Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Propulsion Isn't Just Everything, It's The Only Thing
spacedaily ^ | 6 Nov 01 | Rick Fleeter

Posted on 11/07/2001 2:35:31 PM PST by RightWhale

Propulsion Isn't Just Everything, It's The Only Thing

by Rick Fleeter

Washington - Nov 6, 2001


(Ed.) A set of personal anecdotes deleted to save bandwidth . . .

The rest of the article:


Which is excellent preparation for being a space groupie - my smug label for people who constantly goad any organization with money - mostly governments - to spend more of it on space, send people to Mars, occupy the Moon, and in general project humanity all over the as yet pristine universe. My goals are more modest: if Space did half as much for human life as the pencil or the automatic transmission, I could die content. For now, I live in frustration, which, I'll admit, I enjoy tremendously. I somehow enjoyed watching my girlfriend kiss her fish every morning and evening, and I got some satisfaction out of foregoing getting my work done to hear my neighbor on yet another long flight describe his transition from lawyer to musician (yes, we were en route to LA). I told myself - if I were really a writer, I'd be eating this stuff up, instead of obsessing about the 200 emails bloating my inbox.

What makes space the playground of people who share my love of frustration, who need a rather large synaptic gap between their own world view and reality? Is it the surely bonds of earth, the lure of the stars, and the need to be at one with the Infinite? Unfortunately, it's much easier than that. It is propulsion.

Maybe everything I know I learned from people sitting next to me on trains and planes and chairlifts. I made a three-hop semi-cross-country value priced trip on Southwest seated next to a pot bellied, red-nosed WWII vet with a visor cap from the 50th reunion of whatever ship it was he spent the war aboard. I tried to do the math - he seemed too old to have fought in WWII - career grunt, I reasoned. He told me, speaking of flights with lots of stops (who was?) about his first cross country flight on a DC-3. As a guy with lots of hours in propeller planes, many of them with 2 radial engines, his story of 3 hour hops covering maybe 250 miles, spliced together to reach Los Angeles, created sympathetic flying symptoms in me - particularly, sore ear drums. In those days, flying cross country was faster, but in all other senses worse, than taking a train or bus. The future of flying for any applications other than carrying mail across the Andes or fighting wars was cloudy - airplanes were slow, noisy, small (and hence uneconomical), dangerous and subject to every inch of weather between departure point and destination.

The jet engine changed all that. Suddenly we could carry hundreds of people aboard a flight, move them at nearly the speed of sound, through the mostly weather-free atmosphere at 38,000 feet, all the way across the country, or the Atlantic or Pacific, non-stop. Now we take for granted plenty of spare power for pressurization of the cabin, for deicing the wings with ample bleed air, for running movies and for carrying mail, freight, luggage and even toilets equipped with 110 VAC for razors. We have power to heat meals and coffee, power to run weather radars and lots of fancy avionics which make the flight even more safe and efficient. Look at the best propeller planes of today - they are still noisy, slow, fly low and weather affected. They are inferior even to a high speed train, now that rail has transformed itself by switching to electric vehicles instead of steam or Diesel.

Propulsive power even more radically changed road transportation, and the lives of nearly every person on the planet. People walked and rode horses for tens of thousands of years - until the automobile. Suddenly we could travel 100 times farther in a day, on our own, in air conditioned comfort, without care and feeding of a horse. We can carry an entire family and its luggage cross country in a few days. A city 50 miles across, like LA or New York, is not only conceivable - it's common around the world. We have buses and trucks hauling huge quantities of people and materials. It's such a fundamental feature of modern life, so vital to everything we do as human beings, that we can't even conceive of life without motorized cars, trucks and buses to carry us and our voluminous and heavy stuff around.

Motive power is fundamental to transportation, and a lot of other things. Lithium Ion batteries plus power saving electronics and software have given us cell phones and laptops that are slim, lightweight and run for hours. Without fuel cells, we wouldn't have reached the moon. Electric rockets are propelling missions like Deep Space - 1, and enabling a new class of more capable geosynchronous satellites. Change the propulsion system, and you change the game - not just by a few percent - you change the paradigm.

Paradigm changing is definitely what space transportation needs. Just as jet aircraft have now plateaued in speed, range and economy, with minute percentile changes from model to model, rockets aren't getting any cheaper, or any more reliable. With transportation costing upwards of $10,000 per kg - and many times that for smaller rockets, even very modest space missions - like putting five people on the space station with everything they need for a week's space vacation - is ridiculously expensive. A good number would be - $100M. Maybe $500M if you transport that family of five into orbit via the Space Shuttle. Taking three people to Mars with the stuff they need to stay a few days and return to earth is going to cost, just in transportation, possibly $10B - not including the cost to develop the rockets in the first place. Including that, maybe it's $100B. Nobody spends $10B on a rocket without making sure they are launching something valuable on top of it, ensuring that the cost of any space mission beyond LEO, rocket plus its payload, including humans, is going to absorb something like the GNP of a moderate sized country for many years. And in so doing, what will we have accomplished? Another one-time, bank account breaking stunt? The few billion rest of us will watch it on CNN.

Hence the romantically scintillating mismatch of the space groupie with the object of her or his affections - space travel, exploration, habitation and tourism. With our current dinosauric propulsion systems, sustained development of extraterrestrial destinations is as realistic as a bicoastal marriage in the era of the covered wagon. The mismatch is so exquisite, that all of us in our industry are drawn as moths to the light of the rocket plume. The very cost and complexity, the near impossibilty, of space transportation using chemical rockets, attracts our breed of tough minded, soft hearted space-niks. NASA and the USAF spend billions on attempts, mostly futile, to lower launch costs using chemical rocketry. Papers are written on space tourism and books on doing Mars on the cheap. Societies are started to promote space travel for everybody, and even exciting conspiracy theories are hatched about NASA and the space community purposely maintaining exorbitant transportation costs to reserve the realm of space just for their greedy selves, and / or to ensure big profits for aerospace contractors.

The vast gulf between the reality of propulsion and what is necessary to realize our vision of space enables us all to march forward every day as bold visionaries - some might say kooks - focused on a future practical people can't envision. We pity them, chained to earth by their practical nature. How boring it would be to admit that all of these space visions are completely feasible with better propulsion. Space transportation priced closer to $10/kg would make construction of space hostelries practical - conceivable by normal business people focused not on a future only possible in science fiction, but by short term return on investment. The ability to accelerate to a significant fraction, say 10%, of the speed of light would make visitation to all the solar planets a routine and daily phenomenon, not much more exotic than riding a bathysphere to a mid-ocean rift. The moon would become not (just) a vast laboratory for space scientists, but a playground for adventuresome tourists, maybe a place to get a break from the grind of life in 1-g without the discomforts and limitations of on-orbit life. On the moon, you could go for a drive, and even go wandering by foot around the surface, play golf, wearing a pressure suit, of course. With time the pressure suits would improve and travelers would buy them in ancitipatory excitement, as triathletes now buy yellow wet suits for their open water swims.

The space community is engaged in a valiant, gallant, exciting, but ultimately tragic and futile, battle to garner that next huge hunk of government money to do the next nearly impossible and definitely pointless trick in space. We planted a few people and their gear on the moon for a few days a few decades ago. Among Skylab, Mir and Freedom, we've managed to house a few people in orbiting platforms for a few days, weeks or even a year or so, at tremendous expense. And maybe one day, if we are ever so rich and so at peace and so bankrupt of better ideas, or alternatively so paranoid of being out-done by our rivals, we'll put two people on Mars to repeat the Apollo experience at 100 times the distance and expense. Exhausted and broke from the experience, we will retreat to Earth and maybe low earth orbit, for 10 or maybe for 100 years. The average person will, after all that time, money and politiking, be no closer to experiencing space than we were in 1965.

There is an alternative - another way. It is unromantic, unappealing to the visionary believers and elitists that see space in ways the rest of us, rooted in our mundane practicality, cannot. It is difficult, arcane, intellectually challenging and impossible to map into the future in any orderly way. It is expensive, but not nearly so expensive as the futility of trying to take inappropriate propulsion systems ever farther from earth on ever slimmer margins at ever larger budgets spread over ever longer program durations.

This alternative is to invest aggressively in propulsion. God may have given us hydrogen and oxygen, but She gave us a lot more stuff. Photons, Ions, subatomic particles, matter and anti-matter, field interactions, ramjets and interplanetary and interstellar materials to fuel them, including the solar wind. Carbon matrix structures for building a Jacob's Ladder to GEO. Frankly, as a chemical rocket guy, I have no idea which if any of these might ultimately make travel to orbit as commonplace as the Metroliner to Boston, or accelerate us to 0.1c for $10/kg. But what I do know, as a chemical rocket guy, is that hydrogen and oxygen, or any other simple chemical bond breaking and making rocket, won't, any more than coal, anthracitic, bituminous or otherwise, was going to take us from LA to Tokyo in 9 hours, or horses would build the America of the 21st century with its great cities, its suburbs and its clean streets.

The good news is that the human spirit will not, contrary to enthusiastic and dire warnings to the contrary, be extinguished should we abandon our Quixotic reach for the stars armed with rockets suitable at best for brief, barely exoatmospheric excursions. If we embark on a well funded, broad-based, long range program to revolutionize space propulsion, the space groupies will still meet in their space societies, still gripe, even louder, about our stubborn lack of will to go where no person has ever gone before, and still see a future that most of us can't. The coyote will still bay at the full moon, and teenagers will fall in love across racial, financial and cultural boundaries. Nothing much will change in our world, except that if we stay that course, humans will one day master a new technology - as fundamental as electronics - a sustainable, practical, readily available, economical means for everyone to experience space first hand, to bring it literally as close as the next town down the interstate, to occupy the moon and planets, and to travel even to other stars. And that's a bigger change than any of us can today envision.




TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last
To: mercy
Squeeeeeek!
41 posted on 11/10/2001 7:33:44 PM PST by tim politicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: tim politicus
You'd fail the exam.

Hint: the failure of this classic argument is "equivocation".

--Boris

42 posted on 11/10/2001 7:47:14 PM PST by boris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: boris
I don't know about the arguement you pose. Have you heard of this one? An animal brain evolved such as we may suspect we have and indeed have some evedence bespeeking such evolution, could not concieve of something beyond animal evolution. There would be no evolutionalry force to fire such 'thinking'. Therefore the near universal proclivity exhibited by man in postulating spiritual beings and spiritual existence is not of this world. It is wholly unnatural and at least evidence for implantation of such thinking from an 'outside force'.
43 posted on 11/10/2001 8:17:35 PM PST by mercy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
bump for later read
44 posted on 11/11/2001 5:39:10 AM PST by AFreeBird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #45 Removed by Moderator

To: Oleg Panczenko
Thanks for an interesting read. Where does something like cubane fit in in power yields between nuclear and ordinary chemical rockets? Could it employ the same technology as the nuclear-pulse driven ships?
46 posted on 11/11/2001 6:34:23 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: boris
Thank you for the reply. Please do tell me where you think either I or Anselm are being equivocal in our ***meaning***. Also, did you read what I wrote? Do you have any thoughts about it other then, "failed"?

_Any_ argument can be deconstructed by construing its terms as being equivocal. Perhaps you _intend_ the terms of the argument to be equivocal.

But neither I nor Anselm, who's argument it is, do so. We have an exact and consistent meaning for each of the terms.

boris, would you deal with a technical question or dispute you had with a colleague by launching unlistening assertions at him or would you sit down and actually try to reason, to discuss the issue with him. I'm not saying that you or I are acting unreasonably toward one another, but I fear that unless we move towards more directly addressing what each other is ***saying*** that we will mearly be talking at or past one another.

Isn't all language equivocal? But meaning is not. I think if you understand my and Anselm's ***meaning*** you will see that we are not, even though some textbooks say otherwise, being equivocal.
47 posted on 11/11/2001 7:49:44 AM PST by tim politicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: abwehr
I was thinking the exact same thing.

A linear accelerator of any sort would seem to me to be essential. A "gun" of some type would, in fact, work, if the propellant reaction could be tightly controlled, that is, slowed down enough.

I'm thinking of a reaction more like one gets when shaking a bottle of soda pop or a child's mixing of vinegar and sodium bicarbonate. If contained in a long enough vessel, or "gun", the chemical reaction could, I think, accelerate gradually enough.

I'd imagine a complex computer control of the entire chemical event-- alternatively dampening or boosting the strength of the reaction based upon realtime measurment ***and computer modeling*** of the reaction [and where it is heading]. The problem is designing an entirely new technology. Or has this been done already? boris, would know.
48 posted on 11/11/2001 8:07:41 AM PST by tim politicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ScreamingFist
Good reading in this thread.
We have some SHARP people on FR!
49 posted on 11/11/2001 8:46:32 AM PST by freefly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
An adjunct to the "propulsion is the only thing" argument:
I wonder how much the "risk" of advances in propulsion deters investors?

Present schemes for space profit envision 20 to 30 year payoff periods.
Any project built at 10k per KG wouldn't be able to compete against one built at say, 1k per kg.

An intra-solar nuclear rocket is an all-around good idea.

50 posted on 11/11/2001 9:03:06 AM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abwehr
"Whatever became of the space 'gun',i.e. a long barreled artillary piece capable of firing projectiles into LEO."

A fellow named Bull was a big advocate of this. He also was a large gun expert and went so far as to sell his services to the highest bidder--in this case Saddam Hussein, who tried to build a "Super Gun" up the side of a mountain with a fixed point of aim: Tel Aviv.

So, a fellow walked up to Mr. Bull as he was putting his key in the lock of his home, placed a .32 caliber gun against his medulla oblongata, and blew his brains out. Ironic, that, such a small caliber. Everyone knows it was the Mossad's doing, but nobody will admit it. Big surprise.

Any way, a big gun could launch small, high-gee-resistant payloads "almost" to low orbit. You'd need a small rocket to circularize.

I saw a proposal for a "light gas gun" (using helium or hydrogen). One proposal was: dig a hole into the ground, and a big spherical chamber at the bottom. Put an atomic bomb in the chamber; fill the entire thing with helium, and close the hole with a freely-sliding piston. Put heavy payloads on top of the piston, like pig iron, glass, any cheap stuff you want in orbit and which you don't care how comfortable it feels while getting there. Dirt. Congressmen. You know, that sort of cargo.

BOOM!

--Boris

51 posted on 11/11/2001 9:47:23 AM PST by boris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
Present schemes for space profit envision 20 to 30 year payoff periods.

I would call them business plans rather than schemes, but your estimate of time to payoff is reasonable. First delivery of material mined from asteroids would be 20 years from project start if all goes well. Would your credit union would be interested?

52 posted on 11/11/2001 11:49:10 AM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: lafroste
oh nevermind, you wouldn't believe me anyway

What's the plan? Lay it on us. Pretend we are potential investors.

53 posted on 11/11/2001 11:54:40 AM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: tim politicus
A linear accelerator of any sort would seem to me to be essential. A "gun" of some type would, in fact, work,

Rail guns have won the race for preferred launcher from the moon. Once an appropriate critical mass of our act has been placed in space the rate of space development should accelerate so rapidly that mid-level government space planners would want to throw their white papers into the back of the third drawer down of the file cabinet and finish the career mastering Civilization III.

54 posted on 11/11/2001 12:17:35 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
LOL! My bad, my very, very bad!

It is because of your intense interest in space commercialization that I hoped you would have some insight into how investors viewed the "risk" of improved propulsion!
And yet I used an obvious "hot-button" word like like "scheme" :-(

55 posted on 11/11/2001 1:02:36 PM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Yes I agree, if the process can only be "jump-started" it will eventually grow exponentially of its own momentum. The problem is that darn HUGE startup. The first investrors in both the Panama canal and English colonies in North America lost everything, I think. But once there are accelerators like that in LEO or the moon or in-between...

What really attracted my attention on this thread is a lot of what boris and others were saying about the astronomically (ha ha) better efficiency of chemical over 'electromagnetic propulsion. That got me thinking about railguns as well. Darn problem is the limited acceleration time, even with a vast system.

Are railguns or guns of any significant use at all beyond about a lunar orbit?

To me all what this shows is that it is going to take _a lot_ of work and time and organization and inspiration to get where we need to go. I'd think we need some cultural and social changes before we could pull much of this off.
56 posted on 11/11/2001 1:39:37 PM PST by tim politicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: boris
Looking at the way the universe is designed, it almost seems to have been deliberately arranged to prevent interstellar travel and interactions between (presumed) intelligent species...

Once upon a time, I was waching the JPL animation "Mars the Movie" and I had a striking revelation. I realized that watching that animation was as close to exploring Mars as I was ever going to get. In many respects it was better that really being in a spaceship and making the flight in person. I was able to fly through the Valis Marinaris trench at 200,000 miles per hour making high G force manuevers that would had killed me and destroyed my ship.

I saw a similar movie of a flyover of Venus' terrain and that settled it. Venus is covered with clouds. If I were to actually go to Venus I would be forced to view the surface on computer screens that display images built up using data from my spaceship's synthetic aperture radar as it peered through the hot dark sulphuric acid atmosphere.

In "Venus the Movie" I was able to experience the same thing minus the G forces.

If I were to travel to a typical nebula and look at it with my naked eyes through a window, a lot of detail would be too faint to see. I would need some sort of image intensification and would get my best view of it by looking at a computer screen. There are computer flythroughs now of the Orion Nebula. That's 3600 LY away!! How many lifetimes would it take to travel there? And, once I was there, why did I bother? I get my best view of it looking at a data set on a computer.

Unless we develop a way to wherever we want to go instantly, we will never be able to explore much of the universe by physical space travel. Space is just too big. Most science fiction has people tooling around in the Milky Way galaxy. There are billions of galaxies visible to us though. Those galaxies are seperated by distances that even fantasy writers don't want to cross.

It's inevitable\ that most space exploration will be done by telescope. There's no way around it. We will always be able to see farther that we can physically reach. But that's actually good enough. Why should we go to another star? You can't touch it, you can't even look at it.

It all boils down to this:

What we are doing now is about as good as it gets.

I always looked forward to a time when mankind would build a vast fleet of spacecraft and we would really get down to the business of space exploration. The future is now. We ARE exploring the universe. It won't be much different than now. We can travel faster and farther by building better telescopes. Faster than light travel won't take us to the distant galaxies we see. If there is an inteligent life in any neighboring star systems, we will be able to count the suckers on their hands by looking at them from earth long before we could travel there.

57 posted on 11/11/2001 2:44:51 PM PST by UnChained
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: boris
Interstellar travel doesn't make much sense to me. But travel within the solar system would be pretty cool. It would be possible to commercialize space if there were a way to cheaply get to low earth orbit. I'd love to see that topic discussed . I have an idea that I need to get shot down by someone who knows physics better than me. New thread perhaps? Or somewhere besides FR?
58 posted on 11/11/2001 2:52:57 PM PST by UnChained
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
Generally agree with you Ill, but this time, I gotta take an exception. Sure, Columbus was motivated by greed -- the Northwest Passage and all that hooey -- but even if he hadn't, even if the dollar had never been invented, someone still would have struck out for foreign shores.

Man's spirit is restless, and our sole reason for living seems to be to push back boundaries.

"That a man's reach exceed his grasp, else what's a Heaven for?"

59 posted on 11/11/2001 2:55:17 PM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: boris
An earth gun shooting a reverse meteor. A great idea because you get the power of nuclear reactions while leaving the dirty part underground!

But what about deceleration or guidance of the payload? It seems it might take as a very large amount of energy to "catch".

Why not a long ‘slow’ burn? [Would it have to be directed at the horizon?] The channel tunnel and some others might show the basic tech. Perhaps you could get pretty vertical using a mountain. What are the theoretical lower limits on the size of nuclear explosives? If they are concieved as able to drive pistons, perhaps eventually a series of these pistons tangent to, and feeding a long linear tunnel system could drive a payload at least as well as current rockets, nuclearly, while leaving the mess below.

If such a system could develop with enough tolerance in the system, then there may be no limit to how far it could be built horizontally. I think you could get a good head of steam after a couple hundered miles or so. Could a limit be the atmospheric friction?
60 posted on 11/11/2001 3:01:38 PM PST by tim politicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson