Clean Sheet Big Dumb Booster?

[john_316]

Ok here goes a old one...<br /><br />If we used a clean sheet design and a heavy lift version with simplicity say RS-68 motors or even other versions (not really the subject here) can we build a booster like 2 extended ET types (actually ET sized clean stages) with the capacity to place in GEO and outfit it as needed say for a crew of 50+ that can stay in GEO for lets say over 30 days? <br /><br />I am of course saying both portions be placed in GEO and outfitted as needed. <br /><br />I was wondering how many people can habitat a modified ET tank that is actually a one piece tank with 2-4 docking ports?<br /><br />Some ideas running though my head as far as using simple everything and trying also to reduce weight. the Idea of the ET tank is using Aluminum so that at later dates it can be welded to other stages etc etc.<br /><br />Simplicity here... Nothing too complex or outlandish ideas? Maybe even LOX for fuel. Simple but not always sure its enviromentally safe but if its minimal I say its ok...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

Not quite sure what your focus is...<br /><br />Clean sheet BDB?<br /><br />Wet tank reuse?<br /><br />GEO manned station?

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If we used a clean sheet design ..<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> Please dont use anything shuttle derived and "clean sheet" in the same sentence. Clean sheet means clean sheet, no existing components and especially ones that rely on very expensive infastructure and even more importantly expensive workforce. As for really clean-sheet development of dumb boosters, some companies like Microcosm ( www.smad.com ) are doing exactly that.

 

[tap_sa]

Why GEO? Van Allen belt makes it a bad place for people.

 

[mattblack]

Clean sheet doesn't necessarily mean inexpensive, especially if you're starting from scratch with infrastructure, tooling and personnel. From Mercury to Apollo 17: more than $25 billion dollars ($160+billion in Y2K dollars). Even if you could do it for HALF of that price, with efficiency and a distinct lack of pork, it's still quite a chunk of change.<br /><br />But I'd imagine a new, 10-meter wide corestage with 3x LOX/LH2 fuelled staged combustion, pump-fed, regeneratively-cooled engines in the 1-million pound thrust, 450 second isp-or-better class. The corestage structures would be Aluminium-Lithium and advanced composites. The Upper Stage would be powered by 1x airstartable version of the same class of corestage engines. 2x or 4x Reusable Flyback Boosters, each powered by 2x LOX/Kerosene-fuelled 1.6-to-1.8 million pound thrust class engines. These engines would be Staged Combustion, High-Pressure Pump types with a sea-level isp of 311 seconds or better.<br /><br />**With 2 flyback boosters, this launcher, which I'd dub "Thunderbird", would place 170+plus metric tons into a 160 nautical mile, 28.5 degree orbit. With 4x boosters; 200+plus metric tons.<br /><br />Anyone wanna draw such a monster? I'm not that good an artist!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"Anyone wanna draw such a monster?"</font><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[no_way]

the largest working flyback booster that im aware of was at most the length of a human, and the amateurs that built it had hell of a trouble getting it to fly. why ? mainly because its very difficult to get the CG where you want it to be for both flight modes. in the end, they flew with fuel tanks half full IIRC and never managed to fix the root issues.<br />http://www.starbooster.com/flighttest.htm<br /><br />Its probably easier to pull off a "flyback" stage that does vertical landing ( i.e. VTOL first stage ) than one that lands horizontally.<br /><br />oh btw, you probably shouldnt classify flyback boosters of any type as "dumb boosters" <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />fix:<br />http://aero.cpss.calpoly.edu/newprojects.html<br />they are still working on the thing. "Controlled fly–back" is under 2005/2006 season goals.<br />I'd go and help them out ( in ARM programming department ) if i wouldnt live on the other side of the globe <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[josh_simonson]

Here's spacex's take on the BDB:<br />http://www.thespacereview.com/article/497/1

 

[rocketman5000]

the key to building a cheap booster is to minimize infastructue like stated above. then decide if you are going to reuse it. Reusing the booster requires more infastructure and workforce. If you are going to make it expendable you will want to make it out of the cheapest materials that will survive the launch. Preferable in either case large peices of machinery would be mass produced or perviously designed with testing and validation like the RS-68 you spoke of.

 

[mlorrey]

GEO is where your space elevator is going to have its transfer station.

 

[shyningnight]

If you're going to go for a completely clean slate (hardware wise)... <br />Stop thinking so SMALL...<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/searagon.htm<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />Paul F.

 

[mattblack]

Sorry; the diameter of my corestage should have been 10 meters, not 8. And yes, the design is more conventional than revolutionary and while some effort is put towards reusability with the flyback boosters -- the purpose is mostly to shift raw tonnage into orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

A clean sheet isn't really necessary. The ET costs 1/2-3/4 of a million bucks to build at Michaud. The other 29 million on the price tag is wasted by NASA on useless crap, like barging the tank from Louisiana to Florida, etc.<br /><br />That is an 8 meter dia core stage. Given the likely cancellation of the shuttle, there are a bunch of tanks sitting at Michaud which will likely wind up being sold for scrap prices. Getting your hands on some SSMEs at that point should be cheap, too. Building a few of my 1.5 stage boosters on the cheap should be pretty easy, AND it should be done in Michaud. Given the Katrina aftermath, I'll be the people down there would bend over backwards to host a launch site.

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">A ET in Louisiana is not very useful to KSC. What other "useless crap do you know of? </font><br /><br />Shuttle_Guy, <br /><br />In the future please give a head-up warning, as I just spilled my coffee LMAO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">.... can we build a booster like 2 extended ET types (actually ET sized clean stages) with the capacity to place in GEO and outfit it as needed say for a crew of 50+ that can stay in GEO for lets say over 30 days? </font><br /><br />Of course we can !! ... if the money is of no-object.<br /><br /><br /><br />But since we've got lots of fustrated vehicle designers here on Space.Com, let me ask some "system engineering" questions. Oh no! I said two bad words !!! <img src="/images/icons/shocked.gif" /> (ducking flying electrons thrown at me as I type...)<br /><br />1) What would be the purpose of stationing 50+ people in GEO? <br /><br />2) Are they required all be alive at the end of 30+ days?<br /><br />3) Are they required all to come back to earth safely and alive?<br /><br />4) Assuming the answer is "yes" to #2 and #3, in addition to life support system, are we required to provide them some work stations, experiments, thus extending some purpose of life while they're there?<br /><br />5) Would they be carrying all their food and water with them in one launch, or a follow-up logistic resupply mission would be required?<br /><br />6) Will they be taking a shower in those 30+ days? Would we be required to take into account of mass properties in the daily changing of clothings?<br /><br />7) Would they be needing exercise rooms? <br /><br /><br /><br />OK, you may think that my questions are all in jest (... and they are !!...), but the above questions go into calculate the mass of payload, hence the size and power of a launch vehicle.<br /><br />Do we do this all in one launch, or multiple launches? If multiple, what do the first 15 people do on-orbit while they wait?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Simplicity here... Nothing too complex or outlandish ideas?</font><br /><br />It can be simple, depending on the assumptions <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[john_316]

Ok lets go with this one here...<br /><br /><br />1. First stage is expendable. Modified ET with 3-4 RS-68 motors. Enough to get the Bulk of the weight into LEO or Transitional orbit to GEO.<br /><br />2. Second stage is Modified ET Tank with 1 or more airlocks (perhaps 2) and Limited Reaction Control system and maybe a detachable J-2S motor group for Orbit Transition and a very small fuel system for that system. <br />Possibly HUll thrusters to keep orbit and station keeping and large deployable solar array.<br /><br />Thats it at the most. Trying to keep the complexity down somewhat along with minimal crew requirement for a small crew in the range of perhaps upto a 10 to 15 crew for 30 days at a shot. The airlock could attach to a node simular or identical to those on the ISS so CEV's can attach to either airlock with 4 to 8 possible attachment points<br /><br />The 2nd stages is a habitat and lab all in one. It would be a mini station that could grow into some like what I'll mention next...<br /><br />1. 2 or more ET Tanks like Space Island Groups GEO stations.<br /><br />1. ET habitat with modified Earth Departure Stage (Nuclear powered) with Crew Command Module and a second ET modified for fuel for the EDS.<br /><br />Ill draw up some designs and post them later. I think I posted some ideas awhile back... Cant recall though...<br /><br />For the most part I am looking for simplicity and reduced costs to manufacture this beast and associated equipment. <br /><br />Something under 500 million for everything. The 2nd stage would be modifed for crew, stowage, life support, airlocks, EVA system, Suits for everyone, limited lab area, manufacturing lab and technical lab for processing metals and componnets in space. Perhaps a workshop for the application of construction and manufacturing in Zero-G and outer space.<br /><br />Thats the idea of this.<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />First comes the Foundry then second comes the Cannon or in this case the Bell for

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">Something under 500 million for everything. ...</font><br /><br />You can't do anything these days with less than $2 Billions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"If you're going to go for a completely clean slate (hardware wise)... <br />Stop thinking so SMALL... "<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/searagon.htm<br /><br /><br />Exactly right! <br /><br />

 

[shyningnight]

These folks just have no real ambition for a "BDB"...<br /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />SeaDragon:<br /> LEO Payload: 450,000 kg. to: 185 km Orbit. at: 90.0 degrees. Liftoff Thrust: 36,000,000 kgf. Liftoff Thrust: 350,000.00 kN. Total Mass: 18,000,000 kg. Core Diameter: 23.00 m. Total Length: 150.00 m. Launch Price $: 300.00 million. in 1962 price dollars.<br /><br />Paul F.

 

[rybanis]

Lets see, as page numbers in "BDB" threads increase, so does the probability of mentioning Seadragon approach 100 percent... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

Well it is the ultimate BDB design.<br /><br />One thing I wonder about Seadragon is that NASA had big troubles with F-1 combustion instability and it was 'only' ~700,000kgf thrust engine. How Truax was going to make 36,000,000kgf single chamber engine stable?? The reaction chamber would be gargantuan with all kinds of nasty harmonics.

 

[mlorrey]

An ET/SSME booster can make orbit in one stage, keeping all its engines, carrying about 40klbs to orbit. If you drop all but one engine at 65-70% of fuel burned, you can put up 70k-80k lbs, PLUS have a full ET in orbit (without throwing one away) pre-modded with deck structures and conduit and deployable solar panels on the sides. <br /><br />I posted some pics a while back. The first one up would carry a manned capsule, a docking/airlock module, and equipment to be installed in the tanks. The second thru sixth ones up would be able to sell 1/2-3/4 of their payload capacity, the rest being equipment to finish out the station interiors. At the end you'd have a six tank space station with over 500 kw of power and capacity to hold hundreds of astronauts and tourists, and most of it would be paid for by payload space sold on five of the six launches.<br /><br />From there on, each of the six tanks can serve as the core of a 7 tank cluster, good enough to collect the tanks of the next 36 launches.<br /><br />Critics complain you wouldn't want to worry about collecting tanks from many orbital inclinations, but who says you'd have to? The primary destinations are polar and other LEO, GEO, and translunar/interplanetary space. With a real space station put together, you can base a real reusable orbital transfer vehicle (or several of them) at the station and simply send all payloads to the station. The residual hydrogen from each ET is collected and used for electric propulsion on the OTVs to transfer payloads to their destination orbits.<br /><br />The only real difficult orbit to reach from a normal 23-28 deg inclined LEO is polar/sun synchronous LEO, but the only users are military. You don't want to make a tourist attraction a military target.<br /><br />Electric propulsion will be of the D4G or Hall Thruster types, perhaps even the laser diode pumped plasma. This would also be used for stationkeeping by the station.<br /><br />I like the Seadragon concept, as well as clean sheet bo

 

[shyningnight]

Tap_Sa;<br />I think Truax' basic design philosophy for that problem would be "weld some more steel on it and stiffen it up... it'll only cost a couple tons, and with 500+ tons to LEO, we can put some more 1" plate here, and here, and here....".<br /><br />It would be nice to have a MASS produced rocket, not a laboratory produced rocket.. one made by welders and pipe-fitters, not white coated engineers.<br />Building a rocket is hard. But not so much harder than building a nuclear submarine, and we do THAT in a shipyard. (and yes, the environments they operate in IS different...).<br /><br />Heck, maybe it IS impossible... but we (as a spacefareing country and species) had better start getting a "Can do" attitude back and replace this "well... whatever we do that goes in space just HAS to be REALLY expensive, REALLY complicated, and it will take a REALLY long time".<br /><br />Look at the discussions on this board right now...<br />Every other one takes those assumptions for GRANTED. (expensive, complicated, and long time).<br /><br />The SeaDragon embodies an optomism that we've lost...<br />It's grand, and it's goals were to be an order of magnitude simpler, built by "average" shipyard workers, and be cheap and routine to launch tonnages we don't even dare DREAM of today. <br /><br />The SDHLV is a great plan to use what we have, and get it flying in shorter order than todays aerospace industry could field a new HLV, but we better start looking towards its replacement TODAY, before it gets set in stone like the Shuttle did.<br /><br />SeaDragon at least excercises the brain muscles a bit!<br /><br />Paul F.<br /><br />

 

[mikejz]

Personally I would like to see more work on lox/paraffin based hybrids. <br /><br />My idea:<br /><br />The paraffin motor/turbo pump/hydraulics would be build as single independent unit and clustered around a common Lox tank. This would allow for a great deal of flexibility with the booster (IE a single-stick all the way up to say 8-12 clustered with the only major changes being the stretching of the Lox tank)<br /><br />Just my idea.

 

[qso1]

Shyningnight:<br />Look at the discussions on this board right now... <br />Every other one takes those assumptions for GRANTED. (expensive, complicated, and long time).<br /><br />My response:<br />And there is a reason for that. NASA as a Government agency is used to doing business as usual but it goes a little further than that. Keep in mind only three Goverments and one private individual has ever sent humans into space. Human spaceflight is difficult and expensive and not just to our Government. China only recently put humans into space and only twice in two years. The analogy to building submarines even shows this. After all, how many companies actually build subs? Submarines involve their share of lab coated engineers as well as shipyard workers. Just for the Trident sub alone, built by Electric Boat division of GD unless the contractor has changed. Only twelve or so boats have been built. Its not like Trident is mass produced on the cheap. They are still over a billion a boat and only exist in larger numbers than spacecraft because there is a clear defense need.<br /><br />One might ask, if building subs are so cheap, where is the widespread public submarine tour industry? Now this is not to say space travel cannot be done less expensively. Thats why I mention Burt Rutan. He has proven he can put people into space suborbitally. But even he is still a few years from orbital and though hes a big NASA critic. He still has to prove he can do what he intends to. I would add however, if anyone can, it would be him and his team.<br /><br />Shyningnight:<br />The SeaDragon embodies an optomism that we've lost... <br />It's grand, and it's goals were to be an order of magnitude simpler, built by "average" shipyard workers, and be cheap and routine to launch tonnages we don't even dare DREAM of today.<br /><br />My response:<br />And it was never built...not even by those grand dreamers of days past. I suspect it was because they eventually encountered the reality. Sea Dragon could <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>