ULV: the Ultra Heavy Lift Vehicle

[vogelbek]

I'm more concerned about the long term ramifications of launching dozens of hydro-carbon powered boosters every year. Thats alot of CO2, and might really draw some negative press. If you start getting into hundreds or even thousands of launches per year, you might actually start moving the needle.<br /><br />Another issue I see is the reduction of safety associated with building big. It would be hopelessly difficult to use the same level of inspection that modern launch vehicles enjoy. You might be able to beef everything up to try to reduce this problem, but I think its still likely that you will have some very impressive and potentially infamous failures.<br /><br />While I'm on a naysaying streak, heres two really hard questions that are not engineering based: <br /><br />1) How are you going to deal with International Trafic of Arms Regulations (ITAR) for a project like this? <br /><br />If it involves any type of rocket technology or know how from inside the US, and any non-US people (engineering, manufacturing, launch locations, etc) or end users, you're probably hosed.<br /><br />2)Where is the capital for this project going to come from? <br /><br />Its a huge and very unproven idea, that would seem to require a major government program (hundreds of US$ billions). Of course some up and coming superpower like China or India (with a greater enthusiasm for government superprojects) might gain some excellent benifis from trying it (using it as a stepping stone to make their own ultra-high-tech industry), but then you're just a bystander, watching it all on CNN.

 

[brellis]

I took a minute to search for reports on the impact of rockets and shuttles on the ozone layer, and it doesn't look that bad, especially from the p.o.v. of the Aerospace Corporations <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />From Studying Earth's Environment from Space(SEES) Educational Site funded by NASA & Boeing:<br /><br />http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_12/12_4.htm<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Models have already been used to assess the impact of shuttle and rocket launches on stratospheric ozone. It was suggested by one study that losses of greater than 8% in local total ozone occur in the neighborhood of space shuttle launches. However, the cumulative impact of a series of shuttle and rocket launches on the stratosphere is rather small, as shown in other studies, which showed a maximum total ozone decrease of 0.12%. Such studies will certainly be important in future political and economic decisions related to ozone depleting chemicals.</font><br /><br />From the Union of Concerned Scientists Global Warming Report<br /><font color="yellow">The solid rocket strap-on motors used in the most powerful space launch systems -- the US space shuttle and the Titan IV, as well as the European Ariane V -- produce copious amounts of HCl and possibly other reactive chlorine-containing exhaust products. Since these strap-on motors burn well into the stratosphere, a significant fraction of their exhaust gases is deposited there. The plume from each launch causes a temporary "mini" ozone hole, although since space launch trajectories are slant paths, the ozone depletion is not stacked up over a single surface point. Current launch levels are so low that the stratospheric chlorine injected by space launc</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[j05h]

Ozone depletion is much less of an issue for H, O and RP1 powered rockets. There's a little degradation, but nothing compared to those filthy SRBs. It's another reason to NOT go with the ARES I and V. <br /><br />The "Jupiter" rockets are cute, but no where near the throw-weight I'm talking about. Same goes for multi-core CCBs - which is just a variant on the current Atlas/Delta concepts. And they aren't anywhere near "ultra-heavy" lift. <br /><br />So, what economics, development and tech are needed to reliably put 250tons plus in LEO? <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[publiusr]

The bigger the better.

 

[docm]

@JO5H;<br /><br />If the Jupiter III's 200-500 MT isn't enough it sounds like to get a throw weight you'll accept would require a nuclear booster, which few would accept in practice. Upper stages, yes. Nuclear boosters, no. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> If the Jupiter III's 200-500 MT ...</i><br /><br />Ah, I guess I didn't read enough of their PDF. I thought it topped out at Apollo-class. corrrection noted.<br /><br />J <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[docm]

Get the Merlin 3 post in M&L. SpaceX has plans for an F-1 class engine, and Merlin 2 is its scale model. That should shake up heavy lifting. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> Get the Merlin 3 post in M&L. SpaceX has plans for an F-1 class engine, and Merlin 2 is its scale model. That should shake up heavy lifting.</i><br /><br />That's what i'm talkin' about! 1.5million lb/f modern engines! Now, how do you integrated something like that into a hull built in a shipyard? <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[docm]

Cluster a few of those with a big M2/M3 2nd stage and you've got a real monster, that's for sure <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <br /><br />Their BFR test stand is supposedly designed for 15 meganewtons and I love this Elon-quote;<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"<b>Long term plans call for development of a heavy lift product and even a super-heavy, if there is customer demand.</b> We expect that each size increase would result in a meaningful decrease in cost per pound to orbit. For example, dollar cost per pound to orbit dropped from $4,000 to $1,300 ($8,800/kg to $2,900/kg) between Falcon 1 and Falcon 5. Ultimately, I believe $500 per pound ($1,100/kg) or less is very achievable."<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Bigelow would love it if he could launch multiple modules at once. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

The Jupiter III as shown has a liftoff thrust of nearly 20 million pounds assuming the Saturn V F-1 engines or equivalent are being utilized and the shuttle SRBs are 3 million pounds thrust each. <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>

 

[docm]

That's a big candle <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

It would probably also shatter every window in florida.

 

[j05h]

<i>> It would probably also shatter every window in florida.</i><br /><br />Another good reason for sea-launching. I would think all the naval aviators would be ga-ga over this concept. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[publiusr]

If President Hillary axes future subs for the military--maybe Electric Boat and Northrup Grumman will convince here to fund Sea Dragon based SPS launchers using shipyard techniques. Use the Sea Launch C&C ship, and spar construction tech.

 

[scottb50]

I remember that. Some things have been simplified recently.<br /><br />The Core Modules are single Modules with floating pistons. Liquid and gassious Helium fills the space between the pistons. Hydrogen is on one side and Oxygen on the other.<br /><br />Helium is used to cool nozzles and combustors and sent back to the Helium inter-tank as gas to pressurize the Hydrogen and Oxygen. <br /><br />No turbo-machinery is needed. A combustion chamber and nozzle, nozzle steering would be a must get option.<br /><br />I'm also thinking of RS-68 combustors over SSME's, they are newer and evolved technology.<br /><br />I'm still looking at an RL-10 derived, or sized, upper stage identical to the launch vehicle core.<br /><br />Every Segment fits a specific mechanical requirement but fits into a Standard. In the Standard Module any identical Modules will attach to any other side by side or end to end. Extended length Modules will simply add more Segments.<br /><br />Any combination could be possible. I'm basing my plan on a 30x20 foot Segment. A Standard Module is two Segments, larger Modules simply add Segments. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> If President Hillary axes future subs for the military--maybe Electric Boat and Northrup Grumman will convince here to fund Sea Dragon based SPS launchers using shipyard techniques. Use the Sea Launch C&C ship, and spar construction tech.</i><br /><br />That's the idea but I'm more interested in seeing it done commercially. Some company that needs that level of spacelift - but whatever works. Electric Boat (and Bath Iron Works for all you Mainers out there) would make ideal sites for building this type of spacecraft. It's a ship, it's a giant rocket! Sea Launch is using a retired cruise ship for it's command vessel, IIRC. Spar construction would be useful as well. <br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[docm]

With most every poll showing 46% saying "anyone BUT Hillary" (meaning they'll <i><b>never</b></i> vote for her), including many in her own party, her chances appear grim in spite of the media's wishes & hype. Only 29% say they would definitely vote for her. Among Democrats only Biden & Richardson fare worse. <br /><br />That ~46% number has been steady for 2 years.<br /><br />Candidates like her bring more people out to vote <i><b>against</b></i> them than for. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

Like I said, I'm mostly interested in a commercial ULV. The technology is still there, since Truax proposed Sea Dragon we've only gotten better at building surface ships. The engine technology is here (TRW's pintle-injector engine for instance) so what is needed is something to close the business case. <br /><br />Specific proposals to foster this kind of business include short-term processing of biomedicines (single orbit or less?), extremely rapid cargo delivery to any water and routine hypersonic and space access for passengers. "Building big" with a simple robust TSTO and modular payload bay that can accomodate several tasks could be the route to routine access. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[azorean5000]

500t cargo to orbit...whoa...ULV´s would open up a lot of possibilites to space activity (industry, science, perhabs meaningfull manned activity)...unfortunatly the governments (the only ones who can do it) dont care about it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

The design and development costs are in the same order as large infrastructure and aerospace projects - I'd guess less than the Big Dig but more than the 787. Construction costs should be a small multiple of the same tonnage of ship/submarine and highly elastic due to volume - the more built, the cheaper each unit gets. It's Building Big because it can't work economically as a single vehicle. <br /><br />Developing a craft (really a transportation network) like this requires something beyond government funding. It's a proposition for a consortia including major Transit Authorities, aerospace, shipyards, etc. Alternately, a single shipyard with a propulsion provider could start now. Drs. Truax and Bono already did most of the research.<br /><br />These types of Ultra-Heavy rockets have the advantages of using more modest materials do to sheer size and to enable end-users to look at standard hardware instead of aerospace-only hardware. At 500t to LEO, putting electric Catepilars on the Moon becomes feasible.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[publiusr]

More on sea dragon at http://www.up-ship.com

 

[ruff_house]

while i know NTR (Nuclear thermal Rockets) may cause a bit of a stir among a lot of people, I think they have a lot of potential. namely in the ULV catagory. <br /><br />http://www.nuclearspace.com/a_liberty_ship10.htm<br /><br />Now, as a mere AeroSpace engineering student, I can only say that the asic numbers look workable to me. Still, what they propose hereis nothign short of amazing. <br /><br />1000 Tones to orbit on a reuasable vehicle using no oxidizer. best of all, using the sheer power of gas core nuclear engines, it's not exorbitantly large compaired to our ideas of what a 250-500 ton capacity booster would look like. perhaps im completely of base here, but i think this warrents thought.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

I couldn't agree with you more, in fact I made the first response in this thread with the exact same link. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br />Nuclear is the only way to get us into space in a big way NOW. If we had put Nucs into production when they were ready to in 73', we'd have fourth or fifth generation engines in use right now, a colony on Mars & probes in Interstellar Space.<br />We will not get into deep space until we embrace Space Nuclear Power. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[nimbus]

http://www.nuclearspace.com/a_liberty_ship13.htm<br />I must have misunderstood. Isn't hitting the sun supposed to be exceedingly difficult? Or does something as powerful as that hypothetical Liberty Ship solve the problem? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ruff_house]

well, since everything is in solar orbit, Hitting the sun should be pretty easy. If I am to understand it the idea was that since the waste in the reactor they had chosen was the more troublesome component (when compaired to the relativly armless fuel) they would dispose of as much of the waste from liftoff as they could while in space. hitting the sun with it, could, in fat be pretty easy. just launch the material at a high enough velocity to escape Earth orbit, bit not in at any particular planetary body. chances are it's solar orbit would eventually just degrade into the sun.