2000 ton per day space transport

[hkhenson]

At 12:00 PM 5/1/2008, Dan wrote wrote:
(Keith wrote)
>At 12:00 PM 4/17/2008, Dan M wrote:
> > (Keith wrote)
> > >What do you want?  The current 747 cost about $300 million and dry
> > > > masses out to about 185 mt or $1.6 million a ton.  Produced in
> > > > similar tonnage, do you see any reason these rockets would cost more
> > > > than per ton than a 747?  If so, why?
> > >
> > >For the rocket itself, not counting all the other expenses associated
> > with launches, that's not an unreasonable cost.
> >
> > Agreement!
>
>Right, but that's for the rocket itself.  Not a shuttle, a rocket.

A rocket in the shape of a space capsule using a water cooled heat 
shield.  39 tons of water.

> > > > The .pdf was recommended as a good reference by Hu Davis of Eagle
> > > > Engineering.  Look him up.
> > >
> > >What has he built?
> >
> > The Eagle as in "the Eagle has landed."
>
>OK, I asked because I've seen so many "experts" who never had to do things.
>He does have great experience leading successful space design teams.  So, I
>looked up the website of the space company he and Buzz Aldrin are leading
>
>http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/rlvs/starbooster_sum.shtml
>
> >From my perspective, this shows the difficulties inherent in reusable craft.
>He is not discussing a rocket that can hit near orbit, launch a system to
>geocentric orbit, and then re-enter the atmosphere.  Rather, he is
>presenting a far more modest goal: salvaging the first stage of a present
>system.
>
>The cost of doing this

His company has nothing to do with the Neptune rocket he pointed me to.

snip

>As of two years ago, the owner has spent 100M of his own money, and has had
>two failed launches.

RDTE for this monster, go look it up, was $24 billion.  More than two 
orders of magnitude more.

snip

>I think a recoverable, reworkable first stage, with a parachute drop and an
>ocean retrieval, might be workable....and save some money in the long run.

Out of the question.  Water landing, yes, but *fresh* water.

>But, re-entry is an extremely harsh environment.

Dry yes, wet, no.

snip

>So, the step which I strongly disagree with is assuming that such a vehicle
>can be built for the cost of a disposable rocket.

It's not my opinion, take it up with the folks who designed it.  I 
was just taking Hu Davis' stamp of approval.

snip

> > If you were flying them every day instead of ever 100 days could you
> > do it with the same number of people?
>
>They were suppose to fly once a week...with far fewer people than are needed
>to fly them once every 100 days.

And yet airlines fly planes several times a day with small 
crews.  How do they do it?  Can it be translated to space 
operations?  If not, why not?

> > Part of the cost is the very low production rate for spare
> > parts.  Another big chunk is paper pushing.
>
>NASA is inefficient, I won't argue with that.  But, the fundamental problems
>remain.  If it were easy, don't you think one of 7 non-NASA groups would
>have done something by now?
> >
> > Some years ago I read that the effort to recover and refurbish the
> > segments cost more than just letting them sink.
>
> > 2000 tons per day is an entirely different model.  You can't apply
> > much of what we know about government space programs to it.
>
>But, in areas where costs have dropped like a rock (e.g. computers, big
>screen flat panel TVs, etc., we've seen a pattern of price drops funded by
>the early implementers.  Right now, launching commercial satellites is a
>multi-billion dollar industry.  A simple 30% price drop for the same
>reliability would be a big deal.

They are all talking about less than 2 tons to GEO every few 
months.  This is 100 times larger and 10 times per day.  Different 
situation entirely.

snip

> > What gives you the idea space is harsh?  Now a wind generator
> > standing in salt water, that's harsh.
>
>I was referring to my own work.  Oil platforms have stood in salt water for
>generations.  Sea water is not very corrosive.  I've had to design for far
>worse environments.

I beg to differ.  Turn off the cathodic protection and how long does 
it take to fall apart?

>My own experience has been with MWD (Measurement While Drilling). Our
>standard qualification test is temperature to 175C, 20 g RMS random
>vibration for 2 hours in each of the three axis, and 1500 g shock.  With
>that random vibration one does get the 3 sigma 60 g vibration from time to
>time.

I am not impressed.  Back when I was bonding chips we subjected all 
of them to 10,000 g in -Z to see if we had any marginal bonds.  I 
don't remember a single time we did.

snip

> > When power sats are not considered (and they usually are not) then
> > you get statements like this:
> >
> > "No combination of renewable energy systems have the potential to
> > generate more than a fraction of the power now being generated
> > by fossil fuels."
> >    -- Jay Hanson
>
>Nuclear power is a green alternative that's already price competitive
>(unless PC demands raise the price artificially).

Nuclear power is not a renewable.  Without heavy breeding we don't 
have a lot more uranium than we do coal.

snip

> > Please don't unless you have some idea that's not been talked about
> > before.  What I would like is a critical discussion leading to a
> > model for a pipeline to GEO large enough to build power sats in large
> > numbers at low enough prices to deliver power at the ground bus bars
> > at a penny a kWh.  If we can do that, we can make synthetic gasoline
> > for a dollar a gallon.  If we can't, several billion people are
> > likely to die in the toboggan ride down the back side of peak oil.
>
>Why do you think mainstream science is wrong on global warming?

It doesn't matter if global warming kills people, they will already 
be dead from energy related causes.

>Why do you
>think people will willingly die before using nuclear power?

The consequences of using a lot of nuclear power is that lots of 
people may unwillingly die.  There is an unrecognized problem with a 
lot of reactors and the DU the US scattered around.  I.e., we may get 
it back.  See the end notes 
here:  http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2007/10/30/18253/301

Keith