[EMAIL PROTECTED]">On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 02:41:48 +0100, Ian Woollard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">That's partly why I was thinking RLV TSTO makes more sense, and maybehttp://www.ghg.net/redflame/launch.htmNew to me was Whitehead pointing out that although space nuts use SSTO
and RLV interchangeably, the two are almost mutually exclusive: SSTO
has to be light, and RLV has to be rugged.
cheaper, but RLV SSTO is an entirely valid research project, and long term
may be quite the way to go if the ruggedness issues work out.
I'd love to get hold of the Whitehead papers though. They sound seriously interesting.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Yes, it's a good plan.Doing an SSTO RLV...
We're going to sneak up on it from both directions, improving the
performance of our RLV until a stripped down version will just make
orbit with no payload - and then we'll try to improve it some more.
Somebody in ERPS probably knows this I suspect. Well Henry knows all , so I guess
that's taken as read really ;-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Pretty much... Kursk... then again Challenger- cryogens didn't exactly help keep the padIt's got some very interesting bits, particularly when he talks about
the safety of LOX...
not sure I agree with his conclusions overall. I would be interested on
this groups opinion on how
the behaviour of LOX compares with HTP though.That's a religious question here. "There is no oxidizer but peroxide,
and silver is its prophet." Because it can be used as a monoprop,
peroxide is the best propellant to use when you're learning how to do
liquid fuel rocketry. It's simple and it's safe.
warm.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">I think one could argue that isn't correct. If peroxide enables any reduction in rocket costsThe downside is its cost. Paying several dollars per pound for
peroxide is not an unusual experience. LOX costs about 1% of that, so
any large biprop operation cries out economically for LOX
then you're probably looking at a net win for the forseeable future. The main downside of peroxide
that I can see is the payload- HTP and hydrocarbon only give about 2/3 the payload to LOX and
hydrocarbon [according to Bruce Dunns pages, although I have some minor issues with his
methodology; I understand he gave a presentation in 1996 at Space Access with this material.]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">A cost of a dollar per kg is nearer the bottom price. Enormous amounts of 70% peroxidePeroxide
need not cost as much as it does, and we're working on ways of
reducing its cost, but if we ever get HTP cost down to LOX cost it'll
be a miracle.
are used commercially. I think the best you can hope for is that the 98%
approaches the 98/70 of the cost of 70% plus processing, plus profit. At that kind
of prices you are talking about maybe $50 per payload kg in fuel. Even a few
times that is probably still going to be ok.
Still clearly at the moment peroxide is difficult and expensive to obtain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">You may be able to launch more often, and/or the rocket may be cheaper and/orOTGH, with peroxide, you don't need insulation. Or chilldown
procedures.
easier to develop and/or cheaper to maintain the vehicle. Whether this is going to help
enough to compensate, well, all depends on everything as usual.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">-R
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
