ULV: the Ultra Heavy Lift Vehicle

[nimbus]

I can't remember who or in what thread, but someone here recently said that it wasn't anywhere as simple (or easy) as just tossing it down the gravity well. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ruff_house]

Well, I can't imagine what else ti would do, especially if one were to project it into a solar orbit and then slow it down. still, even iff we couldnt just shoot it into the sun, the promise posed by such a booster is stagering.

 

[nuaetius]

[q]Well, I can't imagine what else ti would do, especially if one were to project it into a solar orbit and then slow it down. still, even iff we couldnt just shoot it into the sun, the promise posed by such a booster is stagering.[/q]<br /><br />Ok let’s see if I can explain this one for you. The way any orbit works is that you are moving so fast around something that you are continually falling over its edge. The higher the orbit the faster you have to go to continue to fall over the object’s edge. The Earth is moving along around the Sun at an unimaginable speed. Our best rockets in space have only increase or decrease a object’s speed relative to us by a relatively small percentage. So what happens to the junk it doesn’t fall into the sun, it falls into a non circular orbit with only slightly less energy than our own. Instead of dropping it into the sun you just create a new comet.<br />

 

[ruff_house]

I was afraid of that. either way though, considering the waste is a gas, simply shooting it out of the rocket at escape velocity, we effectively don't have to worry about it anymore. But back on Topic-<br /><br />a rocket that enourmous would likely need to be launched from:<br /><br />A. the ocean. i.e. Sea Dragon. or,<br />B. the desert. <br /><br />I prefer the second because it makes loading and unloading easie, as well as preventing us from having to worry about water damage on every return.

 

[spacester]

There is a way to do it. Two ways, actually.<br /><br />Using just your rocket engines, it's a LOT of dV. It would require something like 5 or 6 stages. You have to kill all your orbital velocity to "fall into the Sun".<br /><br />Specifically, Earth's Orbital Velocity is ~30 km/s. For a reasonable propellant fraction, have each stage get you 5 km/s. Six times 5 = 30, so that's what you would need to do to literally "fall into the sun". <br /><br />But what if we don't care about falling into the sun at the center? What if we got our trash hauler into such a highly elliptical orbit - of whatever orbital energy - that when it reaches periapse (the point of closest approach to the Sun), it has to pass thru the Sun's Corona, and it turns into plasma?<br /><br />That could be done without staging, by using an gravity assist (swing-by) from Venus. The whole deal with a swing-by is that it redirects you onto a new orbital path. A properly designed gravity assist for this mission would put the craft into an *extremely* elliptical heliocentric orbit by having the exit velocity vector after the swing-by point almost directly at the sun.<br /><br />If you miss, things could get ugly. The craft would likely have enough energy to come back out well past Earth orbit. You would have just created the first artificial PHA (Potentially Hazardous Asteroid). <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />hth <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[stuallan]

Now while we are on the subject on the liberty ship and nuclear rockets, i'm just throwing out the idea hear that this seemingly wonderful civilian idea could be turned into an extremly powerful military device. As in liberty ship model there is room for 1000tones of payload. Now if you wanted to change this into a military ship simply add 225 tonnes of armour 75tonnes of weaponry and 700tones as cargo space. you now have an armored mammotuh capable of making a short leap into space and back down anywhere in the world dropping 700tonnes of military cargo, or rougly 30 fully armed abrams and support.

 

[webtaz99]

...and one really big, easy-to-kill target on the way down... <br /><br />Lighten up. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[stuallan]

see thats the beuty of it... it isn't easy to kill. The immense power produced can be channeld to defense devices. For example jamming devices, with the helping hand of nuclear power you can created a large jamming field that is impossilbe to burn though until it is right on top of you, but the jamming field would be wide enough to leave the enemy guessing as to where your going to land. Then the only threat would be heat seeking missles since other will be screwed up by the jamming. Once agian thanks to the immense power thakns ot nuclear, simple lasers based anti-missle systems could be used for close in support, not to mention on-board missles used to destroy enemy emplacements, or not to mention sorties by war planes to take out enemy threats.

 

[ruff_house]

Interesting proposal.<br /><br />Still, I'm most concerned as to how we land such a beast, and how we handle such a massive single-peice machine on the ground. Would it be practicle to handle it like Sea Dragon? that would certainly make ground handling easier, just float it from a dry-dock, run mission, land in water (how?) and return to drydock.

 

[grdja]

Ahem, it all sounds nice, but with NASA needing 15 years and billions to develop Ares I out of existing hardware, and with EELV development also having taken years and billions, i really don't believe anything like SeaDragon could be achievable with less than 10 years of development and hundreds of billions of dollars.

 

[ruff_house]

I fear you have an insanely valid point.<br />Which brings us to another interesting question, for those who agree that this kind of idea has merit and should eb pursued, who would do it?<br /><br />I like to think that eventually by the time nasa gets around to simple base construction on Mars (wheeling a few habs together into a bigger hab, and that sort of deal) the Orion program and Ares rockets will be nearign Space shuttle age, and eprhaps by then NASA could be convinced that a reusable nucelar super-lifter would be in ther best interests as a next launcher. With NASA's suggestion that nuclear will play a big role in operations IN space over the Orion project, perhaps a space-based nuclear thermal rocket for interplanetary travel will help them see the light. I'm hoping, that while it may take ten years a billions of dollars, that it hopefully, will eventually get done.

 

[qso1]

My thoughts as well, especially if NASA were tasked to build it. If private industry could do it, they would have by now. This means one of two things is hobbling private industry. Either the concept is much more complicated to do than it appears on paper...or there is no market for it and actually, its probably a combination of both. <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>

 

[j05h]

<i>> Ahem, it all sounds nice, but with NASA needing 15 years and billions to develop Ares I out of existing hardware, and with EELV development also having taken years and billions, i really don't believe anything like SeaDragon could be achievable with less than 10 years of development and hundreds of billions of dollars.</i><br /><br />Bob Truax, the man who conceived of SeaDragon, has said that the cost of designing any sized orbital rocket is similar. The physical size of the vehicle is less important than size of labor pool and time involved. Cost of EELV development is about right (compare to the 787 design) and would be approximate for a ULV. <br /><br />My concept for this thread was to explore ways to build a ULV commercially, preferably in shipyards, launched from major harbors. It would be a commercial version of Truax' Naval rocket. We've identified interesting technology like SPAR construction that could form the base of a modern ULV. We've looked at suborbital first stages and orbital upper stages, Boeing's LEO and Bono's ASSTOs, engine count. Water-borne ULV will have ship-like aspects that include self-floating, ballast and self-righting but will likely be tugged/towed to and from launch areas. We haven't done much cost analysis but the numbers for design and initial deployment are in the 10's of billions with unit costs in the $1G range during production. It's equivalent to a supercontainer ship or Airbus 380. It's a capital project but achievable with the right business case. <br /><br />NASA has not shown a need for ULV, otherwise they wouldn't be developing the ARES architecture. SeaDragon and other ULVs are 30-40 years old and proposed for various uses. There has not yet been a compelling reason to build that big for government or industry. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[ruff_house]

true, but if you want to put massive loads on orbit, it really comes down to a huge booster or a space elevator. <br /><br />Scramjets and spaceplanes can put stuff on orbit cheaply, but it still locks us into this limitied fits-through-the-cargo-doors architecture that made the ISS a disaster where Skylab had been a success.<br /><br />If we want to put huge single peice stations and vehicles on orbit (ground construction is much cheaper and safer than orbital construction, we know this) we need an elevator or a super-rocket. i love elevators, but super rockets are more practicle, sadly Nasa has thusfar opted to build missions around rockets instead of building rockets around missions. Look at the way we are scaling down orion to fit the stick.

 

[pmn1]

Does anyone have the size and weight of the engines for Sea Dragon.<br /><br />Astronautix gives the Sea Dragon 1 engine a 21.5 metre diamater and 356,900 kN thrust while Sea Dragon 2 has a 62,270 kN thrust. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> true, but if you want to put massive loads on orbit, it really comes down to a huge booster or a space elevator. </i><br /><br />Actually most space elevator proposals involve fairly small payloads, in the 5-20t range. So, you still end up with the fit-through-the-doors issue of spaceplanes. The only thing that will make spaceflight "cheap" is frequent flights, like hundreds of launches per year. In some ways it does not matter which tech-path is chosen. However, if you want massive payloads, the only choice is HLV/ULV vehicles. <br /><br />Ground construction and integration has definite advantages. Being able to place a 250ton spaceship in LEO in one shot would be a tremendous leverage in space development. ULVs have the advantage over elevators and scramjets in that we know that one can be built. There are no guarantees that the engineering to make a carbon nano-cable or the scramjet's multi-mode engine are possible. A SeaDragon or Leo type ULV is just a question of scale and testing, we know the physics works<br /><br />Good points about choosing rockets for missions instead of missions for rockets. <br /><br />I brought this up previously, but want to keep it on people's minds. Bob Truax wanted to build SeaDragons in shipyards. Modern shipyards like Bath IronWorks (BIW) and Ingalls are now using "aerospace" friction-stir welding and high-tech metals. The fields are coming closer together. BIW is pioneering construction units called "mega units" that they are using to build DDX-class destroyers. These are standardized and large hull segments that are joined end-to-end to make a ship, just add bow, stern and superstructure. This sort of standardized construction could enable ULV development - you'd design a radial or cross segment of the ULV, then build 20 or 30 sections, connect and add engines, viola' - instant "CATS" revolution. <br /><br />The structure isn't a huge issue, though, engines and purpose are the real determinants.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[pmn1]

http://www.dunnspace.com/leo_on_the_cheap.htm<br /><br />On page 192 of this article, there is mention of a USN program for a low cost launch vehicle, does anyone know why the program was cancelled?<br /><br />The SEALAR Development Effort<br /><br />Truax Engineering, Inc. (TEI) has championed the original Aerojet Sea Dragon concept since the late 1960s. TEI developed a phased approach for a family of launch vehicles that led up to Sea Dragon. Starting with a small single-stage sea launch and recovery demonstrator designated the X3, TEI proposed to follow with a booster having a Shuttle-class lift capability. Called Excalibur, it was to be essentially a scaled-down version of Sea Dragon. These developmental precursors would lead ultimately to the fielding of an operational Sea Dragon launch system.<br /><br />In 1988, the Naval Research Laboratory’s Naval Center for Space Technology (NCST) issued a broad area announcement for the SEALAR (Sea Launch and Recovery) concept, and TEI was the successful bidder. NCST called for<br />the SEALAR program to use the design-for-minimum-cost methodology as the booster’s guiding design criteria. The Navy wanted a simple, two-stage, launch system that could lift 4,500 kilograms (10,000 pounds) to low earth orbit. TEI proposed a down-sized Excalibur design, appropriately named Sub-Calibur, which was one-eightieth the size of the original Sea Dragon concept. Work moved forward over the next several years. There were a number of static tests of X3 vehicle variants, as well as drop tests from a helicopter into Monterey Bay, California. The X3 test articles represented near-scale demonstrators of the SubCalibur’s first stage.<br /><br />Progress on the SEALAR program was so encouraging that in 1990 the Senate Armed Services Committee praised the program, increased the Navy’s 1991 SEALAR budget request by 900 percent, and called for a competition<br />between SEALAR <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[publiusr]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.</DIV>&nbsp;</p><p>All rockets use solids, and ARES V throws less junk in the sea than Delta IV heavies with not a jot of engine out capability. If you launch a lot of smaller rockets with Solid augmentation--thats equal to a few Ares.<br /></p>

 

[publiusr]

<p>&nbsp;See this post--towards the bottom</p><p>http://www.russianspaceweb.com/los.html</p><p><font size="1">"Both the lunar surface base and the lunar orbital station would be delivered into space by a </font><font size="1">super-heavy version of the Angara rocket</font><font size="1"> with a cargo capacity of 100 tons to the low-Earth orbit. To top it off, Khrunichev drafted a family of giant rockets, with a cargo capacity to low-earth orbit ranging from 45 tons to an incredible 175 tons!"</font> </p><p>&nbsp;This from Anatoly Zak. I hope he includes artists conceptions.&nbsp;This series sounds like Glushko's origianl all kero RLA series.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[qso1]

Not all rockets use solids. Versions of the Delta such as the medium and heavy do not use solids, some of the current as well as past versions of Atlas do not use solids. The Saturn series did not use them. <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>

 

[j05h]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not all rockets use solids. Versions of the Delta such as the medium and heavy do not use solids, some of the current as well as past versions of Atlas do not use solids. The Saturn series did not use them. <br /> Posted by qso1</DIV></p><p>On top of that, all the serious ULV proposals (LEO, ROMBUS, SeaDragon) used liquid-only engines. Not only would they not use solids, solids would screw up the elegance and simplicity of these systems. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>j&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[Cygnus_X_1]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;All rockets use solids, and ARES V throws less junk in the sea than Delta IV heavies with not a jot of engine out capability. If you launch a lot of smaller rockets with Solid augmentation--thats equal to a few Ares. <br /> Posted by publiusr</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Wrong as usual. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

<p>True, one can only imagine a Rombus with solids, or even a Delta Clipper with solids. </p> <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>

 

[azorean5000]

<p>The problem with 550t-to-orbit ULV is that it would have to exist a need to a lot of very big launches in order to justify its costs. Where is the money for that?</p><p>&nbsp;But it would be great to have such a baby. Imagine the possibilitites</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

<p><font color="#800080">true, but if you want to put massive loads on orbit, it really comes down to a huge booster or a space elevator. Scramjets and spaceplanes can put stuff on orbit cheaply, but it still locks us into this limitied fits-through-the-cargo-doors architecture that made the ISS a disaster where Skylab had been a success. If we want to put huge single peice stations and vehicles on orbit (ground construction is much cheaper and safer than orbital construction, we know this) we need an elevator or a super-rocket. i love elevators, but super rockets are more practicle, sadly Nasa has thusfar opted to build missions around rockets instead of building rockets around missions. Look at the way we are scaling down orion to fit the stick. <br /> Posted by ruff_house</font></p><p>I wouldn't characterize ISS as a disaster. Its just not very economical in the way it was developed mostly. It took over a decade of design and redesign before its final architecture was finally approved and that had little to do with LVs. But when one looks at the construction of ISS so far from just a technical standpoint. Its impressive to say the least. Not bad at all despite poor economic planning.</p><p>The problem with huge single piece stations is that there is currently no demand for them.</p><p>Another problem would be to spend a decade developing one only to have the gigantic 450T or higher payload capacity rocket explode on the pad or at sea and loosing a decades worth of payload. There are pros and cons to doing it regardless of what method is chosen to get payloads to orbit.</p><p>It is definetily cheaper to build on the ground and you could have a station cluster of individual Skylab sized modules propelled to orbit on Shuttle Derived Vehicles (SDV) or Delta super heavys that could be derived from present heavy Deltas.</p><p>Eventually, assuming low orbit is teeming with all sorts of human activity in a decade or so. It will become more economical to build hardware on orbit and at that point, a huge LV would probably be the more cost effective choice for getting payloads to support that activity to orbit.&nbsp;</p><p>At the moment, Bigelow is taking a chance just by putting his eventual space hotel up in the hopes that someone else will provide regular tourist access to it. In effect, creating a demand. &nbsp;</p> <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>