Now Falcon 9R has "wings" too it seems

I guess coming down controlled solely via engine thrust is no longer
"the plan."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11...ocket_x_wings/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...d-Twitter.html

Web search for "spacex xwing" didn't seem to hit on any of the usual
"space" websites.

rick jones
--
Don't anthropomorphize computers. They hate that. - Anonymous
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

Try searching for "steerable fins" you'll have better luck. These were noticed first deployed on one of the grasshopper tests in McGregor Tx.

Dave

The lowest mass system involves ballistic re-entry with a nose cone based reduced carbon composite shield, slowing the vehicle down high in the stratosphere, to subsonic speed, and then deploying inflatable wings to create a glider. Glide over a landing ship like the one shown in the article, and relight the engine, pull up into vertical position, and back down, landing vertically in a catcher atop a hexapod that precisely positions under the descending vehicle and holds the vehicle absorbing kinetic energy with no landing gear on the vehicle.

This is very similar to the tail sitters of the late 1950s and early 1960s.

A 1 meter diameter by 18 meter long rocket that burns LOX/LH2 where propellant masses 6,432 kg at take off and the composite tank systems including inflatable wing mass 193 kg and the engine and subsystems weigh another 87 kg..

A take off weight of 6712 kg and an empty weight of 280 kg. With an exhaust speed of 4.2 km/sec this vehicle can put 585 kg into the same orbits at the Space Shuttle.

Three tanks, equipped with cross feeding, operating as a two stage system, lifts 2,050 kg into LEO.

Seven tanks, again equipped with cross feeding, operating as a three stage system, lifts 5,030 kg into LEO.

Each elements costs $6 million. The launcher development, with ground station - costs $45 million to build.

A MEMS based life support and power system that uses LOX/LH2 along with light weight solar panels, provides the means to survive extended periods in space.

Using the same approach as Gemini, a 150 kg payload can provide support of an astronaut in a long-duration space suit equipped in this way - up to 14 days in space.

To go to the moon and back from LEO requires a trans-lunar injection of 2.95 km/sec. Then, landing on the moon which requires 2.3 km/sec and then return to Earth, another 2.3 km/sec. Another 0.05 km/sec for attitude control and course correction. That's 7.3 km/sec.

A 5030 kg payload with a 280 kg inert mass, can carry four astronauts to the moon and back!

This tank set is shortened from 18 meters to 11.6 meters. The spare 6.4 meter length holds seating for four astronauts.

http://www.rocketlabusa.com/

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle...pdf?sequence=1

http://www.space.com/27210-biosuit-s...pt-images.html


The lunar stage and biosuit and life support system costs $15 million - in addition to the $45 million for the booster. A total of $60 million. Divided by four travellers, this is $15 million each.

In article ,
says...

I guess coming down controlled solely via engine thrust is no longer
"the plan."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11...ocket_x_wings/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...d-Twitter.html

Web search for "spacex xwing" didn't seem to hit on any of the usual
"space" websites.

rick jones

Thanks for the link. This is by far the best picture yet of the
steerable fins. :-)

To be fair, they're not very "x-wing" like. The "waffle grid" type of
fins are a proven design, having been used for decades as part of the
Soyuz capsule escape system (you can see them folded against the sides
of the craft when it is rolled out onto the pad). They are compact,
which is an advantage on launch vehicles where size and mass are
constrained. They do tend to have high drag, which would be a
disadvantage for aircraft, but high drag is actually desirable for a
vehicle which is trying to decelerate.

This has been reported before, and I believe they have been flown/shown
on at least one of the Grasshopper 2 flights. If you look for them on
YouTube, you should be able to see the tiny fins at the top of
Grasshopper 2 (for the flights that they were used).

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Thursday, November 27, 2014 3:24:15 AM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

I guess coming down controlled solely via engine thrust is no longer
"the plan."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11...ocket_x_wings/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...d-Twitter.html

Web search for "spacex xwing" didn't seem to hit on any of the usual
"space" websites.

rick jones

Thanks for the link. This is by far the best picture yet of the
steerable fins. :-)

To be fair, they're not very "x-wing" like. The "waffle grid" type of
fins are a proven design, having been used for decades as part of the
Soyuz capsule escape system (you can see them folded against the sides
of the craft when it is rolled out onto the pad). They are compact,
which is an advantage on launch vehicles where size and mass are
constrained. They do tend to have high drag, which would be a
disadvantage for aircraft, but high drag is actually desirable for a
vehicle which is trying to decelerate.

This has been reported before, and I believe they have been flown/shown
on at least one of the Grasshopper 2 flights. If you look for them on
YouTube, you should be able to see the tiny fins at the top of
Grasshopper 2 (for the flights that they were used).

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...raft2edit1.jpg

I can't see anything folded against the side of the spacecraft... so, where do you see that? Do you have a pointer?

* * *


NASA SAYS:

Descent Module


The Descent Module is where the cosmonauts and astronauts sit for launch, re-entry and landing. All the necessary controls and displays of the Soyuz are located here. The module also contains life support supplies and batteries used during descent, as well as the primary and backup parachutes and landing rockets.

It also contains custom-fitted seat liners for each crew member's couch/seat, which are individually molded to fit each person's body -- this ensures a tight, comfortable fit when the module lands on the Earth. When crewmembers are brought to the station aboard the space shuttle, their seat liners are brought with them and transferred to the existing Soyuz spacecraft as part of crew handover activities.

The module has a periscope, which allows the crew to view the docking target on the station or the Earth below. The eight hydrogen peroxide thrusters located on the module are used to control the spacecraft's orientation, or attitude, during the descent until parachute deployment. It also has a guidance, navigation and control system to maneuver the vehicle during the descent phase of the mission.

This module weighs 6,393 pounds, with a habitable volume of 141 cubic feet. Approximately 110 pounds of payload can be returned to Earth in this module and up to 331 pounds if only two crewmembers are present. The Descent Module is the only portion of the Soyuz that survives the return to Earth.

WIKI SAYS:

Reentry Module

Soyuz spacecraft's Descent Module

The reentry module (Russian: �пу�каемый аппарат (С�); Spuskaemyi apparat (SA)) is used for launch and the journey back to Earth. Half of the reentry module is covered by a heat-resistant covering to protect it during re-entry; this half faces the Earth during re-entry. It is slowed initially by the atmosphere, then by a braking parachute, followed by the main parachute which slows the craft for landing. At one meter above the ground, solid-fuel braking engines mounted behind the heat shield are fired to give a soft landing. One of the design requirements for the reentry module was for it to have the highest possible volumetric efficiency (internal volume divided by hull area). The best shape for this is a sphere, but such a shape can provide no lift, which results in a purely ballistic reentry.. Ballistic reentries are hard on the occupants due to high deceleration and cannot be steered beyond their initial deorbit burn. That is why it was decided to go with the "headlight" shape that the Soyuz uses—a hemispherical forward area joined by a barely angled conical section (seven degrees) to a classic spherical section heat shield. This shape allows a small amount of lift to be generated due to the unequal weight distribution. The nickname was thought up at a time when nearly every headlight was circular. Small dimensions of the reentry module led to it having only two-man crews after the death of the Soyuz 11 crew. The later Soyuz T spacecraft solved this issue. Internal volume of Soyuz SA is 4 m³; 2.5 m³ is usable for crew (living space).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...z_diagrama.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...-TMA-exp12.png

On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 8:30:32 PM UTC+13, William Mook wrote:
The lowest mass system involves ballistic re-entry with a nose cone based reduced carbon composite shield, slowing the vehicle down high in the stratosphere, to subsonic speed, and then deploying inflatable wings to create a glider. Glide over a landing ship like the one shown in the article, and relight the engine, pull up into vertical position, and back down, landing vertically in a catcher atop a hexapod that precisely positions under the descending vehicle and holds the vehicle absorbing kinetic energy with no landing gear on the vehicle.

This is very similar to the tail sitters of the late 1950s and early 1960s.

A 1 meter diameter by 18 meter long rocket that burns LOX/LH2 where propellant masses 6,432 kg at take off and the composite tank systems including inflatable wing mass 193 kg and the engine and subsystems weigh another 87 kg.

A take off weight of 6712 kg and an empty weight of 280 kg. With an exhaust speed of 4.2 km/sec this vehicle can put 585 kg into the same orbits at the Space Shuttle.

Three tanks, equipped with cross feeding, operating as a two stage system, lifts 2,050 kg into LEO.

Seven tanks, again equipped with cross feeding, operating as a three stage system, lifts 5,030 kg into LEO.

Each elements costs $6 million. The launcher development, with ground station - costs $45 million to build.

A MEMS based life support and power system that uses LOX/LH2 along with light weight solar panels, provides the means to survive extended periods in space.

Using the same approach as Gemini, a 150 kg payload can provide support of an astronaut in a long-duration space suit equipped in this way - up to 14 days in space.

To go to the moon and back from LEO requires a trans-lunar injection of 2..95 km/sec. Then, landing on the moon which requires 2.3 km/sec and then return to Earth, another 2.3 km/sec. Another 0.05 km/sec for attitude control and course correction. That's 7.3 km/sec.

A 5030 kg payload with a 280 kg inert mass, can carry four astronauts to the moon and back!

This tank set is shortened from 18 meters to 11.6 meters. The spare 6.4 meter length holds seating for four astronauts.

http://www.rocketlabusa.com/

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle...pdf?sequence=1

http://www.space.com/27210-biosuit-s...pt-images.html


The lunar stage and biosuit and life support system costs $15 million - in addition to the $45 million for the booster. A total of $60 million. Divided by four travellers, this is $15 million each.

The X-13 Vertijet - takes off from a catcher wire and lands on a catcher wire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cT6CM4vU-GA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZcpg70Ewbw

Which is a further development of earlier testing - with the POGO and Salmon which had tail supports.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh9dhBJY010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qPWguMKGiI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bfxIwqoFcY

The requirements of small stowage volume, low weight and high efficiency are met by inflatable structures. This includes wings, decelerator systems and flotation systems.

Inflatable Heat Shield
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxaGId6wpf4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJUd3zanD8k


Parawing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiF0KPqnbic

Inflatable Wing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SBi9Bffbb4

Inflatoplane (from Akron Ohio)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdm9at83FFU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gGygxDIJX0

Stingray
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndnbnrgNSEM

Inflatable Wing Archive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3a19wDzSwU

Inflatable wing aerodynamics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZbR3rboMhQ

Aerospike Engine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Y0FS8Z1Qk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWf4iOMSPNc

Space Shuttle External Tank Separation - propellant was fed from tank to SSME engine set operating parallel to the ET.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPtp9M3UASc

A booster element with an inflatable wing and an inflatable heat shield powered by an aerospike engine and equipped with cross-feed ability, provides the means to make a low-cost, highly reusable, very capable launch vehicle.

External Tank Based Multi-element Launcher
http://vimeo.com/37102557

Subscale Version

An External Tank shaped flight element that's 6.57 ft in diameter and 36.62 feet long masses 789.6 lbs empty, and carries 22,675.7 lbs of LOX/LH2 propellant, propelled by an aerospike engine, with 4.4 km/sec exhaust speed, integrated into its aft section, massing 485.9 lbs and producing 34,000 lbs of thrust whilst carrying a 65 lb inflatable and restowable wing along with a 60 lb inflatable and restowable decelerator/heat shield.

22,675.7 lbs - propellant

19,187.1 lbs - LOX
3,488.6 lbs - LH2

789.6 lbs - Tank
485.9 lbs - Engine/Pumpset
65.0 lbs - Wing
60.0 lbs - Decelerator/Heat Shield

24,076.2 lbs - TOTAL TAKE OFF WEIGHT
34,000.0 lbsf - THRUST
448.6 sec - Isp

A single stage to orbit operation lifts 1,796.7 lbs into Low Earth Orbit.

A two stage system, consisting of three tanks in parallel, with two outboard tanks feeding a central engine, with all engines firing at lift off, draining the two outboard tanks, lifts 7,650 lbs into Low Earth Orbit - with recovery of all sections.

The outboard tanks achieve an ideal 8,250 mph - which after subtracting air drag and gravity drag losses, achieves an actual speed of 6,240 mph. These outboard elements re-enter following the deployment of the decelerator shield and are recovered 550 miles downrange after slowing to subsonic speed and deploying the inflatable wings at an altitude of 40 miles. With a glide ratio of 8 to 1 each booster has a glide range of 320 miles. At an altitude of 10,000 feet, 250 miles from the launch point, the boosters enter the recovery area, an hour after re-entry.

Aircraft loiter in the recovery area, and track the incoming boosters. They pace the booster as it descends through 15,000 feet, and hook a pick up line deployed from the nose of the booster as each recovery aircraft draws near.

Each aircraft then tows the booster back to the launch center where it is released two hours after re-entry.

Upon release the booster then glides toward its designated catcher, noses up, relights its engine, and settles down vertically, caught by the catcher which absorbs any shocks without the need of landing gear. The catcher secures the booster element.

The catcher is mobile, and can carry the captured vehicle element through processing, and re-assembly prior to refuelling and reuse.

A seven element system consists of four first stage elements, two second stage elements and a third stage element. This vehicle lifts 19,100 lbs into Low Earth Orbit.

Four elements separate at 6500 mph and re-enter 300 miles downrange, deploying their wings at 40 miles altitude, and gliding 300 miles back to the launch centre for recovery - arriving at 13,200 ft altitude an hour after re-entry. Spiral down and land as described above, each on their own catcher.

Two elements separate at 13,250 mph and re-enter 2,070 miles downrange. They glide to a distance 1,800 miles downrange and are captured by recovery aircraft at 10,000 ft altitude an hour after re-entry. They are towed back to the launch centre 8 hours after re-entry, 7 hours after tow plane attachment.

Each element costs $15 million to buy, is reusable 150 times and costs $250,000 to take through a flight cycle. With 1 flight every week, this is a lifespan of 3 years - and so, at an 8% discount rate, this is $112,000 per week.

1,796.7 lbs - single element - one stage - $ 362,000 - $201.48/lb
7,650.0 lbs - three element - two stage - $1,086,000 - $141.96/lb
19,100.0 lbs - seven element - three stage -$2,534,000 - $132.67/lb

Flying one element per week, with seven elements, we fly one SSTO per day or two TSTO per week or one 3STO per week.

With $250,000 launch costs per element, and one element per day (on average) we have $91.5 million per year operating costs. We have with seven elements $98 million per year CAPEX. For infrastructure we have $75 million. Add marketing and promotional costs of $20 million per year - and we have a complete budget estimate for the sort of operation we're discussing.

Actual costs charged for launch, including self-insurance, are higher - and competitive at the same time;

RECENT LAUNCH COSTS

$/lb Launcher

$ 4,109 Falcon 9
$ 3,784 DNEPR
$10,476 Ariane 5
$13,072 Delta IV
$13,182 Atlas V

So, $1,000 per lb, with a relatively high reliability, including insurance, should be able to capture the world's market for launch services, and generate new demand besides.

Of course rather than rely on the market, its more sensible to partner with someone who has deep pockets and is willing to buy a large number of launches. This includes;

(1) telecommunications,
(2) beamed power from space,
(3) space tourism,
(4) global sensing network,

A neo-Iridium system consisting of 700 to 1400 satellites,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_601

Two HS-601 analogue may be launched per seven element booster. So, 50 per year (per launch set) would take 14 years to populate a 700 satellite system. A five launcher (35 element) programme would take 3 years (plus development time).

This would create a global wireless hotspot giving wireless broadband world wide to 50 billion channel users. Each channel, costing only $1 per month (with 10% reserved for LDCs) would generate $40 billion per month - $480 billion per year - and have payback in just a few months operation.

The launch provider would do well to leverage off the IPO for the service provider, and develop the launcher as part of the programme - and participate in the profits going forward. That would permit the launch provider to develop other launchers and payloads - against which other business development programmes can be launched in similar fashion.

18,000 lbs/launch x $1,000/lb = $18,000,000 per launch
$18 million x 700 launches = $12.6 billion programme

Return: $40 billion / month

On Friday, November 28, 2014 3:50:31 PM UTC+13, William Mook wrote:
On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 8:30:32 PM UTC+13, William Mook wrote:
The lowest mass system involves ballistic re-entry with a nose cone based reduced carbon composite shield, slowing the vehicle down high in the stratosphere, to subsonic speed, and then deploying inflatable wings to create a glider. Glide over a landing ship like the one shown in the article, and relight the engine, pull up into vertical position, and back down, landing vertically in a catcher atop a hexapod that precisely positions under the descending vehicle and holds the vehicle absorbing kinetic energy with no landing gear on the vehicle.

This is very similar to the tail sitters of the late 1950s and early 1960s.

A 1 meter diameter by 18 meter long rocket that burns LOX/LH2 where propellant masses 6,432 kg at take off and the composite tank systems including inflatable wing mass 193 kg and the engine and subsystems weigh another 87 kg.

A take off weight of 6712 kg and an empty weight of 280 kg. With an exhaust speed of 4.2 km/sec this vehicle can put 585 kg into the same orbits at the Space Shuttle.

Three tanks, equipped with cross feeding, operating as a two stage system, lifts 2,050 kg into LEO.

Seven tanks, again equipped with cross feeding, operating as a three stage system, lifts 5,030 kg into LEO.

Each elements costs $6 million. The launcher development, with ground station - costs $45 million to build.

A MEMS based life support and power system that uses LOX/LH2 along with light weight solar panels, provides the means to survive extended periods in space.

Using the same approach as Gemini, a 150 kg payload can provide support of an astronaut in a long-duration space suit equipped in this way - up to 14 days in space.

To go to the moon and back from LEO requires a trans-lunar injection of 2.95 km/sec. Then, landing on the moon which requires 2.3 km/sec and then return to Earth, another 2.3 km/sec. Another 0.05 km/sec for attitude control and course correction. That's 7.3 km/sec.

A 5030 kg payload with a 280 kg inert mass, can carry four astronauts to the moon and back!

This tank set is shortened from 18 meters to 11.6 meters. The spare 6.4 meter length holds seating for four astronauts.

http://www.rocketlabusa.com/

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle...pdf?sequence=1

http://www.space.com/27210-biosuit-s...pt-images.html


The lunar stage and biosuit and life support system costs $15 million - in addition to the $45 million for the booster. A total of $60 million. Divided by four travellers, this is $15 million each.

The X-13 Vertijet - takes off from a catcher wire and lands on a catcher wire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cT6CM4vU-GA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZcpg70Ewbw

Which is a further development of earlier testing - with the POGO and Salmon which had tail supports.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh9dhBJY010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qPWguMKGiI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bfxIwqoFcY

The requirements of small stowage volume, low weight and high efficiency are met by inflatable structures. This includes wings, decelerator systems and flotation systems.

Inflatable Heat Shield
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxaGId6wpf4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJUd3zanD8k


Parawing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiF0KPqnbic

Inflatable Wing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SBi9Bffbb4

Inflatoplane (from Akron Ohio)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdm9at83FFU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gGygxDIJX0

Stingray
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndnbnrgNSEM

Inflatable Wing Archive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3a19wDzSwU

Inflatable wing aerodynamics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZbR3rboMhQ

Aerospike Engine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Y0FS8Z1Qk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWf4iOMSPNc

Space Shuttle External Tank Separation - propellant was fed from tank to SSME engine set operating parallel to the ET.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPtp9M3UASc

A booster element with an inflatable wing and an inflatable heat shield powered by an aerospike engine and equipped with cross-feed ability, provides the means to make a low-cost, highly reusable, very capable launch vehicle.

External Tank Based Multi-element Launcher
http://vimeo.com/37102557

Subscale Version

An External Tank shaped flight element that's 6.57 ft in diameter and 36.62 feet long masses 789.6 lbs empty, and carries 22,675.7 lbs of LOX/LH2 propellant, propelled by an aerospike engine, with 4.4 km/sec exhaust speed, integrated into its aft section, massing 485.9 lbs and producing 34,000 lbs of thrust whilst carrying a 65 lb inflatable and restowable wing along with a 60 lb inflatable and restowable decelerator/heat shield.

22,675.7 lbs - propellant

19,187.1 lbs - LOX
3,488.6 lbs - LH2

789.6 lbs - Tank
485.9 lbs - Engine/Pumpset
65.0 lbs - Wing
60.0 lbs - Decelerator/Heat Shield

24,076.2 lbs - TOTAL TAKE OFF WEIGHT
34,000.0 lbsf - THRUST
448.6 sec - Isp

A single stage to orbit operation lifts 1,796.7 lbs into Low Earth Orbit.

A two stage system, consisting of three tanks in parallel, with two outboard tanks feeding a central engine, with all engines firing at lift off, draining the two outboard tanks, lifts 7,650 lbs into Low Earth Orbit - with recovery of all sections.

The outboard tanks achieve an ideal 8,250 mph - which after subtracting air drag and gravity drag losses, achieves an actual speed of 6,240 mph. These outboard elements re-enter following the deployment of the decelerator shield and are recovered 550 miles downrange after slowing to subsonic speed and deploying the inflatable wings at an altitude of 40 miles. With a glide ratio of 8 to 1 each booster has a glide range of 320 miles. At an altitude of 10,000 feet, 250 miles from the launch point, the boosters enter the recovery area, an hour after re-entry.

Aircraft loiter in the recovery area, and track the incoming boosters. They pace the booster as it descends through 15,000 feet, and hook a pick up line deployed from the nose of the booster as each recovery aircraft draws near.

Each aircraft then tows the booster back to the launch center where it is released two hours after re-entry.

Upon release the booster then glides toward its designated catcher, noses up, relights its engine, and settles down vertically, caught by the catcher which absorbs any shocks without the need of landing gear. The catcher secures the booster element.

The catcher is mobile, and can carry the captured vehicle element through processing, and re-assembly prior to refuelling and reuse.

A seven element system consists of four first stage elements, two second stage elements and a third stage element. This vehicle lifts 19,100 lbs into Low Earth Orbit.

Four elements separate at 6500 mph and re-enter 300 miles downrange, deploying their wings at 40 miles altitude, and gliding 300 miles back to the launch centre for recovery - arriving at 13,200 ft altitude an hour after re-entry. Spiral down and land as described above, each on their own catcher..

Two elements separate at 13,250 mph and re-enter 2,070 miles downrange. They glide to a distance 1,800 miles downrange and are captured by recovery aircraft at 10,000 ft altitude an hour after re-entry. They are towed back to the launch centre 8 hours after re-entry, 7 hours after tow plane attachment.

Each element costs $15 million to buy, is reusable 150 times and costs $250,000 to take through a flight cycle. With 1 flight every week, this is a lifespan of 3 years - and so, at an 8% discount rate, this is $112,000 per week.

1,796.7 lbs - single element - one stage - $ 362,000 - $201.48/lb
7,650.0 lbs - three element - two stage - $1,086,000 - $141.96/lb
19,100.0 lbs - seven element - three stage -$2,534,000 - $132.67/lb

Flying one element per week, with seven elements, we fly one SSTO per day or two TSTO per week or one 3STO per week.

With $250,000 launch costs per element, and one element per day (on average) we have $91.5 million per year operating costs. We have with seven elements $98 million per year CAPEX. For infrastructure we have $75 million. Add marketing and promotional costs of $20 million per year - and we have a complete budget estimate for the sort of operation we're discussing.

Actual costs charged for launch, including self-insurance, are higher - and competitive at the same time;

RECENT LAUNCH COSTS

$/lb Launcher

$ 4,109 Falcon 9
$ 3,784 DNEPR
$10,476 Ariane 5
$13,072 Delta IV
$13,182 Atlas V

So, $1,000 per lb, with a relatively high reliability, including insurance, should be able to capture the world's market for launch services, and generate new demand besides.

Of course rather than rely on the market, its more sensible to partner with someone who has deep pockets and is willing to buy a large number of launches. This includes;

(1) telecommunications,
(2) beamed power from space,
(3) space tourism,
(4) global sensing network,

A neo-Iridium system consisting of 700 to 1400 satellites,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_601

Two HS-601 analogue may be launched per seven element booster. So, 50 per year (per launch set) would take 14 years to populate a 700 satellite system. A five launcher (35 element) programme would take 3 years (plus development time).

This would create a global wireless hotspot giving wireless broadband world wide to 50 billion channel users. Each channel, costing only $1 per month (with 10% reserved for LDCs) would generate $40 billion per month - $480 billion per year - and have payback in just a few months operation.

The launch provider would do well to leverage off the IPO for the service provider, and develop the launcher as part of the programme - and participate in the profits going forward. That would permit the launch provider to develop other launchers and payloads - against which other business development programmes can be launched in similar fashion.

18,000 lbs/launch x $1,000/lb = $18,000,000 per launch
$18 million x 700 launches = $12.6 billion programme

Return: $40 billion / month

Mark 1 Mark 2 Item

6.57 16.60 diameter ft
36.62 92.52 length ft
789.6 12732.82 inert weight lb
22675.7 365660.50 propellant lb
485.9 7835.46 engine lb
34000.0 548272.25 thrust lbf
65.0 1048.17 wing lb
60.0 967.54 decelerator lb
19100.0 308000.00 payload lb

A larger launcher built along the lines of the launcher just described can also be quite valued. Still small compared to the Space Shuttle External Tank, it is capable of outperforming anything on the drawing boards today!

An inflatable thin film concentrator can collect sunlight in space from 51 square feet per ounce! So, a 308,000 pound payload can cover 9 square miles! A disk 17,888 ft in diameter! At 127.1 watts per square foot, this monster intercepts 31.95 billion watts of solar energy. Using a multi-spectral thin disk laser array this system produces 25.56 billion watts of laser power, delivering 25 billion watts to 1000 ground stations at a rate of 25 MW each!

At $0.15 per kWh at 25 million kW station earns $3.75 million per hour after its deployed. That's $32.87 billion per year! Well worth the $308 million launch cost and $600 million purchase price!

Consider the following;

H2O + 16 kWh/gallon -- H2 + O2
1 gallon + 16 kWh 14.4 oz + 113.6 oz
(0.648 recycle)
(0.252 new)


then

8 CO2 + 25 H2 -- C8H18 + 16 H2O
101.376 oz + 14.400 oz -- 32.832 oz + 82.944 oz
(6.336 lb) (0.338 gallons) (0.648 gallons)
(11.25 kWh)

Using atmospheric CO2 we absorb just as much CO2 as we produce, and end the production of CO2. We also deliver beamed energy directly to where its needed, so we have small distributed production plants around the planet, without large shipping and distribution centres. No more Exxon Valdez or Deep Water Horizon accidents!

So, at $3.78 per gallon we need to beam 47.34 kWh to Earth and obtain $0.08 per kWh average rate. With 30 billion barrels of oil equivalent per year this translates to 8.25 billion kW of beamed power.

That's 330 satellites of the size we're discussing here.

25 million kW at $0.08 per kWh is $2 million per hour. That's $17.53 billion per year. 330 satellites that's $5.78 trillion per year. With one launch per week, it takes 7 years to transition to this energy source.

$330 billion costing 8% per year costs $29.31 billion per year. Easily supported with the revenue of the comsat network described previously.

This leaves $5.5 trillion in free cash flow. Over thirty years, discounted at 4.25% this supports $92.28 trillion in tier one capital. Leveraged at 53 to 1 (the current rate of leverage of the IMF and Federal Reserve) this supports $4,798.79 trillion in loan activity.

An amount sufficient to rebuild the world!

On Friday, November 28, 2014 7:21:46 PM UTC+13, William Mook wrote:
On Friday, November 28, 2014 3:50:31 PM UTC+13, William Mook wrote:
On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 8:30:32 PM UTC+13, William Mook wrote:
The lowest mass system involves ballistic re-entry with a nose cone based reduced carbon composite shield, slowing the vehicle down high in the stratosphere, to subsonic speed, and then deploying inflatable wings to create a glider. Glide over a landing ship like the one shown in the article, and relight the engine, pull up into vertical position, and back down, landing vertically in a catcher atop a hexapod that precisely positions under the descending vehicle and holds the vehicle absorbing kinetic energy with no landing gear on the vehicle.

This is very similar to the tail sitters of the late 1950s and early 1960s.

A 1 meter diameter by 18 meter long rocket that burns LOX/LH2 where propellant masses 6,432 kg at take off and the composite tank systems including inflatable wing mass 193 kg and the engine and subsystems weigh another 87 kg.

A take off weight of 6712 kg and an empty weight of 280 kg. With an exhaust speed of 4.2 km/sec this vehicle can put 585 kg into the same orbits at the Space Shuttle.

Three tanks, equipped with cross feeding, operating as a two stage system, lifts 2,050 kg into LEO.

Seven tanks, again equipped with cross feeding, operating as a three stage system, lifts 5,030 kg into LEO.

Each elements costs $6 million. The launcher development, with ground station - costs $45 million to build.

A MEMS based life support and power system that uses LOX/LH2 along with light weight solar panels, provides the means to survive extended periods in space.

Using the same approach as Gemini, a 150 kg payload can provide support of an astronaut in a long-duration space suit equipped in this way - up to 14 days in space.

To go to the moon and back from LEO requires a trans-lunar injection of 2.95 km/sec. Then, landing on the moon which requires 2.3 km/sec and then return to Earth, another 2.3 km/sec. Another 0.05 km/sec for attitude control and course correction. That's 7.3 km/sec.

A 5030 kg payload with a 280 kg inert mass, can carry four astronauts to the moon and back!

This tank set is shortened from 18 meters to 11.6 meters. The spare 6.4 meter length holds seating for four astronauts.

http://www.rocketlabusa.com/

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle...pdf?sequence=1

http://www.space.com/27210-biosuit-s...t-images..html


The lunar stage and biosuit and life support system costs $15 million - in addition to the $45 million for the booster. A total of $60 million. Divided by four travellers, this is $15 million each.

The X-13 Vertijet - takes off from a catcher wire and lands on a catcher wire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cT6CM4vU-GA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZcpg70Ewbw

Which is a further development of earlier testing - with the POGO and Salmon which had tail supports.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh9dhBJY010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qPWguMKGiI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bfxIwqoFcY

The requirements of small stowage volume, low weight and high efficiency are met by inflatable structures. This includes wings, decelerator systems and flotation systems.

Inflatable Heat Shield
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxaGId6wpf4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJUd3zanD8k


Parawing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiF0KPqnbic

Inflatable Wing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SBi9Bffbb4

Inflatoplane (from Akron Ohio)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdm9at83FFU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gGygxDIJX0

Stingray
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndnbnrgNSEM

Inflatable Wing Archive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3a19wDzSwU

Inflatable wing aerodynamics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZbR3rboMhQ

Aerospike Engine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Y0FS8Z1Qk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWf4iOMSPNc

Space Shuttle External Tank Separation - propellant was fed from tank to SSME engine set operating parallel to the ET.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPtp9M3UASc

A booster element with an inflatable wing and an inflatable heat shield powered by an aerospike engine and equipped with cross-feed ability, provides the means to make a low-cost, highly reusable, very capable launch vehicle.

External Tank Based Multi-element Launcher
http://vimeo.com/37102557

Subscale Version

An External Tank shaped flight element that's 6.57 ft in diameter and 36.62 feet long masses 789.6 lbs empty, and carries 22,675.7 lbs of LOX/LH2 propellant, propelled by an aerospike engine, with 4.4 km/sec exhaust speed, integrated into its aft section, massing 485.9 lbs and producing 34,000 lbs of thrust whilst carrying a 65 lb inflatable and restowable wing along with a 60 lb inflatable and restowable decelerator/heat shield.

22,675.7 lbs - propellant

19,187.1 lbs - LOX
3,488.6 lbs - LH2

789.6 lbs - Tank
485.9 lbs - Engine/Pumpset
65.0 lbs - Wing
60.0 lbs - Decelerator/Heat Shield

24,076.2 lbs - TOTAL TAKE OFF WEIGHT
34,000.0 lbsf - THRUST
448.6 sec - Isp

A single stage to orbit operation lifts 1,796.7 lbs into Low Earth Orbit.

On Friday, November 28, 2014 8:05:47 PM UTC+13, William Mook wrote:
On Friday, November 28, 2014 7:21:46 PM UTC+13, William Mook wrote:
On Friday, November 28, 2014 3:50:31 PM UTC+13, William Mook wrote:
On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 8:30:32 PM UTC+13, William Mook wrote:
The lowest mass system involves ballistic re-entry with a nose cone based reduced carbon composite shield, slowing the vehicle down high in the stratosphere, to subsonic speed, and then deploying inflatable wings to create a glider. Glide over a landing ship like the one shown in the article, and relight the engine, pull up into vertical position, and back down, landing vertically in a catcher atop a hexapod that precisely positions under the descending vehicle and holds the vehicle absorbing kinetic energy with no landing gear on the vehicle.

This is very similar to the tail sitters of the late 1950s and early 1960s.

A 1 meter diameter by 18 meter long rocket that burns LOX/LH2 where propellant masses 6,432 kg at take off and the composite tank systems including inflatable wing mass 193 kg and the engine and subsystems weigh another 87 kg.

A take off weight of 6712 kg and an empty weight of 280 kg. With an exhaust speed of 4.2 km/sec this vehicle can put 585 kg into the same orbits at the Space Shuttle.

Three tanks, equipped with cross feeding, operating as a two stage system, lifts 2,050 kg into LEO.

Seven tanks, again equipped with cross feeding, operating as a three stage system, lifts 5,030 kg into LEO.

Each elements costs $6 million. The launcher development, with ground station - costs $45 million to build.

A MEMS based life support and power system that uses LOX/LH2 along with light weight solar panels, provides the means to survive extended periods in space.

Using the same approach as Gemini, a 150 kg payload can provide support of an astronaut in a long-duration space suit equipped in this way - up to 14 days in space.

To go to the moon and back from LEO requires a trans-lunar injection of 2.95 km/sec. Then, landing on the moon which requires 2.3 km/sec and then return to Earth, another 2.3 km/sec. Another 0.05 km/sec for attitude control and course correction. That's 7.3 km/sec.

A 5030 kg payload with a 280 kg inert mass, can carry four astronauts to the moon and back!

This tank set is shortened from 18 meters to 11.6 meters. The spare 6.4 meter length holds seating for four astronauts.

http://www.rocketlabusa.com/

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle...pdf?sequence=1

http://www.space.com/27210-biosuit-s...pt-images.html


The lunar stage and biosuit and life support system costs $15 million - in addition to the $45 million for the booster. A total of $60 million. Divided by four travellers, this is $15 million each.

The X-13 Vertijet - takes off from a catcher wire and lands on a catcher wire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cT6CM4vU-GA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZcpg70Ewbw

Which is a further development of earlier testing - with the POGO and Salmon which had tail supports.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh9dhBJY010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qPWguMKGiI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bfxIwqoFcY

The requirements of small stowage volume, low weight and high efficiency are met by inflatable structures. This includes wings, decelerator systems and flotation systems.

Inflatable Heat Shield
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxaGId6wpf4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJUd3zanD8k


Parawing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiF0KPqnbic

Inflatable Wing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SBi9Bffbb4

Inflatoplane (from Akron Ohio)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdm9at83FFU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gGygxDIJX0

Stingray
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndnbnrgNSEM

Inflatable Wing Archive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3a19wDzSwU

Inflatable wing aerodynamics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZbR3rboMhQ

Aerospike Engine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Y0FS8Z1Qk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWf4iOMSPNc

Space Shuttle External Tank Separation - propellant was fed from tank to SSME engine set operating parallel to the ET.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPtp9M3UASc

A booster element with an inflatable wing and an inflatable heat shield powered by an aerospike engine and equipped with cross-feed ability, provides the means to make a low-cost, highly reusable, very capable launch vehicle.

External Tank Based Multi-element Launcher
http://vimeo.com/37102557

Subscale Version

An External Tank shaped flight element that's 6.57 ft in diameter and 36.62 feet long masses 789.6 lbs empty, and carries 22,675.7 lbs of LOX/LH2 propellant, propelled by an aerospike engine, with 4.4 km/sec exhaust speed, integrated into its aft section, massing 485.9 lbs and producing 34,000 lbs of thrust whilst carrying a 65 lb inflatable and restowable wing along with a 60 lb inflatable and restowable decelerator/heat shield.

22,675.7 lbs - propellant

19,187.1 lbs - LOX
3,488.6 lbs - LH2

789.6 lbs - Tank
485.9 lbs - Engine/Pumpset
65.0 lbs - Wing
60.0 lbs - Decelerator/Heat Shield

24,076.2 lbs - TOTAL TAKE OFF WEIGHT
34,000.0 lbsf - THRUST
448.6 sec - Isp

A single stage to orbit operation lifts 1,796.7 lbs into Low Earth Orbit.

A two stage system, consisting of three tanks in parallel, with two outboard tanks feeding a central engine, with all engines firing at lift off, draining the two outboard tanks, lifts 7,650 lbs into Low Earth Orbit - with recovery of all sections.

The outboard tanks achieve an ideal 8,250 mph - which after subtracting air drag and gravity drag losses, achieves an actual speed of 6,240 mph.. These outboard elements re-enter following the deployment of the decelerator shield and are recovered 550 miles downrange after slowing to subsonic speed and deploying the inflatable wings at an altitude of 40 miles. With a glide ratio of 8 to 1 each booster has a glide range of 320 miles. At an altitude of 10,000 feet, 250 miles from the launch point, the boosters enter the recovery area, an hour after re-entry.

Aircraft loiter in the recovery area, and track the incoming boosters.. They pace the booster as it descends through 15,000 feet, and hook a pick up line deployed from the nose of the booster as each recovery aircraft draws near.

Each aircraft then tows the booster back to the launch center where it is released two hours after re-entry.

Upon release the booster then glides toward its designated catcher, noses up, relights its engine, and settles down vertically, caught by the catcher which absorbs any shocks without the need of landing gear. The catcher secures the booster element.

The catcher is mobile, and can carry the captured vehicle element through processing, and re-assembly prior to refuelling and reuse.

A seven element system consists of four first stage elements, two second stage elements and a third stage element. This vehicle lifts 19,100 lbs into Low Earth Orbit.

Four elements separate at 6500 mph and re-enter 300 miles downrange, deploying their wings at 40 miles altitude, and gliding 300 miles back to the launch centre for recovery - arriving at 13,200 ft altitude an hour after re-entry. Spiral down and land as described above, each on their own catcher.

Two elements separate at 13,250 mph and re-enter 2,070 miles downrange. They glide to a distance 1,800 miles downrange and are captured by recovery aircraft at 10,000 ft altitude an hour after re-entry. They are towed back to the launch centre 8 hours after re-entry, 7 hours after tow plane attachment.

Each element costs $15 million to buy, is reusable 150 times and costs $250,000 to take through a flight cycle. With 1 flight every week, this is a lifespan of 3 years - and so, at an 8% discount rate, this is $112,000 per week.

1,796.7 lbs - single element - one stage - $ 362,000 - $201.48/lb
7,650.0 lbs - three element - two stage - $1,086,000 - $141.96/lb
19,100.0 lbs - seven element - three stage -$2,534,000 - $132.67/lb

Flying one element per week, with seven elements, we fly one SSTO per day or two TSTO per week or one 3STO per week.

With $250,000 launch costs per element, and one element per day (on average) we have $91.5 million per year operating costs. We have with seven elements $98 million per year CAPEX. For infrastructure we have $75 million. Add marketing and promotional costs of $20 million per year - and we have a complete budget estimate for the sort of operation we're discussing.

Actual costs charged for launch, including self-insurance, are higher - and competitive at the same time;

RECENT LAUNCH COSTS

$/lb Launcher

$ 4,109 Falcon 9
$ 3,784 DNEPR
$10,476 Ariane 5
$13,072 Delta IV
$13,182 Atlas V

So, $1,000 per lb, with a relatively high reliability, including insurance, should be able to capture the world's market for launch services, and generate new demand besides.

Of course rather than rely on the market, its more sensible to partner with someone who has deep pockets and is willing to buy a large number of launches. This includes;

(1) telecommunications,
(2) beamed power from space,
(3) space tourism,
(4) global sensing network,

A neo-Iridium system consisting of 700 to 1400 satellites,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_601

Two HS-601 analogue may be launched per seven element booster. So, 50 per year (per launch set) would take 14 years to populate a 700 satellite system. A five launcher (35 element) programme would take 3 years (plus development time).

This would create a global wireless hotspot giving wireless broadband world wide to 50 billion channel users. Each channel, costing only $1 per month (with 10% reserved for LDCs) would generate $40 billion per month - $480 billion per year - and have payback in just a few months operation.

The launch provider would do well to leverage off the IPO for the service provider, and develop the launcher as part of the programme - and participate in the profits going forward. That would permit the launch provider to develop other launchers and payloads - against which other business development programmes can be launched in similar fashion.

18,000 lbs/launch x $1,000/lb = $18,000,000 per launch
$18 million x 700 launches = $12.6 billion programme

Return: $40 billion / month

Mark 1 Mark 2 Item

6.57 16.60 diameter ft
36.62 92.52 length ft
789.6 12732.82 inert weight lb
22675.7 365660.50 propellant lb
485.9 7835.46 engine lb
34000.0 548272.25 thrust lbf
65.0 1048.17 wing lb
60.0 967.54 decelerator lb
19100.0 308000.00 payload lb

A larger launcher built along the lines of the launcher just described can also be quite valued. Still small compared to the Space Shuttle External Tank, it is capable of outperforming anything on the drawing boards today!

An inflatable thin film concentrator can collect sunlight in space from 51 square feet per ounce! So, a 308,000 pound payload can cover 9 square miles! A disk 17,888 ft in diameter! At 127.1 watts per square foot, this monster intercepts 31.95 billion watts of solar energy. Using a multi-spectral thin disk laser array this system produces 25.56 billion watts of laser power, delivering 25 billion watts to 1000 ground stations at a rate of 25 MW each!

At $0.15 per kWh at 25 million kW station earns $3.75 million per hour after its deployed. That's $32.87 billion per year! Well worth the $308 million launch cost and $600 million purchase price!

Consider the following;

H2O + 16 kWh/gallon -- H2 + O2
1 gallon + 16 kWh 14.4 oz + 113.6 oz
(0.648 recycle)
(0.252 new)


then

8 CO2 + 25 H2 -- C8H18 + 16 H2O
101.376 oz + 14.400 oz -- 32.832 oz + 82.944 oz
(6.336 lb) (0.338 gallons) (0.648 gallons)
(11.25 kWh)

Using atmospheric CO2 we absorb just as much CO2 as we produce, and end the production of CO2. We also deliver beamed energy directly to where its needed, so we have small distributed production plants around the planet, without large shipping and distribution centres. No more Exxon Valdez or Deep Water Horizon accidents!

So, at $3.78 per gallon we need to beam 47.34 kWh to Earth and obtain $0.08 per kWh average rate. With 30 billion barrels of oil equivalent per year this translates to 8.25 billion kW of beamed power.

That's 330 satellites of the size we're discussing here.

25 million kW at $0.08 per kWh is $2 million per hour. That's $17.53 billion per year. 330 satellites that's $5.78 trillion per year. With one launch per week, it takes 7 years to transition to this energy source.

$330 billion costing 8% per year costs $29.31 billion per year. Easily supported with the revenue of the comsat network described previously.

This leaves $5.5 trillion in free cash flow. Over thirty years, discounted at 4.25% this supports $92.28 trillion in tier one capital. Leveraged at 53 to 1 (the current rate of leverage of the IMF and Federal Reserve) this supports $4,798.79 trillion in loan activity.

An amount sufficient to rebuild the world!

Putting a 2,200,000 lb payload in orbit, using a laser powered rocket that ejects steam from a rocket at 20,570 mph can achieve orbital velocity with 925,238 gallons of water. The vehicle itself masses 2,107,725 lbs empty. Its 135 feet in diameter and 200 feet long. It has 18 floors spaced 7.5 feet apart. A spherical tank 70 feet in diameter holds the water.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/au...r_flight01.jpg

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/wp-co...ightcraft1.jpg

5,000 people are on board each rocket. They all have the ability to enter suspended animation by flooding their air supply with 81 ppm of H2S - which lowers their metabolic rate and puts them in suspended animation.

http://labs.fhcrc.org/roth/

442 days later, the ship uses a photonic rocket again with a laser power satellite at the asteroid belt, to slow the ship and cause it to glide to a landing in a Bishop Ring Colony built from asteroid material.

A Bishop Ring Colony is a type of space colony first proposed by Forrest Bishop in 1997. It is 1,250 miles in diameter and 140 miles wide. Sunlight is focused to a central mirror from a thin mirror behind the ring, where it is dispersed around the disk, simulating sunlight intensity on Earth. Intensity varies with angle around the ring. If we take 12 noon as most intense point at 1000 W/m2 - intensity drops off with a sine curve to zero at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock positions. Its zero intensity from 3 to 9. The average is 250 W/m2. The ring spins once every 33.4 minutes. 43.133 times per day. The mirror spines once every 34.2 minutes or 42.133 times per day. Every 24 hours the pattern of sunlight undergoes a variation similar to the day/night cycle on Earth.

The walls of the colony are 150 miles tall, tall enough to hold an atmosphere without a roof at this rate of spin.

http://www.orionsarm.com/im_store/BLUE3.jpg

To power this large rocket requires 9 of the 330 satellites to operate together to provide 225 billion watts of power during ascent. Then after it enters orbit, it uses a Photonic Thruster to boost from LEO to a Hohmann Transfer Orbit from Earth orbit to a large Main Belt Asteroid. (Ceres, Pallas, Vesta, Hygeia, etc.)

Each ring possesses 550,000 square miles. (352 million acres). Only 250,000 people live on each ring. That's 1,000 acres per person with 102 million acres for public spaces.

To house 7.12 billion people requires 28,480 rings. Ceres alone has enough material to build 179,000 rings! At 1,430 lbs per square foot, each ring weighs 10.97 trillion tons. Ceres masses 1,970,000 trillion tons.

Following the game plan described in the previous posts, we can expect to achieve this level of capability by 2030 AD. After that, our capacity will build following a logistic curve.


Rate per day = 2.6e7 * exp(2044-x) / (1 + exp(2044-x))^2

This rises from about 22 per day in 2030 AD to 6.5 million per day in 2044 - and then falls back down to 15,600 per day after 2052 - and is maintained at that level, to maintain a population of 500 million on Earth.

At the peak 260 ships of the size described above are launched five times per day to release 1,300 payloads that travel to Bishop Colonies in the asteroid belt. One every two hours from the 108 largest cities on Earth.

The boost from the surface takes 9 power satellites 12 minutes. The boost from Low Earth Orbit to Asteroid Transfer Injection takes 1 hour and 15 minutes for the 9. So, 1.5 hours per payload. 732 satellites. At $0.08 per kWh the cost is $4,500 per passenger!

A total of 1,062 satellites each 17,888 ft in diameter occupies 3,595 miles of the 164,613 miles circumference of the Geostationary Orbit.

As the population of Earth declines, the living standards of those remaining rise. As the living standard approaches that of the colonies, the rate of immigration to the colonies declines.

Special promotions and incentives along with advertising promotes continued immigration at a rate that maintains population levels on Earth at a sustainable 500 million.

At its peak, self replicating machine systems, operating in the asteroids, build as many as 26 Bishop Rings per day. Its the space equivalent of Kaiser's feat of building Casablanca class aircraft carriers at one per week!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casabla...escort_carrier

Of course with 9.6 billions safely housed across 38,400 rings spanning the main asteroid belt, only 1 per day need be built to maintain living standards beyond 2050.

Ceres and other main belt asteroids are around 2.8 AU from the Sun. That means that light intensity is 0.1276x the intensity at Earth. Of course, since Earth is a sphere, and it intercepts light passing through a disk normal to the direction between Earth and Sun, the intensity of light on Earth is 0.2500x that of light around Earth generally.

A 1250 mile diameter ring has an interior that is 1,227,184 square miles. It has a circumference of 3,927 miles. Dividing the latter figure into the first obtains 313 miles to attain the same intensity AT CERES. In order focus the light so that it has the same intensity as Earth, we must reduce that width to

0.1276/0.2500 * 313 = 159.775 miles.

Now, we also have an issue with temperature. Unlike Earth, the back of the ring radiates heat as well as the front. Unlike Earth, there is no geological heating from radioactive decay in the interior. So, we make an adjustment for that - and obtain a width of 140 miles. This gives us 3927 x 140 = 549,780 square miles. That's 351.86 million acres. 250,000 people given estates of 1000 acres, each, with 101.86 million acres allocated to common area - obtains the living conditions possible on each ring.

We focus sunlight to a point near the centre of the ring, and direct it toward the ring efficiently, having peak intensity of 1000 W/m2 at 12 noon - position on the clock dial - and dropping to zero along a cosine curve toward 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock position. Having it dark between 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock (as positions on the dial, not time). And the ring rotates 43 times per day - to maintain 1 gee on the interior. The mirror rotates 42 times per day, which causes the mirror to rotate relative to the ring 1 time per day - giving a 24 hour cycle of day and night.

The night is lit by centre mirror as well, but at a far lower level - called 'moonlight'. Approximately 7% of the collected solar energy is available to meet the industrial and transport needs of the ring. This amounts to 38.37 trillion watts of industrial power! By comparison the entire Earth today consumes energy at 17 TW!! So, this is more than double, for the 250,000 people in each ring! This permits significant reprocessing of materials as well as transport for each person.

This solar energy converted to laser energy and even to positronium, gives people the ability to move freely throughout the solar system, and even beyond!

Positronium is a new sort of molecule made from a positron and electron bound together into a Bose Einstein superfluid. They may attain densities equal to that of iron (half a pound per cubic inch) and are controlled at the molecular level by nanoscale structures that have the density of aerogels (1 ounce per cubic foot!)

Photonic rockets (where photons are recycled) and photon rockets (where photons are not) provide a means to travel efficiently through the solar system and beyond. Especially when powered by high density positronium made from squeezed laser light efficiently made from sunlight.

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

One interesting approach is to use a solar pumped laser to beam energy to a star ship and transfer momentum from the beam to the ship, by absorbing it.. This has the disadvantage of cutting the momentum in half, but the advantage of absorbing the energy of the photon! Efficiently absorbing a photon and converting it to positronium, allows you to boost a ship at constant gee until it reaches half way point - and fuel it so that you have enough energy to slow down using the energy you store away!

Rindler in 1979 worked out the relativistic form of the Tsiolkovski rocket equation using positronium;

Vf/c = TANH(LN(m0/mf))

Vf= final velocity
c= speed of light
m0= initial mass
mf= final mass

m0/mf = EXP(ATANH(Vf/Vc))


Attaining 30 to 1 mass ratio we can see that its possible to attain 99.77% light speed. So, filling up the ship during boost, and emptying the ship slowing at your destination - allows you to boost to this speed - traversing 13.5 light years in the process. This takes 3.29 years on board the ship and 14.44 years on Earth. If the ship begins to slow immediately using its on board store of propellant, it will take another 3.29 years of ship time and another 14.44 years of Earth time, to reach 27 light years. Of course if the ship coasts for any time it will traverse 14.72 light years per year of ship time which takes 14.75 years of Earth time. So,

Ship Time Range

6.58 years - 27 light years 61 stars - 5 G-type
10.00 years - 50 light years 388 stars - 29 G-type
20.00 years - 198 light years 23,903 stars - 1,793 G-type
30.00 years - 345 light years 127,080 stars - 9,531 G-type

As stated in a previous post, Dr. Mark Roth has succeeded in causing mammals to enter a reversible hibernation state using 81 ppm H2S to reduce metabolic rate. Suspended animation may be considered a solved problem.

To focus on an Airy Disk 330 feet in diameter a distance of 13.5 light years using 2000 angstrom wavelength light requires a primary objective that is 193,700 miles in diameter!

This is quite large!

The power levels are quite large too!

Now, when we start pushing things around with light, and converting light to positrons and back, we find that we must deal efficiently with energy at intensity levels that approach and even exceed the energy levels found at the solar surface and the surface of most stars.

This means that we should consider mining solar and stellar surfaces directly.

Can something exist on the surface of the Sun? Yes, if it efficiently uses energy! Temperatures can be kept in a range where solids can exist.

So, we can see now a development programme that leads eventually to star travel along the lines described here.

We make a self replicating solar panel that operates on the surface of the sun and efficiently extracts heavy materials from the sun to build things with, and efficiently absorb energy from the sun to make positronium with. Then beam that energy to wherever its needed.

The Sun is 863,000 miles in diameter. A one square foot solar panel would have to make 7.925e19 copies of itself to cover the entire Sun. How long would that take? Will the solar panel given the intense energy and materials available, would only take a few seconds to replicate. But let's be conservative, let's say it takes an hour for a 1 square foot panel to replicate.. How long would it take to cover the entire sun? 66.1 hours! At that point the sun would shut off, and the energy would be stored as positronium on its surface. About 4 million tons of positronium would be available every second. Another 6 million tons of heavy materials would be available every second as well. There would also be plenty of energy to do massive computations. On the dark side of the panels we'd have emitters that would formed phased arrays for both light and atoms - so we could beam things where they're needed. We could also arrange to assemble in 3D printer fashion - objects, filled with positronium - that would blast off the Sun and travel where needed as well.

Of course, to maintain conditions (or even improve conditions) on planets around the sun, we could arrange to shine light in a controlled way on any planet, cooling Venus and Earth and Mercury, warming Mars for example, leaving everything else alone for old time's sake! We could even arrange to send light to every star and galaxy and mote visible from the surface of the sun (the same phased array can be used in reverse to produce a telescope of immense capacity - capable of looking in all directions - something for the immense computing platform to do!) - and even though not one dust mote in 1000 light years would see any difference in the solar intensity or spectra - humanity would be harvesting 99.9999% of all the energy and mass flow from the Sun.

We'd be a Kardashev Type 2 civilization - in spades!

With 100 tons per person - allocated to the payload - and 30 to 1 mass ratio - 3000 tons of positronium stored - and 900 to 1 to transfer all that positronium into the ship will accelerating it - means 90,000 tons of laser energy are needed - per person - then we can see that 4,000,000 tons per second translates to 44 people per second leaving Sol. That's 1.388 billion per year!

So, we can imagine people freely travelling between the stars.

Of course, the same trick of using a small self replicating solar panel to take charge of an entire star can be used by any of the folks travelling to a new star. They merely have a spare square foot of solar panel to toss onto the surface of a star - to make it a controlled star. And that star too can support the movement of billion or so people per year through its system at near light speed!

So, rather than sit in in a Bishop ring colony on the Main Asteroid belt, we can see that we can begin moving people beyond Sol, and onward to other stars.

If we organize this effort so that we license stars at say 350 light years, and roll back to 0 light years - one light year per year, we arrange a situation where people all arrive at their destination regardless of when they left! The only trouble is, with 10 billion people living in the asteroid belt, we run out of people in about 20 years - in the same way we ran out of people on Earth! We end up with about 1 billion people in the asteroid belt, and 500 million people on Earth - and a steady state where 17.1 million per year leave Sol above their arrival rate - to maintain the population going forward. This means that we populate a shell 330 to 350 light years distant - before the rate of immigration out of Solar System drops to 17.1 million per year. At that point, we open the entire sky to development, and let the chips fall where they may. The density of humanity will never be as high as it is now, or was during the Bishop ring era.

As humanity spreads, operating at relativistic speeds, and in hibernation besides, human numbers will not grow. Also, star travel, space travel, air travel, is not perfectly safe. Very safe indeed compared to other human activity, but not perfectly safe. So, this will tend to cause very long hops to be less successful than very short hops. (Hence the rule at the outset) This will create a natural disperson in density with highest density inside the shell, and density falling off with distance.

9 billion people will be travelling to 1,542 G-type stars over the first 20 years. They will not arrive for another 330 years+ This is 5.83 million per star system. 24 Bishop rings. They don't even have to mine any asteroids or planets. All they have to do is drop a solar panel onto the star's surface, and reap energy and material in abundance. They have dozens of stars around them to explore, and nearby colonies to trade with.

After that, there is 17.1 million per year coming from Sol, and another 100 million or so, assuming some population growth at each colony is desired. Of course they won't be travelling until after a 330 year delay.

Over that period another 5.6 billion will spread across 9,531 stars - this is precisely 1/10th the density of the initial phase - 587,000 per star system. Later arrivals will come bearing advanced technology. So, this may form an interesting situation for the colonies.

On Saturday, November 29, 2014 7:26:51 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Friday, November 28, 2014 8:05:47 PM UTC+13, William Mook wrote:
On Friday, November 28, 2014 7:21:46 PM UTC+13, William Mook wrote:
On Friday, November 28, 2014 3:50:31 PM UTC+13, William Mook wrote:
On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 8:30:32 PM UTC+13, William Mook wrote:

Mookie on Mookie on Mookie on Mookie on Mookie...

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

Hey! Don't dis me dude! I got the uniforms designed and everything!

http://mooks.com.au/mens/

and the first launching facility (once we get the jungle and coal out of the way)

http://www.naturalgasasia.com/exxon-...s-in-indonesia

http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/r/rombus1.jpg