New Mars Forums

clark

Member

Registered: 2001-09-20

Posts: 6,374

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

Okay Bill, throw in a Moon base in their for orbital observation, with a constellation of spy sats in GEO. Total situational awareness of LEO. The AWACS are being replaced, going into space.

I think we also have to define these "guidance" systems on the missles being dropped. How much fuel can they really have? What kind of capabilities do they have? I mean US plans involve a lot of dumb bombs with last mile guidance, but generally, they're just dropped near the target.

One, if they're being dropped, we can track the trajectory and know who the carrier was. NORAD tracks everything bigger than a paint chip now. Such surprise attacks exsist now with sub warfare or MIRV missles. This is nothing to new, same problem of hardening enough assests to ensure a response attack thereby dettering the intital attack to begin with. Stalemate is still a win.  :;):

We are also working on the terminal phase intercept for the Missle Defense, and this scenerio you are describing is basically within it's design parameters.

Bill White

Member

Registered: 2001-09-09

Posts: 2,114

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

Okay Bill, throw in a Moon base in their for orbital observation, with a constellation of spy sats in GEO. Total situational awareness of LEO. The AWACS are being replaced, going into space.

I think we also have to define these "guidance" systems on the missles being dropped. How much fuel can they really have? What kind of capabilities do they have? I mean US plans involve a lot of dumb bombs with last mile guidance, but generally, they're just dropped near the target.

One, if they're being dropped, we can track the trajectory and know who the carrier was. NORAD tracks everything bigger than a paint chip now. Such surprise attacks exsist now with sub warfare or MIRV missles. This is nothing to new, same problem of hardening enough assests to ensure a response attack thereby dettering the intital attack to begin with. Stalemate is still a win.  :;):

We are also working on the terminal phase intercept for the Missle Defense, and this scenerio you are describing is basically within it's design parameters.

Of course.

But how much will Defense need to increase their budget and the related burden on US taxpayers so the alt-space companies can make a few peanuts in profit?

= = =

My big point is this, the fact that NORAD and the like are not ape-shit tells me alt-space is much further away from success than many are saying.

I follow Hawking's line of thinking on time travel. The fact that we are not constantly invaded by folks from the future is a strong argument it can't work. (Yeah I know there are quibbles even with that.)

But if the DH-1 is a real possibility, Don Rumsfeld wouldn't be buying boost phase intercept systems.

clark

Member

Registered: 2001-09-20

Posts: 6,374

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

I think calling for the complete control of space, and access to space, vocally, is pretty much DOD going ape-shit.

We're instituting a policy that does not win us friends.

Bill White

Member

Registered: 2001-09-09

Posts: 2,114

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

I think calling for the complete control of space, and access to space, vocally, is pretty much DOD going ape-shit.

We're instituting a policy that does not win us friends.

I agree of course but hey we live in a republic, remember?

And those guys did get elected.

clark

Member

Registered: 2001-09-20

Posts: 6,374

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

Yeah, I remember.  :laugh:

However, I'm not to far gone to realize that changing the name on the gavel is neccessarily going to change the vote.

Those guys may get elected, but they still listen to the same support staff, right? Couple that with an electorate that does not provide an opinion on the direction of space policy, or a general disdain for it, and you see that the elected have free reign to make their own decision. Now, if that is the case, and they don't have a poll to fall back on, what's the safe bet? Listen to the professionals with the worst-case scenerio's describing things like falling DH-1's while the President or Congress are speaking. 

Rxke

Member

From: Belgium

Registered: 2003-11-03

Posts: 3,669

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

But DH-1 will only be sold to 'trusted partners' and reselling them will be hard (just make it so....)

+ you will have a heck of a time trying to conceal the loading of 30 bombs inside a DH-1 (if said DH-1 is not in the possession of Dr. Evil...)

And who in his right mind would try a trick like that, it's asking for MAD for sure, the moment the rogue DH-1 hits the fan, a reply from America *will* be sent, etc etc...

There will be international *laws* probably even some system of (UN?) observers on every checkout etc... 'Space Customs' etc...

Just don't sell them to Al-quaida, N. Korea etc... And have a modicum of trust.

(Oh, and a 'manual-override, maybe...)

Bill White

Member

Registered: 2001-09-09

Posts: 2,114

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

But DH-1 will only be sold to 'trusted partners' and reselling them will be hard (just make it so....)

+ you will have a heck of a time trying to conceal the loading of 30 bombs inside a DH-1 (if said DH-1 is not in the possession of Dr. Evil...)

And who in his right mind would try a trick like that, it's asking for MAD for sure, the moment the rogue DH-1 hits the fan, a reply from America *will* be sent, etc etc...

There will be international *laws* probably even some system of (UN?) observers on every checkout etc... 'Space Customs' etc...

Just don't sell them to Al-quaida, N. Korea etc... And have a modicum of trust.

(Oh, and a 'manual-override, maybe...)

True. Now factor that into your $100 per pound.

Rxke

Member

From: Belgium

Registered: 2003-11-03

Posts: 3,669

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

"100$/ pound is for the sissy cableguys, dude, we offer real fire and brimstone bone-crushing g-forces rocketlaunches, now go away!"

*grumbles:* darn bellboys!

Rxke

Member

From: Belgium

Registered: 2003-11-03

Posts: 3,669

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

HeeHee: flattering: HobbySpace.com, who hosts the original series 'The Rocket Company,' links to this thread inviting discussions: http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/archiv … .4.04]news

(They did this already before, on the original thread, so i emailed one of the authors it got 'borked' and the discussion went further here... So I am 'guilty')

Bill White

Member

Registered: 2001-09-09

Posts: 2,114

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

HeeHee: flattering: HobbySpace.com, who hosts the original series 'The Rocket Company,' links to this thread inviting discussions: http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/archiv … .4.04]news

(They did this already before, on the original thread, so i emailed one of the authors it got 'borked' and the discussion went further here... So I am 'guilty')

Hee Hee!

Why do I fear getting IP banned by the hobbyspace people?

= = =

Nah! I am a type 2 critic. I really, really, really WANT RLVs parked in everyone's driveway, I just see some problems.

Okay $250 million to buy a DH-1 with a 5000 pound payload.
Lets say 105 flights a year - - twice a week - - 525,000 pounds.

$25 million a year capital cost (interest and amortization)Looks like $47.62 per pound without operating expenses or ground facilities.

We got any operating cost data?

Rxke

Member

From: Belgium

Registered: 2003-11-03

Posts: 3,669

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

10 mil, even if launched 2 or three times, IIRC but it gets less by launching more... Most of it is errr... 'baseline' maintenance, i guess, ground facitlity upkeep etc...... ( too much coffee, better log off...)

gotta rephrase that... minimum per year is 10 mil, regardless launches... so launching more 'divides' the 10 mil...

(still not making much sense, am i?...)

Bill White

Member

Registered: 2001-09-09

Posts: 2,114

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

10 mil, even if launched 2 or three times, IIRC but it gets less by launching more... Most of it is errr... 'baseline' maintenance, i guess, ground facitlity upkeep etc...... ( too much coffee, better log off...)

gotta rephrase that... minimum per year is 10 mil, regardless launches... so launching more 'divides' the 10 mil...

(still not making much sense, am i?...)

Does $10 million include fuel costs?

ANTIcarrot.

Member

From: Herts, UK

Registered: 2004-04-27

Posts: 170

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

Which rocket at you referring to Anti? This isn't the DH-1... the DH-1 can lift a grand total of 2,250kg to orbit, not almost 20,000.

The DH-1 can only carry 2.2MT to orbit, but once in orbit and refueled, it can pick up and shove around much larger cargos. Please read the 'Half way to anywhere' chapter.

Of course you can always approach it the other way. Instead of taking up a 15MT satellite to GSO, take up 15MT of supplies and spares. Fix a dozen satellites that would need to be replaced soon and charge the owners 80% of the replacement cost.

Say each sat costs $70M, each launcher $55M and you manage to fis 6 sats before comming home. Gross profit would equal some $600M. Hey! You can launch the space shuttle for that!

ANTIcarrot.

ANTIcarrot.

Member

From: Herts, UK

Registered: 2004-04-27

Posts: 170

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

As to DH-1 bombers...
If the warheads are kenetic, then they'll be blacked out by plasma all the way down (hence no radio/radar) and will have to rely on purely inertial guidence. If not they'll be falling slowly and it will take them a long time to drop the last ten miles. The first is unlikely to hit something as small as a CVN, the second will be sitting ducks for standard or seawolf missiles. Or you just hang a left and watch them fall harmlessly into the ocean. If a navy drops the ball so badly it can't see this coming then quite frankly they probably deserve it.

In practice the biggest concern for the US military would probably be DH-1 flying over Navada and taking high definition pictures of AREA-51.

As to operational costs...
Not sure. There does seem to be a little confusion over the $100/lb vs $1M/flight. In the last chapter published (as of May 5th) talked about operational practice of the prototype stage(s?). In particular there was some wrangling as to how long a pair of RL60s would last. Major operational costs seem to break down as follows though:
*New RL-60s every dozen flights
*New tanks every ~100 flights.
*Fuel per mission. Discussed in the early chapters. Works out at a few thousand per flight IIRC.
*Pilot fees.
*Ground rent for a few square miles for launch/landing zones.
*Hanger + small clean room.
*20 ton crane + misc servicing vehicles.

Technically, if the design is sound, it wouldn't require much more maintinance than a 747. The assumption being that as long as it was handled with care it would get though several flights without need for maintinance beyond checking the fault logs and topping up the oil.

Never know in practice though.

ANTIcarrot.

Rxke

Member

From: Belgium

Registered: 2003-11-03

Posts: 3,669

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

Does $10 million include fuel costs?

Dunno... but fuel costs are 'trivial,' running in the hundreds of thousends, at best.

(Ok, now i really go to sleep... 18-19 hours behind the computer, sigh... moron...)

Bill White

Member

Registered: 2001-09-09

Posts: 2,114

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

As to DH-1 bombers...
If the warheads are kenetic, then they'll be blacked out by plasma all the way down (hence no radio/radar) and will have to rely on purely inertial guidence. If not they'll be falling slowly and it will take them a long time to drop the last ten miles. The first is unlikely to hit something as small as a CVN, the second will be sitting ducks for standard or seawolf missiles. Or you just hang a left and watch them fall harmlessly into the ocean. If a navy drops the ball so badly it can't see this coming then quite frankly they probably deserve it.

ANTIcarrot.

Okay, its the DH-1 mini-squadron (3 of 'em) versus a US carrier battle group.

I won't give up so easily yet I agree a DH-1 won't be sinking ships. The non-nuke enabled strike would be to soften things up for a follow on conventional air attack, or to damage sensors arrays.

Response #1. Nukes. Tactical nukes could be delivered ballistically, at ultra high speed with terminal guidance after re-entry plasma is dispersed.

Response #2. Single 1000 pound bombs won't work. Like you said, too easy to intercept or steer to avoid.

But what about an enhanced and upgraded variant of  http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … 8.htm]this thing? With better microchips, a larger dispersal cloud could be achieve and a fast ballistic entry could be made with submunition dispersal after the plasma cloud disperses. A needle shaped weapon designed to lsoe as little speed as possible until weapon dispersal.

Independently guided submunitions (to home on radar or heat) combined with glide wings for extended range from altitude could allow a number of tiny submunitions to strike fire control radars and aircraft parked on a flight deck.

Several submunitions striking a flight deck could accomplish a "mission kill" rendering a carrier unable to launch aircraft while repairs are made. Even 12 hours could be crucial in a "battle for Taiwan" scenario when a conventional air strike on the CVBG is about to be launched.

3 DH-1s could scatter a cloud of well over a thousand smart submunitions programmed to hit the flight deck.

Euler

Member

From: Corvallis, OR

Registered: 2003-02-06

Posts: 922

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

Wouldn't standard ICBMs be able to accomplish any sort of bombing attack better and cheaper than the DH-1 could?

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

The trouble with the DH-1 being used as a weapons platform is that it will already be in orbit and over the target before there is any suspicion or warning... an ICBM takes ~1hr to hit from launch and is easy to hit in boost phase, but a bomb deliverd from directly over the target takes only minutes and its already traveling >Mach-20.

Back to DH-1 economics... unfortunatly there are only like 200 satellites total surrounding the Earth, so there isn't much market for repairing them, especially as their electronics become obsolete. And how do you intend to get the fuel or the "larger payloads" up to LEO for the DH-1? Multiple launches to haul GEO injection fuel will at least quadruple the number of flights needed, and you still can't make two halves of one big payload.

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

Bill White

Member

Registered: 2001-09-09

Posts: 2,114

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

Wouldn't standard ICBMs be able to accomplish any sort of bombing attack better and cheaper than the DH-1 could?

For strategic purposes, a fleet of DH-1s on orbit and disguised as civilian could evade the two most promising phases for national missile defense, boost phase and mid course phase.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2001 … 0C-001.pdf

See page 2. Follow the red arc and realize where a DH-1 would be on that arc when a bomb were released.

The final phase, terminal phase, is the hardest to defend against.

= = =

Also on the strategic question, DH-1s would allow accurate nuclear delivery in conflicts that do not involve the US and by countries that currently lack long range ICBM technology. Pakistan for example. A Pakistani DH-1 could allow a nuclear strike anywhere in India (or Israel) beyond the range of current Pakistani missiles.

Commercially available DH-1s would be instant proliferation of late generation ICBM equivalents.

Israeli defense against Islamic DH-1s is another real potential problem. Does the United States extend US Space Command defenses over Israel or do we deny DH-1 to every Muslim nation?

= = =

Tactical uses (aircraft carriers targets) are more difficult but unlike an ICBM the weapon is released much closer to the target and without the need to boost through the atmosphere. Much less warning that a land based ICBM.

To make existing ICBM stockpiles accurate requires the latest technology. Technology that cannot be legally sold outside the US. Selling a DH-1? You are selling accuracy that cannot be purchased legally today.

Also, depending on the cargo bay configuration, a nation could earn productive revenue with its weapon during times of peace, unlike an ICBM which can have only one purpose.

Bill White

Member

Registered: 2001-09-09

Posts: 2,114

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

The trouble with the DH-1 being used as a weapons platform is that it will already be in orbit and over the target before there is any suspicion or warning... an ICBM takes ~1hr to hit from launch and is easy to hit in boost phase, but a bomb deliverd from directly over the target takes only minutes and its already traveling >Mach-20.

Back to DH-1 economics... unfortunatly there are only like 200 satellites total surrounding the Earth, so there isn't much market for repairing them, especially as their electronics become obsolete. And how do you intend to get the fuel or the "larger payloads" up to LEO for the DH-1? Multiple launches to haul GEO injection fuel will at least quadruple the number of flights needed, and you still can't make two halves of one big payload.

Mea culpa for my wild tangent. I do sincerely believe that the magical appearance of DH-1s and the ability to mass produce them would be a security catastrophe however I also believe as a non-rocket scientist amateur, we won't be seeing these things (for technical & engineering reasons) for a long time.

My solution for when we become a genuine space faring species and must maintain security?

The very vast majority of Earth to LEO travel initiates at the equator and remain with a few degrees of an equatorial inclination. Transit inbound from Mars? Arrive in an equatorial inclination.

More expensive? Sure but it allows a zone of comfort for most of the world; assists space traffic control by keeping most everyone in well defined lanes of traffic; keeps space debris in a ring that makes it easier to track and someday capture and dispose of; and offers the poorer equatorial nations a mechanism to "share the wealth" of entering space. Their real estate grows in value and jobs arise supporting the launch industries and the employees of the launch industries.

Leave a narrow band of inclination and US Space Command gets an itchy trigger finger.

Euler

Member

From: Corvallis, OR

Registered: 2003-02-06

Posts: 922

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

The trouble with the DH-1 being used as a weapons platform is that it will already be in orbit and over the target before there is any suspicion or warning... an ICBM takes ~1hr to hit from launch and is easy to hit in boost phase, but a bomb deliverd from directly over the target takes only minutes and its already traveling >Mach-20.

You could easily do this without the DH-1.  Just send up a "civilian" satellite on an expendable launch vehicle that is actually a weapon.  Also, the DH-1 could only be used once per war (at the very beginning).  It is simply too valuable to risk if the enemy has a good chance of destroying it.

Bill White

Member

Registered: 2001-09-09

Posts: 2,114

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

A satellite could be subject to careful scrutiny to prove there were nukes on board. Besides Pakistan cannot orbit sats today, nor can North Korea.

That was part of Clinton's deal with North Korea. You say you need a weather sat, that's why you are building better rockets? Okay, fair enough. cancel your missile program and we will orbit your weather sat for you.

With DH-1 every two-bit country on Earth could orbit sats. Brazil cannot even orbit satellites today, at least easily. But buy a DH-1 and Brazil suddenly has global reach.

Rxke

Member

From: Belgium

Registered: 2003-11-03

Posts: 3,669

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

If a satellite, wich contains probably a lot of the mf's trademarked, patented (secret) stuff could be easily scrutinized, then the 'open' DH-1 more so...

And since when did the USA add Brazil to it's Axis of Evil?

ANTIcarrot.

Member

From: Herts, UK

Registered: 2004-04-27

Posts: 170

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

Back to DH-1 economics... unfortunatly there are only like 200 satellites total surrounding the Earth, so there isn't much market for repairing them, especially as their electronics become obsolete. And how do you intend to get the fuel or the "larger payloads" up to LEO for the DH-1? Multiple launches to haul GEO injection fuel will at least quadruple the number of flights needed, and you still can't make two halves of one big payload.

No market for repairing satellites? You sure about that?
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/salvage- … e-04a.html
Alternatively sell them second hand. Profit margin might be lower but there is always a market for second hand that costs half as much and can do most of what a new item can. Lastly there is the insurance sector, who will be very interested in an alternative to writing off a $100M+ sat & launch.

And why do you object so strongly to multiple launches? Multiple launches is the whole point of the DH-1! It brings the cost down. 15MT to GEO would require something like 40 refueling flights, but most repair missions probably won't require that much mass. 1MT would do in some cases, especially when it's something as simple as a stuck spring or a blown fuse.

ANTIcarrot.

Bill White

Member

Registered: 2001-09-09

Posts: 2,114

Re: Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked

Does $10 million include fuel costs?

Dunno... but fuel costs are 'trivial,' running in the hundreds of thousends, at best.

(Ok, now i really go to sleep... 18-19 hours behind the computer, sigh... moron...)

Hundreds of thousands? Trivial?

We only have a 5000 pound payload to amortize fuel costs.

Suppose fuel costs $200,000 per mission (including handling and tanking and hoses and the fuel guy to insert the hose)

That is $40 per pound of payload!

What does DH-1 burn? How much does DH-1 burn?

How many gallons per pound to LEO?

The first step had been to develop a weight budget for the vehicle, which set the target for the total tank weights. The orbital stage GLOW(gross lift-off weight) was 99,000 pounds - 12,000 pounds of engines, structures and various vehicle subsystems; 5,000 pounds of payload; and 82,000 pounds of LOX and liquid hydrogen.

Chapter 10.

I saw that bulk liquid hydrogen costs $2.50 per pound.

82,000 x $2.50 = $205,000 with no ground crew infastructure for handling. Don't know if that $2.50 is delivered or if you pay shipping to the launch site. It matters.

We now have $48 per pound for interest on the $250 million investment and $40 plus per pound for fuel.

And dozens of expense line items not yet mentioned.

Ground support infrastructure? How much liquid hydrogen and LOX must be stored on site? Higher flight rates means bigger storage tanks.

This is an http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/liqu … html]older article from 1994. Is the world wide production of liquid hydrogen sufficient to fuel a large fleet of DH-1s? Especialy at a high flight rate?