Re: Super-heavy lift reusable launcher

On Aug 9, 9:00 am, "Alan Erskine" <alan.ersk...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Martha Adams" <mh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:gYenk.460$EL2.343@xxxxxxxxxxx





"Alan Erskine" <alan.ersk...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%79nk.26617$IK1.17923@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:8da89bd5-ea9c-4622-9843-cd27982a08b4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Imagine a hydrogen oxygen rocket engine with an exit nozzle diameter
of 17 meters in diameter, 36 meters long and produces a thrust of
53,300 tonnes with a specific impulse of 450 seconds.

Not even if I were using drugs would I be able to imagine something so
ridiculous as this.

============================================

"Ridiculous" is a very bad word, because it shuts-off
thinking.  I might go for "extravagant," but I'd like
to point out, if it's out toward the far end of a
good imagination, it's realistic, and I have guessed
a scenario where the national effort would be directed
to building a "small" fleet of these things.  If you
restart your thinking, maybe you can guess something
too.

17 metre diameter rocket nozzle?  Rocket engine over 100ft long?  53
THOUSAND tons of thrust?  


http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730065121_1973065121..pdf


This is only 70x larger than the M1 - which was built and test fired -
which means the size of the engine is about 8 times the diameter of M1
with the same area ratios and so forth. The real issue is the size of
the turbo machinery. Scaling laws for such machinery show that we can
make something the size needed. After all we already make
turbomachinery and engines the size of the turbomachinery now anyway
in other applications. There is no reason in principle that we cannot
make rocket engines the size indicated.

http://people.bath.ac.uk/ccsshb/12cyl/

Look at the size of the engine here. There is no reason we cannot
build turbomachinery on a comparable scale.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nhodges/793855846/in/set-72157601337385711/

Check out the size of this wind turbine

http://www.organiclightsculptures.com/NNP/files/worlds-largest-wind-turbine..jpg

A careful analysis of the details involved reveals no reason we cannot
in principle build airframes the size needed, turbomachinery the size
needed, or rocket nozzles the size needed. We already build ships
that size and components that size - routinely...

Regardless of what Mookie says about the possible,

Its not me saying it, its DOD and then NASA saying it - in
declassified literature that's over 50 years old. A quick look at the
largest intricate machinery we build today indicates that we have the
means to make turbomachinery nozzles and airframes of the requisite
size. In fact, a careful review of the scaling laws associated with
cost, indicates this is nearly the optimal size.

the practical must hold sway.  

2 and 3 meter diameter pistons in diesel engines, 20 meter diameter
flow nozzles in turbines, 100 meter impeller blades in other
turbines.. these things are ROUTINELY built today. The scale isn't
the problem. Create turbomachinery along the lines shown in the M1 on
the appropriate scale - computer model the details to avoid the
problems the F1 had with vibrations - and you're there man.

Oh, and don't forget that you'll never
(NEVER!) get an ISP of 450 at sea level;

Obviously this is an average over the entire flight cycle which is
easily achieved. Clearly a prelminary study is not the same as a
complete study. haha.. So, alan is grasping at straws trying to
present things as they are not. Fact is, a detailed engineering
analysis would next do a calculus of variation analysis to determine
ideal staging fractions and so forth.

When that is done in order to increase mass flow rate (and hence
thrust) at lift off - using minimal turbormachinery - you don't need
high Isp (specific impulse) That's why they use SRBs on the
shuttle.

On this vehicle you do something more advanced . Something that has
been suggested by rocket designers for 50 years. haha.. Namely mix
methane solids in with the hydrogen to create a milkshake like
slurry.

Here's a recent (11 year old) review

http://sbir.grc.nasa.gov/launch/GELLED.htm

Mix methane/hydrogen in with your hydrogen - and layer it so the
propellant is denser at the bottom of the tank. This gives you more
propellant and better structural fraction at lift off - and you start
out around 380 sec Isp and end up 465 Isp at the end - this is a way
to modulate fuel flow rate and thrust - with very little change in
turboequipment - which makes the system more reliable.

Since you can optimize chamber pressure and do a number of other
things when you do this trick - it produces a vastly superior
system..

I didn't do all these calculations, but obviously I will as I
proceed. In any event, clearly a 450 sec Isp over the entire flight
cycle in this preliminary analysis is well justified.

that means that Mookie is referring
to a second stage (100 times the thrust of the S-II of the Saturn V)- the
first stage would be even larger.

No it doesn't. It means I'm referring to the entire ascent curve and
averaging the Isp to get a preliminary estimate of vehicle size and so
forth. The level of detail you're talking about comes next - you do a
calculus of variation - with Isp compensated for altitude along the
ascent profile and vary that profile to optimize it - then you vary
the stage separation to optimize that - then, you vary the propellant
mix as described to optimize that - and then do that spin over and
over again, until you close in on the optimal stage fractions, and so
forth.

The point is,

1) the stage fractions will be within 10% of those already given,
2) the Isp will likely be higher ON AVERAGE than the AVERAGE given.

Hell, we're arguing on these forums against the Ares V being too big.  

So? Its mission requirements are different.

With
as much thrust as Mookie suggests, you'd be able to launch a payload of
11,800 tonnes into LEO (based on the thrust of the second stage of the
Saturn V).  

This vehicle, if you actually use the rocket equation with
understanding will put over 50,000 tons into LEO - and 10,000 tons
into GEO - or send 5,000 tons directly to the moon - and return it -
or 5,000 tons to Mars and return it - and recover all the pieces
involved.

And then there's the support infrastructure - where do you build
the engine (not to mention the propellant tanks and other structures).

You build the supply chain for it. The first step is to get the
money. That's done by building a terrestrial based solar hydrogen
production unit that hydrogenates coal and produces 200,000 b/d of
gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel. The $8 billion facility, using
waste coal on a 500 sq km spent coal field - generates $7 billion per
year in free cash flow - of which only 40% is leveraged to raise the
original $8 billion. The remaining $4.2 billion in free cash flow is
directed toward building other facilities, and R&D on interesting
projects - like this one.

I start with a warchest of about $50 million - and contact folks like
Enercon

http://www.enercon.de/en/_home.htm

to build large airframe parts

or Aioi Works of Japan's Diesel United for large
turbomachinery,actuators, hydraulics and so forth or

Sumitomo Heavy Industries for airframe and so forth

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

spend a few tens of millions of dollars to detail things out - and by
that time, I have a half dozen facilities operating - generating $30
billion per year in free cash flow for me - and from that I start
buying up or partnering with - creating a consortium - to build the
supply chain needed for building maintaining and operating this fleet-
and its payloads (power satellites initially)

Along the way a subscale version of the spacecraft is built that lofts
a mere 500 tons to LEO - this orbits subscale powersats, but more
importantly it lofts large numbers of large comsats that provide the
world with a global wireless internet service - 50 billion channels -
each channel sold on average for $6 per year - generating $300 billion
per year - in free cash flow - the system costing less than $60
billion to build. This adds to the cash warchest.
.
 >And
where do you launch it; at The Cape or out at sea?  

I have an equatorial island chain chosen owned by Indonesia. The
islands are uninhabited, and the Indonesian government would be very
keen on developing them, if they got to build a portion of it, and
have nationals operate it.

The first stage booster would re-enter and land near Manus - the falls
on the Amazon river. There, the Brazilian government would allow the
operation of a rocket field. The booster lands, is refueled and
'bounced back' to the launch center as described above.

The Manus equatorial facility also operates a launch complex, with its
booster coming down in Gabon - on the Haut-Ogooué Province - using the
well-established cargo ships that support the mining industry there to
bring in supplies.

I would build the ships and launch infrastructure and parts in Asia,
and float them - like off shore drilling platform parts - to shore
side facilities where they would then be assembled into a launch
center.

The Brazilian facility would be floated up the Amazon,and the Gabon
faclity would be floated up the Congo.

http://www.diamondoffshore.com/ourCompany/ourcompany_offshorerigbasics.php

Watch these videos to get an idea of how that works.


The noise would be
incredible,

Yes.

not to mention the probably seismic effects.

http://www.diamondoffshore.com/ourCompany/ourcompany_offshorerigbasics.php

Since we already use siesmic detectors to detect the launch of
ballistic missiles, I am absolutely certain that these rockets will
also be detected that way. Obviously the ability to detect these
missiles seismically has no bearing on their practicality or utility
in developing space based assets off world..

Now, we can always assume ("never 'assume'; you make an 'ass' out of 'u' and
'me'" - The Odd Couple) that it's intended to be launched from the Moon or
Mars or whatever,

Obviously, rockets built on Earth have been used to land people on the
moon and then carry them back to Earth. Clearly, a 10,000 ton payload
on a lunar free return trajectory, with all parts reusable - has the
capacity to establish a significant transport capability between Earth
and moon. Ditto for Earth and Mars.

Of course this isn't the reason it was orignally built - but it is
easily adapted to this purpose.

but geez, assumption leaves all sorts things in the ball
park.  

??? so, you are saying because alternatives to this proposed system
pale in comparison to it we shouldn't do it? No matter how much money
is made generating energy and communications off world using it?
Obviously your idea makes no sense whatever.

Then again, the (proposed) nuclear fusion rocket would be even better

We don't know how to build fusion rockets - excepting nuclear pulse
rockets that have fission triggers.

(forget the effects of radiation)

Why? Detractors won't. Plainly this system has none of those
shortcomings. Clearly successfully operating these vehicles without
incident establishes the need for super heavy lift capacity - while
showing its safety. Obviously this is the first step to even larger
lift capacity.

and then there's the (proposed) engine for
the BIS Daedulus - nuclear BOMBS!  

The only fusion reaction we've been able to reliably engineer.

Proposals are one thing; making them
practical and useable are two entirely different things.

Right, and the obvious way to achieve these later goals is to take a
step toward them - with an intermediate goal. Clearly the proposed
super launcher is that step.

And I didn't say it was impossible,

That is wise.

just ridiculous.

Why?

 For the reasons above,

None of those hold water.

Mookie's suggestion is unrealistic.

No it isn't.

 Not impossible mind you,

Agreed.

just
unrealistic.

Not at all - in fact application of the scalaing laws and examination
of the skill sets already out there in the world indicate this is
nearly an optimal size. Sure, subscale systems will be built and
tested - and likely find use in space launch and as tenders to larger
payloads launched by the heavies - but these will be the workhorses
until better engines are built - laser engines, and fusion engines as
you pointed out.


If Mookie wanted to build his SSP's, it would be more economical to use the
resourses of the Moon -

No it wouldn't.

combined with an electromagnetic launcher

How do you plan to get it up there?

(they're
planning that for the next series of U.S. Navy aircraft carriers -

yes, electromagnetic rail guns - they'll offload the research by
painting pretty pictures (remember when nuclear power would be too
cheap to meter - that's when the DOD needed money for nuclear
research) - and when they got what they wanted, they'll classify it
and deny they ever said anything about it - and call anyone who
reminds them of it - crazy or misinformed. lol.

launchers of the type you envision have a number of interesting
applications - and evne interesting space applications. But starting
from where we are, it makes a lot more sense to have Sumitomo think
about the airframe and Aioi think about the turbomachinery and rocket
nozzle - and let diamond offshore think about big ass test stands and
launch centers - if you want to actually build something today that
works at a reasonable cost.

Once your shipping 5,000+ metric tons to the moon every day - THEN you
can think about what the benefit of a rail gun is. But, once you've
got this sort of capacity on orbit, it makes more sense to use rail
guns on Ceres or other rich asteroids and send a stream of material
back to Earth orbit - and bring it into orbit here - use teleoperated
robots in orbiting factories placed by these rockets, and solar power
from satellites put up by these rockets to process that stuff into
consumer goods, food and fiber - and deorbit it directly to
consumers. With the profits from that operation, then you expand
space launch to include a laser rocket ship in every garage -and then
build space homes on orbit - but not before building and deorbiting
cloud nine floating cities - to provide refuge for those stuck in bad
places.

they use
something called an 'ultracapacitor' to store electricity until the 'shot' -
fascinating stuff).

Yep, I worked at Ohio State with Dr. Turchi, we had a room filled with
capacitors that we charged up at night when everyone was asleep, and
then shorted them through a variety of interesting stuff we built at
the machine shop. We compressed deplete uranium in MHD tests, and we
fired some rail guns - this was back in the 80s. So, I know a little
about this subject. The problem is, that's not where you start. You
start with the sort of vehicles I'm talking about, plugged into the
sort of program I'm talking about. You start solving the world's
energy needs, and then its raw material needs, then its food and fiber
needs, its job needs, its communications and financial service needs -
all iwth space based assets and off world resources.

This is the way to proceed.

We don't need SSP's anyway.  

Yes we do.

Check out a process called TDP;

This is a way to do coal to liquids. The problem is where do you get
your hydrogen? and oxygen? If you get your hydrogen from the shift
reaction - you make 44 tons of CO2 for each ton of hydrogen you use.
And then make more CO2 running the TDP process - BEFORE you even burn
the fuel. Yeilds are as a result, very low.

If you get your hydrogen and oxygen from the electrolytic reduction of
water, and get your heat and electricity from either a solar or
nuclear source - then you don't have any pollution and you have far
higher yeilds.

This is what I do!!

http://www.usoal.com

haha.. This is the first step.

I use very low cost solar collectors, to make hydrogen and oxygen,
then use direct hydrogenation processes to convert coal into liquids
very efficiently.

Its ludicrous to say TDP will solve our energy problems, since TDP
doesn't create a primary source of energy. It NEEDS a primary source
of energy to work. If you use coal as the primary source, or a
combination of coal and natural gas - you are adding to the carbon
burden of our air,and decreasing the value of coal.

By tapping into a pollution free source of primary energy - like
nuclear or solar - TDP is a step in a direct hydrogenation process
that increases coals value by adding solar energy to it - while
reducing our carbon footprint.

Check it out - using my approach of tapping into solar to make
hydrogen and oxygen from sunlight and water - we convert 5.5 bilion
tons of coal each year into 38 billion barrels of gasoline, diesel
fuel and jet fuel. We eliminate 18 bilion tons of carbon dioxide - by
supplying 867 million tons of hydrogen to the coal fired plants to
replace teh coal - and eliminate our need for conventional oil.

I first heard
about it on the sci.space forums a couple of years ago (2003?) and I've been
captivated by it ever since.  

Its a chemcial conversion process - not a primary energy source. How
you power it determines whether or not it can be beneficial. Power it
with my solar panels, and it makes sense - power it with coal and it
makes things worse.

It provides liquid fuels (diesel for trucks,
buses, trains and ships; kerosene for aircraft and petrol [gasoline] for
cars) for our transport needs without any changes in infrastructure from the
refinery to the fuel tanks and no changes to engines either (the same
doesn't apply to any other alternative energy - ethanol, electricity etc)..
It's also carbon negative (just in case all the doom-sayers [mainly the
mass-media] are right about climate change) and can even be used to increase
crop production by utilising something called 'biochar'.


Converting biomass into industrial fuels starves billions, lowers food
quality, while increasing the cost of those fuels it makes.

Converting coal into industrial fuels, increases electricity prices,
creates electricity shortages, impoverishes the coal and utlities,
while increasing the cost of liquid fuels while increasing pollution..

Using solar energy generated at 1/5th cent per kWh - to reduce water
into hydrogen and oxygen -and using the hydrogen to replace coal in
stationary power plants, while converting the released coal to liquid
fuels with more hydrogen, increases teh value of coal, and reduces the
cost of liquid fuels - while eliminating pollution.

Furthermore, low cost hydrogen combined with air makes fertilizer at
very low cost increasing volume and quality of food while reducing its
costs.

Finally, low cost solar water desalination, creates water at extremely
low cost - allowing the irrigation of marginal lands and abundant
water everywhere - increasing quality of life, lowering water
costs,and increasing crop yeilds.

All at the same time.

You have ignored where the primary energy is coming from. Details
count, and this is an important detail. TDP is a chemical process
that is very efficient - and I use a version of it in my direct coal
hydrogenation processes. Howeve,r HOW its powered, WHAT it is used
for - determines its ultimate utility.

Now, obviously generating hydrogen from sunlight is the best way to
go. Clearly, once large tracts of solar collectors are in place,they
are easily improved by adding a bandgap matched laser beam on orbit to
illuminate the panels 24/7 - Plainly this is an obvious next step once
a number of coal-to-liquid facilities are built.

http://www.bni.co.id/Portals/0/Document/Coal.pdf
http://www.mitrais.com/mining/miningNews060818.asp

From landfill waste (food scraps, garden waste, plastic, rubber, waste oils
and chemicals), agricultural waste (straw, chaff and animal waste) and even
sewage (at the same time, water released from the plant contains no bacteria
at all, let alone any that are alive, unlike normal sewage treatment).

Humanity today uses 28.3 billion barrels of liquid fuels. It takes
liquid fuel to make plastics, paper, and other waste. So, the volume
of waste is far smaller than the volume of fuel we use. Converting
that waste may be a good way to get rid of the waste by reusing it,
but in total, it does little to change our energy supply situation.
Furthermore, by focusing on waste streams which have a very high cost
of recovery - we increase the cost of liquid fuels- which is fine by
the oil companies - but not pointing us in the right direction.

From 1870 to 1960 the price of oil dropped 5% per year throughout the
entire period. A barrel fo oil in the 1950s and 60s cost less than a
gallon of gas does today!! Since the US peaked in oil output in the
1970s our economy has suffered tremendously, and the price of oil has
risen at an average compoound rate of 11% - nothing that has been
seriously proposed challenges this view. All those programs that have
the potential to challenge the price of oil today - and put us back on
a trend toward low cost energy - are opposed and marginalized by a
dedicated cadre of people who know better. Why? Because it undercuts
the value of oil that's why.

Ultra-low-cost terrestrial solar power - making hydrogen for coal
conversion - reduces the cost of oil and provides more oil than we use
today. Management of this technology allows us to sustain 7% or more
increases per year in energy use worldwide, while reducing our carbon
footprint -

High temperature nuclear reactors - making hydrogen for coal
conversion - achieve much the same ends.

Using wastes and biomass - is at best marginal and raises the cost of
food.
.
Wind power is at best marginal.

Coal to liquid using shift reaction - triples pollution levels and
wastes 2/3 of our coal while raising the price of oil and dpressing
the price of coal.

TDP also produces gas which can be burned in a gas turbine to produce
electricity (I know, the gas turbine doesn't produce the electricity.).

TDP is a chemical process - its not a source of primary energy. You
need a carbon source and a hydrogen source. Solar provides that -
without the solar source this is not a solution by itself.

Starting with an investment of $1 billion Australian, Melbourne (3.8 million
people) would be able to close all its landfills within five years of
go-ahead.  From then on, there would be over $200 million per year (profit
from selling the TDP oil to refineries) to build additional TDP plants -
Australia could stop using crude oil for transport fuels altogether within
ten years of go-ahead, and export twice the amount of liquid transport fuels
we currently consume (not just imports either, but all of it).
Alternatively, the excess oil can be burned to displace coal for electricity
generation (Victoria has about 500 years of brown coal at the current rate
of consumption).  The heat from the gas turbines is used in the process
itself.

http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/drs/indicator/330/index..html

Over this period 3.8 million australians used 970 million GJ of
energy. Converted to oil at 6.1 GJ per barrel we have 159 million
barels. At $200 australian per barrel we have $31.8 billion
Australian.

Now, your TDP program that converts the waste from those 3.8 milion
australians to $0.2 bilion worth of liquid fuels - may be a good thing
to do - but it isn't even a drop in the proverbial bucket.
furthermore since the costs of collecting the waste - which was off-
loaded to the government in order to make the profits (there was a
political fight about that in melbourne) you are ignoreing the fact
that this source of oil is MORE costly than buying it today. That's
why the oil companies don't object to it. There's not enough made to
really challenge the market price, and the cost of production is way
higher.

Not so with solar assisted conversion of coal at $8.57 per barrel -
that's why you don't hear about it much.

Biochar has been shown to increase wheat production by two times and soy
bean production by three times.  

Depends on the details - biochar can contain metals and radioactive
materials in greater abundance than isnaturally found in soil.

http://newenergynews.blogspot.com/2007/03/nuclear-radioactive-economics.html

Even if this is resolved, it doesn't change the fundamentals. Yes, we
might be able to process our wastes in this way to make our economy
slightly more efficient - by less than 1% - but it will cost far more
than 1% of what we spend on generating energy to do -(which is why it
hasn't been done) it won't materially affect our supply situation (you
need waste made from energy processes in the first place for it to
work) - so its not the answer as you wrongly say.

Its a useful chemical process - one I have adapted to my systems - but
you need to ask the basics. Where are you getting the energy and what
does it cost?

solar panels and coal combine to create a real challenge to the oil
monopolies and have a real chance to bring costs down while reducing
carbon emissions. once you have large solar arrays beaming bandgap
matched laser energy to those arrays is an obvious way to increase
their output of hydrogen, and create a hydrogen economy. improved
optics on the laser powersats provide a means to eventually displace
or augment hydrogen with laser power networks.

Ten years after biochar starts being
applied to fields, it could be used to double the productivity of over 32
million hectares (just starting with landfill waste-derived biochar and
adding the crop residue from the 'treated' land to the TDP plant) and that's
just with the biochar made from Melbourne's landfill waste.

If we took ALL our wastes and processed them into liquid fuels, and
used biochar cleaned of metals and radioactives to cover our fields,
we'd increase our efficiency by about 1% - and cover about 20% of our
fields - our basic supply situation won't be materially affected.

if we however cover 210,000 sq miles of mine lands in deserts (owned
by a handful of people) with solar collectors at $0.07 per peak watt -
we would make 3.34 billion tons of hydrogen from 30 billion tons of
water each year - enough to displace all fossil fuels everywhere - at
a cost equivalent to $4 per barrel. Before that however, we will
begin by converting waste coal to oil with hydrogen and oxygen made
with solar collectors covering stripped out surface mines - using
cleaned up run off water for the hydrogen source - and make oil at $8
per barrel. As the system expands, we displace coal in coal fired
power plants with hydrogen, eliminating carbon emissions - and use
hydrogen with that coal to make more liquid fuels at $9 per barrel.
Converting ALL coal fired power plants to hydrogen, and all stranded
coal to liquid fuels, generates 38 billion barrels of liquid fuels per
year - more than is currently consumed. Which means, prices willl
drop for liquid fuels! Economies will expand. Within 15 years of
general expansion, there will be a NEED to take those converted
surface mines and increase their power output 15 times - by orbiting
solar power satellites to feed them bandgap matched laser energy - and
increase the energy supplies of this world to 15x their current
level. When the world has grown to need more energy it wil then be
supplied by advanced lasers beaming energy directly to users anywhere.


Mookie's off-target.- Hide quoted text -

No you are. You droned on and on and on about TDP - but proved
incapable of seeing the essential fact that TDP is a chemical
conversion process, not a source of primary energy. It needs a source
of hydrogen and oxygen adn carbon to work. Biomass can be that source
of carbon - but the shift reaction is typically the source of hydrogne
- and when that's the case, its a dirty process indeed.

Details count, when you don't get the details right, you are off
target. This has been your problem from the outset. You really need
to address it in yourself, before calling me names! lol.

- Show quoted text -

.

Loading