Nuclear Space Ship SSTO Proposal

Firstly, horizontal take-off is not more efficient than vertical take-off. Wings only translate the energy you use in thrust into lift, and they translate it badly. Getting low altitude lateral velocity is a waste because all of that is lost in aerodynamic losses at low altitude.

Secondly the 'Cold Equations of Space Flight' article is absolute BS by a fool who doesn't know anything but NASA propaganda. For example, an LH2/LOX SSTO required mass fraction is actually .87, but only if your engines are altitude compensating (like SSMEs and aerospike engines are).

Thirdly, the biggest error in chemical SSTO designs is using LH2 as the sole fuel. LH2 has a terribly low density, which mandates very large fuel tanks and very large aerodynamic cross sections (thus adding lots of aerodynamic losses). Dunn has done a lot of good writing showing that denser fuels like UDMH, methylacetylene, and chilled propane are significantly superior fuels for an SSTO than LH2, to the point of putting as much as two and a half times more payload in orbit.

While the writer is right that air breathing to reduce oxygen load is a right direction to go in, doing so mandates spending lots of time in the 100k-200k altitude range, collecting air, incurring lots of aerodynamic losses. If you are using a low density fuel like LH2, you are wasting your time because the fuel has given your vehicle terrible aerodynamics.

There is an alternative. The RBCC (rocket-based combined cycle) engine that NASA has developed and all but cancelled (what is new, eh?) is the solution. This uses a rocket wrapped in a ram/scramjet and gives an average Isp of over 1500 secs. It needs to be dual-fuel: UDMH or Methylacetylene (welders MAPP gas is a suitable substitute) for the air breathing modes, LH2/LOX for the high altitude pure rocket mode. I'd also replace the LOX with liquid nitrogen. Yes, its not an oxidizer, but it is half the weight of LOX. As your vehicle is in air breathing mode, you bubble air up through the LN2. This liquifies oxygen in the air and evaporates the liquid nitrogen, so by the time you reach full rocket burning altitude, you have no more LN2, it is now a tank full of LOX.

LOX is normally 80% of a launchers gross lift off weight. Between this technique and the air breathing you can reduce this mass by 5/6ths. By using a denser fuel instead of LH2, you cut your vehicle mass empty by another 30-50% by reducing the tankage.

What does this mean? Lets assume you have a 1 million lb GLOW launcher burning LH2/LOX capable of putting 20,000 lb of useful payload in orbit. Using the above suggestions, you can reduce the vehicle GLOW to under 500,000 lb and automatically dropping the cost per lb to orbit by half.

Nor is, as is claimed by Chris Bell, an SSTO impossible. Putting six space shuttle main engines underneath a shuttle external tank is automatically an SSTO capable of putting 50,000+ lbs into orbit. Did you know a shuttle external tank only costs about a half a million dollars? If you put the six shuttle main engines in a recoverable pod, and left all the external tanks in orbit (to be collected for use in building a space station of proper size for the 21st century), since the engines are the only thing worth saving, you have a cheap to operate reusable SSTO. Carrying 1.6 million lbs of fuel at about $1/lb, you have a total launch cost of $2.15 million (versus the STS' $200-300 million), and a per lb consumables cost of $41/lb. Add in the cost of building and maintaining the engines and engine pods, facilities and launch fees, taxes and other overhead BS, and we are still talking only a few hundred bucks per lb.

Most of the insane $20k/lb cost of the shuttle system is in the 10,000 personnel that NASA employs to rebuild and reinspect every component of the STS for every flight (most of whom are union workers). Learning from the DC-X experience, as well as that of private companies like XCOR, whose EZ-Rocket is capable of multiple flights per day, we can trim assembly and launch staff to a few hundred at most.

Interesting post. I understand it all, but it's more information than I'd be able to put together myself without some serious engineering effort.

Whether horizontal take off is technically "less efficient" than vertical takeoff I think is less important than the ground handling aspects of the two methods.

A winged vehicle with wheels can simply be rolled out to a runway for takeoff at any time. While a vertical launched rocket will require some kind of massive ground handling machinery, and much time and labor to carefully erect it on a launcher.

Those attendant costs of ground handling I believe would erase any efficiencies gained by vertical launches of a vehicle as you describe. Even using the 6 shuttle engines under a throw away tank requires retrieving the engine pod, refurbishing it and transporting it back to the launch point.

There are several "staged" methods of horizontal launch that I believe are also available to improve costs. Staging is expensive with rockets, because retrieval of lower stages is difficult or impossible, and vertical assembly is complex. While staging with winged horizontal aircraft I believe would be much less expensive.

There was a recent test of towing an F-106 into the air to simulate procedures where you could tow a vehicle to altitude to reduce fuel requirements. Also a vehicle was proposed that would use air-to-air refueling to tank with kerosene to power it to Mach 10-12 at 350k+ feet where it would release an upper stage from an internal bay.

Both of these ideas sound like airshow tricks. But they're very easy to do and require no blank-sheet-of-paper engineering. Gliders are towed into the air every day, and literally require a few seconds of ground hookup time. Air-to-air refueling is done daily by the military. Towing a ram/scramjet/rocket to Mach 3+ is very easy to imagine with an XB-70 class aircraft. I know where one of those is sitting in a museum right now.

These techniques aren't within the experience of the rocket men, so I think they're ignored when discussing the issue.

The other serious error is the requirement to boost very large payloads. Yes, very large payloads are occasionally required, and should be done with existing throw-away rocket technology. But small payloads, launched with minimal ground handling required, zero equipment thrown away, and launched almost daily will quickly amortize costs down within reason.

No matter what technique is used, until flights are flown with enough frequency to amortize the development and construction costs across many thousands of flights, then it won't ever be cheap enough for me to afford a flight. Fuel is cheap vs. development, hardware, and labor. Maximum turn arounds mean maximum amortization.

It's an interesting design. It suffers from one main problem, mainly that, given currently forseeable technology, it won't work.

One problem stems from here:

"This engine produces 1,200,000 pounds of thrust, with an exhaust velocity of 30,000 meters per second, from a thermal output of approximately 80 gigawatts. This equates to an Isp of 3060 seconds. Several sources state that a gas core NTR can exceed 5000 seconds Isp, so 3060 is well inside the overall performance envelope. The three turbopumps from the SSME are run at low power levels, and even losing a pump allows the engine to continue running as long as there is no damage to the nuclear core."

The assumptions involved here are too broad and, frankly, wrong. To begin with the closed cycle (i.e. "lightbulb") GCNR variants tend to top out at 20,000 m/s exhaust velocity according to my research. Requiring 30,000 m/s calls for a very high-performance, and possibility of which is questionable.

But this is a mere quibble. Even with 20,000 m/s, performance is vastly increased over chemical boosters and the payload mass would simply need to be toned down. The main problem is in the next part.

"Lets assume this design is able to achieve a thrust to weight ratio of ten to one, so the engine and all of its safety systems, off-line fuel storage, etc, weighs 120,000 pounds. I think we can build this engine easily for 60 tons."

This estimate sounds reasonable, but is, in fact, quite wrong. Basic research would have determined this. The problem is not that closed-cycle GCNRs need be so massive, but rather that they suffer from poor mass flow. You can spit out that hydrogen at very high velocities, but you can't spit out very much of it per unit time. No proposed closed-cycle GCNR, to my knowledge, has achieved a thrust-to-weight ratio greater than one. Ten is completely out of the question. Alas, inspiring as this rocket is, it will never be able to lift itself off the ground.

But all hope is not lost. One possibility is to use an open-cycle GCNR. These benefit from higher exhaust velocities (50,000 m/s is frequently quoted) and higher thrust-to-weight ratios, though I'm not sure if they can achieve ten-to-one. These would probably allow for a rocket similar to the author's specifications to be constructed. The downside is that such a rocket releases its nuclear fuel to the environment at a steady rate. This doesn't particularly bother me, but it would be politically inconvenient. This is the reason that closed-cycle GCNRs were developed in the first place.

Another possibility is to use a solid-core nuclear thermal rocket, which the author briefly touched on but then abandoned in favor of the GCNR. The temperature limitations due to keeping the reactor solid only allow exhaust velocities of around 8000 m/s, but certain solid NTR designs such as the DUMBO type allow thrust-to-weight ratios as high as 70, comparable to a space shuttle main engine, and release no radioactive fuel. This may also allow a similar design.

Keep in mind that I'm only speaking to actual release of the fissionables and their byproducts. Even with a solid-core design, a nuclear rocket of any kind generates intense gamma and neutron radiation when critical. If the rocket carries crew or passengers, some amount of radiation shielding may be necessary. I'm not knowledgable enough about the subject to say how much, particularly given that the hydrogen fuel would absorb neutrons very efficiently, but it needs to be considered.

Alternatively, wait thirty to fifty years for a space elevator to be build, at which point surface-to-orbit rockets will be a moot point.

Anyway, though you'll never find a more adamant advocate of nuclear power and space exploration than me, but this particular design will not work. Sorry.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.