Re: How Rockets Differ From Jets

tomcat,
Unfortunately, because I'm sufficiently right about our cloak and
dagger NASA, our once upon a time icy proto-moon and about other life
upon Venus, and lo and behold as apparently I'm getting myself just as
right about the Rn-->ion thrusters, whereas such my PC has been and is
currently under usenet attack via the gauntlet of spermware/malware as
having been accommodated by the servers of whatever's GOOGLE/NOVA, and
from their freelance warm and fuzzy (mostly Jewish and thus
anti-Muslim) MI6/NSA spooks. Therefore it's taking myself a bit longer
to accomplish just about anything. You don't suppose they'd be making
the effort as to sperming and otherwise topic/author stalking, bashing
and/or applying banishment for no other good reasons, do you?

>What -- exactly -- is the thrust, in pounds, of your Radon ion engines?
>And, how big does the reactor have to be that drives them. If it is
>the size of a nuclear power plane, requiring containment domes, then it
>might be a little . . . impractical.
Besides my being on a need to know basis, I'm still using a good amount
of my famuos SWAG(scientific wild ass guessing) as to the Rn222-->ion
thrust potential.

There have been a few numbers associated as to what Radon energy can
contribute as much as 6.28e9 joules/g. Taking a conservative 50%
conversion efficiency into account; Raw Rn energy that's available for
creating ions = 3.14e9 per gram of Radon usage per second.

Rn-->ION THRUST PIE IN THE SKY
Adding the applied plasma and highly directional (nearly laser)
producing energy influx of perhaps a few megajoules seems to only imply
upon creating an ion thrust velocity that's going to eventually become
worth something a bit greater than 3.14e9 joules/gram/second.

Supposedly the likes of Xenon-->ion thrust is currently accomplished at
165e-3/4.5e3 = 36.666e-6 N/J

If my initial SWAG(scientific wild ass guess) on LRn as
Radon(Rn222)-->ion thrust is jazzed up to accomplishing 1e3 fold better
ion exit velocity means that the Rn-->ion KE = 36.666e-6 * 1e6 = 37 N/J

Calculating upon a bit extra for the added ion mass of those extremely
fast moving and highly reactive Rn222 atoms-->ions as opposed to those
wossy and slow moving passive Xe atoms-->ions (222/131.3 = 1.69:1),
it's looking as though better than 50 newton/joule isn't all that
unlikely. That's certainly an impressive 5 Kgf per externally applied
joule if the Rn-->ion exit velocity reaches 30,000 km/s.

Therefore, launching a spaceplane of 1,000,000 kg / 5 could require as
little as 200,000 joules, which seems a little too good to be true.

Though how about just going for a Crispy Cream doughnut instead of a
full blown pie in the sky, thus instead of achieving the 30,000 km/s of
such ions exiting each thrust-emitter, let us try a less ambitious 300
km/s as merely a 100 fold thrust improvement over Xe ions, as an
improvement that unless my math is running amuck is suggesting we
should achieve 0.005 Kgf/joule.

Therefore, pushing a spaceplane at 90 deg. of 1,000,000 kg / 0.005 will
require a good terrestrial supply of LRn and a reliable energy resource
worth 200 MJ.

200 MJ can certainly be conventionally generated via rocket powered
turbine and/or via the U238-->Ra-->Rn breeder reactor that I'd
mentioned a few hundred times before. The advantage of the Rn breeder
reactor is that it's good for a 1600 year half-life, whereas the
conventional rocket powered turbine driven generator needs that
horrific supply of all that liquified and thus usually testy cryogenic
inventory of fuels that'll take up a great deal of valuable space, plus
demanding integration infrastructure and thus representing a great deal
of mass, not to mention their ability to uncontrollably explode for
most any one of a thousand reasons.

No matters what the outcome, the Rn-->ion thrust will offer loads
greater performance than wossy Xenon-->ions that are barely moving out
of their chamber at 30 km/s. I believe I've uncovered another old
Xenon-->ion thrust velocity potential that's capable of 50 km/s, which
is still way too damn slow, thus Xe ions are offering darn little
thrust/joule. Of course ion thrusters hardly weigh anything compared to
the 10,000 Lb/SSME and required infrastructure that's not to mention
their horrific volumes of LH2 and LO2 per second that's required of
their turbo pumps and each of these main engines. Therefore whatever
ion thrust infrastructure needs to be given the benefit of hardly
weighing anything other than the reactor and/or conventional aspects of
generating sufficient electrons.

As interpreted from these following links;
http://www.braeunig.us/space/specs/shuttle.htm
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/military/read.main/37552/
Each SSME at 104% burns 920 lbs/s(417 kg/s) of LOX and 155 lb/s(70
kg/s) of LH2. At 104% power (393,000 lbs / 488,800 lbs thrust in
vacuum), that's a continuous rate of consumption per each and every
second per engine. If giving a 1000 second worth of inventory (16.7
minutes worth) and lo and behold there's a need for housing 70,000 kg
of LH2 and 417,000 kg of LO2 per SSME, which amounts to 487 tonnes X 3
and that's not even including the required energy for the auxiliary
turbine pumps, electrical power and hydraulic energy generators and of
the highly insulative composite tankage and enormous plumbing/manifold
attributes that could easily amount to another 54 tonnes involved with
safely accommodating such horrific volumes. Seems 1000 seconds would be
about as good as it's going to get for your fully loaded + multiple
SRM/SRB spaceplane. Is 1000 seconds going enough time to get everything
to 400+km with sufficient energy reserves to spare?

Other SSME info:
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts-mps.html
"The main engines can be throttled over a range of 65 to 109 percent of
their rated power level in 1-percent increments. A value of 100 percent
corresponds to a thrust level of 375,000 pounds at sea level and
470,000 pounds in a vacuum. A value of 104 percent corresponds to
393,800 pounds at sea level and 488,800 pounds in a vacuum; 109 percent
corresponds to 417,300 pounds at sea level and 513,250 pounds in a
vacuum."

I'm not suggesting of using 4 or perhaps 6 of those massive SRM/SRBs
isn't going to work on behalf of lifting that much mass to a sufficient
altitude and achieving better than half escape velocity in the process
(say 4+ km/s at 76+km) but, good grief folks, that's certainly a lot of
artificial pollution for us humans and the global environment of mother
Earth per launch.

However, it seems if your spaceplane can so easily accommodate such
horrific volumes and of the subsequent initial 1500~2000 tonnes worth
for having to accommodate even 3 of those SSMEs, that's serious tonnage
(not including the extra amount of the enormous composite shell
surrounding the much larger spaceplane infrastructure), whereas
considering upon the nuclear provided energy that should involve a good
amount of Ra226 as performing as breeder of the highly reactive
LRn222-->Rn-->ion alternatives seems like the direction we should be
going.

>requiring containment domes
What stinking containment domes, and while you're at it; what planet
are you from?
Why all of the sudden are you digging yourself back into mainstream
cesspool box thinking?
Nuclear reactors have been made considerably smaller and safer than
ever, and Radium(Ra226) is an extremely safe element. I'd say that
plain old wind and especially water has been year after year
responsible for killing off at least a million to one more innocent
folks over that of natural and artificially concentrated Radium and
subsequent Radon, thus where's your protesting as to eliminating wind
and water?

Life as we know it is a damn risk. So, get over with all of your
conditional mainstream status quo paranoia over whatever you could
possibly (key word being "possibly") get involved with what you might
(key word being "might") prematurely die from.

This time around "read my lips"
Ra226 is just about everywhere upon Earth, as being continually created
within Earth, upon and within our moon, incoming as cosmic dust each
and every hour upon hour of each and every day, week, month, year,
century and so forth. That's sort of why there's so much existing and
replacement Radon(Rb222) being made available if we use it or not.
However, Radon is certainly a use-it or lose-it element, of which as
I've said this many times before that we've been continually loosing
out upon the energy potential of what Radon represents because
apparently the very best of us humans are just way too dumb and dumber
than can be imagined (too busy at keeping perpetrated cold-wars alive
and kicking while otherwise trying to devise new and improved methods
of killing off one another as to give a hoot about using Rn222).

First of all, as far as the last time I'd checked, there were no
anti-nuke-energy protestors in space, and besides all of their
anti-advancement crapolla (similar to those anti stem-cell and thus
anti-life, anti-God freaks), of anything DoD/star-wars has been getting
launched no matters what. Now that our "high standards and
accountability" of our born again resident warlord's "so what's the
difference" policy that sucks and blows big-time if you're a Muslim,
has been enforced (without a stitch of remorse) so much that not even
God is standing in our heathen ways.

The high energy density of a nuclear reactor onboard your spaceplane is
more than doable, it's somewhat required if you truly intend to cut the
overall mass and affordably manage to deliver those 100+tonnes worth of
payloads past the 400 km mark. If not for creating a bit more of the
Rn222 on the fly so much because, a fresh and highly economical batch
of commercially produced LRn can be taken from the surface into
whatever orbit within minutes. Although I'd suppose if any surplus of
that LRn were unused and brought back to Earth, as such within a short
time thereafter it would simply have reverted/decayed into becoming
plain old lead. Thus once again I'll move my lips on behalf of
repeating that LRn222 is an extremely powerful (6.28e9 joules/g) use-it
or lose-it element.

Obviously you can't obtain the likes of any LRn-->Rn-->ION thruster
from Sears, though I'd bet my bottom dollar that from German mad
scientist and/or from them tricky Russians could. This country and of
it's cloak and dagger mindset upon global energy domination has
sequestered itself and a good part of humanity way too deep into the
nearest space-toilet of arrogance, greed plus intellectual as well as
biological bigotry to matter.

Good grief almighty Christ on a stick 'tomcat'; there's been other
significant life upon Venus, and our moon badly needs the likes of my
LSE-CM/ISS, yet you're mindset is stuck firmly upon continually
consuming the global energy resources in a manner that'll only continue
to pollute mother Earth as well as insuring that an all-or-nothing
WW-III becomes our only viable option.

I'm trying to suggest upon much cleaner and considerably more
energy-->thrust efficient alternatives, while you're still stuck in the
mainstream status quo muck of looking for whatever's off-the-shelf and
yet still having to count upon having spendy and thus energy consuming
CNT to save the day. Whereas common basalt composites that'll vary
anywhere from less than a kg/m3 to perhaps as great a 2.75 t/m3, having
extreme thermal range as well as many other quality attributes,
including as being more than sufficient as-is for the LSE-CM/ISS
tethers seems like a rather big freaking gift-horse to me.

I have a few questions as to what's the actual problem here?

Are you simply too dumbfounded and otherwise summarily snookered by
whatever the mainstream status quo has to say?

Where's the rest of your open minded spaceplane imagination?

If you can't independently think for yourself, then why bother thinking
at all?

>I don't think the energy density is affect at all. A 'slush tank' just
>hold a lot more LH2 than a regular tank.
Exactly how much more slush LH2 as opposed to regular LH2?

>You might be thinking of the new 'atomic hydrogen' fuel. That is
>different, however, than a simple slush tank. The 'atomic hydrogen'
>fuel probably needs some additional R&D.
No, I wasn't at all thinking "atomic hydrogen".

As I'd previously stipulated that in either case, a terribly insulative
and structurally foormulated containment is priority No.1. In which
case the structural composite worth of what's basically of basalt and
binders contributing towards R-1024/m seems like just the best
insulation ticket to ride. In fact, purely insulative basalt balloons
are likely going to exceed R-2048/m (that's suggesting R-2/mm).

Please do share by telling us what your CNT or even carbon ballon
R-factor/mm is worth.

>JB-WELD can only take 500 deg. F. It should not be considered for a
>spaceplane, though it might be terrific for many other things where
>temperature is not a factor.
Actually it's 600 deg. F, but there you go again, assuming upon the all
or nothing worse possible application. Gee whiz 'tomcat', I didn't
realize that the structural insulation between the inner and outer skin
was going to be so piss poor, plus all of the interior structural
features are having to operate continuously at 500+deg. F. Tell me Sir
all-knowing wizard 'tomcat'; how is your crew and passengers going to
survive that sort of continuous 500+deg.F environment and, why does the
hull insulation of the outer skin plus whatever ceramic tiles of your
spaceplane have such an absolutely pathetic near zero R-Factor?

I suppose if every stinking square inch of whatever's within or outside
of your spaceplane has to withstand the very same continuous 20,000
deg. F. hyper-speed torment with zero degrade, as I suppose that even
includes those massive cryogenic fuel storage tanks that are taking up
better than 95% of the spaceplane volume, then perhaps what's the
point?

Once again, might I ask; what the sam freaking hell is the actual
insurmountable problem here?

You know! not every product under the sun is suited to every possible
application, and though I'd once thought you already knew that but,
apparently not. Sorry I'd bothered to mention upon the sorts of
anything that was viably doable, commercially cheap, well proven but
didn't meet and/or exceed your 20,000 deg. F. (all or nothing) flaming
exit/reentry requirements. Perhaps you'd best plan upon making your
entire spaceplane which apparently involves a nearly zero R-factor out
of ceramics, including the need to clone off a few of those all-ceramic
hybrid astronauts while you're at it.

And here I'd thought Venus was just a little geothermally toasty but
otherwise entirely surmountable within the known realms of what we've
had to work with, which is nothing compared to your continuous extreme
fireball of spaceplane standards from worse than hell, of which there's
absolutely nothing remotely available that's even in think-tank mode of
getting R&D resolved. Thanks but no thanks, I'll take my chances upon
an exploding space shuttle any day of the week before giving your
all-or-nothing 2,000,000 kg worth of composite spaceplane + requiring 4
of those 569,879 kg SME/SRBs(2,279,516 kg) worth of global pollution
generating sticks a try.

I suppose that you do not care to honestly appreciate that the actual
launch phase is just a portion of the total energy consuming and
subsequent birth to grave global pollution impact factor. That's why
you're focused upon mineral and fossil fuel derived energy
alternatives, that which tens of thousands of innocent folks per year
are specifically dead and or soon becoming dead as a result of such
mass energy consumptions that contribute wealth and power to the upper
most 0.1% of humanity, leaving the lower 99.9% to fend for ourselves.

If we can't accomplish future space travel in a very nuclear/LRn or
He3/fusion way, and if we can't even manage to establish the
LSE-CM/ISS, then chances are that within the century is where the few
that manage to survive WW-III, WW-IV and WW-V are going to have to make
due with MOS incest cloning along with the construction of vast walls
in order to defend themselves from those of us non Skull and Bones
folks on the outside that for decades have had nothing to lose.

BTW; specifically due to the anti-Muslim and thus pro-Jewish actions of
our resident warlord(GW Bush), no one that's on our pro-side of space
exploration and still alive has any spare 100+ billions laying around
as to R&D your composite do-everything spaceplane. We can't even keep
what we've got up to snuff. All that we've managed to accomplish thus
far is getting half the population of Earth to hate our stinking LLPOF
guts. Thus any spaceplane is going to have to be R&D and put into usage
by those few nations having the mineral and fossil fuel reserves to
spare, as well as to export at the soon to be $100+/barrel along with
everthing else accordingly made expensive a hell (gee whiz 'tomcat',
that should go over really terrific with those nations and of their
populations having to make due with far less than the most basics
already). Therefore, why don't we enslave them before thay all die off
anyway?
~

Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; WAR is WAR, thus "in war there are
no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of having to deal
with the likes of others that haven't been playing by whatever rules,
such as GW Bush.
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Heavy Lift Design for Mining/Cargo Propulsion
    ... takes energy and equipment to achieve. ... produce thrust in a direction opposite the stream. ... a deuterium-Tritium fuel pellet with ... glass lasers is used to predict pellet size, delivery rate, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Hydrogen Cars, Trucks, and Buses Are BS Indeed
    ... it costs enermous energy to produce Hydrogen. ... LH2, or that of my h2o2 + synfuels that do not require the extensive ... SSME thrust can be throttled between 67 to 109% of rated thrust. ... Flow rates: At FPL the oxygen flow rate into the SSME is ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: 60 minutes screws up one small step -- yet again....
    ... simple and energy efficient Xenon flash strobe of 2 degrees focus ... related to answering so many questions pertaining to the lunar ... same worth of color spectrum as though being within a purely Xenon lamp ... folks walking essentially moonsuit butt naked upon our moon, ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: sci space policy targeted by disinformation experts?
    ... Energy is a problem with high speed flight. ... You eject the fuel into the stream at the stream velocity - ... By the time it reaches the thrust structure at the rear of the ... hours 30 minutes at the higher efficiency. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: How Rockets Differ From Jets
    ... I can't speak for whatever's your spaceplane obsession of devising upon ... a new and improved yet conventional SSME powered craft for somewhat ... mindset with utilizing basalt as a nearly do-everything composite is ... renewable energy from a solar-stirling/wind and PV tower footprint ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
Loading