OrbHab>Spacesettlers

Re: SSTO built.
# 2922 bypanamabob@... on June 2, 2002, 1:50 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03

wasnt there an SSTO made from off the shelf parts (including walmart if
memory serves) built for around $60k (not including labor) that flew
succussfully to several hundred feet and landed again? This was around
10years ago and it happened to be on a crowded newsday and didnt get the
press deserved. A redo of the design of the landing gear created a glich
that destroyed the prototype and the money wasnt there to assemble
another...the team was disbanded to other projects. Still, the proof of
concept exists that a group of technitions, CAN create a cheap vehicle.

Perhaps we need to search out these folks and kick in another $120k (to
cover inflation) and see were it takes us?

bob
SLF

# 2923 bybsarge@... on June 2, 2002, 2:08 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03

DC-X Delta Clipper, and it was about $60 million US for the prototype,
I think it was 3/4 scale though I could be wrong.
;)

panamabob wrote:

# 2924 byaglobus@... on June 3, 2002, 3:24 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03

I don't know, but SSTO stands for Single Stage to Orbit and a couple
hundred feet isn't orbit.

On Sunday, June 2, 2002, at 06:52 AM, panamabob wrote:

> wasnt there an SSTO made from off the shelf parts (including walmart if
> memory serves) built for around $60k (not including labor) that flew
> succussfully to several hundred feet and landed again? This was around
> 10years ago and it happened to be on a crowded newsday and didnt get the
> press deserved. A redo of the design of the landing gear created a
> glich
> that destroyed the prototype and the money wasnt there to assemble
> another...the team was disbanded to other projects. Still, the proof of
> concept exists that a group of technitions, CAN create a cheap vehicle.
>
> Perhaps we need to search out these folks and kick in another $120k (to
> cover inflation) and see were it takes us?
>
> bob
> SLF
> -----
>

The materials in one asteroid (the largest ) are sufficient to make
orbital space colonies with ~500 times the surface area of the Earth in
usable real estate. See http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/
for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

# 2925 bypanamabob@... on June 3, 2002, 3:54 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03

Yes true that a few hundred feet isn't orbit, not even LEO by any stretch of
imagination, but to me the COST was the exciting part and its focus on using
cheap off-the-shelf parts scavenged from other vehicles.

In that it took off, hovered, and landed again rather safely without an
investment of gazillions of dollars is what attracted my attention. Could
the design have been scaled up to become a true orbital contender or
relatively cheap taxi is still a question in many minds, as it should be....
but to me it shows that you don't necessarily need exotic alloys, super
sophisticated components, etc. that push space-access (even near space)
beyond reasonable budgets.

Programs like the Sea Dragon mentioned earlier, with terrific payload
carrying ability (around 500tons!) and minimum launch support (sea launch)
may make orbiting "platforms" viable for short term tourism, manufacturing,
etc.

Skylab wieghed about100 tons, ? Instead of a series of EVA's to assemble
components, you could launch a complete unit or at best relatively huge
components that would require minimum manipulations in Space.

The Ruskies have proven remote cargo ships feasible and practical and
accurate in their automation. We are talking less than 300 miles distance
:-) whats the hold up?

bob
SLF

# 2926 byaglobus@... on June 3, 2002, 4:05 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03

The reason for the fancy stuff is to handle the energies involved. The
rocket equation tells us that the energy necessary is proportional to e
raised to the deta-v / specific-impulse. The delta-v achieved by Delta
Clipper was trivial. Slower than my car (if I remember correctly). The
delta-v necessary to reach orbit is about 17,000 mph if launched from
the equator. The Delta Clipper was a great project and achieved much,
but the scaling issues are formidable.

On Monday, June 3, 2002, at 08:56 AM, panamabob wrote:

> In that it took off, hovered, and landed again rather safely without an
> investment of gazillions of dollars is what attracted my attention.
> Could
> the design have been scaled up to become a true orbital contender or
> relatively cheap taxi is still a question in many minds, as it should
> be....
> but to me it shows that you don't necessarily need exotic alloys, super
> sophisticated components, etc. that push space-access (even near space)
> beyond reasonable budgets.

The materials in one asteroid (the largest ) are sufficient to make
orbital space colonies with ~500 times the surface area of the Earth in
usable real estate. See http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/
for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html