# 152 bynewpapyrus@... on Dec. 11, 2000, 5:44 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
> Marcel,
>
> IMO, the earth's gravity well is too deep for a
> single plane or stage to orbit (i.e. STO) vehicle to
> work unless we somehow discover anti-gravity :-).
off and horizontal landing vehicle capable of placing
10 to 20 people into orbit. The first stage could also
be used as an intercontinental suborbital passenger
plane that could carry a hundred plus passengers to
any point on the planet within one or two hours. This
first stage could also be used as a hypersonic bomber
that could attack any point on Earth within 2 hours.
> Tom Tucker: This is why I am examining the tether
approach. You
> see, what is the tether could build-up speed in LEO
> using nuclear or solar power, and then dip down to
> pick-up the payload from a Boeing space plane at say
> 100KM? Why go all the way to orbit when something
> in orbit could work as a team and meet you half-way,
> so to speak? Lets think outside of the box and not
> be tied to the notion that we have to have a single
> vehicle that can independently go from earth to LEO
> un-assisted.
MW: Again, a two stage aerospace plane would not only
give private companies easy access to orbit but the
first stage would revolutionize international air
travel.
> Tom Tucker: For further background on this question,
I recommend
> Dr. Zubrin's book Entering Space, chapter 3 "The New
> Space Race" where he review various space plane
> options and current projects. The bottom line is
> that STO will work on Mars and the Moon, but not on
> earth; too much gravity.
MW: Aerospace planes will never be practical as heavy
lift vehicles. That's why they should be limited to
human transport. The average human weighs less than
100 kg. But even if you allowed 500 kg for seating,
air, water, luggage, space suit, and body mass, you
could still launch as little of ten tonnes of payload
(20 people into orbit). Most of the cost of launching
mass into orbit is not fuel cost, but the capital cost
of the vehicle and the cost of labor. The mass
production of the first stage as an international
suborbital space plane and launching the two stage
vehicle like an airplane could reduce cost
significantly, IMO. And since these two stage
aerospace planes could take off from any international
airport, cost could be further reduced by taking off
from international airports located on, or near, the
equator.
Single stage to orbit vertical take off, and vertical
landing, heavy lift vehicles, of course, would be
significantly lighter than winged vehicles-- with
structural weights less than three times that of a two
staged winged vehicle. And such heavy lift vehicles
capable of putting 100 to 200 tonnes into orbit would
be far too potentially explosive to be launched from
any airport and will probably continue to be launched
from special launch facilities run by NASA.
>
>Tom Tucker: Zubrin also points out that the major
rocket
> manufacturers have absolutely no incentive to reduce
> the cost to LEO since they feel that they would be
> cutting their own financial throat.
MW: That's certainly not true since their is
international competion in the satellite launching
business.
Independent
> efforts are indicated and, IMO, the winner may not
> be flown from US soil at the rate we are going now.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom
MW: The US simply needs to invest money into simple
reusable Earth to orbit vehicles that have been on
the drawing boards for more than 30 years. And this
money should come from the military budget, IMO. One
satellite manufacturing factories are on the Moon, the
moon will dominate the satellite manufacturing and
launching business until we begin to exploit the
asteroids which could make satellite manufacturing and
launching as cheap as as building a Mercedes Benz.
Marcel F. Williams
12/10/00
# 153 bytntucker@... on Dec. 11, 2000, 6:20 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
From: Marcel Williams
To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2000 9:44 PM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Earth to Orbit
wrote:
> Marcel,
>
> IMO, the earth's gravity well is too deep for a
> single plane or stage to orbit (i.e. STO) vehicle to
> work unless we somehow discover anti-gravity :-).
MW: That's why I advocate a two stage horizontal take
off and horizontal landing vehicle capable of placing
10 to 20 people into orbit. The first stage could also
be used as an intercontinental suborbital passenger
plane that could carry a hundred plus passengers to
any point on the planet within one or two hours. This
first stage could also be used as a hypersonic bomber
that could attack any point on Earth within 2 hours.
> Tom Tucker: This is why I am examining the tether
approach. You
> see, what is the tether could build-up speed in LEO
> using nuclear or solar power, and then dip down to
> pick-up the payload from a Boeing space plane at say
> 100KM? Why go all the way to orbit when something
> in orbit could work as a team and meet you half-way,
> so to speak? Lets think outside of the box and not
> be tied to the notion that we have to have a single
> vehicle that can independently go from earth to LEO
> un-assisted.
MW: Again, a two stage aerospace plane would not only
give private companies easy access to orbit but the
first stage would revolutionize international air
travel.
> Tom Tucker: For further background on this question,
I recommend
> Dr. Zubrin's book Entering Space, chapter 3 "The New
> Space Race" where he review various space plane
> options and current projects. The bottom line is
> that STO will work on Mars and the Moon, but not on
> earth; too much gravity.
MW: Aerospace planes will never be practical as heavy
lift vehicles. That's why they should be limited to
human transport. The average human weighs less than
100 kg. But even if you allowed 500 kg for seating,
air, water, luggage, space suit, and body mass, you
could still launch as little of ten tonnes of payload
(20 people into orbit). Most of the cost of launching
mass into orbit is not fuel cost, but the capital cost
of the vehicle and the cost of labor. The mass
production of the first stage as an international
suborbital space plane and launching the two stage
vehicle like an airplane could reduce cost
significantly, IMO. And since these two stage
aerospace planes could take off from any international
airport, cost could be further reduced by taking off
from international airports located on, or near, the
equator.
Single stage to orbit vertical take off, and vertical
landing, heavy lift vehicles, of course, would be
significantly lighter than winged vehicles-- with
structural weights less than three times that of a two
staged winged vehicle. And such heavy lift vehicles
capable of putting 100 to 200 tonnes into orbit would
be far too potentially explosive to be launched from
any airport and will probably continue to be launched
from special launch facilities run by NASA.
Tom - It would be helpful to know who is working of the approach.
A large aircraft perhaps using ramjets, that is able to reach an elevation as high or higher than a U-2, could perhaps rendezvous with an orbiting tether-like device. This combination IMO, offers the promise of very inexpensive launches.
>
>Tom Tucker: Zubrin also points out that the major
rocket
> manufacturers have absolutely no incentive to reduce
> the cost to LEO since they feel that they would be
> cutting their own financial throat.
MW: That's certainly not true since their is
international competion in the satellite launching
business.
Independent
> efforts are indicated and, IMO, the winner may not
> be flown from US soil at the rate we are going now.
>
Tom - Marcel, the situation is pregnant for a competitor, perhaps France, to usurp the US and other antiquated rocket manufacturers with a new and innovative approach. Just because the international community of rocket manufacturers are all reluctant to kill their golden goose, does not mean that we might be surprised one of these days.
Zurrin's book does a fair job of revieweing the current status. You might also find the following description of space planes of interest: http://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/designs.shtml Perhaps you can identify the one that most closely resembles your proposal? At this point, we must focus on details if we are to identify and agree upon a credible plan for reducing the cost of achieving LEO.
Cheers,
Tom
> Cheers,
>
> Tom
MW: The US simply needs to invest money into simple
reusable Earth to orbit vehicles that have been on
the drawing boards for more than 30 years. And this
money should come from the military budget, IMO. One
satellite manufacturing factories are on the Moon, the
moon will dominate the satellite manufacturing and
launching business until we begin to exploit the
asteroids which could make satellite manufacturing and
launching as cheap as as building a Mercedes Benz.
Tom - We might go directly to an asteroid if the raw materials look good and if the Moon does not have much or any water.
Perhaps we will discover an asteroid due to collide with earth, so funding is awarded, nuclear rockets are dispatched, the trajectory is diverted. The nuclear reactor and rocket facility remains to be exploited by the contractors who built them. This scenario could be the core of space manufacturing. Nothing like the threat of instant death to get the interest of Congress and the public :-).
Cheers,
Tom Tucker
Marcel F. Williams
12/10/00
From:
Marcel Williams
To:
spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent:
Sunday, December 10, 2000 9:44 PM
Subject:
[spacesettlers] Earth to Orbit
--- "Tom Tucker (Olympia)" <
tntucker@...
>
> Marcel,
>
> IMO, the earth's gravity well is too deep for a
> single plane or stage to orbit (i.e. STO) vehicle to
> work unless we somehow discover anti-gravity :-).
MW: That's why I advocate a two stage horizontal take
off and horizontal landing vehicle capable of placing
10 to 20 people into orbit. The first stage could also
be used as an intercontinental suborbital passenger
plane that could carry a hundred plus passengers to
any point on the planet within one or two hours. This
first stage could also be used as a hypersonic bomber
that could attack any point on Earth within 2 hours.
> Tom Tucker: This is why I am examining the tether
approach. You
> see, what is the tether could build-up speed in LEO
> using nuclear or solar power, and then dip down to
> pick-up the payload from a Boeing space plane at say
100KM? Why go all the way to orbit when something
> in orbit could work as a team and meet you half-way,
> so to speak? Lets think outside of the box and not
> be tied to the notion that we have to have a single
> vehicle that can independently go from earth to LEO
> un-assisted.
MW: Again, a two stage aerospace plane would not only
give private companies easy access to orbit but the
first stage would revolutionize international air
travel.
> Tom Tucker: For further background on this question,
I recommend
> Dr. Zubrin's book Entering Space, chapter 3 "The New
> Space Race" where he review various space plane
> options and current projects. The bottom line is
> that STO will work on Mars and the Moon, but not on
> earth; too much gravity.
MW: Aerospace planes will never be practical as heavy
lift vehicles. That's why they should be limited to
human transport. The average human weighs less than
100 kg. But even if you allowed 500 kg for seating,
air, water, luggage, space suit, and body mass, you
could still launch as little of ten tonnes of payload
(20 people into orbit). Most of the cost of launching
mass into orbit is not fuel cost, but the capital cost
of the vehicle and the cost of labor. The mass
production of the first stage as an international
suborbital space plane and launching the two stage
vehicle like an airplane could reduce cost
significantly, IMO. And since these two stage
aerospace planes could take off from any international
airport, cost could be further reduced by taking off
from international airports located on, or near, the
equator.
Single stage to orbit vertical take off, and vertical
landing, heavy lift vehicles, of course, would be
significantly lighter than winged vehicles-- with
structural weights less than three times that of a two
staged winged vehicle. And such heavy lift vehicles
capable of putting 100 to 200 tonnes into orbit would
be far too potentially explosive to be launched from
any airport and will probably continue to be launched
from special launch facilities run by NASA.
Tom - It would be helpful to know who is working of the approach.
A large aircraft perhaps using ramjets, that is able to reach an elevation as high or higher than a U-2, could perhaps rendezvous with an orbiting tether-like device. This combination IMO, offers the promise of very inexpensive launches.
>
>Tom Tucker: Zubrin also points out that the major
rocket
> manufacturers have absolutely no incentive to reduce
> the cost to LEO since they feel that they would be
> cutting their own financial throat.
MW: That's certainly not true since their is
international competion in the satellite launching
business.
Independent
> efforts are indicated and, IMO, the winner may not
> be flown from US soil at the rate we are going now.
>
Tom - Marcel, the situation is pregnant for a competitor, perhaps France, to usurp the US and other antiquated rocket manufacturers with a new and innovative approach. Just because the international community of rocket manufacturers are all reluctant to kill their golden goose, does not mean that we might be surprised one of these days.
Zurrin's book does a fair job of revieweing the current status. You might also find the following description of space planes of interest:
http://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/designs.shtml
Perhaps you can identify the one that most closely resembles your proposal? At this point, we must focus on details if we are to identify and agree upon a credible plan for reducing the cost of achieving LEO.
Cheers,
Tom
> Cheers,
> Tom
MW: The US simply needs to invest money into simple
reusable Earth to orbit vehicles that have been on
the drawing boards for more than 30 years. And this
money should come from the military budget, IMO. One
satellite manufacturing factories are on the Moon, the
moon will dominate the satellite manufacturing and
launching business until we begin to exploit the
asteroids which could make satellite manufacturing and
launching as cheap as as building a Mercedes Benz.
Tom - We might go directly to an asteroid if the raw materials look good and if the Moon does not have much or any water.
Perhaps we will discover an asteroid due to collide with earth, so funding is awarded, nuclear rockets are dispatched, the trajectory is diverted. The nuclear reactor and rocket facility remains to be exploited by the contractors who built them. This scenario could be the core of space manufacturing. Nothing like the threat of instant death to get the interest of Congress and the public :-).
Cheers,
Tom Tucker
Marcel F. Williams
12/10/00
# 154 bynewpapyrus@... on Dec. 14, 2000, 6:25 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> >
> Tom - Marcel, the situation is pregnant for a competitor, perhaps France, to usurp the US and other antiquated rocket manufacturers with a new and innovative approach. Just because the international community of rocket manufacturers are all reluctant to kill their golden goose, does not mean that we might be surprised one of these days.
>
> Zurrin's book does a fair job of revieweing the current status. You might also find the following description of space planes of interest: http://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/designs.shtml Perhaps you can identify the one that most closely resembles your proposal? At this point, we must focus on details if we are to identify and agree upon a credible plan for reducing the cost of achieving LEO.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom
>
> > Cheers,
> >
two stage aerospace plane concept places about 5 tonnes into orbit. They claim that it could achieve a price of about $4500 per
individual passenger-- but even at $200,000 per individual it would be viable, IMO. There are millions of people, and thousands of
companies, in the world who could easily afford this expenditure in order to transport people into orbit for even cheaper
transport to the moon for tourism on the work in lunar satellite manufacturing factories.
Marcel F. Williams
12/13/00