FEATURE: Ask Charles Pooley of Microlaunchers

[braddock]

Charles Pooley, through his company Microlaunchers (http://www.microlaunchers.com/home.htm ), has proposed creating a *VERY* small rocket (~500kg) to launch a one pound payload to orbit or beyond, and is author of an upcoming book on the topic.  

http://www.microlaunchers.com/sa05/sa05img/s-03.jpg">

He is the former president of the amateur Pacific Rocket Society, where he led the team that built the 2000lb thrust LOX/Ethanol Spacefarer X80 rocket.

http://www.microlaunchers.com/sa05/sa05img/s-11.png">

http://www.microlaunchers.com/T_CROP.JPG">

We are happy to have him on the site to discuss the Micro-Launcher concept with us.

[braddock]

My first question: why a large cruising rocket to get the second stage above the atmosphere, instead of a balloon-launched rocket like Van Allen and others used?

[mr.columbus]

The number of companies or other associations (many are only enthusiasts not working for profit) that try to launch microlaunchers (<50kg payload per launch) to orbit has become rather high in the recent years. Nevertheless none of these endeavours has actually achieved a successful orbital flight yet (or even tried one, as far as I know), not even mentioning regular launches in this payload class. According to your experience what are the main difficulties people face especially in this area of orbital launchers?

[cpooley]

First, thanks Braddock for setting this up.  So many forum formats have confused me.

First, his question:  Basing this on an off-the-ground first stage rather than aircraft of balloon launched is because I want to propose a more efficient system, and the higher GLOW required will mainly be in the form of more propellant and low-tech first stage structure, which is cheap and simpler than alternatives.

This whole thing should be treated as an hypothisis, a theory, with a premise (google the word "microlaunchers" for a 10+ year genisis).

The fundamental premise is that the only way for private, entreprenurial space access to succeeed is via an approach like this--that the old Cold War based paradygm will never work.

Venture attempts to jump into the medium to large LEO satellite launch service is naive and doomed to fail.  There is not enough of a market for satellite launch services.  For example, Elon Musk and SpaceX:  the best he can expect is to create a cheaper alternative to the Pegasus launch system.  They have in their 16 year history put up 34 successful satellites.  That cannot evolve into space access in a big way.  Also, he is reported to have spent well over $100 million for his first attempt.

What is needed is a breakaway, an new paradigm.  Like that which came from the advent of the microprocessor.  That did for computers what something needs to do for the advent of large scale access to space.   I think nothing else will (that is the hypothis, the premise--no flames please).

Space access cannot just be based on access by a few to very expensive systems which fly infrequently (which are called "missions", not just "flights" oresomething less momentous).

In my website, the book to be written, and to some extent, here, I want to make the case.  BTW, the site is going to be restructured, as it is no longer to be used as part of fund seeking.  Just "propaganda"--to make the case, and a little as a record of progress.

Presently an funding arrangement is being negotiated, and when it comes to a conclusion there WILL be metal.  It will be to support the development of, and some launches of, the "A" series of Stage 1 (A for atmospheric).  To develop the basic engine type and control means, then fly to less than 50,000 feet, stay subsonic, practice the launch, wing deployment and landing process.

Later, with a second version, "T" series, for test, will have the final metal tank types and be incrementally flown to the design altitude of about 100 km (actual design work to be done metric), and to support final testing in vacuum of the upper stage engines.  The funding for that will be raised based, hopefully, with the aid of a record with the "A" series.

The technology and parts to start this is now readily available.  Just need some money, some cleverness, some time, and lots of persistance.

[mlorrey]

Mr. Pooley,
Nice to have you here. Have you developed any cost plans? Any idea of the price per launch?

[braddock]

I'm curious about this miniature turbopump; is there more progress to it besides the machined piece next to the nickel in the photo?  How much is gained with a turbopump vs a pressurized tank at that scale?  I know there was some question in another thread about how efficient a micro-turbopump could be.

Also, what tools or methods do you use to crunch the numbers for the flight profile?  There are some guys around here who just LOVE to run the numbers...

[Flightstar]

What will be the key area of the market that this could serve?

[cpooley]

On cost per launch:  Difficult to quantify now, but the object will be to keep it as low as possible.  Setting aside for now questions of insurance, which is difficult to quantify now, the costs can be kept low by carefully developing it so as not to acquire "genetically" built in costs.  

The first stage is to be as reusable as possible, and by not using highly stressed and consumable parts, make it so the first stage can be (as said in the site) "stood up, filled up, sent up, landed, checked for damage, stood up..."  

In this way each operation of Stage-1 could become a matter of low hundreds per lift (salaries not included).  The first space attempts may not occut before the 100th Stage-1 operation.  It is hoped the operation of it can become routine, inexpensive.

Then the costs of a space launch will incur the serial production costs of the 2 expendable stages.  It is possible for the cost of each launch to escape to be below 10 - 20,000 dollars, not including the fixed costs, salaries, and assuming over a hundred  launches/year.

The economics can work in a way similar to the economics of the mucrocomputer in the computer business.

[cpooley]

Key market area question:  

It might be like asking that of the Wright brothers around 1903 with respect to tha airplane.  They had a general notion it would be useful, but they were fixated on trying to get it "off the ground".

So with Microlaunchers.

Some possible money making ventures for early stage development:  Space burial in a way Space Services (formerly Celestis) cannot do.  A set of 30 or so 10 gram capsules could be released beyond escape velocity with proof for a fee of, say, $10,000 each.

Using Stage-1 only, dusk scattering of remains in sunlight (a scene written into a screenplay I consulted for).

Much later, landing, retreiving regolith for sale...

Various sponsorships, and things not seen now.

[cpooley]

The turbopump question:

Though the Microlaunchers plan does not require use of a turbopump engine design to work, a turbopump engine for the first stage will improve the overall vehicle design by reducing the GLOW required for a given payload to escape, or with a given GLOW, increasing the payload.

I have been working on a type of closed cycle turbopump design (like the Russians have been doing), and someday will build, use it.  I think the design I'm working on can, in small sizes, allow a thrust/weight ratio of 200 (much higher than Russia's best because of scaling effects, and an integrated pump-in-head layout which eliminates some heavy plumbing), and be a useful product in its own right.

If I should find an investor very interested (probably US only due to ITAR), the engine design will be done first.  Otherwise, sometime after early successes with the pressurized version of Microalunchers and presumed increased ability to raise funds to do it.

Money controlls all this.

A turbopump is good because, especially in larger vehicles, the weight of the propellant tanks, pressirizing system can be much less.  This, even if the engine chamber pressure attained is no higher than that of a pressurized system.

[cpooley]

Braddock's other question re flight calculations:

This will of course become very important in time, but not yet.  The basic vehicle, launch system has to be built first, and much of the calculations will be dependent on the actual vehicle characteristics.

I'm for now working with vague, general requirements for flight first for Stage-1 then the 3 stage form.  I will then be seeking participation/help in this area.  But for now, will be seeking (and am finding) help in the earlier phases of this.

The flight environment is to be in 3 general categories: 1. that of Stage-1, its flight through max-q to recovery; 2. ascent to the escape trajectory (bypassing LEO for reasons given and to be given); and 3. beyond-escape trajectories like path to NEO flyby, lunar landing etc.

But metal and fire first...

[Jim]

Sounds like a lot of what ifs and speculation.  No real hard data or hardware to base anything on

[David BAE]

Given the cost of funerals, for a little bit more, I'd opt for my ashes to be sent into space. Great idea.

[cpooley]

Jim's question re it being speculative:  The Wright brothers' plans for heavier than air flight was.  No data/hardware?  10 years ago I did design a liquid rocket the parts of which got built worked ok (picture of it at the start of this thread.  The ML 1st stage will be using some of the design elements.  For the rest, ML is to use fairly conservative "textbook" rocket engineering.

David's question re funerals:  The ashes idea is hardly original.  Celestis, now Space4 Services Inc is offering this, and has 3 of 4 times put a small number of cremated remains samples to LEO as secondary pauloads of satellites (Pegasus, I think).  One sample from Shoemacker [sp?]--the comet discoverer--is on the moon, having been put into the Lunat Prospector which was crashed into the moon.

The fee for this should tend to be easy to pay for, as it usually is arranged for before death, paid by the estate.  

A very important aspect of this is that a business based on this can be structured so as to be attractive to venture capital.

[braddock]

Could you tell us a little more about the Spacefarer X80 liquid rocket, and what you did and learned from it?  I haven't been able to find much technical detail about it.

Have you looked at existing sounding rocket designs as a replacement for the long development cycle for the custom first stage, or even as a way to disperse remains as a quick way towards revenue?