Author Topic: Mountain Launch System  (Read 10023 times)

Offline MLSman

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Mountain Launch System
« on: 10/08/2009 05:17 pm »
For you consideration I would like to introduce to you a launch idea that I have.  I wish to get some exposure to the idea to see if there is further government or private industry interest.  I have attached a white paper to describe the concept.  Comments and recommndations welcome.  Thank you for your time.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Mountain Launch System
« Reply #1 on: 10/08/2009 06:17 pm »
For you consideration I would like to introduce to you a launch idea that I have.  I wish to get some exposure to the idea to see if there is further government or private industry interest.  I have attached a white paper to describe the concept.  Comments and recommndations welcome.  Thank you for your time.

I stopped after reading this sentence:

"In the case of the space shuttle in the first 8 seconds, it has traveled 300 ft and consumed half of its fuel supply (1.5 million pounds)." 

This is not correct.  Shuttle consumes something nearer to 250,000 lbs of its roughly 3.8 million pounds of total propellant during the first eight seconds.  It takes roughly one minute, give or take, for the stack to consume half of its propellant. 

Back to the drawing board!

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 10/08/2009 06:21 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline MLSman

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Mountain Launch System
« Reply #2 on: 10/08/2009 06:39 pm »
For you consideration I would like to introduce to you a launch idea that I have.  I wish to get some exposure to the idea to see if there is further government or private industry interest.  I have attached a white paper to describe the concept.  Comments and recommndations welcome.  Thank you for your time.

I stopped after reading this sentence:

"In the case of the space shuttle in the first 8 seconds, it has traveled 300 ft and consumed half of its fuel supply (1.5 million pounds)." 

This is not correct.  Shuttle consumes something nearer to 250,000 lbs of its roughly 3.8 million pounds of total propellant during the first eight seconds.  It takes roughly one minute, give or take, for the stack to consume half of its propellant. 

Back to the drawing board!

Thanks Ed,  That information came from an article I read off of the internet a while back.  I will make the correction.  Can I ask where you got your information?

Thanks again,
Keith
 - Ed Kyle

Offline AlexInOklahoma

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 177
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Mountain Launch System
« Reply #3 on: 10/08/2009 07:10 pm »
Just a bit of 'research' could tell a person that there's no way that 1/2 of fuel is gone at ~8 seconds...and I do not mean that as an insult.  Check out credible *multiple* sources (in the future).  Good that you are thinking about a 'better' way, for sure.  Around here, its always better to cite a source rather than say "off the Internet", trust me there, LOL...  Credibility needs to be earned; its rarely a given.

Be sure to factor in overflight issues when you are thinking 'base altitude', as there seems to be a shortage of good 'routes' with all other considerations factored in, too  ;)

Good luck,
Alex

Offline MLSman

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Mountain Launch System
« Reply #4 on: 10/08/2009 08:45 pm »
I have removed the incorrect Space Shuttle fuel consumption reference.  I appreciate the input as that is why I was advised to post here to ferret out the idea.

Offline nathan.moeller

  • Astro95 Media
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3994
  • Houston, TX
    • Astro95 Media
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Mountain Launch System
« Reply #5 on: 10/08/2009 09:07 pm »
While I can't comment on the feasibility of this concept, it is indeed very creative and interesting and if nothing else, a great read!  I'm curious to hear some responses from the aerospace experts on this one. :)

And for what it's worth, consider these numbers about the space shuttle -

At liftoff, the fully-fueled shuttle stack (orbiter, SRBs ET) weighs around 4.5 million lbs.  The SRBs burn their solid propellant at a rate of roughly 10,000 lbs per second per booster for 125 seconds (2 min 5 sec).  10,000 lbs/second x 125 seconds x 2 boosters = 2.5 million lbs of SRB fuel.

Now consider the weight of the ET.  The three shuttle main engines (SSMEs) burn roughly 2 tons of fuel per second from the tank over the course of 509 seconds (8 mins 29 secs).  4,000 lbs/second x 509 seconds = 2.036 million lbs of ET fuel.

All things considered, at approximately T+105 seconds, the shuttle and SRBs have consumed about 2.52 million lbs of propellant, which is close to half of the liftoff weight.

Here's the math - [(10,000 lbs/second x 2 boosters) + (4,000 lbs/second)] x 105 seconds = 2.52 million lbs

Keep in mind - these numbers come from an armchair spectator and can be obtained by watching a lot of launch videos and listening to the ascent PAO.  They are not exact nor are they meant to be.  They are approximations and are meant to give you a better idea of propellant usage during a shuttle launch.
« Last Edit: 10/08/2009 09:32 pm by nathan.moeller »
www.astro95media.com - Lead Video & Graphics

Offline agman25

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Mountain Launch System
« Reply #6 on: 10/08/2009 09:19 pm »
I'm not a expert but 500 miles/hour does not give you much of the kinetic energy you need to reach orbit. Can't you get that much from just an air launch from a aircraft.

Offline nathan.moeller

  • Astro95 Media
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3994
  • Houston, TX
    • Astro95 Media
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Mountain Launch System
« Reply #7 on: 10/08/2009 09:38 pm »
I'm not a expert but 500 miles/hour does not give you much of the kinetic energy you need to reach orbit. Can't you get that much from just an air launch from a aircraft.

I think he's wanting, more than anything, to save fuel.  Flying an aircraft costs a lot of fuel, whereas, in his proposal, no fuel is used reaching that velocity, if I am reading it correctly.

Of course, here's another consideration - How long will it take for the benefits and revenue stream to justify the billions of dollars that would be needed for a system like this and why is this cheaper than launching a spacecraft from an aircraft-based rocket?  There's more to be considered here than just the fuel.

Here are some other questions that would be posed by this proposal -

If your launch site is going to be in Kenya, what is going to convince, say, United Launch Alliance, to ship their Delta 4 across the Atlantic Ocean and around Africa to get their booster to the launch site?  They'll certainly want some insurance on it if things go south and those rates would most certainly be much higher for a rocket being launched via an experimental method in an unstable region.  Will those shipping and insurance costs be lower than what they would spend on fuel at launch sites at VAFB or CCAFS?

Will the customer who purchased the booster feel comfortable shipping their multi-million-dollar payload to an unstable region?  How will you convince them that it will be safe and protected?  And what about the shipping and insurance costs for the payoad?  If ULA is set on launching their boosters from your launch site, what keeps a customer from choosing SpaceX over ULA?
« Last Edit: 10/08/2009 09:49 pm by nathan.moeller »
www.astro95media.com - Lead Video & Graphics

Offline Iikka Keranen

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Mountain Launch System
« Reply #8 on: 10/08/2009 10:06 pm »
I'm not an aerospace engineer, just a spectator, but here's a couple of immediate thoughts:

1. Evacuating the launch tube would require a very sturdy cap at the top. Even at 17k-20k feet the air pressure is in the ballpark of 7-8psi. Across a circle 6m in diameter, this translates to hundreds of thousands of pounds of force against the cap. Cellophane won't do.

2. It would be interesting to look at the existing launch vehicle numbers for how much they weigh and how fast they're flying when they reach a point similar to the exit from the launch tube (e.g. 17k ft). This would be the weight (and target speed) to use in your calculations, rather than using the weight of a fully fueled Atlas or Delta. The launch tube would replace (or reduce the size of) the first stage so the math should reflect that.

3. On the topic of air launch, I think the mountain launch has an advantage in that it can be scaled to much larger payload sizes given the money to build it. No amount of money will allow you to launch a 500k lb rocket off an airplane or balloon.

Offline MLSman

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Mountain Launch System
« Reply #9 on: 10/08/2009 10:38 pm »
Likka, per your comments
1) The top membrane similar to cellophane over a bowl is just the concept.  The exact details of which would have to be worked out.   If you make the membrane strong enough to withstand the air pressure it could damage the rocket fairing.  The concept is a tensile membrane that would be cut by the fairing and fail rapidly.  There is also the concern of the sudden load the fairing would experience once free of the tube.  My thought here was that the membrane could have a burn through heater at the center and as the rocket approached a hole would be created which would allow air to begin to enter thus providing a gradual increase of pressure to the rocket.
2) Agree, I would like to know what existing rockets use of fuel per altitude and speed are.
3) Air launch.  Their are a couple of problem with air launching, first you need a big plane and second the structure of the rocket must be able to handle the point load, this makes for a heavier rocket strucure and new designs.

One of the largetst advantages of the MLS concept is that it would be designed to use all of the existing launch vehicles as is. The rocket sitting on the launch platform is experiencing less than a 2 G axial load. 

Agman, 500 mph is not fast enough to orbit in fact if you didn't light the rocket it would coast to a stop at around 25,000 ft.  It is a gravity assist to increase rocket performance.

Nathan, you are correct when I spoke with some Delta folks the shipment of their rocket is a big deal, they float them on a barge.  But then the Russian Zenit booster is shipped out here for Sea Launch and it dosn't seem like a problem, so I think it depends on the booster.
 
If you consider what we do today, we make these extremely complex and expensive machines start from a standstill, travel the furthest distance possibe (sea level) and through the thickest part of the atmosphere.  The MLS concept uses gravity to the furthest extent possible (20,000 ft), I would like to then use a ramjet stage to 100 K ft to use atmospheric oxygen and then a conventional rocket to orbit.

The 500 mph is for a 10,000 ft tube and only gravity.  If you apply additional energy (eletric motor, flywheel, or magnatic) you can go even faster, the more energy from cheaper sources the less the rocket has to do.


Offline AlexInOklahoma

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 177
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Mountain Launch System
« Reply #10 on: 10/08/2009 10:54 pm »
One thing that came to my mind quickly was that few mountains are really that far above 'ground level', so to speak.  For the 'depth' you talk of, you would need to dig waaaay down below ground-level.  Water would seep in everywhere unless you spent big  money on simply lifting water out, etc, etc.In another thread here, there's talk of probs with evacuating a shaft and launching from such (in Advanced Concepts, iirr - try a search for that aspect)  A launch from a vacuum ain't easy or cheap at all - significant 'turbulence' at opening of the 'lid' but I do not remember the details.

I admit its an interesting 'concept', but I bet a tunnel of such length/*depth* in a geologically-active area (most mountains are in such areas, right??) would be troublesome.  I am no geologist, though  :)

Alex

Offline MLSman

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Mountain Launch System
« Reply #11 on: 10/08/2009 11:21 pm »
Alex,

  Water would be a concern, as well as geothermal heating.  The Mt Chimborazo area is seismically active, the Mt Kenya are is not.  Consulting with a Geologist and civil engineering firm would be first on my list.  There are other significant problems to be addressed:
1) Keeping the launch platform steady, might be a controls problem, I envision using a linear bearing system to keep the ascent steady and smooth.  It would need to be tolerant of a cable failure.
2) With the launch platform ascending at 500 mph the counterweights are descending at 500 mph and have to be braked.  I envision a clutched flywheel to recapture most of the energy.  Or fill the bottom of the counterweight tubes with walnuts, and break open a few million.
I would expect such a system would need to started with a small proof of concept site, to work out the problems.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Mountain Launch System
« Reply #12 on: 10/09/2009 12:06 am »
The complexity is not worth the little performance increase that it provides.  Cheaper to maintain the status quo.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Mountain Launch System
« Reply #13 on: 10/09/2009 12:07 am »

Nathan, you are correct when I spoke with some Delta folks the shipment of their rocket is a big deal, they float them on a barge.  But then the Russian Zenit booster is shipped out here for Sea Launch and it dosn't seem like a problem, so I think it depends on the booster.
 

The problem is from the dock to the mountain

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: Mountain Launch System
« Reply #14 on: 10/09/2009 12:15 am »
For you consideration I would like to introduce to you a launch idea that I have.  I wish to get some exposure to the idea to see if there is further government or private industry interest.  I have attached a white paper to describe the concept.  Comments and recommndations welcome.  Thank you for your time.

Welcome to the site's forum Keith. It's a tough crowd here (lots of your aerospace people), so appreciate you taking the feedback and I hope everyone is respectful of that.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline AlexInOklahoma

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 177
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Mountain Launch System
« Reply #15 on: 10/09/2009 12:36 am »
Chris: Fwiw, honestly, I am 'proud' of NSF et al that this has not been pounced on with harsh treatment, not that I am one to have much weight (if any, LOL) in saying that.  IMHO, this 'proposal' is a *strong* no-go. 

Yet another thing - just how heavy is a cable ~5 miles long going to be (that is strong enough for this), and will said cable(s) hold their weight plus rocket plus the accelerative forces?  And how big is the spool gotta be?  I bet that is a break-through that has not happened yet.

And like Jim says, just hauling the rocket pieces to site is a big enough problem.  Launching from west side of Africa will cross a lot of land. And the politics of Africa is, shall we say, a bit unstable (I only hear the bad things though).  Before spending much time on the 'how', do the 'where' - big problems with that with this idea, IMO.  Status quo happened for a reason(s).

But I do not work in spaceflight, haha  :)

Alex

Offline MLSman

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Mountain Launch System
« Reply #16 on: 10/09/2009 12:54 am »
Alex,

  To answer your question about the cable, 10,000 ft of 1 in cable, with a 100,000 lb rated load is 10,000 lbs.  This is not new technology, suspension bridges and cranes use them.

I agree that Africa has it's problems, though I think Kenya is better than most countries there.  This week I recieved a request from a Kenyan student studying on an ESA scholarship who is referencing the idea in a paper talking about Kenya's space program involvement. Such a facility would provide a great deal of pride and prestige for the country and continent.

Interesting comment on the status quo, you are probably right.  Our space program evolved from the German WWII program, I don't know if such a concept has ever been evaluated.  My goal is to give the idea an oppurtunity to grow.  Facts and data will prevail in the end.

Thanks Chris for the encouragement.
 
 

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
  • Liked: 553
  • Likes Given: 891
Re: Mountain Launch System
« Reply #17 on: 10/09/2009 02:17 am »
This idea has been invented and many times in many slightly different forms. It's proponents are almost always people who have done the most superficial analysis.

Have you priced construction of a 10,000' vertical tunnel through solid mountain, along with the many km of horizontal tunnel to get to the base ? I would expect this alone to run to billions. One that meets your requirements (i.e. sufficiently large, perfectly straight, able to hold a vacuum etc.) could be much more than that.

Don't forget that you have to build all the normal launch site infrastructure too (payload and lv integration and fueling facilities, tracking stations...) This would normally run to hundreds of millions by itself, but a substantial part of yours will need to be in the heart of mountain.

Your location limits the orbits you can fly to. You say that overflight is minimal for Mt. Kenya, but even on the shortest path (which annoyingly isn't due east) you are still flying for several hundred km over populated areas. For other orbits that could go to thousands. A dog-leg over a specific corridor could easily eat all the dV your gained from your launch assist. Yes, the Russians and Chinese fly over populated territory, but their systems were created by governments that weren't accountable to the people they flew over.

All this for what ? A couple hundred meters a second of velocity. How many launches do you have to make for this to work out better than sticking a couple extra solids on your rocket, or pursuing other conventional growth options.

You cite Sea Launch is an "unconventional approach that has proved successful". If you haven't noticed, they recently filed for bankruptcy.

Offline AlexInOklahoma

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 177
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Mountain Launch System
« Reply #18 on: 10/09/2009 02:23 am »
One last thing - you are greatly underestimating how strong a vacuum will pull on the 'lid', IMO.  You can't melt it away gradually, so to speak, with the mass/strength it will take.  It has to magically disappear instantly at an exact moment (more or less) and any prob with that is instant disaster most likely.  To 'cut through' the lid will take some serious weight penalty for the 'shield' as well as an impact that payloads will frown upon.  Might be feasible with 'new tech'...but money is better spent on the things known to be feasible.

I do think that launching from a vacuum tube *has* been looked at in a rough manner - with big technical/physics issues.  I'll see if I can find that thread when I am not busy elsewhere (where the heck was that at???)

Alex

Offline cozmicray

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 166
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Mountain Launch System
« Reply #19 on: 10/09/2009 04:38 pm »
Have you looked at "Space gun" or Project HARP

"A space gun is a method of launching an object into outer space using a large gun, or cannon. It provides a method of non-rocket spacelaunch‎. Though it is the earliest envisioned method of space launch, a space gun has never been successfully used to launch an object into orbit."

The Navy uses the Vertical Launch System  missile flies through frangable
cover and flies thru it's own rocket plume.

Why do you need a mountain?

What about a tall building?  Many have central elevator shafts?

Perhaps the gravity system could be combined with pressure differential
system,  rail gun system

I think Hitler and Saddam had mountain guns in development.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0