of the following four missions;

Mission 1 - GEO - 600,000 pounds to GEO - power satellite deployment -
2 days

Mission 2 - Lunar Landing - 280,000 pounds on the lunar surface with
recovery of all components - 8 days to 30 days

Mission 3 - Mars Landing - 280,000 pounds in the mars system including
mars surface - with recovery of all components - 24 months

Mission 4 - NEA Landing - 280,000 pounds on any NEA with recovery of
all components - 36 months

The first S-II masses 1 million pounds and carries 875,000 pounds of
propellant. It imparts 2.2 km/sec to the remaining stack. This
allows recovery of this S-II in a manner similar to that of a ROMBUS
core booster, or Delta Clipper booster. The aerospike nozzle is
designed to withstand high speed re-entry, and the vehicle descends
vertically, and small pump sets fire up and brake the rocket in a soft
landing.

The second S-II has an integrated payload module atop its length,
which carries 280,000 pounds to 600,000 pounds. In the GEO
application this merely circularizes the orbit, releases the payload,
and then deorbits landing back at the launch center.

In the moon landing system, the S-II goes in for a direct ascent to
the moon, and lands vertically on the moon by rocket action alone. It
takes off the same way. In this application 280,000 pounds of
payload, 125,000 pounds of structure, and 875,000 pounds of propellant
operate on the stage to impart up to 5.4 km/sec to the stage. More
than sufficient to land on the moon and return to Earth. With 280,000
pounds of payload, 60 people could stay for up to a year on the moon.
One way 'cargo' flights could deliver more than double this payload,
if the vehicle returned nearly empty.

In the mars landing system, the upper S-II flies to the Mars, and uses
the aerospike/heat sheild arrangement to enter the Mars atmosphere,
and brake directly from an interplanetary trajectory, to either a Mars
landing, or Mars orbital capture. Reducing payload to 200,000 lbs
and increasing propellant mass 80,000 pounds in this system, allows a
delta vee of 6 km/sec - which is more than sufficient to launch off
the Mars surface to an Earth transfer orbit in one stage.

Of course, use of propellants and consumables in flight, lower mass
upon arrival and departure, so leaving 80,000 pounds or so on the Mars
surface, has the same impact as it does on the moon system - so it may
be possible to do more with an optimized system - these are just
preliminary figures based on preliminary analysis.

Obviously, operating stages for a year or more on the moon with 60
people on board, provide powerful assurance that such systems would
operate similarly on a multi-year Mars mission. Also a large vehicle,
provides adequate mass for radiation protection during an extended
voyage, While large crew size and large vehicle size provide a means
to address probable psychological difficulties associated with such a
mission.

Four vehicles launched simultaneously from four launch centers,

1) in USA
2) in Russia
3) in China
4) in EU (South America)

provide a means to send 120 people on expeditions to the moon, once a
year. Spreading the cost of the vehicle development over four groups
of nations, allow reduction of costs. Having two pairs of vehicles,
provide a means to create a bolo-style gravity system during transit.
Having four vehicles altogether, provide a back up capability similar
to that of Apollo 13 - using the lunar lander as a life boat.

A fleet of 3 vehicles from each group, 12 altogether, provide a means
to launch on a monthly basis, solar power satellites to GEO - while
launching 1 year expeditions to the moon, to four lunar outposts
operated by each agency, once a year - all four providing quarterly
launches. And then, the piece de resistance' - all four agencies
salvo launch four mars vehicles on a two year trip to mars every
synodic period.

Again, spreading the cost of the vehicle development, creating a
common mode system, provides a means to reduce costs of sustaining a
manned presence on the moon and mars. Periodically, journeys can also
take place to Venus, and Mercury as well as NEAs and Ceres and other
Asteroids.

This sort of thing makes more sense than NASA building an inferior
version of the Saturn I around Shuttle hardware.



12.6 thrust
1.3 gee
9.692307692 mass
1.211538462 structure
8.480769231 propellant

0.25 payload 2.25 S-II
1 S-II 0.875 propellant
1 S-II
29.07692308 S-0 0.388888889 u
31.32692308 GLOW 4.5 Ve
16.96153846 P1 2.216144183 Vf

0.541436464 u1 1.25 S-IV
4.5 Ve 0.875 propellant
3.508453906 Vf1
0.7 u
11.94230769 S-I 4.5 Ve
8.480769231 propellant 5.417877619 Vf

0.710144928 u2
4.5 Ve
5.57268404 Vf2
9.081137945 Vf1,2

On Aug 31, 6:25 pm, Williamknowsbest wrote:
I want to talk about airframes and engines.

I want to talk first about the M1

Its a 1.5 million to 1.8 million lbf rocket engine developed the US
Army/Air Force back in the day, and turned over to NASA in 1960.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-1_(rocket_engine)

Then, there was the J2 rocket engine with 200,000 lbf to 230,000 lbf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-2_(rocket_engine)

This was used on the S-II and S-IVB stages of the Saturn V
moonrocket. The S-II was a 1,0060,000 lb mass system and the S-IVB
was a 253,000 lb mass system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IIhtt...org/wiki/S-IVB

Special mention should be made of the S-IV's original configuration -
with 6 RL-10 engines. The RL-10 is a deeply throttable engine - and
restartable - perfect for a high performance lunar landing vehicle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IVhtt...org/wiki/RL-10

Now I also want to discuss a little bit, the aerospike engine. This
is an inside out nozzle arrangement that allows any engine pumpset to
operate in a wide range of pressure conditions.

In fact aerospike engines have been produced using existing pumpsets

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:A...-Aerospike.jpg

Finally, there are innovations that were developed by legendary
aerospace engineering pioneer, Phillip Bono

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_...bstract&zoom=4

Here we have a spacecraft that launches vertically and re-enters tail
first, and lands vertically under rocket power using an aerospike
engine, a method very similar to the DC-X and Delta Clipper designs 35
years later (but without the altitude compensating nozzle)

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

So, here's the deal,

Three elements, built around 7 M-1 pumpsets, into a single large
annular aerospike engine. Each element produces 12.6 million pounds
of thrust and masses 9.7 million pounds fully loaded and 1.2 million
pounds empty. These three elements are lashed together like a Delta
IV Heavy, but the two outboard elements are equipped to feed
propellant to the core stage, while the entire system lifts off.

Thus all engines fire at lift off, which is a good thing, and the two
outboard elements are drained forming in effect a first stage.

Furthermore, we get two stages for the price of one smaller stage,
because all three flight elements are nearly identical.

The entire system masses 31.3 million pounds at lift off, and
generates 37.8 million pounds of thrust. It burns 29.1 million pounds
of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen and accelerates to 3.5 km/sec -
not counting gravity and air drag losses during the ascent.

The two outboard elements fall away, and re-enter downrange. There
they deploy fold-away wings, and glides subsonically with GPS
assistance, to each meet up with their own B737 tow plane. The tow
plane snags the glider with a tow line, and each tow each stage back
to the launch center for release - and automatic landing.

Meanwhile, the core booster continues on its flight to orbit, pushing
two fully loaded S-IIs and a 280,000 lb payload.

When the core booster is emptied, it releases its stack, located on
the nose of the core booster, and descends toward the launch center
for a recovery very similar to that of the outboard boosters. All
three flight elements are returned to the launch center within 90
minutes of launch. Ideal delta vee is 9.08 km/sec not counting air
drag and gravity losses.

The first S-II in the stack, does a brief burn to circularize the
orbit. This S-II is capable of boosting the rest of the stack on any
of the following four missions;

Mission 1 - GEO - 600,000 pounds to GEO - power satellite deployment -
2 days

Mission 2 - Lunar Landing - 280,000 pounds on the lunar surface with
recovery of all components - 8 days to 30 days

Mission 3 - Mars Landing - 280,000 pounds in the mars system including
mars surface - with recovery of all components - 24 months

Mission 4 - NEA Landing - 280,000 pounds on any NEA with recovery of
all components - 36 months

The first S-II masses 1 million pounds and carries 875,000 pounds of
propellant. It imparts 2.2 km/sec to the remaining stack. This
allows recovery of this S-II in a manner similar to that of a ROMBUS
core booster, or Delta Clipper booster. The aerospike nozzle is
designed to withstand high speed re-entry, and the vehicle descends
vertically, and small pump sets fire up and brake the rocket in a soft
landing.

The second S-II has an integrated payload module atop its length,
which carries 280,000 pounds to 600,000 pounds. In the GEO
application this merely circularizes the orbit, releases the payload,
and then deorbits landing back at the launch center.

In the moon landing system, the S-II goes in for a direct ascent to
the moon, and lands vertically on the moon by rocket action alone. It
takes off the same way. In this application 280,000 pounds of
payload, 125,000 pounds of structure, and 875,000 pounds of propellant
operate on the stage to impart up to 5.4 km/sec to the stage. More
than sufficient to land on the moon and return to Earth. With 280,000
pounds of payload, 60 people could stay for up to a year on the moon.
One way 'cargo' flights could deliver more than double this payload,
if the vehicle returned nearly empty.

In the mars landing system, the upper S-II flies to the Mars, and uses
the aerospike/heat sheild arrangement to enter the Mars atmosphere,
and brake directly from an interplanetary trajectory, to either a Mars
landing, or Mars orbital capture. Reducing payload to 200,000 lbs
and increasing propellant mass 80,000 pounds in this system, allows a
delta vee of 6 km/sec - which is more than sufficient to launch off
the Mars surface to an Earth transfer orbit in one stage.

Of course, use of propellants and consumables in flight, lower mass
upon arrival and departure, so leaving 80,000 pounds or so on the Mars
surface, has the same impact as it does on the moon system - so it may
be possible to do more with an optimized system - these are just
preliminary figures based on preliminary analysis.

Obviously, operating stages for a year or more on the moon with 60
people on board, provide powerful assurance that such systems would
operate similarly on a multi-year Mars mission. Also a large vehicle,
provides adequate mass for radiation protection during an extended
voyage, While large crew size and large vehicle size provide a means
to address probable psychological difficulties associated with such a
mission.

Four vehicles launched simultaneously from four launch centers,

1) in USA
2) in Russia
3) in China
4) in EU (South America)

provide a means to send 120 people on expeditions to the moon, once a
year. Spreading the cost of the vehicle development over four groups
of nations, allow reduction of costs. Having two pairs of vehicles,
provide a means to create a bolo-style gravity system during transit.
Having four vehicles altogether, provide a back up capability similar
to that of Apollo 13 - using the lunar lander as a life boat.

A fleet of 3 vehicles from each group, 12 altogether, provide a means
to launch on a monthly basis, solar power satellites to GEO - while
launching 1 year expeditions to the moon, to four lunar outposts
operated by each agency, once a year - all four providing quarterly
launches. And then, the piece de resistance' - all four agencies
salvo launch four mars vehicles on a two year trip to mars every
synodic period.

Again, spreading the cost of the vehicle development, creating a
common mode system, provides a means to reduce costs of sustaining a
manned presence on the moon and mars. Periodically, journeys can also
take place to Venus, and Mercury as well as NEAs and Ceres and other
Asteroids.

This sort of thing makes more sense than NASA building an inferior
version of the Saturn I around Shuttle hardware.

12.6 thrust
1.3 gee
9.692307692 mass
1.211538462 structure
8.480769231 propellant

0.25 payload 2.25 S-II
1 S-II 0.875 propellant
1 S-II
29.07692308 S-0 0.388888889 u
31.32692308 GLOW 4.5 Ve
16.96153846 P1 2.216144183 Vf

0.541436464 u1 1.25 S-IV
4.5 Ve 0.875 propellant
3.508453906 Vf1
0.7 u
11.94230769 S-I 4.5 Ve
8.480769231 propellant 5.417877619 Vf

0.710144928 u2
4.5 Ve
5.57268404 Vf2
9.081137945 Vf1,2

You call that a "Modest Proposal"?

What would you call a sophisticated or complex proposal?

Going extremely big seems worth doing, as I too could use a few
million pounds deployed to the Selene/moon L1, or that of my Venus L2
POOF City.

btw, since human DNA still isn't rad-hard, we'll need to deploy lots
and lots of shielding (namely water or perhaps better to deploy h2o2)
in order to protect our frail DNA.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

I see you're still playing sci.space usenet's own Karl Rowe of
disinformation.

On Sep 1, 10:33 am, Williamknowsbest wrote:
I see you're still playing sci.space usenet's own Karl Rowe of
disinformation.

We can see that if you were in charge of our DARPA and NASA, you'd be
it. Meaning that for other than clones of yourself and your computers
holding all the works of others, there would not be anyone else on
your staff or board of directors, and otherwise only yes boys and
girls would ever get hired.

What's more disinformation worthy than walking upon our physically
dark or darker than coal Selene/moon, that's otherwise loaded with
local substances of great value, plus cosmic deposits of nifty
minerals, crystal and gas elements. At least the crust of our moon
offers 260,000 ppb worth of h2o, and thus far that's 260,000 ppb more
than Mars has to offer.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

(crickets)


--Damon

You can't stand being called out for the person you are.

On Sep 2, 1:25*am, Damon Hill wrote:
(crickets)

--Damon

There are crickets on usenet? lol.

On Sep 2, 2:03 am, Williamknowsbest wrote:
You can't stand being called out for the person you are.

I really don't terribly mind being associated with the bipolar likes
of William Mook, because at least we each care about our portions of
humanity, and of our frail environment that's badly in need of being
better understood and salvaged.

You have your all or nothing methods that clearly favor the upper most
0.1% of the sufficiently faith-based Americans (even if most of them
are having to be pretend-Atheists), as well as per sustaining their
trickle up status quo economy with intentions of never having to
revise history in order to reflect the truth, or having remorse about
one damn thing, and I favor the lower 99.9% of this entire world
(including all forms of life and of its environment) that's trying to
survive in spite of your 0.1% that you don't hold accountable for much
of anything that turns out bad and ugly, not to mention spendy and/or
inflationary as hell.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

I feel that we should concentrate on low cost to LEO for the following
reason. Once you are in space you can use the highly efficient ion
propusion motor.

No, I will correct myself LEO and high energy weight solar systems. If
an objective is SSP what will be needed is just that. Let us think in
terms of a squae kilometer of aluminium 1 micron thick. Weight 2.7T.
This can be used for reflectors. Potentially 2GW is falling on that
sqare kililometer. OK you will need silicon cells struts to give some
degree of mechanical stability. You will only get a limited efficiency
too.

If you could get 500MW for 10 tons you would be well placed not only
to have a good ion drive system, but also a stepping stone to SSP.

To get to LEO only rockets are really feasible. From LEO to wherever
there are a lot of other concepts that should be explored.


- Ian Parker

On Sep 3, 4:31 am, Ian Parker wrote:
I feel that we should concentrate on low cost to LEO for the following
reason. Once you are in space you can use the highly efficient ion
propusion motor.

No, I will correct myself LEO and high energy weight solar systems. If
an objective is SSP what will be needed is just that. Let us think in
terms of a squae kilometer of aluminium 1 micron thick. Weight 2.7T.
This can be used for reflectors. Potentially 2GW is falling on that
sqare kililometer. OK you will need silicon cells struts to give some
degree of mechanical stability. You will only get a limited efficiency
too.

If you could get 500MW for 10 tons you would be well placed not only
to have a good ion drive system, but also a stepping stone to SSP.

To get to LEO only rockets are really feasible. From LEO to wherever
there are a lot of other concepts that should be explored.

- Ian Parker

You do realize that you're speaking to our resident God, don't you?

Our resident lord Mook and substitute wizard of Oz is more than a wee
bit bipolar, and doesn't take kindly to folks that do not 100% accept
his proposal as is.

Imagine what a fully complex and maximum kind of proposal from lord
Mook is like. Just ask and you will receive tens of thousands of his
pirated words and plagiarized science as based almost entirely upon
the hard works of others that don't always get credit.

Technically most anything William Mook has to suggest is doable as
long as you believe everything published by those of of his DARPA/NASA
Old Testament, and that it's either 100% public funded as open-ended
to boot, and/or reverse tax funded is even better, and never mind the
next round of global inflation that'll be created.

Your basic 400~500 km LEO stuff that can manage to always avoid the
SAA contour while being assembled and/or maintained by us humans is
worth doing, although from the tether dipole element of my LSE-CM/ISS
should be a whole lot better.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth