Skip to main content

In the previous post, we discussed the infrastructure necessary for a busy spaceport, which is the foundation for any sustainable space program.

Today, we discuss the first, and most important, space vehicle needed to build upon that solid foundation, and achieve that sustainability (Click here for the list of topics for this DKos diary series).

Spaceflight operations should be a relatively simple and routine affair in the 21st century, just like what we saw in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, where the Pan Am shuttle is rendezvousing with the space station.

Therefore, the spacecraft should have the following characteristics:

  • Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) capability
  • Totally reusable, i.e., non-expendable
  • Self-Ferrying capability
  • Remotely Piloted (while in cargo mode)
  • Minimum orbital altitude of 185 km (115 mi)
  • Orbital inclination of 33 degrees (Spaceport America Latitude)
  • Cylindrical payload bay dimensions of 4.57 m (15 ft) diameter by 12.19 m (40 ft) length
  • Maximum payload mass of 14,742 kg (32,500 lbs)
  • Ability to carry into Low Earth Orbit (LEO) either cargo or a Passenger Module capable of carrying 20 passengers plus the pilot
  • Each passenger seat must come with its own pressure suit, a Cargo Transfer Bag (CTB), and a 4 day supply of O2/Lithium Hydroxide
  • Including the weight of the passenger, each seat must weigh no more than 195 kg (430 lbs)
  • Ability of the Passenger Module to withstand a crash landing
  • Ability of the Passenger Module to parachute to a (relatively) soft landing if ever thrown clear from a disintegrating shuttle
  • Flight endurance of 48 hours (nominal) and up to 96 hours during emergencies
  • A turn-around time of one week between flights
  • Total spacecraft lifetime of 200 flights
While the three spacecraft that were awarded money from NASA under the Commercial Orbit Transportation Services (COTS) contract can achieve some of the items on the list, all three cannot be launched from Spaceport America, since they all use expendable rockets to achieve orbital velocity.

But even if they could be launched from the Spaceport, the Space X Dragon has a payload capacity of only 6,000 kg (13,228 lbs) or a crew of 7. The same is true for Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser, as well as Boeing's CST-100. In addition, the turnaround time is much greater than one week for each of the three spacecraft.

We tried very hard to fit our plan around the launch capabilities of the NASA three, but were unable to do so in an operationally efficient and cost-effective way. We were very disappointed. We then faced either a) giving up, or b) designing and building our own shuttle with the aforementioned capabilities. We dismissed option a) without a second thought, and understood that option b) was unrealistic, as it would add an enormous cost to an already expensive adventure.

Therefore, we came to the depressing conclusion that there are currently no spacecraft flying or still in the design phase that can even come close to achieving everything on the list above.

Well, OK. Except for one.

Continued below the hyperspace jump...

While all this fierce competition for the NASA dollar was going on in the US, on the other side of the Atlantic something very interesting was quietly developing.

The Spacecraft
A company called Reaction Engines, located at the Culham Science Centre in Abingdon, Oxfordshire, Great Britain, was in the process of building a Horizontal Takeoff/Horizontal Landing (HTHL) space plane called the Skylon. The Dragon, in contrast, is a Two Stage To Orbit (TSTO), Vertical Takeoff/Vertical Landing (VTVL) spacecraft, using expendable launch vehicles to get to orbit.

The Skylon is a true SSTO, HTHL, fully reusable spacecraft, that takes off and lands and operates like an ordinary jet airliner.

The spacecraft is still in the design phase, but the research looks very promising.

The Engine
They have designed a hybrid engine called SABRE (Synergetic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine) that burns Liquid Hydrogen (LH2) fuel, and uses atmospheric oxygen as the oxidizer during the first part of the ascent into space. Liquid Oxygen (LO2) is used in the second part of its flight. Liquid Helium (LHe) is used as a heat sink to cool incoming air during the first phase of the flight, and to push the propellant out of their tanks during the second phase.

The SABRE recently completed a major milestone, where they successfully tested a prototype of the heat exchanger needed to cool the atmospheric oxygen to minus 150 degrees C in an astonishing 1/100th of a second!

Other Stuff
A problem did arise during the early days of development that was solved with a little ingenuity, IMHO. The brakes needed to slow the spacecraft to a halt should a takeoff abort be necessary were not adequate, at least not without raising the empty weight to an intolerable amount with beefed-up brakes. So they designed a brake cooling system using 3,000 kg (6,614 lbs) of water that would be applied during an emergency. Once the Skylon becomes airborne, the water is dumped overboard to save weight. Genius! We would like to supplement this brilliant idea by developing a way to reclaim the dumped water for recycling.

Flight Testing and Delivery
These two topics are under one roof because they both use the same technique for each scenario.

All the spacecraft that come out of the factory will have to be flight tested. To accomplish this, the spacecraft would be filled with LH2 fuel and flown in self-ferrying mode using atmospheric O2 as the oxidizer. Eventually, flight tests will progress to orbital operations.

Delivery to the Spaceport would be accomplished using orbital flight. The Skylon would be filled with propellant at the factory, then fly into LEO for a final flight test. The Skylon then reenters and lands at (is delivered to) the Spaceport.

Remote Operations
The spacecraft is remotely operated while flying cargo. The remote pilot flies the Skylon from Mission Control at the Spaceport, with the Flight Director and the other flight controllers surrounding the pilot.

The pilot operates a standard remote flight deck that resembles a flight simulator. The pilot would have a large screen to view, with an accompanying camera aboard the Skylon. Aircraft and spacecraft instruments would surround the remote pilot, again, as if in a flight simulator. The pilot would fly using a standard stick-and-rudder system, with throttles on the left-side console.

All Skylons will therefore have an "Access Code," similar to what we saw in the movie "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn." Each Access Code would be valid for the duration of the mission only (this part of the plan is not without some inherent danger of being hacked, so, obviously, due vigilance is called for).

Passenger Module
The Skylon people have developed their own Passenger Module (PM). It can hold 24 seats, plus 700kg (1,543 lbs) of CTBs.

I do not have evidence for this, but IMHO, I do not believe that passengers will be willing to fly in space and back aboard a ship without a pilot onboard. Therefore, when in passenger mode, we would modify things slightly by making the remote pilot the copilot while the pilot flies the spacecraft remotely from inside the spacecraft.

A duplicate of the system in Mission Control will be flown aboard the spacecraft, which we hope weighs at the maximum the equivalent of three (3) passengers seats, or about 585 kg (1,290 lbs). There is no need for a physical control connection to the Skylon PM itself, since it already receiving a clear signal (this is analogous to having a wireless system next to your computer verses down the hall). Including the pilot, this now reduces the number of passenger seats to 20 for the same amount of weight.

A very nice safety feature thus arises, whereas any spacecraft can be flown from the ground by the copilot should the pilot onboard ever become incapacitated, or should the onboard systems ever fail, or should _______ (insert horrible scenario here).

Other safety features include the PM using the empty fuel tanks as "crumple zones" to survive a crash landing, the ability of the PM to survive an explosion during liftoff, the ability of the PM to parachute to a safe landing if ever thrown clear of an exploding spacecraft, etc. Overall, the passengers and crew are as safe as can be.

The PM is loaded into the Skylon spacecraft as any other payload; the Payload Integration Facility lowers the PM into the payload bay, and the payload bays doors close. Passengers enter the spacecraft through the hatch shown in the lower right of the image above. They then enter the Passenger Module inside the payload bay, while the payload bay doors remain closed.

Cargo Capacity
Cargo capacity for a given orbital altitude from a latitude of 33 degrees into a 33 degree inclination LEO can be modeled by the linear function:

m(a) = -8.2a + 16,336

where a = altitude (in km) and m = payload mass (in kg)

To determine the orbital altitude for a given payload mass, solve the equation for altitude.

a(m) = (m - 16,336) / (-8.2)

Therefore, a fully-loaded Skylon space craft (payload mass of 14,742 kg or 32,500 lbs) can reach an orbital altitude of 194 km (121 mi). The PM (mass of 13,180 kg or 29,057 lbs) can reach an orbital altitude of 385 km (239 mi).

A Typical Flight
A typical flight begins in the Payload Integration Facility, where an overhead crane lowers the payload into the Skylon payload bay and is secured for flight. The payload bay doors then close, and an airport ground vehicle backs up and hooks up to the nose of the spacecraft.

The spacecraft is then towed to the propellant apron, where LH2, LO2, and LHe is pumped in through the landing gear area of the spacecraft. Total propellant weight is 277,000 kg (610,681 lbs).

Once the fuel has been loaded, the Skylon spacecraft is then towed to the runway for immediate takeoff, just like any other ordinary airliner. No expensive launch towers needed! Gross takeoff weight is 345,000 kg (760,595 lbs). For comparison, gross takeoff weight for a 747-8 is 448,000 kg (987,000 lbs). Once the Skylon breaks ground, the coolant water is dumped overboard, and the spacecraft continues to climb out, gaining altitude and speed.

Then, at 5.14 Mach and 28.5 km (17.7 mi) altitude, the fun begins. What was once the feverish secret fantasy of all aerospace engineers is now fully realized: the spacecraft turns off its air-breathing component and switches to the onboard LO2 to blast its way into LEO!

The spacecraft engines continues to burn until Main Engine Cut Off (MECO) at an altitude of 80 km (50 mi). The Skylon then coasts up to the desired orbital altitude. A kick motor (an RL-10 rocket) in the tail of the spacecraft provides the delta v needed to circularize its orbit.

The spacecraft flight profile then mirrors the US Space Shuttle from this point on.

Once in LEO, the payload bay doors open, revealing the cargo. Once the cargo is unload, other cargo is loaded for the return trip to the Spaceport. Alternately, if the PM is flown, then the Skylon can dock directly with the (future) space station. There, 20 passengers and 700kg of CTBs are offloaded, then another 20 passengers and another 700 kg of CTBs are on-loaded. The Skylon then undocks, and moves away to a safe distance. The payload bay doors close, and the tail kick motor fires again to lower its perigee into the atmosphere for reentry.

During reentry, the spacecraft performs S-Turns and other power management maneuvers. Minimum landing weight is around 53,000 kg (116,845 lbs), and a maximum landing weight of 67,742 kg (149,346 lbs). Landing speed is 130 knots (151 mph) with crosswinds of up to 30 knots (35 mph).

If the Skylon needs to make an emergency landing, any airport with a reinforced concrete runway will do. Once the spacecraft lands, a standard ground vehicle will hook up, and tow it off the active runway. A C-17 will be dispatched, with a cargo hold full of LH2. The Skylon is refueled, and self-ferrys back to the Spaceport. If the Skylon needs more than one hop to get home, the C-17 meets the spacecraft at whatever airport the spacecraft can reach. The steps are repeated as necessary.

After it rolls to a stop at the Spaceport, the Skylon is then towed back to the Payload Integration Facility. Skylon publishes a turnaround time of two (2) days, but we will play it safe and assume a seven (7) day turnaround (still very impressive by US Space Shuttle standards). The spacecraft is then refurbished, reloaded, refueled, and returned to space.

The whole thing will be run just like any ordinary airline!

Flight Schedule
A stable, consistent flight schedule can now be created. We envision two (2) flights per day, five (5) days per week (Monday through Friday), or ten (10) flights per week. Mission duration, ie, the time between takeoff and landing will be 48 hours. The 2 flights a day can have any amount of time between launches; however, if launches occur every 12 hours, then landing and takeoff ops will be occurring at the same time. So the time interval between the two daily launches needs to be less than 12 hours per day.

Assuming 50 flight-weeks per year, that comes to 500 flights every year, for the next ten years. Two (2) of the weekly flights will be passenger flights, while the other eight (8) will be cargo flights. We will therefore be able to lift a total of 117,935 kg (260,000 lbs) and 40 passengers into LEO every week! Granted, all that cargo seems to be 8 separate 4.57 m by 12.19 m (15 ft by 40 ft) pieces, but if we design things right (which, of course, we will), those pieces should fit together like the proverbial well-made jigsaw puzzle (but that's for a future diary!).

We are assuming, until otherwise confirmed, a unit cost of around $750M USD per spacecraft, or a little over twice the cost of a 747-8 per unit. A fleet of 12 shuttles was also assumed, where 10 fly at any given time while 2 are down for preventative maintenance. The fleet is then rotated so that each spacecraft gets their routine, scheduled maintenance. Total cost for the shuttle fleet: around $9B USD.

Using the estimated cost of $2B USD for Spaceport America upgrades, the total so far for our space program is around $11B USD.



Skylon User's Manual: (PDF)


Cross posted at NMSTARG

Note: The next article in this series involves the LEO infrastructure, and some of the details still need to be worked out. Posting may be delayed as a result. Stay tuned!

FULL DISCLOSURE: I work for the New Mexico Space Technology Applications Research Group (NMSTARG), a commercial space flight venture, which in its current form exists as an unfinished technical paper. NMSTARG is not affiliated with any of the businesses that were discussed in these posting. These diaries exists as a way for the DKos community to get a first look at our research, and to ask said community for any technical and non-technical (just as important!) feedback. The paper provides information on how to make a profit in space, detailing the infrastructure that will be needed and all of the associated costs involved. As such, we hope that it eventually attracts the attention of investors, where the paper then becomes the technical portion of a space-related business plan.

Originally posted to The NM STAR Group on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 07:04 AM PDT.

Also republished by Astro Kos and SciTech.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (12+ / 0-)

    Reuse and commonality are the keys to a robust and profitable space program.

    by The NM STAR Group on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 07:04:54 AM PDT

  •  Thanks pat208 for the repost... (5+ / 0-)

    ... to Astro Kos. This community rocks!

    Reuse and commonality are the keys to a robust and profitable space program.

    by The NM STAR Group on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 07:32:01 AM PDT

  •  Pete Cortez: You guessed correctly... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kestrel9000, shortgirl, Pete Cortez

    ...that the Spaceport would handle the Next Gen HTHL vehicles. Very good!

    Reuse and commonality are the keys to a robust and profitable space program.

    by The NM STAR Group on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 07:34:22 AM PDT

    •  Sorry about the brouhaha in the last diary. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Those catcalls from the peanut gallery were uncalled for.

      One criticism.  The feature on an SSTO spaceplane is great, but you might want to take some time to discuss less vaporous projects in the pipeline.  HOTOL's been in conceptual hell for thirty years now, and Reaction Engines is still in the very early study stages for every key system.  Put simply, there aren't enough solid numbers out there to make more than back of the envelope guesses.

      That said, there are actual RLV prototypes and precursors that can make use of NMSA, and your essential point--that RLVs--staged or otherwise--can potentially reduce lift costs by two orders of magnitude is right on track.

      •  Pete Cortez: No problemo on the... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ... brouhaha. Just a little misunderstanding, that's all. Thanks for the defense!

        You are correct when you say that the HOTOL idea has been around for a long time. As a matter of fact, Skylon is a direct descendant of the HOTOL project of the 1980's (I believe).

        You are also correct in your observation that I was not entirely fair on the RLVs. NASA's HLLV will be able to place 70,000 kg (154,324 lbs) into LEO very soon, solving a lot of heavy lift requirements for the NMSTARG plan. So I do have to concede that point.

        It might be a simple prejudice of space places over VTVL vehicles.

        Thanks again for the comments.

        Reuse and commonality are the keys to a robust and profitable space program.

        by The NM STAR Group on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 10:57:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks again, palantir... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kestrel9000, shortgirl

    ... for the repost to SciTech. I appreciate the encouragement.

    Reuse and commonality are the keys to a robust and profitable space program.

    by The NM STAR Group on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 07:44:31 AM PDT

  •  Re-entry is the problem here (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    They're using carbon fiber reinforced plastic, and that stuff does not do well at 4000°.

    We are all in the same boat on a stormy sea, and we owe each other a terrible loyalty. -- G.K. Chesterton

    by Keith Pickering on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 08:31:56 AM PDT

  •  I'm glad I didn't miss this diary, unlike prior (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pete Cortez, PeterHug, pat208

    ones.  I remember reading about that proposed spaceport before, and wondering if they needed some healthcare personnel onsite.  It would be a total blast to work at a spaceport, and probably as close to some of my childhood dreams as I'll ever come if it's possible.

  •  The Most Efficient Space Launch Capability (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PeterHug, pat208

    is to construct a rail gun type apparatus to accelerate the launch vehicle to orbital speed by electromagnetics. This would give us virtually unlimited launch capability with none of the waste of burning liquid or solid fuels to achieve orbital velocity. The acceleration would be extremely mild since you can accelerate the vehicle over a much longer distance making orbital attainment a much more comfortable ride for humans and instruments. The rail gun approach could also double as a ground transport that would put air travel to shame both in safety and time to destination. Esitmates of cost are about 1.5 trillion dollars and time to completion of about 10 years (for the ground transportation system). The orbital rail gun could be completed in 3 to 4 years. Cost to put 1 kilogram in orbit would be about $30 to $40 dollars compared to $20,000/kg for liquid and solid fueled rockets. Here is a link to a concept from NASA that stops short of using only the rail gun, but illustrates the point.
    Nasa concept

    •  Aureas2: I can't find anything wrong with... (0+ / 0-)

      ... your argument. Everything that you said is correct.

      I do believe, however, that the old fashioned way (my way) is going to be less expensive, just maybe not in the long run. But at least for the next 10 to 20 years, I believe that is the case.

      Maybe during those 20 years, we could be building the rails at the same time as we fly the space planes. When the space planes retire, we could transition to the rail system then. Win-win!

      Thanks for the thoughtful comment.

      Reuse and commonality are the keys to a robust and profitable space program.

      by The NM STAR Group on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 09:48:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Highly speculative. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PeterHug, Ralphdog

      Also a couple of points:

      1. You still have to power the linear driver on the order of 1-10e6 J/kg of payload.  
      2. To achieve mild acceleration, you need a really long track; at twenty gravities, you'll need about 160 km worth to achieve orbit.  At a fifth of a gravity, about what you experience during take off in a civil aircraft, the track is over 14 thousand miles.
      3. Cost per kilogram is but one measure to minimize .  To reasonably amortize a capital expenditure that adds half or doubles all global spending on space today would require at least a 3 order magnitude increase in traffic upstream.

      Mass drivers are a long ways from being feasible; there's a whole set of evolutions the space industry needs to go through before you can even lay down that kind of rail and provide power to use it.  Fortunately, RLV development could reduce payload costs to the order $100/kg (in the sub-ton market) within a very short period of time, and with an investment not much greater than that SpaceX put to evolve their current family of lifters.

      •  Pete Cortez: Maybe this is why... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pete Cortez, pat208

        ... mass drivers are better suited for places like the moon?

        You said:

        Cost per kilogram is but one measure to minimize
        Couldn't agree with you more. The theme of NMSTARG is ease of operations, even if it may at times cost a little more. But in the end, costs are, indeed, minimized.

        Reuse and commonality are the keys to a robust and profitable space program.

        by The NM STAR Group on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 11:04:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Cool, but not remotely feasible. (0+ / 0-)

    I remember vividly how exciting it was to read Gerard K. O'Neill's fantastic proposal for self-sustaining space colonies using Space Shuttle technology. It all seemed so eminently feasible. Except that it wasn't! It was based on insanely optimistic extrapolations of Shuttle operating costs and efficiencies, which turned out to be literally orders of magnitude away from reality.

    This Skylon project is equally unrealistic.
    The NASA "national aerospace plane" design attempt had very similar goals and used a similar reusable single-stage-to-orbit flight profile. It suffered repeated catastrophic failures of its composite fuel tank in testing of a sub-scale version. Extremely low structural weight through use of cutting edge composites were essential to its potential feasibility. Incremental changes to make the tank stronger ate relentlessly into deliverable payload until it reached zero, ending the entire project. Inadequate funding exacerbated the intractable technical problems.

    This "Skylon" system has all the same insurmountable technical challenges the NASP had, and more besides because of unfortunate design choices. Its long slender shape guarantees higher dry structural weight than the more compact and efficient NASP design. The engines are insanely complex. Moreover, the location of the engines at the wingtips, coupled with that long slender shape and the tiny control surfaces, guarantees that an engine failure will instantly lead to catastrophic yaw forces and structural failure.

    We are at least 20 years of steady, generous research funding and serial testing away from a workable craft like this. And that presumes everything works perfectly. Past history suggests otherwise.

    •  Ralphdog: The NASP, as well as other... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ... HTHL vehicles have consistently come up short due to all of the reasons you site. And you may be correct in your other constructive criticisms of the Skylon vehicle.

      However, my attitude is that yeah, the engine technology is way advanced, etc., but at least things are progressing along, albeit at a snail's pace.

      If NMSTARG ever does attract the attention of investors, we hope to eliminate one of the major, if not the major barrier to any successful space adventure: funding. We hope to accelerate the design and production of these new technologies, or at least discover any design flaws and move on to something else.

      After all, the same kinds of things were said in 1959 when we were trying to design the Saturn V. The fundamental technologies were there, but it still took a huge effort and many years to reach fruition. I'm sure the space planes will follow the same track.

      Thanks for the informative comment.

      Reuse and commonality are the keys to a robust and profitable space program.

      by The NM STAR Group on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 12:53:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't get me wrong, with enough money this is... (0+ / 0-)

        a solvable problem. Advanced composites have made a lot of progress since the 1980s, and the NASP project was always grossly underfunded. It had many attractive features, and starting from a clean sheet of paper with the advantage of another 20 years of technology...

        But the money's the thing. I cannot imagine any conceivable collection of investors signing on to fully fund such a project all the way to commercial success. You're talking somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 billion to fully fund something this complex. Even Larry Ellison & Bill Gates can't afford that kind of price.

        Personally, I would love to see the U.S Navy scrapping half their aircraft carriers, which are increasingly outdated missile magnets, and the money invested instead a new NASP project, with the emphasis on simplicity and practical feasibility.

        •  RalphDog: Amen to that! As a guy... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ... who used to fly backseat in Navy jets off of aircraft carriers, I have to wholeheartedly agree with scrapping a few carriers to pay for a viable space program. We don't need more than 2 or 3 carriers anyway; get rid of the rest and funnel the money into space!

          As I've always said, the most important equation in all of astronautics is the funding equation. Solve that, and you can go to the moon!

          Reuse and commonality are the keys to a robust and profitable space program.

          by The NM STAR Group on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 04:29:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There ya go. (0+ / 0-)

            I could be wrong, but my understanding is that 20 years ago a U.S. carrier task force was essentially immune to effective attack from air/surface, as the E-2/F-14/Phoenix system along with attack assets made it unlikely that any opposing surface or air threats would ever get close enough to do any harm. Submarines of course are another matter.

            Nowadays the Navy has retired the F-14/Phoenix force, replacing it with the much slower, shorter-legged, overweight AF-18 equipped with a much shorter-ranged missile armament. So the carriers are far more vulnerable to air or anti-ship missile attack, just when new generation Russian anti-ship missiles have become genuinely lethal. It makes no sense to keep fielding a huge fleet of these things when they're becoming so vulnerable.

            •  RalphDog: That is correct. When I was in,... (0+ / 0-)

              ... I was a Sensor Operator (Anti-Submarine) aboard the S-3A Viking. So I know first hand the vulnerabilities of aircraft carriers, and how submarines made the carrier group obsolete.

              I remember the fleet sailing in formation, everyone right on the horizon, in a circle around the carrier, just like they did during WWII. It made for a perfect bullseye of the carrier from a satellite's point of view.

              Old school thinking is what sets us back.

              Good catch.

              Reuse and commonality are the keys to a robust and profitable space program.

              by The NM STAR Group on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 05:18:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I've read that the Viking was so efficient and.... (0+ / 0-)

                reliable that the Navy should have built two or three times as many, rather than sinking billions into far less useful things. Instead the insufficient number built were used until they were used up.

                But despite its virtues I still get the impression that it would not be that difficult for a quiet modern submarine to get within torpedo range of a carrier group.

                •  RalphDog: It used to piss me off when I ... (0+ / 0-)

                  ... couldn't find the sub during the flight sims. I stormed into my CPO's office and asked what the hell am I supposed to do in the real world? Here's what he said:

                  Don't worry. The sub has to come up to launch it's nuclear strike, so we'll get him them. Unbelievable. I told him that it's too late by then. He shrugged.

                  Subs can take out the world; take it from a former sub-hunter.

                  And yes, the S-3 was a pretty decent aircraft, and would have served the USN well in greater numbers.

                  Always good talking with you, RalphDog!

                  Reuse and commonality are the keys to a robust and profitable space program.

                  by The NM STAR Group on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 05:00:15 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Thanks much. I was a war-gamer and military... (0+ / 0-)

                    history nut in school, so it's always a privilege to hear from folks who aren't just guessing but truly know.
                    I can still vividly recall a good friend who was a gentle soul and a real pacifist, yet he joined the Navy ROTC program and spent a summer in Marine boot camp in California. He came back a changed and somber person. He was tasked with being the squad machine gunner. We asked him how it went. He thought for a long minute and then said..."Those things...they could really hurt someone."

                    Best wishes.

      •  Too much engineering (0+ / 0-)

        There is a problem with what you are talking about - you are focused on the idea that the engineering is the problem - that we don't have the technology to do cheap spaceflight.  

        But achieving cheap spaceflight isn't a matter of just technology - there are many other pieces to this.  

        For example - why SSTO?  

        •  FerrisValyn: Engineering is not my main... (0+ / 0-)

          ... focus. I've always said that the most important equation in all of rocketry is the funding equation.

          No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

          That's not to say that I don't have a focus on engineering. I do. This diary series is about describing a credible path to a sustainable space program, so engineering details are, I hope, in order.

          Granted, there are many other pieces to the puzzle, even beyond funding and engineering. We've had spaceflight technology in it's present form now for about half a century. We're still flinging them into space the same way we've always done it.

          There's nothing wrong with that. I say that if that's what we're going to do, then by gosh, let's do it and quit farting around. Of course, that leads us right back to the funding equation.

          As far as SSTO, IMHO, a vibrant space program can only occur if flight operations and infrastructure assembly is as simple and easy as possible. With the Skylon, there are no expensive launch towers to have to build and rebuild after every launch, turnaround time is incredibly short, etc.

          Expendables are thrown away; even if is cheaper to do it this way for now, it is unsustainable in the long run. I don't have numbers to back up what I'm saying; this is, again, just IMHO. But I'm sure that the lines on the graph cross at some point in the (relatively) near future.

          Wow. That's the longest comment I've ever written. Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I would be curious as to what you think about all this. I'm going to click the links in your sig line.

          Reuse and commonality are the keys to a robust and profitable space program.

          by The NM STAR Group on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 05:19:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

            Funding is the wrong way to think about the problem.  To merely say no bucks, no Buck Rogers does, IMHO, miss a larger point.  Its about how to get society to much more actively use space than we do currently.  This pushes you towards not funding, but market creation, space development, and so forth.  

            In many respects, we have a sustainable space program.  But that does not mean its a useful space program.  And that has to be teased out.  And we have to make it useful for everyone, and make it relavent to their day to day life.  Whether they are a single African-American mom in Detroit, a potato farmer in Idaho, a life-guard in California, or whoever.  

            (Sorry if I seem all over the map - I know I am coming in mid stream, but as you'll see after reading my stuff, you'll find I am an old hand at space at Dailykos, although its been a while since I posted.  I now actually work in the space industry, and so I no longer have the ability & time to post like I did a few years ago).

            But lets go back to the SSTO, and your justification, which has some important points

            As far as SSTO, IMHO, a vibrant space program can only occur if flight operations and infrastructure assembly is as simple and easy as possible. With the Skylon, there are no expensive launch towers to have to build and rebuild after every launch, turnaround time is incredibly short, etc.
            There is a lot of good points in here, but they are also mixed in with some assumptions that are questionable.  

            Where you are on the bullseye is the issue of operations and infrastructure assembly.  You need that as simple and easy as possible.  And your comments about needing to rebuild ground infrastructure is also right, and turn around time.  

            But that doesn't mean you HAVE to have an SSTO.  Its arguable that an SSTO would be ideal.  But why wouldn't an orbital vehicle developed around SpaceShipOne also minimize the key pieces as well?  Yes, 2 stages increases complexity, but it decreases the technical difficulty needed via the SSTO route.  

            Also, lets be clear - an SSTO does NOT imply reusablility.  The original Atlas was pretty close to an SSTO, but it wasn't reusable.  And there have been some interesting proposals/thought experiments around the issue of SSTOs.  

            We'll leave the discussion about reusability for another day.

            •  FarrisValyn: I had in mind the Apollo... (0+ / 0-)

              ... program when I mention the funding equation. The lesson of Apollo was this: throw money at the problem!

              LM behind schedule? Throw money at it to get it back on schedule. LM too heavy? Here's more money to lighten it. The CSM is a piece of garbage? Throw money at it, and you get a redesigned and better CSM (even one with an explosive hatch!). Etc., etc.

              So after seeing all of this happen, I started thinking that money must be pretty important to a space program.

              Space is already useful to the regular American; they just don't know it because of the poor job NASA does of communicating that.

              As far as buy in goes, IMHO, the Apollo lunar landings had a HUGE buy in from the public. Of course, that was because of the daredevil thrills that audiences seek, but still.

              I may have been unclear on the SSTO thing; I should have said a reusable SSTO. I agree, that not all SSTO's are reusable. Sorry about that.

              As a matter of fact, my original idea called for a reusable TSTO shuttle, with a separate launch vehicle and a shuttle riding piggy back, just like they wanted back in the late '60s and early '70s. I had hoped to lift 29,484kg along with 12 passengers!

              But, this required a VAB, a complicated launch tower (the matted vehicle would be towed to the launch pad, then erected). On top of that, there is nothing in the pipeline that even comes close to that.

              Then I discovered the Skylon.

              So even though it has less capability, flight ops would be a snap! By simplifying flight ops, that makes the whole space program more robust.

              Thanks for the comments. I find this really very interesting. I hope we can continue the discussion...

              Reuse and commonality are the keys to a robust and profitable space program.

              by The NM STAR Group on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 08:38:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  part 1 (0+ / 0-)

                I am breaking this into 2 parts (makes more sense to me)

                If there is one thing I've learned, its that you can't try and recreate Apollo - nor should you.  

                Further the "throw more money at the problem" only works if you have that kind of political support, and that doesn't not ever last permanently.  Therefore, you've got to create situations that will keep the program on budget and on time.  

                In short - yes funding and money is pretty important, but just saying "we need more money" or even "we need more money because this is important and I'll tell you why" isn't really dealing with the issue.

                Space is already useful to the regular American; they just don't know it because of the poor job NASA does of communicating that.
                FULL STOP!!  First, and this is can be a subtle point, but its damn important.  NASA does not equal Space, and vice versa.  Therefore, its not NASA's job of communicating the importance of space.  Arguably, they should be about communicating why NASA is important, but that brings us to the next point.  
                As far as buy in goes, IMHO, the Apollo lunar landings had a HUGE buy in from the public. Of course, that was because of the daredevil thrills that audiences seek, but still.
                When I say make it useful for everyone, that doesn't mean better explaining spinoffs, or explaining how we are a nation of explorers (that, IMHO, is nice sound word salad crap).  What I mean is you have to make and create users of space.  If the US decided to shut down NASA tomorrow, its arguable as to whether we'd see astronauts flying anytime soon.  But that would have NO impact on the number of launches going on, because the Comm sat industry (and other satellite users) have a broad user community.  We have to do the same.  Buy in doesn't mean a pr campaign.  It means creating users.  And those users need to see a use that actively NEEDS space, not a nice side benefit (which is why I get so annoyed at the whole spinoff argument - you can't do communication satellites without space, but you can do heart pumps without space).
              •  Part 2 (0+ / 0-)

                I separated these 2 points into separate posts, because I felt it would get overly long, and the points were worth separating.  

                You are right to focus on the issue of simplifying flight ops, but you are again jumping ahead with assumptions of how a particular vehicle profile requires a particular ground op.  

                For example - why assume a Two-Stage To Orbit Has to have a tower, and be vertically integrated?  Why not have a TSTO that is horizontally integrated, and takes off and lands like a plane ( like SpaceShipOne/WhiteknightOne).

                As another - why assume that a vertical system (whether SSTO or TSTO) requires all the systems you laid out?  

                Finally - I would not consider Skylon as being anywhere close and in the pipeline.  

                Vehicles close and in the pipeline are things like the Lynx, SS2, Dragon, DreamChaser, CST-100, and so on.  

                •  FerrisValyn: Wow, you really know your stuff! (0+ / 0-)

                  I concede that NASA is more than just space; it was a sloppy way of describing the Apollo program.

                  I (finally) see the difference you are making between a consumer of space technology and a user of space technology. I took it as meaning the same word. Very intriguing idea; I would be curious as to what ideas you have on that.

                  I look at the satellite industry separately from human endeavors. I guess it's because, like you said, they will go on no matter what happens to NASA, so it's almost like that problem is already solved.

                  I assumed that HTHL TSTO spacecraft would be too heavy to lift off, so it's not that it wasn't considered. Of course, a VTVL SSTO like the old Douglas Aircraft S.A.S.S.T.O design would have been nice, but again, nothing like that is even being remotely considered (except on a smaller scale).

                  But every design we considered did not meet the lift capability that we required (14,742 kg inside a 4.57 x 9.14 m cargo hold). Yes, we considered the Dragon, Dream Chaser, the CST-100, etc. But like it says in the diary, the lift capability is just not adequate (6,000 kg). Also, the turnaround time I'm sure is a few weeks, most still need launch tower infrastructure to operate, etc.

                  When I first saw the WhiteKnight, I was excited, until I read the lift capability. Believe me, we wanted to use these spacecraft, but for what we intend on doing with them, they just didn't measure up.

                  As far as the Skylon goes, I have looked at many designs, and this is the closest that we have come to fulfilling our wish-list.

                  Of course, being part of a reality-based community like DKos, I know where the flaws in my plans are. The SABRE engine hasn't even been built; and yet a major milestone was passed with the successful tests of their air condenser. They may have trouble with their heat shield technology after all; that was supposed to have been solved already.

                  Then there's the question of continued funding, and once again, we're right back to money.

                  IMHO, if we threw money at the Skylon problem, in exactly the same way we threw money at the Apollo problem, it would be solved, and in a short amount of time. Problem solved!

                  This is the reason I am so focused on the almighty dollar. Of course, solid engineering, great ideas, capable employees, etc. are ALL important. But without the bucks, rockets are going no where.

                  The satellite industry I believe proves my point. They have the bucks, so they get to launch.

                  My hope is that we attract investors with our ideas, and then we approach the Skylon folks with the funds that they need to complete their program.

                  I know that money will not solve intractable engineering problems; however, from what I can see with the approach the Skylon people are using, I think it would be a great investment.

                  I always enjoy our discussions.

                  Reuse and commonality are the keys to a robust and profitable space program.

                  by The NM STAR Group on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 05:00:26 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Old hand at space (0+ / 0-)

                    As I said, I am an old hand at space on Dkos

                    Full disclosure - I work in space policy everyday, and was classicly trained as an aerospace engineer (although, as I said, I work on space policy these days).

                    Before I start, let me ask the question - how are you looking for funding?  From private equity?  Government?  Who and how?

                    I concede that NASA is more than just space; it was a sloppy way of describing the Apollo program.
                    The reverse is also true - Space is more than NASA.  Which pushes to the point about user vs consumer.
                    I look at the satellite industry separately from human endeavors. I guess it's because, like you said, they will go on no matter what happens to NASA, so it's almost like that problem is already solved.
                    The answer to the question of ideas for user vs consumer can be found in examining the history of the comm sat industry.  Specifically, go back and look at the history of IntelSat, and PanAmSat, and the like.  Related to that, look up a book called Selling Peace, by Jeff Manber.  Also watch Orphans of Apollo.  

                    In short, the key thing to learn is how to commercialize manned spaceflight - that is what happened with comm sats.  Or, at a minimum, commercialize things that require frequent space access.

                    Which brings me to the issue of design of the vehicle.

                    First, why assume that an HTHL TSTO would be too heavy?  In point of fact there have been more than a few attempts at doing so.  Further, I know of at least 1 credible company that is moving towards that (the company is public, and if I say the name, you'll know em).  And how do you know what Armadillo or Blue Origin or Masten are considering for vehicles?  Yes, their first gen vehicles are suborbital, but this will be an iteriteve development process, that probably will not get to the level of access we need in the first vehicle.  

                    Which brings me back to the very first question I asked in this post - who's funding and how?  If its private funding, well, you pick which one you want, and you go fund it.  IMHO, despite the flashy claims offerred by Skylon, I'd actually start small and build up, because it allows you to build a track record, a knowledge base, and a lessons learned system.  

                    If on the other hand, it is public money, then what needs to be discussed is the what and how that money is being spent.  Because, given what you said, I suspect you wouldn't have a problem with the idea of giving NASA the project, and then fully funding it.  

                    The problem is we've tried to develop cheap space access purely from a "develop this technology, and we'll get cheap access."  We have had at least 3 attempts to develop cheap access, and the problem is we locked ourselves into a singular design and singular "wonder technology" that would "solve all of our problems."  The shuttle was going to provide cheap access because it was reusable.  The NASP was going to provide cheap access because it had air-breathing engines.  VentureStar was going to because it was an SSTO.  See a pattern emerging?  

                    What we need is to develop a reason or series of reasons to send lots of things into space, and then get MULTIPLE teams working on cheap access, and get them funded in a way that always pushes toward cheaper and more robust access (reason I am a huge fan of Commercial Crew)

                    •  FarrisValyn: I hope to attract...... (0+ / 0-)

                      ... the attention of investors. Then the paper I'm writing morphs into the technical portion of a space-related business plan.

                      Of course, if the feds want to do it, then by all means...

                      The reason that I can't start incrementally (small then work my way up) is because I need to be able to launch 14,742 kg immediately. The Dragon can only do 6,000 kg. The White Knight is even less.

                      We hope to develop a LEO station, a lunar orbit station, a lunar base, and all the assorted vehicles needed. We cannot do these things 6 tonnes or less at a time. Like I said earlier, the original requirement had called for 29,484 kg!

                      We hope to extract a commodity on the moon that currently has a value of about $5,000 USD per carat. We can show that we can bring back over 13,000 kg on our first trip alone (that's over $325B USD). We hope to bring back a steady amount, which of course, will make the price eventually drop. We estimate it will settle to around $70 per carat, or about the price of gold. So for the same 13,000 kg per year, that's $3.5B USD per year. Doubling, or even tripling that would be no problemo.

                      I'm being intentionally vague, because I wanted to first build our credibility with this diary series. Once we do that, then our idea may not sound so crazy.

                      All that hardware in space is also needed because of the other revenue streams that will open up as well, such as the satellite launching business. We would launch sats piecemeal, then assemble it in LEO, and place it in its proper orbit (all the way to GEO).

                      Space tourism comes into play as well, in that we can sell half the Skylon seats to millionaire passengers for a week in space.

                      Again, none of this is possible unless I can have a fairly heavy lift capability. I wish I could get 29,484 kg, but I'll settle for 14,742 kg. Anything less, and our plan crumbles.

                      Reuse and commonality are the keys to a robust and profitable space program.

                      by The NM STAR Group on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 04:11:58 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site