Space Ship I and Space Ship II and Ares

[dryson]

With the replacement of the casing that encloses the solid fuel plug would it still be more economical in the long run to ferry up replacement plugs for the engine that could be changed out at the I.S.S. or other dedicated facility versus sending up liquid fuel aboard a heavy lifter vehicle to fuel the craft? With liquid fuel it costs more to use in comparison to the solid fuel plug. Once in space however a new cost bears it ugly head and that is the amount of time that the astronaughts are in space. So which would cost less to replace in space? Cutting all of the bolts off of a SSO type booster unit or would just having a fuel farm seperate from the main facility be cheaper? I would have to go with the SSO Solid Booster fuel for the two reasons. The first reason is safety. Solid fuel takes more energy to ignite than liquid fuel does. So by using a SSo Solid Fuel Booster the changeout facility could be kept closer to the I.S.S. which would keep the expenditure of money used on the spacewalk or vehicle use to a minimum. The second is additional fuel cost. If we are not able to keep the changeout facility close to the I.S.S. or said facility and would have to use a special transfer vehicle to travel to said facility then we are in fact using more money in liquid propellant to refuel the craft that is heading to Mars or the Moon to delivery cargo or crew.

 

[SteveCNC]

the cost to manufacture the phenolic sleeve is pretty minimal and the phenolic itself is reasonably cheap as well so the throw away sleeve is at most $1500.00 so it barely registers as a cost . The weight of the fuel isn't all that much either , it has the look of dirty plexiglass and has a similar density/weight . On the SS2 it's a good size motor but the fuel is extremely safe and can be handled with bare hands (except for contaminating the fuel , it won't hurt you though) . It's hard to say for certain without exact numbers on cost which way is more economical hybrid vs liquid fuel but I can say with complete certainty that the fuel of the hybrid is safer and easier to deal with , it has far less explosive potential .

 

[vulture4]

Were you describing the SpaceShip One motor?

While I've got the greatest respect for anyone who can actually build a rocket, for on-orbit ops every step in a manual process like removing or installing a pressure bulkhead is a lot more complex when you have to do it in a spacesuit with heavy gloves and any unsecured part will drift away. In contrast, the Russian segment already transfers hypergolic propellants (I assume they are UDMH and NTO) by automated quick-disconnects. There generally isn't any explosive potential in space because there is noatmosphere. All the hazardous fires have been inside the crew space except the Apollo 13 fuel cell tank explosion.

 

[SteveCNC]

SS1 and SS2 are both hybrid motors , SS2's is quite a bit bigger than SS1's but the technology is the same as the motor is scalable at least up to a point .

While I would never suggest that the fuel plug be replaced in space on the rocket , I can see where the motor itself can be mass produced pretty easily , it is incredibly simplistic in design but still everything is close tolerance . Point being they could be modified to work as a swapable cartridge type system , one atlasV could bring up 30 or more motors with fuel plugs pretty easily and an automated transfer system wouldn't be very hard to design for installing the motor cartrige . The only trick would be getting the spent motors back down to earth to be refilled if some kind of facility wasn't available in space or on the moon . Just installing the fuel plug and liner wouldn't be too terribly difficult if they were prepped before hand .

At some point though we will need the ability to manufacture things in space and on the moon , certain things would actually be a lot easier on the moon though I'm not as sure about space . It's one thing to make that 16" chuck liftable by hand but a whole nother story about making hot chips in a weightless environment would not be as much fun so it would take a machine designed a bit different than what's available right now . BTW in case you didn't know I'm an machinest specialized in 3d geometry . Better hurry up with that moon base machine shop , I'm due to retire in about 12 years (it's looking like I missed the boat) .

It's debatable as to what would really work out best liquid or hybrid , right now I think the hybrid is still pretty new and can be improved on quite a bit so things may go either way at this point . I do know some much more powerful engines are being built by space dev though so far they are pretty tight lipped about it and I haven't had a chance to grill my friend Chris on any info reguarding progress/or output numbers or anything . As soon as I do you can bet I'll tell people here what's up if I can heh . When we started the hybrid project it seems to me it was about 9 or 10 years ago and the very first motor was very small about 5" x 12" and if you've seen the pictures of SS2's motor it's the size of a person . And I saw a drawing a while back at space dev that had a seriously big motor on it so like I say it's still somewhat new and hasn't shown it's full potential yet . We shall see , there may yet be a hybrid that can go from ground to GSO .

 

[dryson]

At some point though we will need the ability to manufacture things in space and on the moon , certain things would actually be a lot easier on the moon though I'm not as sure about space . It's one thing to make that 16" chuck liftable by hand but a whole nother story about making hot chips in a weightless environment would not be as much fun so it would take a machine designed a bit different than what's available right now . BTW in case you didn't know I'm an machinest specialized in 3d geometry . Better hurry up with that moon base machine shop , I'm due to retire in about 12 years (it's looking like I missed the boat) .

I would have to say that both types of facilities, a lunar and orbital manufacturing facility, would be a benefit to space exploration. The orbital facility would not cost as much as the Lunar facility that would create the propellant due to the facilities proximity to Earth which would reduce the cost of using fuel to send the necessary components to the facility.

I have been doing some research on Lunar minerals and other elements and have not be able to find any of the component material's necessary to manufacture the solid booster plugs. Any fuel facility on the Moon would have to have the material components shipped to the Moon and then stored in the refueling facility.

Now the next question is which fuel source would be more economical to delivery any cargo to the Moon? The solid fuel boosters or the liquid fuel boosters? Both need to be refueled at one time or another. I would have to say whichever fuel source provides a better thrust to fuel usage ratio when compared to each other which then translates into a cost effective measure of delivering cargo to the Moon would be the best form of fuel to use.

If using solid fuel booster's that cost less to manufacture but may take longer to arrive at the Moon would reduce the overall cost of delivering cargo to the Moon then we should use the SS-I SRB plug's to send the automated cargo ships to the Moon. Manned ships to the Moon would then use the liquid fuel to send the crewed ship to the Moon based on the fact that a manned mission would need to arrive at the Moon or other desitination faster due to the human occupants needing to be free of the cramped environment of their capsule.

So which ever fuel source creates the most thrust versus cost of delivering the cargo or manned passengers is the fuel source that would need to be used and stored on the Moon.

Also by having a refueling station on the Moon the extra amount of fuel carriered by either craft that translate's into extra tonnage could be eleviated and replaced with extra cargo space meaning that more cargo could be sent to the Moon or other destination that would further eliminate the cost in fuel used to send another mission to the Moon to deliver the remaining cargo that could have been hauled along with the first delivery.

 

[dryson]

to refuel a hybrid only requires the removal of one end of the motor (preferably the back for easier access to the starters) which involves cutting about 150-200 rivets off (couple of hours) , slide the old fuel plug and phenolic liner out and pull out the used starters . Put in new starters and slide the new fuel plug and liner in , put the end back on and pressure test the assembly . Refill the Nitrous oxide tanks and your ready to go again . The only thing thrown away is the old liner and perhaps the used fuel plug if it can't be melted down and recycled and the used starters . This particular motor could be easily made to be cartridge exchangeable where the main motor assembly gets swapped out for refilling at a later time or other location. It could be the perfect solution for an in-space ferry system from a safety standpoint

Now I am assuming that the removal of the end of the motor for plug replacement would take place inside of the facility?
Now for this aspect of the facility thre will need to be a few new machines designed to replace the plug as fast as possible.

The first base of the facility is the complex. I would have to say that the facility would be an open air type of facility at first. By open air I mean that a basic roof and structural support would need to be built so that micrometeorite strikes would not impede the refueling process nor damage any machinery involved in the refueling process. Eventually though the facility would be an enclosed oxygeninated and pressurized facility.

The first piece of equipment needed would be a vehicle that would lift the SRB into place so that all bolts could be loosened at one time and then re-tighten at one time to reduce the cost of space walking.

The next piece of equipment that would be needed is a machine that is able to loosen all of the nuts at one time and then re-tighten the nuts at the same time. CNCSteve this might type of device might be right up your alley since you you deal with datum positioning devices that require an xyz coordinate placement system.

The third piece of equipment would need to be the plug loading device. The plug loading device would be built into the nut loosener/tightener device. After the end cap has been removed from the booster the nut loosener/tightener table would rotate to the deck where the end cap is securely gripped by six armatures that would be equally spaced around the outside edges of the booster end cap. Another loading device would then load the SRB plug/cartridge into the loading chamber of the device. A hydralic rammer would then push the cartridge into the SRB housing. The process of loading the cartridge would be similiar to how the 16" guns of the U.S.S. North Carolina BB-55 operate in loading a 16" shell into the tube. After the cartridge had been inserted into the SRB housing the arms would then raise the SRB end cap back into position and retighten the nuts thus completing the SRB refueling process.

Side note: I have been inside of the North Carolina when I served in the U.S.M.C. If you think those old girls of WWII are big on t.v. you should see them in person. Her deck is like the legs of a looker that just keep on going up and up.

The inside of the North Carolina is not like a village but it is a village of corridors that lead you to the history of those that served aboard her during WWII. I even got the chance to sit in the training seat of one of the quad-40's along with my brother who sat in the pointers seat. Just sitting in that seat made me envision that enemy warplanes were on approach and that the 40's were firing with all their gusto as the crew feverishly reloaded the ammo for the next volley.

Take a vacation to see the "Show Boat" and the awesome power that the veterans of WWII wielded to protect America.

 

[Valcan]

.

Well. The proble mwith anything done on the moon is simply the dust. Its microscopic and can mess up anything we can make. You would have to have a clean enviroment nothing could come in from the surface.

That is my biggest problem with the moon manufacturing. Plus its a gravity well. Which means more delta V and more fuel needed.

Shipping the mats into GSO would probably be alot easier not to mention would require moving less equipment to the moon.

 

[frodo1008]

Valcan, have you ever had anything to do with manufacturing? Even more, have you ever been around a metal smelter?

Well, I have, and such places are absolutely NOT clean room environments (which I have also worked in). They are far dirtier than any amount of moon dust would be. So your first problem is not a problem at all, as we already have at the least mining and smelting equipment easily capable of working in any environment (including the surface of the moon).

As for the gravity well of the moon, it is only 1/6 th that of the Earth, and even better, the moon has no atmosphere to heat up higher velocity objects. A simple maglev type of track and you can literally throw objects off of the moon without using rockets at all!

We can even just mine the materials on the moon directly, and then literally throw these materials off the moon into near moon space to be smelted and then worked in space directly, which has truly vast amounts of energy available directly from the sun for such manufacturing operations. We can also use the fact that the same amounts of sunlight also strike some of the areas of the moon at the poles 100% of the time to at the very lest smelt the materials right there.

Up until about a year ago one of the objections to using the moon was indeed somewhat of a problem, although in no way a show stopper, as there is plenty of oxygen to be had, and combined with some needed quantities of hydrogen brought up from the Earth would have solved the problem anyway. And that was the supposed lack of water on the moon. But guess what? Now, they have even discovered large amounts of water ice itself at the poles in deep eternally shaded craters!

Might I suggest that you obtain the great visionary book "The High Frontier" by the late and very great Dr. G. K. O'Neill.

In that book is all of this information on just why the moon (and not Mars) is the ideal goal for mankind to exploit to find the materials necessary to truly (and cost effectively) expand into space. Get it and read it, as it is far better to be truly informed on this subject that to just continue to be ignorant of the truth.

By the way, the moon is also quite probably the best eventual near term goal for true space tourism, as well as having the best places in the Earth/moon systems on the hidden side of the moon for space telescopes of all types, but especially for very large radio telescopes.

Besides being one of the great enablers of life itself on this planet, we are indeed very fortunate to have such a body as the moon as close to the Earth as we have. The moon will play the crucial role in the future of mankind in space. And that IS the truth!!

 

[dryson]

Well. The problem with anything done on the moon is simply the dust. Its microscopic and can mess up anything we can make. You would have to have a clean enviroment nothing could come in from the surface.
That is my biggest problem with the moon manufacturing. Plus its a gravity well. Which means more delta V and more fuel needed.
Shipping the mats into GSO would probably be alot easier not to mention would require moving less equipment to the moon.

We are not talking about Moon manufacturing like you are thinking that we are. We are discussing the advantages and disadvantages of using the SS One SRB fuel system in comparisson with a chemical fuel system to transport cargo to and from the Moon to Earth.

 

[dryson]

But I do understand what you are talking about valcan. The surface dust might be too fine and grainy to mine but the more soild ores underneath of the surface would provide a base for creating metals on the Moon that would then be used to construct other facilities and ship module components.

 

[frodo1008]

You know dryson, all of these things were worked out back in the 1970's and 1980's by Dr O'Neill and his students and others. A small skip loader is all it would take to scoop up the loose dust and soil underneath it on the surface of the moon. It need only be small, as the weight it has to handle would be only 1/6 th that of similar materials on the Earth. This is then placed in a materials compactor where it is compacted into a cube, which is then in turn accelerated on an electrically powered magnetic maglev type of linear mass accelerator to the moon's escape velocity, which is only about 1.2 miles per second for the moon instead of the 7 miles per second of the Earth (and with no atmosphere to heat the materials up either). The compacted material is flung up to a catcher (which is a large net type of structure where it is gathered for processing into metals to be used in space itself.

Or, we could also do the initial smelting processes on the moon itself, and fling ingots of pure metals and silica up to a point in space. Almost all of these operations would be done to a great extent by robotics with only some need for human supervision in case of breakdowns and such.

If we can not even afford to go back to the moon, then how on (or off for that matter) Earth are we going to afford to go any further out into space at all??????? :? :? :? :? :?

 

[dryson]

You know dryson, all of these things were worked out back in the 1970's and 1980's by Dr O'Neill and his students and others. A small skip loader is all it would take to scoop up the loose dust and soil underneath it on the surface of the moon. It need only be small, as the weight it has to handle would be only 1/6 th that of similar materials on the Earth. This is then placed in a materials compactor where it is compacted into a cube, which is then in turn accelerated on an electrically powered magnetic maglev type of linear mass accelerator to the moon's escape velocity, which is only about 1.2 miles per second for the moon instead of the 7 miles per second of the Earth (and with no atmosphere to heat the materials up either). The compacted material is flung up to a catcher (which is a large net type of structure where it is gathered for processing into metals to be used in space itself.

Or, we could also do the initial smelting processes on the moon itself, and fling ingots of pure metals and silica up to a point in space. Almost all of these operations would be done to a great extent by robotics with only some need for human supervision in case of breakdowns and such.

If we can not even afford to go back to the moon, then how on (or off for that matter) Earth are we going to afford to go any further out into space at all

We are not talking about manufacturing on the Moon we are talking about the comparisson of propulsion systems and which are more cost effective to be used to send cargo to the Moon A SRB designed after the Space Ship One engine system or a chemical fuel system which is currently in use as well as trying to figure out how to cut costs by having a supply base on the Moon where a cargo fuel ship is sent to the Moon where manned missions to the Moon can carry enough fuel to travel to the Moon and then re-fuel at the Moon fuel depot. By having a fuel depot on the Moon the cargo ship could haul more cargo at one time along with the manned missions being able to haul more cargo which would require extra missions that cost more money to delivery the remaining cargo for the first mission.

Fuel is the largest cost involved with space exploration and if a way could be found to effectively place a fuel depot on the Moon and then even possibly establish a forward fuel depot on an asteroid then yes we would be able to travel further into space.

The figures that you state are from the 80's and do not relate with today's or tomorrow's advances in fuel technology, material composition (the manufacture of lighter hull materials that are stronger) as well as avionics technology all of which factor into the overall cost of space exploration.

 

[mr_mark]

I cannot even believe that meteor wayne would even allow this post. This post was written by someone who has NO understanding of the physics of spaceflight. Spaceship 1 and 2 are designed as suborbital craft and cannot withstand the speeds and pressures of orbital spaceflight as well as the heat of reentry. Why this post is allowed to stay up on this board, I just don't know. It's an embarrassment to the entire board and it's followers. I should write a post saying let's tie a paper airplane to ares 1 and launch it into orbit. It's that crazy :shock: Better yet why have a spacecraft at all. Let's just tie the astronauts to the ares 1 SRB and let it go... geess...........

 

[MeteorWayne]

We do not censor scientific ignorance

Sometimes we do move it to the Unexplained...

But the Community usually does a fine job of pointing it out :lol:

 

[dryson]

I cannot even believe that meteor wayne would even allow this post. This post was written by someone who has NO understanding of the physics of spaceflight. Spaceship 1 and 2 are designed as suborbital craft and cannot withstand the speeds and pressures of orbital spaceflight as well as the heat of reentry. Why this post is allowed to stay up on this board, I just don't know. It's an embarrassment to the entire board and it's followers. I should write a post saying let's tie a paper airplane to ares 1 and launch it into orbit. It's that crazy :shock: Better yet why have a spacecraft at all. Let's just tie the astronauts to the ares 1 SRB and let it go... geess...........

Do you have any engineering knowledge? Do you have design knowledge as well? Obviously not. I am quite aware that a vehicel like the SS One and SS Two are only meant to be travel into the lower atmosphere. If you read the post's all the way through you would read the post's where I discussed using the SS One and SS Two design in a space worthy configuration meaning that all of the structural components and the overall design of the vehicles have remained the same except that the systems would include facilties allowing the passengers to travel into space. And no the design would not end up being the same as the shuttle because the shuttle is meant to carry cargo and conduct on board experiment's. The design of space faring SS One and the SS Two would only be meant to ferry passengers to the I.S.S.

In the English venacular it's called a design simularity where the characteristic's of one craft are used in another craft.

The discussion then goes into the feasibility of which engine system would be more cost effective in sending cargo to the I.S.S. either solid fuel which is based off of the same fuel that the SS One and SS Two uses versus chemical fuel.

The discussion also talks about which type of fuel would be best suited to send crew and cargo to the Moon either SS One type SOlid Booster fuel or the current chemical fuel system.

Then the discussion continues on about the logistics of having a fuel depot located on the Moon so that less fuel would be needed to be carriered aboard the ship that is traveling to the Moon which would reduce the fuel weight allowing for more cargo to be taken along instead of having to send another mission to the Moon that would cost more money because of the fuel needed to transport the cargo to the Moon when the second cargo ship's cargo could have been transported at least in a partial load when the first shipment was sent up because of the fuel depot located on the Moon that would allow a ship to delivery the cargo refuel at the Lunar Fuel Depot and then return to Earth.

SO before you lambast my post READ the entire post next time because you are only making an ass out yourself by just skimming through the post.

ANYWAY

I have found a suitable vehicle that might be able to assist in the refueling process. It's Nasa's newest Moon Rover called the Athlete. I do not think that it would be too difficult to attach a boom or two to the chassis unit that would allow the SSO SRB Plug to be hoisted into position to be reload into the chamber of the ships engine.

 

[MeteorWayne]

What a load of garbage...if you think SS1 and SS2 can be retrofitted for orbit, the level of your delusion is hard to imagine.

 

[dryson]

What a load of garbage...if you think SS1 and SS2 can be retrofitted for orbit, the level of your delusion is hard to imagine.

Obviously you do not understan once again what I am saying as you continue to assume that I would use SS I and SS II in their current configuration to be used in space. Typical Meteor Wayne style only wanting to see what you want to see and then becoming primroseric when you have been bested.

I am talking about taking the design of the SS I and SS II not the actuall SS I and SS II but the design of the SS I and SS II and developing them into space worthy vehicles that could deliver a crew of four to the I.S.S. Each astronaught would be suited in the typical flight suit used by the shuttle crew during launch with the minimal amount of systems added to the SSI and SS II designs to allow for travel into space and then to the I.S.S. Basically the design would be similar to the Mercury Capsule for each astronaught built into the SSI and SSII design frame.

 

[RVHM]

Why are we even continuing to discuss this at all? It's insane.

 

[MeteorWayne]

What a load of garbage...if you think SS1 and SS2 can be retrofitted for orbit, the level of your delusion is hard to imagine.

Obviously you do not understan once again what I am saying as you continue to assume that I would use SS I and SS II in their current configuration to be used in space. Typical Meteor Wayne style only wanting to see what you want to see and then becoming primroseric when you have been bested.

I am talking about taking the design of the SS I and SS II not the actuall SS I and SS II but the

Well obviously then they would be nothing at all like SSI and SSII so would have a completely different name and completely different design.

What elements of SSI and SSII would you preserve? Decals and paint jobs don't count.

 

[mr_mark]

When someone attacks the moderator...meterorwayne, I just have to wonder. My take is that this is another desperate attempt to maintain a fly back capability such as the shuttle. As far as I know there is only one true vehicle being planned as a fly back style vehicle and that is Sierra Nevada"s Dreamchaser spacecraft. I have said time and again that this is no more than a money pit and aside from a mockup nothing actually exists hardware wise. The only real vehicles that exist or are in production with real hardware is Spacex's Falcon 9, cargo Dragon, Orbital's Taurus 2 launcher and their Cygnus cargo spacecraft. Of course, Scaled Composites and Virgin Galctic has SS2 but that is for suborbital only and SS3 is planned for point to point suborbital and that has been stated by company representatives, even Richard Branson and Burt Rutan. It seems that the real companies who wish to produce vehicles are doing so. New Space followers need to start making sense of this and understanding that not every company that has an office or powerpoint is actually in the business of making real spacecraft. There are a lot of sharks out there looking for easy money.

 

[MeteorWayne]

In this case, I am not posting as a moderator, but just a user like all of us, so attacks (especially from the scientifically deficient) don't bother me in the least.

 

[mr_mark]

Not to get off topic as this is about SS1 and SS2 being used as a basis for orbital fly back operations (at least that's my take on it). but, the only thing I could find on the Space Dev (Sierra Nevada) website concerning Dreamchaser was this pretty little picture. I think some of us on this board could have made such an image. Really, does this company deserve NASA investment based on a hope and this drawing. Please NASA, if you want to give out millions for pretty pictures some of us here on this board would be more than willing to make a few for you. Here is Space Dev's nice drawing... http://www.spacedev.com/viewer/images/s ... ser_as.jpg

 

[SteveCNC]

Not to get off topic as this is about SS1 and SS2 being used as a basis for orbital fly back operations (at least that's my take on it). but, the only thing I could find on the Space Dev (Sierra Nevada) website concerning Dreamchaser was this pretty little picture. I think some of us on this board could have made such an image. Really, does this company deserve NASA investment based on a hope and this drawing. Please NASA, if you want to give out millions for pretty pictures some of us here on this board would be more than willing to make a few for you. Here is Space Dev's nice drawing... http://www.spacedev.com/viewer/images/s ... ser_as.jpg

Are you saying that because they aren't posting the design specs and progress notes that they don't deserve the contract ? Somehow I don't think NASA cares that you don't get to see that information , they are much farther along than just a picture BTW .

As for redesigning SS1 or SS2 for travel in space , the biggest flaw I can see is that they can never re-enter earth's atmosphere due to the fact that they were never designed to re-enter at orbital speeds . Their design might be modified to travel around in space somewhat but there was never the kind of room needed for long duration (over a couple hours) life support equipment and supplies . While carbon fiber is a fun material to work with and it has many uses , but I'm not exactly confident that it makes a good hull for space travel beyond earths magnetic field .

 

[mr_mark]

Yes, I see your point from a non engineering point of view but from a business standpoint, who would make these vehicles? Both Scaled and Virgin have stated that they have no interest from a business perspective to make orbital vehicles. Virgin Galactic has flat out stated that SS3 would be a point to point suborbital vehicle and that they have no interest in building an orbital vehicle for the long term. So only Sierra Nevada's Dreamchaser has any chance and that is a picture and a video. There is no hardware under production for it and as far as I know there is no end date as far as build out. Same with Boeing's capsule design , it's all on paper at best and there is no hardware and no tooling even under consideration at this point. Only Lockheed Martin's Orion has actual hardware along with what I said before, Falcon 9, Cargo Drago and Taurus 2 and Cygnus Cargo. What NASA needs to watch out for is the hucksters of there who want to rob them of their funding. Anyone can have an office and make plans and statements. NASA needs to invest in those companies that are already showing results, such as hardware and actual launches. Money is too slim right now to be throwing it away on speculation.

 

[SteveCNC]

Dream Chaser is based on what we already know works , so it's not exactly speculative , and they have already done the models , wind tunnel and even have a Dream Chaser mock-up . Plus I know one of the engineers working on the propulsion system and it is in development . In some cases you have to know exactly what your dealing with before you can move onto other stages of development . Not that a layman would know these things but Space Dev has several satalite launches under their belt with no failures that I am aware of to date , they have done both government and civilian work on several of the systems on many other satalites so this isn't some johnny come lately company , I've been doing work for them since about 1999 and many of the people working there I had worked with from Lockheed Martin or in cunjunction with .

Sorry for the off topic but figured it's sorta dead anyway :roll: