Re: The Cold Equations

Brad Guth wrote:
> tomcat,
> Of that 92% of rocket fuel to orbit is NOT even of what it takes for
> going to the moon and back, as that's more like 96~98+% of the total
> package, leaving 2~4% for everything else, and it seems as though we
> still have nothing as of today that'll come close to that requirement
> unless your 20,000 deg. F. capable spaceplane that's 100% composite
> becomes real.


It is not as difficult as ice cold mathematics make it seem. It is
amazing how an SSME with 500,000 pounds of thrust can melt those
equations down to size. As for that 13:1 wet:dry mass ration, well, I
think I can do better than that. The Mass Ration comes out of the
Tsiolkovsky equations, anyway. They are designed for vertical/tubular
rockets, not spaceplanes that get a lift from gravity induced air
pressure.


> http://www.physorg.com/news6341.html
> "It's not part of the %92 of GLOW that is fuel burned during ascent to
> orbit. It can't even be residual fuel carried by making the take-off
> tanks slightly oversized, since these big tanks would be impossible to
> keep cold during orbital flight and reentry."


Not so. LH2 flowing around the hull will prevent any heat penetration
into the tanks. Twenty thousand degrees takes getting used to, but it
can be handled with good engineering. As you yourself pointed out, the
Shuttle's silica tiles protect the aluminum skin from anything in
excess of about 600 deg. F. The aluminum would structurally weaken at
750 deg. F. NASA has the problem solved, save a little engineering on
the 'tile adherence system'. Throw in some tile clamps, beef up the
skin to 2500 deg. F. composite, and the 'problem' is solved.


> "The second and third stages of the Saturn V actually achieved a dry
> mass fraction of about 10%. But these are not complete spacecraft, only
> expendable stages without payload or recovery gear."
>
> Face it "tomcat" and to all others that still believe in the tooth
> fairy, we never went to the moon (at least not in person), as your very
> own math and recent links to other stuff proves there simply wasn't a
> sufficient fuel capacity for delivering nearly 50 tonnes to our moon
> and of safely getting those folks back, much less alive and without so
> much as one new white hair.
>
> For Christ almighty on another stick sake, we didn't even have a viable
> fly-by-rocket lander way back then, and guess what else; we still
> haven't squat to work with.
>
> Is being continually dumbfounded and is per chance "snookered" your
> middle name?
>
> Drastically cutting the inert/dry mass of the SMEs/SRBs is a good
> start, and of two staging them SMEs is step No.2. Step three is the
> LRn-->Rn-->ION thrusting that doesn't exist because of all the
> dumbfounded and thus backward mindset individuals like yourself.

"Dumfounded and thus backward" tomcat has his spaceplane design nearly
completed.

It will consist of 20 titanium/composite modules, welded together on
location with it's 10 foot thick skin added afterward, use 2 SRB's as
RATO units, generate 12 million pounds of thrust at takeoff, and weigh
9 million pounds wet and loaded, including the 1/4 million pounds of
cargo in it's hold. Completely dry, with the tanks vacuumed and
without cargo, it will . . . float. It will have to be tethered down!
It will be fully SSTP (Single Stage To the Planets) capable.


tomcat

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Cold Equations
    ... That 92% of fuel to orbit is NOT of what it takes for going to the moon ... Face it tomcat, we never went to the moon, as ... Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; WAR is WAR, ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: How Rockets Differ From Jets
    ... >>you really need the cryogenic fuel for cooling purposes. ... >>You have to rid the hull of heat build up. ... > stock in slush LH2/LO2? ... > He3 from the moon should certainly make this all worth while. ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: National Space Intelligence Center proposed
    ... Brad Guth wrote: ... Our gamma and otherwise hard-X-ray moon has NOT been walked upon, ... it's simply too late for salvaging the lost soul of "tomcat" and of all ... Screens light up all around me. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: On the Subject of Ice
    ... BTW Sir fool on the hill, tomcat; DID WE LAND ON THE MOON? ... evidence exclusions plus otherwise the sorts of infomercial crapolla ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: Water Fuel Rocket Science
    ... That should put 100 plus feet of Moon soil over the ... hydrogen/oxygen engines were 'exotic', ... I have estimated that 14 minutes of fuel ... giving the vehicle a .5 thrust to weight at takeoff. ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
Loading