Solar-pumped laser power transmission, a way to dramatically decrease launch costs?
in [Physics]
|
From: William Mook on 13 Mar 2010 13:02 On Mar 13, 12:56 pm, William Mook <mokmedi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 12, 12:50 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > William Mook <mokmedi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > :If we add in the details that Fred is bellyaching about here is what > > :we get > > : > > : 17.7 km/sec and 7% structural fraction for hypergolic system > > : 17.8 km/sec and 10% structural fraction for lox jet fuel system > > : > > > Still too high. Stop trying to jigger the numbers and use realistic > > ones. > > > <arithmetic elided> > > > If you have perfect rockets and jigger the numbers. > > What are you bellyaching about now Freddie? The fact that the > results remain unchanged when you put in the details you were > bellyaching about before?! Ha! What correction did you want to put > in now? > > > Jesus, how did we EVER get to the Moon without six stage rockets? > > That's not the point Freddie. The point is that with a higher exhaust > speed you use less propellant which reduces the size and complexity of > the spacecraft with the higher exhaust speed. So, it makes sense to > spend a little money to increase your exhaust speed and thereby reduce > the size and complexity of the vehicles involved. > > An important detail is that we can get exhaust speeds in the 20 km/sec > to 50 km/sec range - which gives us tremendous capabilities going > forward, if we're smart enough to develop this capability. > > To your comment, we got to the moon and came back with six stages > Freddie. The moon and back Freddie used six stages. > > Count 'em > > 1. SI - lift off > 2. SII - ascent > 3. S-IVB - orbit/TLI > 4. Service Module - enter lunar orbit/exit lunar orbit > 5. LEM-descent - descent to moon > 6. LEM-ascent - ascent from moon > > I am proposing in my calculation for simplicity a direct ascent > trajectory and six stages still. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_ascent > > You can see that the lunar module is replaced by a two stage deal, > where one is used to descend, the other used to ascend. With four > stages to get to the moon. > > 1. Lift off > 2. Ascent > 3. Orbit > 4. Lunar Injection > 5. Landing > 6. Return > > Lunex used the same approach for the same reasons... > > ALL used six stages dude. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunex_Project > > > It > > MUST be impossible. Mookie says so. > > Never said anything of the sort. I would suggest you actually learn > to count before making idiotic statements like this you lunatic. > > > > > : > > :Continuing as before, > > : > > :A nuclear pulse vehicle with 20 km/sec exhaust speed and a 20% > > :structural fraction to account for the nature of the propulsion > > :system, carrying 60 tonnes through a delta vee of 18 km/sec has a > > :propellant fraction of; > > : > > : 1 - 1/exp(18/20) = 0.59343 > > : > > :and a payload fraction of > > : > > : 1 - 0.59343 - 0.20 = 0.20657 > > : > > :and a stage multiplier of > > : > > : 1 / 0.20657 = 4.841 > > : > > :and a take off weight (one stage!) of > > : > > : 60 * 4.841 = 290.5 tonnes > > : > > :and a structural weight of > > : > > : 290.5 * 0.20 = 58.1 tonnes > > : > > :So each vehicle costs $581 million and the total program costs $3.5 > > :billion (not counting development costs for the engine). > > : > > > Except you're now talking totally different systems and your WAG for > > vehicle cost is out the window (among other things). > > > : > > :With an engine development cost of $3.5 billion - we have a savings of > > :over $20 billion over any of the conventional programs above. > > : > > > Your claims for development costs are, as always, laughable. > > > How much did it cost to develop the Saturn V, Mookie? > > Saturn V Development Cost $: 7,439.60 million > > According to government records. > > > Your present > > claim is that developing a large nuclear pulse jet will be orders of > > magnitude less expensive. > > Section 6 of "Nuclear Pulse Space Vehicle Study, Vol. 1 -- > Summary" (1964) projected a development cost of about $2 Billion for > the 10-meter version of the spacecraft. > > http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1965058729.pdf > > I suspect that using modern micro-fission I researched at OSU that > cost could go down, but we'd elect to increase performance slightly, > and today we'd build a superior version of this interplanetary cruiser > - and spend only $3.5 billion to get all the detailed work done. > > > And that doesn't strike you as a > > preposterous position? > > What's preposterous exactly? > > > -- > > "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is > > only stupid." > > -- Heinrich Heine They changed the URL for the nuclear pulse study - here's a current one http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720015242_1972015242..pdf
From: William Mook on 13 Mar 2010 13:04 On Mar 13, 1:02 pm, William Mook <mokmedi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 13, 12:56 pm, William Mook <mokmedi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 12, 12:50 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > William Mook <mokmedi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > :If we add in the details that Fred is bellyaching about here is what > > > :we get > > > : > > > : 17.7 km/sec and 7% structural fraction for hypergolic system > > > : 17.8 km/sec and 10% structural fraction for lox jet fuel system > > > : > > > > Still too high. Stop trying to jigger the numbers and use realistic > > > ones. > > > > <arithmetic elided> > > > > If you have perfect rockets and jigger the numbers. > > > What are you bellyaching about now Freddie? The fact that the > > results remain unchanged when you put in the details you were > > bellyaching about before?! Ha! What correction did you want to put > > in now? > > > > Jesus, how did we EVER get to the Moon without six stage rockets? > > > That's not the point Freddie. The point is that with a higher exhaust > > speed you use less propellant which reduces the size and complexity of > > the spacecraft with the higher exhaust speed. So, it makes sense to > > spend a little money to increase your exhaust speed and thereby reduce > > the size and complexity of the vehicles involved. > > > An important detail is that we can get exhaust speeds in the 20 km/sec > > to 50 km/sec range - which gives us tremendous capabilities going > > forward, if we're smart enough to develop this capability. > > > To your comment, we got to the moon and came back with six stages > > Freddie. The moon and back Freddie used six stages. > > > Count 'em > > > 1. SI - lift off > > 2. SII - ascent > > 3. S-IVB - orbit/TLI > > 4. Service Module - enter lunar orbit/exit lunar orbit > > 5. LEM-descent - descent to moon > > 6. LEM-ascent - ascent from moon > > > I am proposing in my calculation for simplicity a direct ascent > > trajectory and six stages still. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_ascent > > > You can see that the lunar module is replaced by a two stage deal, > > where one is used to descend, the other used to ascend. With four > > stages to get to the moon. > > > 1. Lift off > > 2. Ascent > > 3. Orbit > > 4. Lunar Injection > > 5. Landing > > 6. Return > > > Lunex used the same approach for the same reasons... > > > ALL used six stages dude. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunex_Project > > > > It > > > MUST be impossible. Mookie says so. > > > Never said anything of the sort. I would suggest you actually learn > > to count before making idiotic statements like this you lunatic. > > > > : > > > :Continuing as before, > > > : > > > :A nuclear pulse vehicle with 20 km/sec exhaust speed and a 20% > > > :structural fraction to account for the nature of the propulsion > > > :system, carrying 60 tonnes through a delta vee of 18 km/sec has a > > > :propellant fraction of; > > > : > > > : 1 - 1/exp(18/20) = 0.59343 > > > : > > > :and a payload fraction of > > > : > > > : 1 - 0.59343 - 0.20 = 0.20657 > > > : > > > :and a stage multiplier of > > > : > > > : 1 / 0.20657 = 4.841 > > > : > > > :and a take off weight (one stage!) of > > > : > > > : 60 * 4.841 = 290.5 tonnes > > > : > > > :and a structural weight of > > > : > > > : 290.5 * 0.20 = 58.1 tonnes > > > : > > > :So each vehicle costs $581 million and the total program costs $3.5 > > > :billion (not counting development costs for the engine). > > > : > > > > Except you're now talking totally different systems and your WAG for > > > vehicle cost is out the window (among other things). > > > > : > > > :With an engine development cost of $3.5 billion - we have a savings of > > > :over $20 billion over any of the conventional programs above. > > > : > > > > Your claims for development costs are, as always, laughable. > > > > How much did it cost to develop the Saturn V, Mookie? > > > Saturn V Development Cost $: 7,439.60 million > > > According to government records. > > > > Your present > > > claim is that developing a large nuclear pulse jet will be orders of > > > magnitude less expensive. > > > Section 6 of "Nuclear Pulse Space Vehicle Study, Vol. 1 -- > > Summary" (1964) projected a development cost of about $2 Billion for > > the 10-meter version of the spacecraft. > > >http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1965058729.pdf > > > I suspect that using modern micro-fission I researched at OSU that > > cost could go down, but we'd elect to increase performance slightly, > > and today we'd build a superior version of this interplanetary cruiser > > - and spend only $3.5 billion to get all the detailed work done. > > > > And that doesn't strike you as a > > > preposterous position? > > > What's preposterous exactly? > > > > -- > > > "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is > > > only stupid." > > > -- Heinrich Heine > > They changed the URL for the nuclear pulse study - here's a current > one > > http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720015242_1972... hmm.. the NASA technical report from 1964 that had the budget figures is no longer supported on the server. I have a copy and can provide it to anyone who writes me.
From: William Mook on 13 Mar 2010 15:00 On Mar 13, 1:04 pm, William Mook <mokmedi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 13, 1:02 pm, William Mook <mokmedi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 13, 12:56 pm, William Mook <mokmedi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 12, 12:50 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > William Mook <mokmedi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > :If we add in the details that Fred is bellyaching about here is what > > > > :we get > > > > : > > > > : 17.7 km/sec and 7% structural fraction for hypergolic system > > > > : 17.8 km/sec and 10% structural fraction for lox jet fuel system > > > > : > > > > > Still too high. Stop trying to jigger the numbers and use realistic > > > > ones. > > > > > <arithmetic elided> > > > > > If you have perfect rockets and jigger the numbers. > > > > What are you bellyaching about now Freddie? The fact that the > > > results remain unchanged when you put in the details you were > > > bellyaching about before?! Ha! What correction did you want to put > > > in now? > > > > > Jesus, how did we EVER get to the Moon without six stage rockets? > > > > That's not the point Freddie. The point is that with a higher exhaust > > > speed you use less propellant which reduces the size and complexity of > > > the spacecraft with the higher exhaust speed. So, it makes sense to > > > spend a little money to increase your exhaust speed and thereby reduce > > > the size and complexity of the vehicles involved. > > > > An important detail is that we can get exhaust speeds in the 20 km/sec > > > to 50 km/sec range - which gives us tremendous capabilities going > > > forward, if we're smart enough to develop this capability. > > > > To your comment, we got to the moon and came back with six stages > > > Freddie. The moon and back Freddie used six stages. > > > > Count 'em > > > > 1. SI - lift off > > > 2. SII - ascent > > > 3. S-IVB - orbit/TLI > > > 4. Service Module - enter lunar orbit/exit lunar orbit > > > 5. LEM-descent - descent to moon > > > 6. LEM-ascent - ascent from moon > > > > I am proposing in my calculation for simplicity a direct ascent > > > trajectory and six stages still. > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_ascent > > > > You can see that the lunar module is replaced by a two stage deal, > > > where one is used to descend, the other used to ascend. With four > > > stages to get to the moon. > > > > 1. Lift off > > > 2. Ascent > > > 3. Orbit > > > 4. Lunar Injection > > > 5. Landing > > > 6. Return > > > > Lunex used the same approach for the same reasons... > > > > ALL used six stages dude. > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunex_Project > > > > > It > > > > MUST be impossible. Mookie says so. > > > > Never said anything of the sort. I would suggest you actually learn > > > to count before making idiotic statements like this you lunatic. > > > > > : > > > > :Continuing as before, > > > > : > > > > :A nuclear pulse vehicle with 20 km/sec exhaust speed and a 20% > > > > :structural fraction to account for the nature of the propulsion > > > > :system, carrying 60 tonnes through a delta vee of 18 km/sec has a > > > > :propellant fraction of; > > > > : > > > > : 1 - 1/exp(18/20) = 0.59343 > > > > : > > > > :and a payload fraction of > > > > : > > > > : 1 - 0.59343 - 0.20 = 0.20657 > > > > : > > > > :and a stage multiplier of > > > > : > > > > : 1 / 0.20657 = 4.841 > > > > : > > > > :and a take off weight (one stage!) of > > > > : > > > > : 60 * 4.841 = 290.5 tonnes > > > > : > > > > :and a structural weight of > > > > : > > > > : 290.5 * 0.20 = 58.1 tonnes > > > > : > > > > :So each vehicle costs $581 million and the total program costs $3.5 > > > > :billion (not counting development costs for the engine). > > > > : > > > > > Except you're now talking totally different systems and your WAG for > > > > vehicle cost is out the window (among other things). > > > > > : > > > > :With an engine development cost of $3.5 billion - we have a savings of > > > > :over $20 billion over any of the conventional programs above. > > > > : > > > > > Your claims for development costs are, as always, laughable. > > > > > How much did it cost to develop the Saturn V, Mookie? > > > > Saturn V Development Cost $: 7,439.60 million > > > > According to government records. > > > > > Your present > > > > claim is that developing a large nuclear pulse jet will be orders of > > > > magnitude less expensive. > > > > Section 6 of "Nuclear Pulse Space Vehicle Study, Vol. 1 -- > > > Summary" (1964) projected a development cost of about $2 Billion for > > > the 10-meter version of the spacecraft. > > > >http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1965058729.pdf > > > > I suspect that using modern micro-fission I researched at OSU that > > > cost could go down, but we'd elect to increase performance slightly, > > > and today we'd build a superior version of this interplanetary cruiser > > > - and spend only $3.5 billion to get all the detailed work done. > > > > > And that doesn't strike you as a > > > > preposterous position? > > > > What's preposterous exactly? > > > > > -- > > > > "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is > > > > only stupid." > > > > -- Heinrich Heine > > > They changed the URL for the nuclear pulse study - here's a current > > one > > >http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720015242_1972... > > hmm.. the NASA technical report from 1964 that had the budget figures > is no longer supported on the server. I have a copy and can provide > it to anyone who writes me. Here's a 2003 AIAA study done - I guess NASA doesn't want to defend or explain its $2 billion nuclear pulse estimate any more. It does break a lot of rice bowls in the aerospace business as its currently constituted. http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/7684/1/03-1848.pdf AN APPROACH TO USING PRIVATE CAPITAL: Since Boeing and Lockheed both lose money on their space faring assets, and since both companies make money doing other things. One approach would be to buy both companies, break them into separate operating units, and sell off each of those more profitable units for more money than they cost in the beginning. This leaves you with a passel of cash and the space faring assets. Enough cash to build a laser propelled launcher - taking nuclear off the table without massive changes to the way we approach things here on Earth. LASER PROPULSION Laser gives us up to 50 km/sec exhaust speeds. 20 km/sec at the low end. At 20 km/sec exhaust speed we have for a 60 tonne payload to the moon and back 60 * 4.841 = 290.5 tonnes take off weight and a structural weight of 290.5 * 0.20 = 58.1 tonnes The vehicle costs about $600 million each. A fleet of 5 $3.0 billion. Launch infrastructure $1.2 billion. Of course we need the laser system to energize the thing. Producing 6 mega-newtons of thrust with a jet ejected at 20 km/sec exhaust speed requires a mass flow rate of; F = mdot * Ve ---> F / Ve = mdot = 6,000,000 N / 20,000 m/sec = 300 kg/sec Which requires a power of W = 1/2 * mdot * Ve^2 = 0.5 * 300 * 400e+6 = 6e+10 Watts Sixty giga-watts of beam energy. With an Earth bound free-electron laser with optics and so forth we have an overall efficiency of 20% or more from the plug to the jet. EARTH BASED STARTER LASER - 60 GW BEAM ENERGY That means we need to generate 300 gigawatts of electrical energy. Conventional generation would cost $150 billion - so, that's out. Unconventional generation involves using jets of plasma in a channel to produce electrical energy. Using hydrogen and oxygen in a 50% efficient cycle requires 600 gigawatts of chemical energy. Do this for 600 seconds - 10 minutes - to execute a launch. Another 10 minutes near the moon to land. Another 10 minutes to return. Atmospheric re-entry and landing. As mentioned, one way to do this efficiently is to use a chemical rocket engine to produce a stream of plasma which is conducted through an magneto-hydro-dynamic (MHD) generator. This sort of thing was done in the 1960s with a grounded F1 engine - so the concept works. Here's a 1997 final report on the subject - can't seem to find anything before 1972 = ah well. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.../19970020328_1997029052.pdf The RS-68 engine is an interesting choice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-68 and its derivative the RS-83 is a better choice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-83 these would make dandy MHD generator cores - and you'd have them if you bought P&W and other aerospace companies, merged the profitable divisions and sold them, and took all the money losing space faring divisions and used the cash to build a profitable space exploration core. Each of these engines produce 8 giga-watts when outfitted with a MHD channel. So, 40 of these engines would be needed to fire the laser system capable of sending 60 tonnes to the moon and back. At $60 million each (including MHD reconfiguration) 40 of these grounded engines would cost $2.4 billion and be used 10,000 times (they're far heavier than flight weight). Another $1.2 billion would be used to build the massive Free Electron Laser, the source of the IR laser energy. And another $1.4 billion would be needed to build the optical controls needed to direct the laser beam. $5.0 billion for the ground based infrastructure in addition to the $4.2 billion - a total program cost of $9.2 billion. Buying Boeing and other major aerospace firms, breaking them up and selling more profitable divisions for more than their acquisition cost generates about $20 billion overall - after transaction costs are subtracted. So we have enough to do something like this. And have about three years of operating cost covered before we have to do something with the fleet of five to make a profit. Here are some of the things we can consider; ACQUISITION, SPLIT, DIVEST - $20 billion earned - pays for development of flight hardware and launch system described above - completed in three years, and provides 3 years operations. LUNAR TOURISM - makes immediate use of the flight hardware 60 tonnes to the moon and back 3x per week - 150x per year. 100 people per flight x $120,000 per person - $12,000,000 per flight - cost per flight $2,000,000 - $15 billion per year from 15,000 people per year. Provides for continuing operations and development of lunar tourism infrastructure. There are 10,000,000 millionaires in the world with $48 trillion in liquid assets. 15,000 is 0.15% of this total each year. So, this is a viable plan, once you have the asset in place. GLOBAL WIRELESS HOTSPOT - requires development of satellite network - 3 years development cycle - uses launchers described - Lunar ships capable of putting 60 tonnes on the moon and bringing them back, may put 110 tonnes to LEO and GEO one way - at 20 tonnes per satellite, this is five very heavy satellites. These satellites used phased array uplink/downlink with open optical laser satellite to satellite. With a fleet of five ships - 2 satellites per week launched - 288 satellites in less than two years at $100 million cost per satellite - $28.8 billion for network. Provides global wireless broadband earning $85.5 billion per year in basic services, once running - another $1,000 billion per year in advanced services (insurance, mediation, micro-banking, security, tele-robotics, tele-presence) develop on top of this, with 20% coming back to service sponsor. Income rises from $15 billion per year (which is break even given the size of the money losing infrastructure) to $285 billion per year - which allows expansion. ADVANCED POWER SATELLITE - required development of power satellite infrastructure + 5 year deployment 88 tonnes to LEO - 528 m diameter satellite - a layered MEMS structure only a few millimeters thick - massing only 430 grams per square meter. The system unfurls on orbit uses then sunlight to navigate to Jupiter. At Jupiter uses gravity boost to slow satellite to zero velocity around the Sun. The satellite falls into the Sun, and uses light pressure to hover 3 million km above the solar surface. There it generates 70 GW laser beam and beams that 70 GW laser beam to any point its needed across the solar system. Working in conjunction with reforming satellites in GEO it beams energy to anywhere its needed on Earth, and also supports launch center operations - replacing the RS-68 cores - which now operate as backup and are reaching the end of their useful life. The program costs $9 billion and generates 70,000 MWh per hour and in a year produces $41 billion in revenue costing only $1 billion in operating cost. Five satellites per year are deployed, and a total of 30 satellites provide for all of humanity's power needs earning $1,200 billion per year in energy sales.
From: William Mook on 13 Mar 2010 16:22 On Mar 13, 3:20 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > William Mook <mokmedi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > :On Mar 13, 12:56 pm, William Mook <mokmedi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > :> > :> Section 6 of "Nuclear Pulse Space Vehicle Study, Vol. 1 -- > :> Summary" (1964) projected a development cost of about $2 Billion for > :> the 10-meter version of the spacecraft. > :> > :>http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1965058729.pdf > :> > : > :They changed the URL for the nuclear pulse study - here's a current > :one > : > :http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720015242_1972... > : > > Yeah, they changed it so that it didn't have all those dots in the > middle of it. > > <snicker> > > -- > "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar > territory." > --G. Behn Right, section 6 still says $2 billion to develop the nuclear pulse rocket portion - which is the point Freddie. Which proves you wrong yet again little man.
From: William Mook on 6 Apr 2010 17:00
With four people facing outward in acceleration couches, that double as escape/re-entry vehicles there are four layers - totaling 12 people. Another three people are flight crew. Making five layers - extended over the 50 foot payload section. The final stage re-enters base first and lands like a DC-X using the MEMS rocket array. http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/~jfs/gif/dcx-launch-930818.gif For un-piloted operation this passenger section is replaced with a nose section that releases the payload and then flies back. Payloads cost $4 million for vehicle rental and $16 million for payload processing. |