|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
Space shuttle for space tourism and first stage of a TSTO.
On Jan 19, 5:56*pm, Robert Clark wrote:
...This page gives the specifications of the Ares I: Space Launch Report - Ares I.http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ares1.html *The gross weight including payload is given as 912,660 kg and the gross weight of the first stage as 732,550 kg. So the gross weight of the Ares I second stage plus payload is 180,110 kg. *Then the gross weight for the 55,442 kg dry weight of the reconfigured shuttle, plus 300,000 kg propellant load, plus 180,110 kg second stage and payload is 535,552 kg, 1,178,214 lbs. But the 3 NK-33 engines I was suggesting to use only put out a total of 1,018,518 lbs. of thrust at sea level. For this purpose you would need a fourth NK-33. The dry weight is now 56,664, the gross weight is 536,774 kg, 1,180,903 lbs., and the sea level thrust of the 4 engines is 1,358,024 lbs. *Using the average Isp of the NK-33 as the midpoint of the sea level and vacuum Isp's at 315 s, the achieved delta-V would be 315*9.8*ln (536,774/(56,664+180,110)) = 2,527 m/s, comparable to the equivalent delta-V, speed + altitude, provided by the Ares I first stage. The achieved delta-V is actually higher than this since the rocket spends most of the time at high altitude, where the Isp is closer to the vacuum value. Note that if you want to increase the delta-V, the space occupied by the crew compartment is now empty. This gives an additional 74 cubic meters that could be used for propellant, which amounts to 74,000 kg additional lox/kerosene propellant that could be carried. Then we could still use the planned upper stage of the Ares I while having a significantly lower development cost and per launch cost of the now reusable first stage. If we only instead wanted suborbital tourism for the vehicle then you would require much less fuel load. Having engine-out capability is a necessary requirement for manned flights. According to this page, the shuttle has a max emergency landing weight of 240,000 lbs, 109,000 kg: Space Transportatin System. http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/...l#launch_sites In the calculation in the above post, after removing several subsystems that wouldn't be needed for an unmanned first stage booster I got a 55,442 kg dry weight using three NK-33 engines. However, for suborbital tourism we need the crew seats and environmental systems so I'll add back the 3,250 kg for these to get a dry weight of 58,692 kg. Now assume we max our fuel load for the suborbital tourism use at 50,308 kg, so our max takeoff weight is 109,000 kg, the max allowed for the shuttle for landing under abort modes. Then our delta-V assuming a 315 s average Isp of the NK-33's would be: 315*9.8*ln(109,000/58,692) = 1,911 m/s. This is well above the total equivalent delta-V, speed + altitude, required for reaching the 100 km altitude for space tourism. And the achieved delta-V would actually be higher than this because the actual average Isp is closer to the vacuum value than to the midpoint value. Note that in this configuration we even have 2 engine-out capability since the thrust put out by the NK-33's at sea level is over 300,000 lbs. And since our max weight is at the max allowed for landing the vehicle could even glide to a landing with a full fuel load if all three engines failed as long as we did reach high enough initial velocity for aerodynamic lift to operate. (The orbiter has a respectable lift/drag ratio of 4.5 at subsonic speeds.) Keep in mind that not even jet airliners can land safely during an aborted takeoff if they have all engines out unless they reach sufficient altitude and velocity for lift to operate. This is for the case of just carrying 6 passengers in the crew compartment. The case for carrying a full passenger cabin in the payload bay and fuel only in the wings is a much more complicated analysis and probably not susceptible to an elementary analysis. Bob Clark |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
Space shuttle for space tourism and first stage of a TSTO.
Robert Clark wrote:
On Jan 19, 5:56 pm, Robert Clark wrote: ...This page gives the specifications of the Ares I: Space Launch Report - Ares I.http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ares1.html The gross weight including payload is given as 912,660 kg and the gross weight of the first stage as 732,550 kg. So the gross weight of the Ares I second stage plus payload is 180,110 kg. Then the gross weight for the 55,442 kg dry weight of the reconfigured shuttle, plus 300,000 kg propellant load, plus 180,110 kg second stage and payload is 535,552 kg, 1,178,214 lbs. But the 3 NK-33 engines I was suggesting to use only put out a total of 1,018,518 lbs. of thrust at sea level. For this purpose you would need a fourth NK-33. The dry weight is now 56,664, the gross weight is 536,774 kg, 1,180,903 lbs., and the sea level thrust of the 4 engines is 1,358,024 lbs. Using the average Isp of the NK-33 as the midpoint of the sea level and vacuum Isp's at 315 s, the achieved delta-V would be 315*9.8*ln (536,774/(56,664+180,110)) = 2,527 m/s, comparable to the equivalent delta-V, speed + altitude, provided by the Ares I first stage. The achieved delta-V is actually higher than this since the rocket spends most of the time at high altitude, where the Isp is closer to the vacuum value. Note that if you want to increase the delta-V, the space occupied by the crew compartment is now empty. This gives an additional 74 cubic meters that could be used for propellant, which amounts to 74,000 kg additional lox/kerosene propellant that could be carried. Then we could still use the planned upper stage of the Ares I while having a significantly lower development cost and per launch cost of the now reusable first stage. If we only instead wanted suborbital tourism for the vehicle then you would require much less fuel load. Having engine-out capability is a necessary requirement for manned flights. According to this page, the shuttle has a max emergency landing weight of 240,000 lbs, 109,000 kg: Space Transportatin System. http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/...l#launch_sites In the calculation in the above post, after removing several subsystems that wouldn't be needed for an unmanned first stage booster I got a 55,442 kg dry weight using three NK-33 engines. However, for suborbital tourism we need the crew seats and environmental systems so I'll add back the 3,250 kg for these to get a dry weight of 58,692 kg. Now assume we max our fuel load for the suborbital tourism use at 50,308 kg, so our max takeoff weight is 109,000 kg, the max allowed for the shuttle for landing under abort modes. Then our delta-V assuming a 315 s average Isp of the NK-33's would be: 315*9.8*ln(109,000/58,692) = 1,911 m/s. This is well above the total equivalent delta-V, speed + altitude, required for reaching the 100 km altitude for space tourism. And the achieved delta-V would actually be higher than this because the actual average Isp is closer to the vacuum value than to the midpoint value. Note that in this configuration we even have 2 engine-out capability since the thrust put out by the NK-33's at sea level is over 300,000 lbs. And since our max weight is at the max allowed for landing the vehicle could even glide to a landing with a full fuel load if all three engines failed as long as we did reach high enough initial velocity for aerodynamic lift to operate. (The orbiter has a respectable lift/drag ratio of 4.5 at subsonic speeds.) Keep in mind that not even jet airliners can land safely during an aborted takeoff if they have all engines out unless they reach sufficient altitude and velocity for lift to operate. If "lift" was not "operating" then an airliner would not have reached _any_ altitude. cretin. plonk |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
Space shuttle for space tourism and first stage of a TSTO.
On Jan 26, 9:33*am, Robert Clark wrote:
On Jan 19, 5:56*pm, Robert Clark wrote: ...This page gives the specifications of the Ares I: SpaceLaunch Report - Ares I.http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ares1.html *The gross weight including payload is given as 912,660 kg and the gross weight of the first stage as 732,550 kg. So the gross weight of the Ares I second stage plus payload is 180,110 kg. *Then the gross weight for the 55,442 kg dry weight of the reconfiguredshuttle, plus 300,000 kg propellant load, plus 180,110 kg second stage and payload is 535,552 kg, 1,178,214 lbs. But the 3 NK-33 engines I was suggesting to use only put out a total of 1,018,518 lbs. of thrust at sea level. For this purpose you would need a fourth NK-33. The dry weight is now 56,664, the gross weight is 536,774 kg, 1,180,903 lbs., and the sea level thrust of the 4 engines is 1,358,024 lbs. *Using the average Isp of the NK-33 as the midpoint of the sea level and vacuum Isp's at 315 s, the achieved delta-V would be 315*9.8*ln (536,774/(56,664+180,110)) = 2,527 m/s, comparable to the equivalent delta-V, speed + altitude, provided by the Ares I first stage. The achieved delta-V is actually higher than this since the rocket spends most of the time at high altitude, where the Isp is closer to the vacuum value. Note that if you want to increase the delta-V, the space occupied by the crew compartment is now empty. This gives an additional 74 cubic meters that could be used for propellant, which amounts to 74,000 kg additional lox/kerosene propellant that could be carried. Then we could still use the planned upper stage of the Ares I while having a significantly lower development cost and per launch cost of the now reusable first stage. In addition to the Air Force wanting to build reusable first stages with expendable upper stages to cut launch costs, the Europeans are also planning such boosters, though sled launched: Hopper (spacecraft). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopper_%28spacecraft%29 Europe's space shuttle passes early test. * 16:05 10 May 2004 by Maggie McKee "Europe took a step towards creating an unmanned space shuttle on Saturday when a prototype landed autonomously after a test flight in Sweden. "The shuttle prototype, called Phoenix, is one of several proposals for a European reusable launch vehicle (RLV) planned to cheaply ferry satellites into orbit by 2015." http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4975 "An unmanned scale model prototype of the planned European shuttle is pictured during its first free test flight at the North European Aerospace Test Range in Kiruna, Sweden 1,230 kilometers (770 miles) north of Stockholm, Saturday, May 8, 2004. (AP Photo/Peter Degerfeldt, Blue Sky AB, DLR/EADS)." http://i.space.com/images/h_phoenix_flight_02.jpg Reusable space transport systems to reduce cost. Bremen/Le Bourget, 01 June 2001 "In its HOPPER concept, Astrium has gone for an autonomous transport system that is noted for its high degree of reusability and comparatively low mission costs. Although the unmanned HOPPER is very similar in appearance to the US Space Shuttle there are, however, some substantial differences: The system will be launched horizontally on a skid sled running on a four kilometre long track. The vehicle itself is more compact than the Space Shuttle. The re-entry angle will be optimised so as to keep the frictional heat at the outer skin substantially lower than that of the Space Shuttle. This will allow the sensitive and expensive thermal protection shield to be replaced by an affordable, low-maintenance heat protection system. Due to these features, Hopper is intended to transport payloads to orbit at 75% lower cost than conventional transport systems." http://www.eads.net/1024/fr/pressdb/...rium_reus.html This article said the "Hopper" is more "compact" than the shuttle orbiter, but actually it's about 13 meters longer with a 3 meter wider wing span. This will allow it to have internal propellant tanks and also an internal payload bay: http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/Ima...RLVConf_md.jpg The Europeans expect to use upgraded versions of Ariane's hydrogen- fueled Vulcain engine. The choice of the hydrogen-fueled Vulcain, rather then a kerosene engine typically used for first stages, perhaps stems from the desire to have it be sled launched, requiring a lower GLOW, and the desire to use the ESA's most advanced engine. Rather than expending such large amounts of money building their own Hopper vehicle, it might be cheaper as a technology demonstrator for ESA to adapt the shuttle/Buran for the purpose. NASA seems to want to give the SSME engines away for free, so the ESA could even get the needed engines. The shuttle/Buran is smaller than the proposed Hopper. To get similar payload to orbit on an expendable upper stage, about 7,500 kg, they could have it be vertically instead of sled launched to allow the upper stage to be attached on the vehicle bottom. This would then allow the full fuselage to be used for propellant. However, as I have argued by using kerosene instead as the propellant for this first stage you could have the expendable upper stage be as heavy as that of the Ares I second stage at 180,000 kg, and with a much larger payload to orbit than 7,500 kg, at about the size of the Orion capsule, 20,000 kg to 25,000 kg. Bob Clark |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
Space shuttle for space tourism and first stage of a TSTO.
The real problem at the moment though, is not a shortage of workable ideas,
its a shortage of money to build them really. Brian -- Brian Gaff - Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. Blind user, so no pictures please! "Robert Clark" wrote in message ... On Jan 26, 9:33 am, Robert Clark wrote: On Jan 19, 5:56 pm, Robert Clark wrote: ...This page gives the specifications of the Ares I: SpaceLaunch Report - Ares I.http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ares1.html The gross weight including payload is given as 912,660 kg and the gross weight of the first stage as 732,550 kg. So the gross weight of the Ares I second stage plus payload is 180,110 kg. Then the gross weight for the 55,442 kg dry weight of the reconfiguredshuttle, plus 300,000 kg propellant load, plus 180,110 kg second stage and payload is 535,552 kg, 1,178,214 lbs. But the 3 NK-33 engines I was suggesting to use only put out a total of 1,018,518 lbs. of thrust at sea level. For this purpose you would need a fourth NK-33. The dry weight is now 56,664, the gross weight is 536,774 kg, 1,180,903 lbs., and the sea level thrust of the 4 engines is 1,358,024 lbs. Using the average Isp of the NK-33 as the midpoint of the sea level and vacuum Isp's at 315 s, the achieved delta-V would be 315*9.8*ln (536,774/(56,664+180,110)) = 2,527 m/s, comparable to the equivalent delta-V, speed + altitude, provided by the Ares I first stage. The achieved delta-V is actually higher than this since the rocket spends most of the time at high altitude, where the Isp is closer to the vacuum value. Note that if you want to increase the delta-V, the space occupied by the crew compartment is now empty. This gives an additional 74 cubic meters that could be used for propellant, which amounts to 74,000 kg additional lox/kerosene propellant that could be carried. Then we could still use the planned upper stage of the Ares I while having a significantly lower development cost and per launch cost of the now reusable first stage. In addition to the Air Force wanting to build reusable first stages with expendable upper stages to cut launch costs, the Europeans are also planning such boosters, though sled launched: Hopper (spacecraft). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopper_%28spacecraft%29 Europe's space shuttle passes early test. * 16:05 10 May 2004 by Maggie McKee "Europe took a step towards creating an unmanned space shuttle on Saturday when a prototype landed autonomously after a test flight in Sweden. "The shuttle prototype, called Phoenix, is one of several proposals for a European reusable launch vehicle (RLV) planned to cheaply ferry satellites into orbit by 2015." http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4975 "An unmanned scale model prototype of the planned European shuttle is pictured during its first free test flight at the North European Aerospace Test Range in Kiruna, Sweden 1,230 kilometers (770 miles) north of Stockholm, Saturday, May 8, 2004. (AP Photo/Peter Degerfeldt, Blue Sky AB, DLR/EADS)." http://i.space.com/images/h_phoenix_flight_02.jpg Reusable space transport systems to reduce cost. Bremen/Le Bourget, 01 June 2001 "In its HOPPER concept, Astrium has gone for an autonomous transport system that is noted for its high degree of reusability and comparatively low mission costs. Although the unmanned HOPPER is very similar in appearance to the US Space Shuttle there are, however, some substantial differences: The system will be launched horizontally on a skid sled running on a four kilometre long track. The vehicle itself is more compact than the Space Shuttle. The re-entry angle will be optimised so as to keep the frictional heat at the outer skin substantially lower than that of the Space Shuttle. This will allow the sensitive and expensive thermal protection shield to be replaced by an affordable, low-maintenance heat protection system. Due to these features, Hopper is intended to transport payloads to orbit at 75% lower cost than conventional transport systems." http://www.eads.net/1024/fr/pressdb/...rium_reus.html This article said the "Hopper" is more "compact" than the shuttle orbiter, but actually it's about 13 meters longer with a 3 meter wider wing span. This will allow it to have internal propellant tanks and also an internal payload bay: http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/Ima...RLVConf_md.jpg The Europeans expect to use upgraded versions of Ariane's hydrogen- fueled Vulcain engine. The choice of the hydrogen-fueled Vulcain, rather then a kerosene engine typically used for first stages, perhaps stems from the desire to have it be sled launched, requiring a lower GLOW, and the desire to use the ESA's most advanced engine. Rather than expending such large amounts of money building their own Hopper vehicle, it might be cheaper as a technology demonstrator for ESA to adapt the shuttle/Buran for the purpose. NASA seems to want to give the SSME engines away for free, so the ESA could even get the needed engines. The shuttle/Buran is smaller than the proposed Hopper. To get similar payload to orbit on an expendable upper stage, about 7,500 kg, they could have it be vertically instead of sled launched to allow the upper stage to be attached on the vehicle bottom. This would then allow the full fuselage to be used for propellant. However, as I have argued by using kerosene instead as the propellant for this first stage you could have the expendable upper stage be as heavy as that of the Ares I second stage at 180,000 kg, and with a much larger payload to orbit than 7,500 kg, at about the size of the Orion capsule, 20,000 kg to 25,000 kg. Bob Clark |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space Tourism a con job? | Pat Flannery | Policy | 26 | December 22nd 09 08:33 PM |
will our space shuttle discovery and our international space stationbe safe from the space trash that the US and other counries earlier left upthere? | EverOnlyNice | Space Shuttle | 25 | September 10th 09 12:44 PM |
will our space shuttle discovery and our international space station be safe from the space trash that the US and other counries earlier left up there? | Jonathan | History | 1 | September 6th 09 12:51 AM |
Pictures Please - Space Shuttle - Space Shuttle Discovery - Space Shuttle Launch Picture | [email protected] | Space Shuttle | 3 | October 1st 07 09:54 PM |
space tourism | Fred Hapgood | Science | 6 | December 16th 05 03:54 PM |