Inferno

Marc 182 wrote:

I think the point that Paul is missing is that adding capacity is
expensive, very expensive. No producer would do that unless they foresaw
a continuing demand for the increased capacity. A one-off program
wouldn't provide that incentive, unless the government flat-out paid for
the construction of facilities.

No, I am not missing that point.

Paul

Ian Woollard wrote:

a) the best ore is more common in non US countries, noteably Russia

Titanium ore is available all over the world. It's a very common element.
Titanium ore costs only pennies per pound. It's almost literally dirt
cheap.

b) US workforce experience with dealing with titanium was not high
[...]
As I understand it, problem b) was perceived to be quite important when
building the Shuttle- workforce that had direct experience with titanium
were mostly assisting with black programs.

Which doesn't have anything to do with putative shortage of titanium itself.

Paul

Titanium ore is available all over the world. It's a very common
element.
Titanium ore costs only pennies per pound. It's almost literally dirt
cheap.
....
Which doesn't have anything to do with putative shortage of titanium
itself.

I digress somewhat, but has there been a major leap recently in the
general ability of industry to process and machine titanium?

I ask because I've noticed a lot of car parts being made out of titanium
at prices that seem impossibly cheap. Also a lot of very cheap watches
with titanium cases, and a lot of tools also with titanium casings or parts.

John Smith wrote:

I digress somewhat, but has there been a major leap recently in the
general ability of industry to process and machine titanium?

Somewhat. Some evolutionary advances are in use, while some
revolutionary production breakthroughs are in the pipeline. Metal
refiners are developing promising continuous processing methods (based
on the current Kroll process, which has traditionally been a batch
process) and the fabled electrolytic method (that will allow bulk
refining in a manner similar to aluminum). It'll be interesting to see
what happens in the titanium industry over the next 20 years.

I ask because I've noticed a lot of car parts being made
out of titanium at prices that seem impossibly cheap.

The titanium industry has been banging its head against the price wall
long enough that costs are starting to budge. One example is new, less
expensive alloys more amiable to automotive industry processing
methods.

Also a lot of very cheap watches with titanium cases, and a
lot of tools also with titanium casings or parts.

Titanium is pricey as far as industrial metals go, but it isn't a
precious metal. 1-2 ounces in a watch won't affect the price as much as
brand name.

Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Tommy wrote:

a better question is why didn't they make the shuttle out of titanium
rather than aluminium.

Because the ceramic tiles also provide excellent insulation to protect
the interior systems and structures of the shuttle. While titanium might
withstand the temperatures of reentry, it would still conduct a
significant amount of heat. Some sort of insulation layer would still be
required.

When all of the analysis was done, putting the insulating layer on the
exterior surface (in the form of ceramic tiles) was the optimum
solution.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions stated herein are the sole property of the author. Standard
disclaimers apply. Celebrity voice impersonated. Batteries not included.
Limit one to a customer. Best if used by April 1, 2005. Refrigerate
after opening. Void if removed.

Michael J Wise wrote:
On 2004-12-07 02:46:40 -1000, "Rodney Kelp" said:

Neutronium hulls are much stronger and lighter.

LOL!

Heck, if we're in that ballpark, let's just place the order for the
General Products #3 Hull and be done with it!

I can't find dimensions of the #3 Hull.
IIRC it's around the size of an ET.

I wonder what the best near-term way to use a #3 hull for launch would be.

IIRC, the customer can specify holes to put in the hull.

I think build a framework round it to hold rather a lot of cargo, fill
with LOX/kero, and let it off.
Just let the very hot gas (actually, it wouldn't be a gas for a while)
squirt out a small hole at the back.
Lousy nozzle, but as the tank weighs bugger all, you're ahead.

Hmm.
Can you make a better nozzle with many holes rather than one simple one?

Then there are the other options - put an airlock at the top, and light
off a large nuclear weapon under it in a short barrel.
The stasis field copes with the G forces. (is the stasis field an
inherent part of the GP hull, I forget)

For really, really huge ships, you use it as a nuclear pulsejet.
Fill with water (or better, ammonia) and a several megaton device.
Light the blue touchpaper and repeat.

wrote:
Paul F. Dietz wrote:

I repeat: if shortage of refining capacity for titanium in the US had
been the showstopper for an otherwise greatly superior material, that
capacity would have been added. The laws of physics and chemistry
don't suddenly change at the US border.

Your point is only applicable to an extreme situation and trivializes
the effort involved. It's kind of like saying, "If the US needed to put
10,000 tons in orbit in a couple of years, the challenges are not
insurmountable." Well, the engineering and physics do not present
insurmountable problems, but there's more to launching a lot of payload
suddenly (or refining titanium) than just physics.

I think Paul is reacting mainly to the notion that
Titanium production could have been characterized as
anything like a "shortage". He has not made this
point particularly clearly, but he has made it, and
most everyone has been quilty of a lack of clarity
on occasion. Titanium production and refining
capacity is highly fungible, even without adding new
refining capital equipment. Rarely are production
facilities operated at 100% capacity in peace-time,
rarely are they operated above even 80%. Keep in
mind that 100% capacity represents working all shifts
around the clock, working to the limit of the
equipment's duty cycles, and working to the limits of
the equipment's individual capacities. This level of
production represents a substantial increase over
average production levels. More so, new refining
capacity can be added if the market demands it. Not
to mention importation, use of government or industry
titanium stocks (which are substantial), and recycling.
Titanium production has dipped and spiked substantially
over the years, it is an elastic market like any other.

Moreover, the subject under discussion is the use of
Titanium in the Shuttle. Even at a tremendous
production rate of one Titanium Shuttle per year,
Shuttle production would use much less than 1% of
the Titanium production in the US, even during the
1970s. The notion that a Titanium "shortage" is
seriously responsible for any element of Shuttle design
is just flat out ludicrous. No one was considering
Shuttle production rates high enough to cause anything
more than a slight perturbation in Titanium production
or usage. Indeed, the US government could have used
just a fraction of its large Titanium stocks to build
a fleet of a dozen Titanium Shuttles without much
concern.

wrote:

Paul F. Dietz wrote:

What may have been short was *refining capacity* in the US,
but that's obviously not an insurmountable obstacle.

And because the refining capacity isn't an insurmountable obstacle, all
passenger airliners, automobiles, and US space shuttles are made mostly
of titanium.

Umm... The number of cars that are a even largely made of aluminium is
low too yet there doesn't seem to be a shortage of that...


Mike Miller, Materials Engineer


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

wrote:

Paul F. Dietz wrote:
I repeat: if shortage of refining capacity for titanium in the US had
been the showstopper for an otherwise greatly superior material, that
capacity would have been added. The laws of physics and chemistry
don't
suddenly change at the US border.

Your point is only applicable to an extreme situation and trivializes
the effort involved. It's kind of like saying, "If the US needed to put
10,000 tons in orbit in a couple of years, the challenges are not
insurmountable." Well, the engineering and physics do not present
insurmountable problems, but there's more to launching a lot of payload
suddenly (or refining titanium) than just physics.

No - its in both cases *simply* the case of investment in infrastructure
which in turn translates into policy decisions and what is wanted how
badly by the US. For example, US way more badly wants the ability for
farmers to grow rice in water-poor California or for them to grow
cotton in Florida or for big agribusiness to be profitable than it
wants (or ever wanted) more Titanium or more space launch capability.

Or do you want to claim that even a small amount of the subsidy - say
$5 billion / year - would not yeild considerable increase in Titanium
availaibility to US?

Mike Miller, Materials Engineer


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

On 2004-12-21 12:35:20 -1000, Ian Stirling said:
Michael J Wise wrote:
On 2004-12-07 02:46:40 -1000, "Rodney Kelp" said:
Neutronium hulls are much stronger and lighter.
LOL!
Heck, if we're in that ballpark, let's just place the order for the
General Products #3 Hull and be done with it!
I can't find dimensions of the #3 Hull.

IIRC, it was 200m with a diameter of 30m , and a slight wasp-waist at one end.

I wonder what the best near-term way to use a #3 hull for launch would be.

Heh.
I rather liked the layout of the "Lying *******", myself.

http://www.larryniven.org/images/rin...d_vehicles.htm
http://www.larryniven.org/images/rin...art/BASTHI.JPG

When oh When oh WHEN are they going to make a movie of that?!

Then there are the other options - put an airlock at the top, and light
off a large nuclear weapon under it in a short barrel.

The Greens would go ape.
Then again, they'd go ape over the "*******" as well.
Remember the Kzinti Lesson....

The stasis field copes with the G forces.
(is the stasis field an inherent part of the GP hull, I forget)

No.
It was one of the Extra Features of the "Lying *******".
A very USEFUL extra, but an extra nonetheless.
It was enabled by having all the stuff but the hyperdrive on the "Wing",
thus enabling the hull to be pierced an just two points.
And thus was Nessus made happy.

Aloha mai Nai`a.
--
"Please have your Internet License http://kapu.net/~mjwise/
and Usenet Registration handy..."