You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
PhotonBytes is a member of a team working on a design for a space plane (space-plane.org).
A topic is set up to support reporting/discussion of this specific space plane.
Space Plane design by Space-Plane.org
A post containing links and documentation is available:
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 46#p205246
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
For PhotonBytes re new proposal for an igloo at a crater on Mars....
I've not had time to read your proposal carefully, but noted a reference to 1 g in the system.
Mars offers a gravity field that is less than 1 G, so I'll be interested in finding out how your design would provide 1 G.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
For PhotonBytes re recent post in Space plane topic...
Thanks for returning to the forum, and for showing your progress with a simulation that appears to show an SSTO concept.
I would be normal and expected for an impressive simulation like this to receive only positive feedback. There is no need to compare the simulation to reality. Reality is painful and disappointing.
However, if you were interested in feedback about how your concept would work in the Real Universe, this forum has plenty of Real Universe data for your team members to study.
It would be astonished if your simulation could hold up to the requirements of the Real Universe.
There is an entire topic dedicated to SSTO, and several members of the forum have taken runs at the challenge.
For all other NewMars members .... please do NOT jump on this initiative by PhotonBytes without careful study of the proposal.
Instead, please let PhotonBytes reveal where he would like feedback. He may not want anything but positive feedback.
A beautifully written simulation that does not match reality has a definite place in the forum, because it is (or can be) a source of inspiration.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
For PhotonBytes re sunken habitat on Mars....
Your initiative in early 2025 seems to have attracted some attention....
This forum has been running for over 20 years. No one joining recently would have time to catch up on decades of discussion.
It seems to me the only practical way to bring new members up to date on settled issues is to create a post (or posts) as needed.
Your work on habitats below ground on Mars seems to retain an unnecessary attachment to Earth standard pressure at sea level.
This forum has adopted a consensus around half a bar of pressure for Mars habitats. Members argue long into the night about decimal places of proportions. For your purposes, a rule-of-thumb of 3-5-8 should help you create a scenario that will be more acceptable to members here.
The 3 is for parts Oxygen.
The 5 is for parts Nitrogen (or Argon)
The 8 is for PSI
The reason for this convention is straight forward. Mars residents must be able to don outside garments without pre-breathing.
When you put on your outside garment you will want to breath 3 PSI of Oxygen.
I am hoping you will revise your concept for a sunken habitat to take this lower pressure into account.
It should be interesting to see how your calculations turn out after you make this revision.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
For PhotonBytes re rapid flight to Mars....
I've asked everyone to hold off on knee-jerk reactions to your new topic.
I'm hoping this interesting initiative on your part will lead to educational opportunities.
Since you are working with an AI assistant (as am I) I know you can ask your assistant to provide more information.
A request I have is for an estimate of the number of refueling flights SpaceX must make to prepare the fleet for this ambitious flight.
I understand that 100 tons of propellant is a reasonable estimate for a tanker, so (presumably) 14 flights would be needed to fill one Starship for the expedition.
If the expedition will use four Starships to facilitate the flight, then 4*14 or 56 flights will be required.
The cost of each fuel mission includes the propellant and rental of the Starship/SuperHeavy service.
It should be just a few nanoseconds work for your assistant to deliver a cost estimate.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
For PhotonBytes re Optical Plane Space Vessel....
Only three folks are working on this project, at the moment...
You have demonstrated skills and interests that might blend into the effort, if you are interested.
The hypothesis in play originated with kbd512. It is that while solar power can be harnessed to create electricity, and thus propulsion based upon electricity, a direct harnessing of thermal energy to heat propellant might be a more efficient process.
No one has actually built a solar thermal rocket, and studies of that option date back to the 1950's, when modern technology was not available.
GW Johnson has offered to provide guidance for aerospace engineering aspects of the design.
I've invited others to assist but so far there are just the three of us working on the project.
The goal set is fairly simple to describe, but success is almost impossible to predict.
We start with:
Power from the Sun of 40 MW (collected by optical devices and fed to a heat engine using optical fiber)
Mass flow rate of 2 kilograms per second (LH2)
Thrust to be achieved: 1/2 force ton or about 5000 Newtons
Temperature of exhaust on the order of 3000 Kelvin
Please note that the combination of specifications given above may NOT be permitted in the Real Universe.
Materials choices and enginering tradeoffs are very much in play.
I have asked ChatGPT4o to ask DALL-E to create artwork for the vessel, and the results are thought provoking.
My hope is that a better image might be possible, but writing prompts for DALL-E is not easy, as you may have found.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
For PhotonBytes re fuel supply during takeoff run...
In a post earlier in July, 2025, my recollection is that you spoke of doing an analysis for someone who was interested in the possibility of providing fuel to an accelerating space plane during the takeoff run.
This concept reminded me of an idea of Calliban's that came back into view recently. This is the idea of giving the space plane a horizontal velocity of just under Mach 1 (eg, 320 m/sec) using a maglev track. A track of 3 kilometers length could accelerate a vehicle to 320 m/sec with a G force of only 2, which would be tolerable for humans.
I'd be interested in knowing how your calculations turn out if you introduce such an initial velocity to the mix.
I understand you only read your own posts so you'll probably miss this, but a small group is undertaking an effort to learn how to do ** real ** flight planning in the SSTO series of topics. You are welcome to join the group if you are at all interested.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
For PhotonBytes re post in Spaceplane topic....
Thanks for including details of opportunities for NewMars readers to contribute to the success of your enterprise.
https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 51#p233051
This is the first time that I can recall that anyone has offered a job opportunity via the forum, and I am **very** interested in encouraging the use of our forum to make such connections. This forum started 20+ years ago at a time when enthusiasm about Mars and space in general was high. Discussions at that time were often about events of the day, with a wide distribution of visions tossed into the mix. In recent times, there seems to be a slight bending of discussion toward practical achievement. The trend is not yet strong, but your post is an example of what I think I'm seeing.
Please edit your post to include direct contact information. I expect the link you provide will be to your web site, and while I intend to bring up this topic in the next Google Meeting, you are welcome to proceed.
Think of this as a supplement to your LinkedIn listings of job opportunities.
I see this as an opportunity to lift the Professional Index for this forum slightly. It is primarily an entertainment site, with a reasonable percentage of activity that might be considered educational.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
For PhotonBytes re Spaceplane topic ...
Thanks for keeping us informed as you proceed.
You used a term that may be new to some of us. In your Spaceplane topic, please explain a bit about the term "air breathing rocket".
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
"Air breathing rocket" is a very loose term usually applied to a combined-cycle engine concept combining rocket with turbojet. The other often-proposed combined cycle engine concepts are for hypersonic atmospheric flight, combining turbojet with ramjet or scramjet. Those are different. Both types have been tried many times, and are still being tried. None are fully operational yet, even after half a century of trying. Something flying experimentally is just that: experimental. That would NOT be ready for general application.
Do not confuse "air breathing rocket" the combined cycle rocket-turbojet with either the "ducted rocket" or the air turborocket. Those are different, and the term "ducted rocket" is really vague and misleading. The air turborocket has a fuel-rich gas generator combustor where part of the fuel and some oxidizer are burned to create not-fully-hot gas to drive a turbine, which drives an air compressor that draws air into the engine like a turbojet. The compressed air, the remaining fuel, and the turbine drive gas are then burned together in what amounts to an afterburner duct leading to the propulsion nozzle. Since the afterburner pressure is lower than what is usual in a turbojet combustor can, specific impulse is far lower than turbojet not afterburning, more like a simple ramjet or a turbojet in full afterburn. But it generates static thrust, unlike the ramjet. It is NOT a hypersonic propulsion device: that air compressor is limited to Mach 3 to 3.5 at most, just like turbojets.
The term "ducted rocket" is most often misapplied to either an air augmentation duct about a rocket, or to a fuel-rich solid propellant gas generator-fed ramjet. The air augmentation ring on a rocket acts as an air ejector duct, raising thrust and specific impulse, but only at very low flight speeds. This concept does not work in any practical sense at supersonic flight speeds.
The gas generator in a gas generator-fed ramjet does the same thing that the liquid fuel tank does in a liquid-fueled ramjet: it contains the fuel. With the fuel rich solid propellant, you gain the "wooden round" handling and logistics of a solid rocket, but at the specific impulse of a ramjet. It has high volumetric loading of that energy, but specific impulse is reduced some by the lower heating value of the fuel.
The "solid fueled ramjet" has oxidizerless solid fuel packaged within the combustor. It has inherently low volumetric loading of that energy because the fuel grain must have a large open bore to pass the air, and it needs yet more combustion volume downstream of the fuel charge to enable efficient combustion. But it offers the "wooden round" advantages of the solid plus similarly high heating value and specific impulse as the liquid ramjet. You add oxidizer to the fuel to increase the regression rate, and you negate many of the "wooden round" and heating value advantages.
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2025-07-28 09:18:17)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
Pages: 1