Could we get by with just one SABRE engine? The engine might have to stick out the back. There isn't any room put it inside the x33 aeroshell. You could run air inlet down the center and adjacent to the rocket casing for the nuclear thermal rocket. It would have to be very well insulated, of course.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Monday, January 6, 2014
Notes on fabrication of spacecraft, Part III
Speculation alert still applies: Series continued from last post.
Now we consider the internal layout of the X-33. Since the X-37C will be mounted outside, that should leave even more room. Will all of the fuel fit inside, or do we need a bigger bird? Let's do some calculations to answer that question.
An earlier calculation gave 1000 cubic meters as the internal volume of the bird. The NTR rocket casing should take up about 300 cubic meters of it. From the spreadsheet in an earlier post, it can be deduced that the LH2 tank will have to contain 22k kg of hydrogen. How much volume for such a tank? Eyeballing the NTR's tank, we can see that this is roughly equivalent to that. In other words, about 300 cubic meters. Set aside 1/2 of that for each side and you've got 150 cubic meter tanks that would be roughly about half the size of the NTR's tank.
What about the oxygen tanks? Once again from the spreadsheet, it looks like 32k kg for that. From the Wikepedia page on oxygen, we see that the ratio in density equals the ratio between atomic weights. What a surprise! Well, the ratio of volume should be the same as well. If it isn't, I don't have time to look it up. Assuming that to be correct, then an quick estimate yields the following: 150 cubic meters for hydrogen calculated above gives 11k mass if it were hydrogen. Multiply it by 3 to give 33k mass which is close to the mass of the oxygen. Now, if it were hydrogen that would be 450 cubic meters, but since it is oxygen, divide that by 16 in order to yield the size of the oxygen tank in cubic meters--- 28 cubic meters.
These calculation yield a total for the tanks and the NTR casing of 628 cubic meters. That leaves plenty of space for equipment and other things.
A consideration for where we would be mounting the engines comes into play. Since there is so much volume available inside the X-33 aeroshell, we can mount the engines inside it. This means that the final appearance of the X-33 will be essentially the same as in the pics. We won't need a bigger bird.
There may be some refinements in later posts, but that's all for now. I just got an idea that may make the thing ride better in the atmosphere--- you would have it on a ladder device that allows the X-37C to crawl forward along the rocket's casing until it is better position in space. More on that in a later post.
Next
Now we consider the internal layout of the X-33. Since the X-37C will be mounted outside, that should leave even more room. Will all of the fuel fit inside, or do we need a bigger bird? Let's do some calculations to answer that question.
An earlier calculation gave 1000 cubic meters as the internal volume of the bird. The NTR rocket casing should take up about 300 cubic meters of it. From the spreadsheet in an earlier post, it can be deduced that the LH2 tank will have to contain 22k kg of hydrogen. How much volume for such a tank? Eyeballing the NTR's tank, we can see that this is roughly equivalent to that. In other words, about 300 cubic meters. Set aside 1/2 of that for each side and you've got 150 cubic meter tanks that would be roughly about half the size of the NTR's tank.
What about the oxygen tanks? Once again from the spreadsheet, it looks like 32k kg for that. From the Wikepedia page on oxygen, we see that the ratio in density equals the ratio between atomic weights. What a surprise! Well, the ratio of volume should be the same as well. If it isn't, I don't have time to look it up. Assuming that to be correct, then an quick estimate yields the following: 150 cubic meters for hydrogen calculated above gives 11k mass if it were hydrogen. Multiply it by 3 to give 33k mass which is close to the mass of the oxygen. Now, if it were hydrogen that would be 450 cubic meters, but since it is oxygen, divide that by 16 in order to yield the size of the oxygen tank in cubic meters--- 28 cubic meters.
These calculation yield a total for the tanks and the NTR casing of 628 cubic meters. That leaves plenty of space for equipment and other things.
A consideration for where we would be mounting the engines comes into play. Since there is so much volume available inside the X-33 aeroshell, we can mount the engines inside it. This means that the final appearance of the X-33 will be essentially the same as in the pics. We won't need a bigger bird.
There may be some refinements in later posts, but that's all for now. I just got an idea that may make the thing ride better in the atmosphere--- you would have it on a ladder device that allows the X-37C to crawl forward along the rocket's casing until it is better position in space. More on that in a later post.
Next
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Efforts to curb unbridled growth that's killing the planet (?!)
sfgate via Free Republic
This article truly flabbergasts me. It's chock full of unwarranted assertions and premises. One such premise is in the title of the piece--- viz. growth harms the planet.
Does it really? What about the proposition that you can grow the economy with cheaper energy prices, but with actually less pollution? Not possible? You certainly haven't been reading this blog.
The economy really isn't growing, as the author contends. Another flawed premise.
The author mentions the "filth" that economic growth produces. But what is filth? Filth isn't anything that wasn't already there in some other form. With enough energy, the form can be changed back again into something useful. After all, matter doesn't go anywhere. Matter can be rearranged into various compounds from here to eternity. If the compound is harmful and inconvenient, it can certainly be rendered harmless with an application of sufficient energy.
But not if energy isn't allowed to be utilized on the basis of some flawed premise of limited energy.
The author asserts that national policy since WWII has been towards the fastest possible economic growth. This is simply not true. Since the environmentalist movement began in the seventies, economic growth has taken a back seat. It is not a priority in this administration regardless of what the official policy states. If that were the case, and economic growth was a priority, there would certainly be more economic growth. In order to make the economy grow, one must have pro-growth policies. Duh! There really isn't any in this administration. It is a reflection of the radical environmentalist influence upon today's politics that has rendered a pro-growth policy problematical.
The author is incredulous that some people ( like me ) contend that economic growth can lead to a cleaner environment. The author certainly doesn't read history. Pittsburgh's air was filthy 100 years ago. It was made much cleaner even before the environmentalists started "fixing" it. It became possible to clean it because people had more wealth and knowledge of how to clean it. Not because growth was stymied because of some faulty notion that poverty would help clean it up.
The author points to someone in Berkeley is claiming that she's not be allowed to talk about this. But haven't we heard about this endlessly? I mean, what is this article about anyway? Nobody is stopping anybody from talking about anything, unless it is the left wanting to shut down conservatives.
The author seems to be of the mind that only the Earth can regenerate resources. Any attempt by man is invalid. The premise is false. With sufficient energy, all matter used can be recycled infinitely. The trick is to master nuclear energy. Unfortunately, for these people, nuclear energy is just a dirty word. What they don't realize, or can't understand is that nuclear energy will enable them to do the very things they claim that they want to do, which is to clean up the planet.
The author advocates capping economic growth and employing carbon taxes. Here we have the nut of their case---people must be punished. We have it too good. We must be made to feel guilty for the harm we are doing to the planet. Phooey!
People must do with less, according to this way of thinking. The environment can be saved this way. Wrong again. None of these ideas will really help save the environment. It will only spread the pain around, and enrich their sponsors.
They want to raise taxes so as to clean up the environment. But doesn't Europe have a carbon tax? And hasn't America made more progress towards less carbon emissions that Europe has? Higher taxes hasn't produced the results being produced here. But people in Europe do pay higher prices for their energy. Europe is certainly being punished even if they aren't quite as wealthy as Americans are.
I've noted that a lot of this is self serving for the left. All of these "solutions" only help leftists increase their power and control. Their programs don't help anybody but themselves.
This article truly flabbergasts me. It's chock full of unwarranted assertions and premises. One such premise is in the title of the piece--- viz. growth harms the planet.
Does it really? What about the proposition that you can grow the economy with cheaper energy prices, but with actually less pollution? Not possible? You certainly haven't been reading this blog.
The economy really isn't growing, as the author contends. Another flawed premise.
The author mentions the "filth" that economic growth produces. But what is filth? Filth isn't anything that wasn't already there in some other form. With enough energy, the form can be changed back again into something useful. After all, matter doesn't go anywhere. Matter can be rearranged into various compounds from here to eternity. If the compound is harmful and inconvenient, it can certainly be rendered harmless with an application of sufficient energy.
But not if energy isn't allowed to be utilized on the basis of some flawed premise of limited energy.
The author asserts that national policy since WWII has been towards the fastest possible economic growth. This is simply not true. Since the environmentalist movement began in the seventies, economic growth has taken a back seat. It is not a priority in this administration regardless of what the official policy states. If that were the case, and economic growth was a priority, there would certainly be more economic growth. In order to make the economy grow, one must have pro-growth policies. Duh! There really isn't any in this administration. It is a reflection of the radical environmentalist influence upon today's politics that has rendered a pro-growth policy problematical.
The author is incredulous that some people ( like me ) contend that economic growth can lead to a cleaner environment. The author certainly doesn't read history. Pittsburgh's air was filthy 100 years ago. It was made much cleaner even before the environmentalists started "fixing" it. It became possible to clean it because people had more wealth and knowledge of how to clean it. Not because growth was stymied because of some faulty notion that poverty would help clean it up.
The author points to someone in Berkeley is claiming that she's not be allowed to talk about this. But haven't we heard about this endlessly? I mean, what is this article about anyway? Nobody is stopping anybody from talking about anything, unless it is the left wanting to shut down conservatives.
The author seems to be of the mind that only the Earth can regenerate resources. Any attempt by man is invalid. The premise is false. With sufficient energy, all matter used can be recycled infinitely. The trick is to master nuclear energy. Unfortunately, for these people, nuclear energy is just a dirty word. What they don't realize, or can't understand is that nuclear energy will enable them to do the very things they claim that they want to do, which is to clean up the planet.
The author advocates capping economic growth and employing carbon taxes. Here we have the nut of their case---people must be punished. We have it too good. We must be made to feel guilty for the harm we are doing to the planet. Phooey!
People must do with less, according to this way of thinking. The environment can be saved this way. Wrong again. None of these ideas will really help save the environment. It will only spread the pain around, and enrich their sponsors.
They want to raise taxes so as to clean up the environment. But doesn't Europe have a carbon tax? And hasn't America made more progress towards less carbon emissions that Europe has? Higher taxes hasn't produced the results being produced here. But people in Europe do pay higher prices for their energy. Europe is certainly being punished even if they aren't quite as wealthy as Americans are.
I've noted that a lot of this is self serving for the left. All of these "solutions" only help leftists increase their power and control. Their programs don't help anybody but themselves.
Notes on fabrication of spacecraft, continued
Speculation alert still applies: Series continued from last post.
Due to an error of omission, there has to be a rethinking of this launch system. Since the X-37C won't fit inside of the X-33 aeroshell, there are two choices:
Actually the idea of riding on top of the X-33 shell occurred to me, but I still thought that the darned thing could fit inside.
Now the 747 would be carrying two birds on top, the X-33 and the X-37C on top of the X-33. A triple decker, or is it a double decker?
The ride on top of the NTR isn't too bad. It reminds me of the Space Shuttle and the ET. It may affect drag, though. How much I don't know.
Also don't know how it would ride on top of the 747. It may be too hard to control.
Here's a pic of the X-37C with some dimensions:
The revised X-33 would have the NTR's fuel tank in the same place, but would lift off of it and leave a bit hole in the fuselage. I'm thinking this could be filled in after the release of the NTR/X-37C so as to keep its aerodynamic shape. A form could be raised by inflating it into position. This could also be used as a force to separate the two craft from each other so that the NTR could go to space.
Try to imagine the whole thing now: The 747 with a X-33 atop of it, plus an X-37C on top of all of it.
The X-33/X37-C combo might stand 20 feet or more above the fuselage of the 747. The X-33 would still be about the same size as before, which is 69 feet long. Thus, it would be smaller than the Shuttle. It would probably ride a little higher. I'm a little worried about stability.
Now, assuming the entire proposition hasn't been made impractical, we go on to consider the layout of the X-33 in the next post.
Due to an error of omission, there has to be a rethinking of this launch system. Since the X-37C won't fit inside of the X-33 aeroshell, there are two choices:
- Put the X-37C inline with the X-33 or,
- Put the X-37C on top of the X-33
Actually the idea of riding on top of the X-33 shell occurred to me, but I still thought that the darned thing could fit inside.
Now the 747 would be carrying two birds on top, the X-33 and the X-37C on top of the X-33. A triple decker, or is it a double decker?
The ride on top of the NTR isn't too bad. It reminds me of the Space Shuttle and the ET. It may affect drag, though. How much I don't know.
Also don't know how it would ride on top of the 747. It may be too hard to control.
Here's a pic of the X-37C with some dimensions:
 |
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boeing_X-37B_after_landing_at_Vandenberg_AFB,_3_December_2010.jpg |
The revised X-33 would have the NTR's fuel tank in the same place, but would lift off of it and leave a bit hole in the fuselage. I'm thinking this could be filled in after the release of the NTR/X-37C so as to keep its aerodynamic shape. A form could be raised by inflating it into position. This could also be used as a force to separate the two craft from each other so that the NTR could go to space.
Try to imagine the whole thing now: The 747 with a X-33 atop of it, plus an X-37C on top of all of it.
The X-33/X37-C combo might stand 20 feet or more above the fuselage of the 747. The X-33 would still be about the same size as before, which is 69 feet long. Thus, it would be smaller than the Shuttle. It would probably ride a little higher. I'm a little worried about stability.
Now, assuming the entire proposition hasn't been made impractical, we go on to consider the layout of the X-33 in the next post.
Florida Becomes Third State to Pre-File
Convention of States
This is about an Article V convention to amend the US Constitution.
Since the beginning of the blog, I have favored an Article V. There is indeed a risk that such an event won't go as hoped for, but the risk may have to be taken. It's a runaway federal government that's a sure thing and a runaway convention that isn't necessarily a sure thing. The greater risk is to do nothing.
My wish list for such a convention?
Perhaps the states can step in under certain circumstances that will enable these branches of the government to be checked and balanced off against federal power.
The actual wording of the amendments aren't going to be covered here. At the moment, I am thinking of a state veto. Let's say a certain number of states object to a certain action of the federal government. If the veto event occurs, the federal action is invalidated.
This is about an Article V convention to amend the US Constitution.
Since the beginning of the blog, I have favored an Article V. There is indeed a risk that such an event won't go as hoped for, but the risk may have to be taken. It's a runaway federal government that's a sure thing and a runaway convention that isn't necessarily a sure thing. The greater risk is to do nothing.
My wish list for such a convention?
- Limitations on the Presidency.
- Limitations on the Courts.
- Limitations on Congress.
- Habeus corpus should not be suspended as easily as it is now.
- The Courts should not make decisions that are cultural in nature, such as abortion and same sex marriage.
- Congress should not be able to amend the Constitution without going through the amendment process.
Perhaps the states can step in under certain circumstances that will enable these branches of the government to be checked and balanced off against federal power.
The actual wording of the amendments aren't going to be covered here. At the moment, I am thinking of a state veto. Let's say a certain number of states object to a certain action of the federal government. If the veto event occurs, the federal action is invalidated.
Notes on fabrication of spacecraft
Speculation alert still applies:
Calculation for volume of the NTR rocket casing in the configuration outlined in the most recent post in the series.
Given that:
there's 1 million cc in cubic meter, and
liquid density of hydrogen at boiling point is 0.07099 g·cm−3, this gives
70990 g hydrogen per cubic meter, or
70.99 kg hydrogen per cubic meter.
We'll need 288.1 cubic meters volume to contain the H2 for NTR rocket based upon 45k pounds LH2 per Dewar's model. Will it will fit inside of X-33 aeroshell?
X-33 is 21.2 meters long, 23.7 meters wide
Let's propose a rectangular tank 20 meters long by sqrt 15 or
3.87 square base by 20 meters long. Since 3.87 meters times 3.25 feet in a meter, we know that the X-33 aeroshell will have to be at least 12.58 feet thick. Since the tank fits inside of the X-33, then the X-33 aeroshell will have to be at least this thick.
How much volume in the aeroshell?
Given the formula for the area of triangle 1/2 b*h, so for the X-33
.5*23.7*21.2 equals 251.22 sq meter times 3.87 meters above gives approx 4, so an estimate for volume here of the X-33 aeroshell --- 1000 cubic meters.
So, a less than 300 cubic meter tank to fit inside 1000 cubic meter volume. Looks good so far.
I figure it will fit down the center of the X-33. The nose cap can lift up to allow the now cylindrical rocket stack to exit at the Karman line. The nose cap then comes down and the X-33 flies back to base.
The X-37C/NTR rocket stack massing at 91k lbs can fly up towards orbit.
Update:
Oops!!!
Forgot about the X-37C itself. It is nearly 30 feet long in its current X-37B configuration. It will get bigger when/if it is upgraded to an X-37C.
That means it won't fit in the X-33 aeroshell. It looks like nearly all of it will have to be mounted outside of the aeroshell.
Even so, the complete package still is shorter than the Space Shuttle which rode atop the 747.
next
Calculation for volume of the NTR rocket casing in the configuration outlined in the most recent post in the series.
Given that:
there's 1 million cc in cubic meter, and
liquid density of hydrogen at boiling point is 0.07099 g·cm−3, this gives
70990 g hydrogen per cubic meter, or
70.99 kg hydrogen per cubic meter.
We'll need 288.1 cubic meters volume to contain the H2 for NTR rocket based upon 45k pounds LH2 per Dewar's model. Will it will fit inside of X-33 aeroshell?
X-33 is 21.2 meters long, 23.7 meters wide
Let's propose a rectangular tank 20 meters long by sqrt 15 or
3.87 square base by 20 meters long. Since 3.87 meters times 3.25 feet in a meter, we know that the X-33 aeroshell will have to be at least 12.58 feet thick. Since the tank fits inside of the X-33, then the X-33 aeroshell will have to be at least this thick.
How much volume in the aeroshell?
Given the formula for the area of triangle 1/2 b*h, so for the X-33
.5*23.7*21.2 equals 251.22 sq meter times 3.87 meters above gives approx 4, so an estimate for volume here of the X-33 aeroshell --- 1000 cubic meters.
So, a less than 300 cubic meter tank to fit inside 1000 cubic meter volume. Looks good so far.
I figure it will fit down the center of the X-33. The nose cap can lift up to allow the now cylindrical rocket stack to exit at the Karman line. The nose cap then comes down and the X-33 flies back to base.
The X-37C/NTR rocket stack massing at 91k lbs can fly up towards orbit.
Update:
Oops!!!
Forgot about the X-37C itself. It is nearly 30 feet long in its current X-37B configuration. It will get bigger when/if it is upgraded to an X-37C.
That means it won't fit in the X-33 aeroshell. It looks like nearly all of it will have to be mounted outside of the aeroshell.
Even so, the complete package still is shorter than the Space Shuttle which rode atop the 747.
next
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)