• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

Wanted: Curmudgeony Grognards (to talk TL 5-7 Rockets)

Solid fuel rocket:

P120: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P120_(rocket_stage)

4650 kN burning 144 tonnes of propellant in 133 s.
Total volume: 62.5 m3 ≈ 4.5 Dt.
Total mass 155 tonnes, of which 144 tonnes propellant.


"100 Dt" thrust is roughly two modules:
9 Dt (310 tonnes) including propellant.
Burn time 2 minutes.

Simplified:
1 Dt (20 tonnes) + 4 Dt (150 tonnes) propellant per minute?

Much better by volume, but not mass?
 
The whole of T5 is Third Imperium et al based, there is no variant technology not found in the OTU. No hyperdrive, no stutterwarp, no tachyon cannons. Compare this with FF&S which had non-OTU technology and a section about using it and designiong your own tech progression.

So DaVinci with the help of a notebook is going to mine radioactives, build centrifuges to concentrate the required elements, develop the mechanical and electronics necessary to control it? Nope, that passes no suspension of disbelief test - they may as well order it from ACME. :)
The first 'atomic piles" didn't have much in the way of mechanical or electronic controls
And the Curies managed to do a fair bit of mning and refining without centrifuges and gasseous diffusion.
With crummy fuel rods, you just have to build bigger and live with getting less effect. More lower refined rods so you up the chances of getting a hit from a stray neutron.
I mean, heck, there's geologic evidence of uranium ore doing this by itself in the ground.

So, yeah, I can see something like the Chicago Pile being built. Just bigger and more of a mess for less of an effect
 
And the question really must be asked - why is NASA not just putting money into developing Starship rather than the SLS? Or use three Falcon Heavy flights to get the lunar transfer stuff into orbit?
Politics. Sigh.

What irritates me about SLS is it was supposed to be all off-the-shelf proven tech so it could be done quickly and efficently.
How do you mess that up this much?
 
And the question really must be asked - why is NASA not just putting money into developing Starship rather than the SLS? Or use three Falcon Heavy flights to get the lunar transfer stuff into orbit?
Politics. Sigh.

What irritates me about SLS is it was supposed to be all off-the-shelf proven tech so it could be done quickly and efficently.
How do you mess that up this much?
SLS is ... first and foremost ... a case of parochial special interest politics trumping engineering prowess and excellence in design or management.

I'm reminded of the bathroom scene in Robocop between Dick Jones and Bob Morton.
"I had renovation contracts! Spare parts for 25 years! WHO CARES IF IT WORKED OR NOT?!?"

SLS isn't a "space program" ... it's a jobs subsidy and corporate welfare program doled out to patrons of politicians who were bought (and paid for) to keep the money "in the family" in order to maintain their fiefdoms.

Any "space launch system" capability of SLS is essentially a byproduct of that political process, not the primary goal or purpose (public statements to the contrary).
The primary goal was to be a money sink for the Political Engineers™ to latch onto and feed on FOR YEARS (and oh hey look, it's worked so far!).

I mean, they're trying to reuse 60+ year old rocket technology for crying out loud!
Why?
So they don't have to innovate or come up with anything especially new! No clean sheets of paper wanted here!

After all, creating "new stuff" is EXPENSIVE (and dangerous)!
And besides ... "new stuff" might displace the incumbent suppliers ... and we can't have that!
Better to rest on your laurels and keep shoveling money into the fire of parochial special interest politics than actually attempt to SOLVE THE PROBLEM.


Damage Control Building the SLS is easy.
Reading Klingon Integrating all of the SLS components and managing the program well enough so that it will all work when fully assembled ... that's hard.

A classic case of fulfilling a contract to the letter ... when the contract never stipulated or specified that what was delivered HAD TO WORK.
 
This is why I worry for the future of Space X.
If Starship works as intended - or even if they just continue to refine the Falcon series - eventually the powers that be will either want their cut or they will drive Elon out of business and just take his stuff.
 
SLS is ... first and foremost ... a case of parochial special interest politics trumping engineering prowess and excellence in design or management.

I almost hit like on this post because what you wrote was true and well phrased. Very cogent.

But the actual content irritates me so much, I couldn't click "Like"
 
How about designing a space gun with FF&S to launch a scramjet 2nd stage and a payload 3rd?
Surely Traveller would be fine with a scaled up version of Project HARP or Babylon
The problem with the gun solution is barrel erosion. You can fire a couple dozen rounds, then have to totally rebuild the barrel as the tolerances aren't there any more. For example, with the WW 1 Paris Guns, barrel erosion was so severe that the shells fired were sequentially numbered and each round's driving bands increased slightly in diameter to account for barrel wear. You could get about 75 rounds out then you had to swap out the barrels and rebuild the worn one.

I also don't know if you could fire live payloads like people into space that way.
 
The problem with the gun solution is barrel erosion. You can fire a couple dozen rounds, then have to totally rebuild the barrel as the tolerances aren't there any more. For example, with the WW 1 Paris Guns, barrel erosion was so severe that the shells fired were sequentially numbered and each round's driving bands increased slightly in diameter to account for barrel wear. You could get about 75 rounds out then you had to swap out the barrels and rebuild the worn one.

I also don't know if you could fire live payloads like people into space that way.
I think you make a good point about barrel erosion... but could you do like a gauss rifle and hold the projectile where it's not touching the barrel?
Have a big plastic wad behind the projectile for a gas seal, and just squirt more plastic in as erosion occurs ? (Although I'm not sure how much plastic would wear against steel under those situations)

And, even if that didn't gain much... In 2022 there were 60 Falcon launches.
Being able to launch 75 payloads to orbit a year wouldn't be that bad, if the price were right
 
This is why I worry for the future of Space X.
If Starship works as intended - or even if they just continue to refine the Falcon series - eventually the powers that be will either want their cut or they will drive Elon out of business and just take his stuff.
Those who cannot anticipate the future are doomed to resent it.

There are numerous entrenched interests that do not want the paradigm to shift against them. Their wealth and their power/influence rests upon a foundation and reliance upon them to deliver what is needed. But as soon as the paradigm shifts ... they're no longer needed, and the entrenched interests suddenly become uprooted and unmoored, cast adrift into the pages of history.
  1. Horse and Buggy
  2. Physical Film
  3. Phones with Keyboards
  4. Expendable Single Use Rockets
All of these technologies are relics of the past.
All of them either have been replaced by superior products and services, or are in the process of being replaced.
  1. Internal Combustion Engine Car --> Electric Car
  2. Digital Photography
  3. Smart Phones
  4. Reusable Rockets
Car manufacturing ended the era the horse (in favor of "horsepower").
Digital photography put an end to Kodak as a mega corporation.
Smart phones put Nokia and Blackberry out of business.

And Space X is in the process of upending the economics of space launch while Tesla is overturning a century of car manufacturing "conventional wisdom" ...
 
but could you do like a gauss rifle and hold the projectile where it's not touching the barrel?
Hate to break it to you, but magnetic accelerators endure barrel wear too. It's not the friction that is the cause of the barrel wear ... it's the forces involved in the barrel trying to break itself apart every time it's used (action/reaction can't be ignored when friction is zero).
The problem with the gun solution is barrel erosion. You can fire a couple dozen rounds, then have to totally rebuild the barrel as the tolerances aren't there any more.
Hence why SpinLaunch is looking like a much more promising technology vector than using a "gun" ...

 
Having different methods for getting different sized and types of payloads into space is probably a good thing.

But look at the numbers Elon Musk is proposing for Starship - why build anything more expensive?

From what I have read they could launch more Falcon Heavy missions, but the payloads are not there. So Falcon 9s will do the job, and everytime you can reuse them after the third is free money aparently :)
They are looking at a minimum of 10 launches per booster, with the record currently at 15. Falcon 9 boosters can be ganged to make the Falcon Heavy, but the Falcon Heavy core stage can not be used as a Falcon 9

The game changers will be:
a refueling station in orbit
a permanent Lunar base making fuel, then power satellites, then rocket parts.
Starship failing
 
Last edited:
Reusable Rockets
Not a word of what follows is mine, it is all quoted from John Walker and the source cited in the link ... I thought y'all just might find it interesting:

A Rocket a Day Keeps the High Costs Away
John Walker's classic 'modest proposal' to reduce launch costs.
by John Walker (September 27, 1993)


Consider the following mass-produced expendable rocket.
Number manufactured: 6,240
Number launched: 3,590
Successes: 2,890 (81%)
Failures: 700 (19%)
In inventory: 2,100
Work in progress: 250
Expended in development: 300
Development program cost: US$ 2 billion
Development cost per launcher: US$ 350,512
Total manufacturing cost per launcher: US$ 43,750
Marginal cost, launchers 5000+: US$ 13,000 (Yes, 13K!)
These are actual figures for the first mass-produced rocket vehicle, the V2 (A4)--fifty years ago. Prices are in US wartime dollars.

A Rocket a Day
Suppose we translate these figures, almost incomprehensible by modern standards (*three hundred* launch vehicles expended in the development program!) into quasi-modern terms. Consider an orbital launch vehicle two-stage, say, clean and green thanks to LH2/LOX propulsion in all stages. Engines: J2 or RL10s or follow-on uprated versions (we'll have plenty of opportunity to develop them and phase them in). A simple two stage cylindrical stack like Titan II, with GPS or ground-commanded navigation. Payload interface is a big ring with bolt-holes and a standard fairing with plenty of volume inside.

Sounds a lot like NLS/SpaceLifter, doesn't it? STMEs may have marginal advantages over sea-level-optimised derivatives of RL10 or J2, but otherwise what's the difference?

What if we launch one every day?
Three hundred and sixty-five a year.
That would be less than one twenty-fifth the production rate of the V2 under concentrated Allied bombardment in 1945.
How much would each one cost?

Assume we expense the development cost or amortise it over a sufficiently large number of vehicles that it can be ignored. Further, assume that our bigger, more complicated (two-stage), and higher tech (LH2/LOX instead of Ethanol/LOX), launcher costs ten times as much as the V2, and that 1945 wartime dollars convert into current dollars at 10 to 1. Then, starting with the US$13,000 marginal cost of a V2, we arrive at a cost of US$1.3 million per launch vehicle. If we launch one a day our total vehicle budget will be US$475 million per year--comparable to a single shuttle flight (no, I don't want to re-open *that* debate again; let's just say it's the same order of magnitude, OK?). If our mass produced LH2/LOX launcher equals the performance of the Delta 6925 by placing 3900 kg in LEO, the cost to LEO is US$333/kg; if we achieve better throw-weight, this figure goes down accordingly. If we build the thing so cheap, dumb, and heavy that its payload is only 1000 kg--one metric ton--the cost rises to US$1300/kg, which is still a factor of ten lower than the comparable cost to LEO for Ariane, Atlas, Delta, and Titan.
 
And the question really must be asked - why is NASA not just putting money into developing Starship rather than the SLS? Or use three Falcon Heavy flights to get the lunar transfer stuff into orbit?
Providing a second source. And at the time, it was the safe bet (proven hardware, existing logistic and technological infrastructure).
 
Hate to break it to you, but magnetic accelerators endure barrel wear too. It's not the friction that is the cause of the barrel wear ... it's the forces involved in the barrel trying to break itself apart every time it's used (action/reaction can't be ignored when friction is zero).

Hence why SpinLaunch is looking like a much more promising technology vector than using a "gun" ...

If the payloads are such that they can withstand the centrifugal loading during launch.

Useful for flinging hypersonic test articles or targets though.
 
Better than three Falcon Heavy launches?

We could have the Lunar Gateway Station in place now if they had used Falcon Heavy.
 
This is why I worry for the future of Space X.
If Starship works as intended - or even if they just continue to refine the Falcon series - eventually the powers that be will either want their cut or they will drive Elon out of business and just take his stuff.
The worry I have is that the company (and specifically, Mr. Musk) may decide that its interests supersede those of the United States, with consequences for national security.

Unlike the rest of the American military-industrial complex, SpaceX is not necessarily dependent on the US government for its funding.
 
Better than three Falcon Heavy launches?

We could have the Lunar Gateway Station in place now if they had used Falcon Heavy.
Oh, come on. If they were using Falcon Heavy and on-orbit refueling, the Lunar Gateway Station wouldn't be necessary in the first place. :)
 
Remember the Iraqi supergun and the assassination of the engineer, Gerald Bull, who wanted to build it?

He wanted to build the gun to launch stuff into orbit on the cheap, when funding was pulled he shopped around. Saddam offered to bankroll him.

He accidentally shot himself while hanging himself while shaving his own head off.
 
Oh, come on. If they were using Falcon Heavy and on-orbit refueling, the Lunar Gateway Station wouldn't be necessary in the first place. :)
Lunar Gateway is necessary to marshal the stuff you will drop down to build the Lunar Base.

The Lunar base is necessary to manufacture fuel, parts and power satellites (they have already produced a prototype made entirely from Lunar minerals).

The question is will it be cheaper for Space X to build lots of Starships on Earth or will it be cheaper for them to put the manufacturing on the Moon?

150 tons of manufacturing equipment per launch soon adds up to a Starship production facility on the Moon.
 
Back
Top