Space Travel: Difference between revisions

From Open Source Ecology
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "https://www.spacex.com/")
 
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
https://www.spacex.com/
=Energetics=
One of the most important points for space travel is energeitics - assuming reusable rockets are available in the public domain. How much fuel does a Falcon 9 Heavy take? 75k gallons. [https://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/003/120301wdr/#:~:text=The%20Falcon%209%20rocket's%20first,went%20into%20the%20second%20stage.]. How long would it take to generate that amount of fuel from renewable energy in a village? Take a [[Dunbar]] village of 200 acres with only 2 acres in fuel crop: photovoltaics + 400 kW wind turbine. Each day produces an equivalent of 200 gallons of hydrogen. One year of energy generation is sufficient to go to space. Not bad - meaning that even a modern village can afford to have a space program. The cost of 75k gallons of fuel is only $150k, meaning that a trip to the Space Station could cost only $500k in fuel at current fuel prices - assuming open source, modular, lifetime design technology. This is about 100x cheaper than the current $1.8B contract with Space X for a dozen flights to the Space Station. This is a baseline, and it would require significant development to realize, probably on the order of $1B R&D costs, depending on availability of open source prior art.
 
=Development Costs=
*$90M for Space X's first rocket, and $300M for Falcon Heavy. [https://www.quora.com/How-much-money-did-SpaceX-invest-in-R-D-for-F1-F9-and-FH-and-how-much-is-estimated-to-be-invested-in-R-D-for-BFR]. At least 10x lower cost than NASA.
 
=Companies of Intrest=
==SpaceX==
*Known for making vertical launch systems reusable and far cheaper than the competition by using retrorockets for landing the boosters, and catching the aerodynamic fearings in large nets
*[https://www.spacex.com/ Their Website]
 
==Copenhagen Suborbitals==
*A hobbyiest group attempting human spaceflight
*[[User:Eric]] speaking here, on my personal, non business youtube  account (i think, i'll double check just in case) i asked and they said they wanted to be open source, but had to not be due to the risk of missile development by nefarious groups
*[https://copenhagensuborbitals.com/ Their Website]
 
==Rocket Lab==
*A company who makes the [[Electron Launch Vehicle]], which is one of, if not the, smallest orbital launch platforms
*This is useful, as many payloads, such as [[Cubesats]] need to get to orbit, but do not need a large launch payload overall
*Thus the [[Electron Launch Vehicle]] saves money for groups looking to launch small payloadss, and lowers the barriers to entry into the feild
*[https://www.rocketlabusa.com/ Their Website]
 
==Bigelow Aerospace==
*A group specializing in [[Inflatable Space Habitats]], which allow for large space habitats with relitively small launch volumes
*[https://bigelowaerospace.com/ Their Website]
 
==Reaction Engines Limited==
*A group specializing in combined cycle, precooled hypersonic engines
*Their main development is [[Skylon]], a [[SSTO]] [[HTOL]] [[Spaceplane]]
*Skylon is an ofshoot of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_HOTOL British Aerospace HOTOL] Program
*If successful, this will allow for heavily reusable, and safe delivery of cargo, and human payloads to orbit, on a reliable basis
*Also the horizontal takeoff and landing is more familiar to the average person, and thus may be more approachable to the average person than vertical launch solutions
 
==Quicklaunch==
*This company has been put on hold, mostly due to spaceX reducing its place in the market, but it still may have a place
*This is a company that proposed a [[SpaceGun]] utilising a [[Light Gas Gun]] based of hydrogen as the light gas being pushed, and natural gas for the explosive push
*it would consist of a 1.1 km long pipe submerged in a body of water at an angle.  It would accelerate payloads to around 6km/s.  A small booster would be used for circularizing the orbit, but price would be dramatically reduced
*This would not be human rated, but it could be very beneficial for resupply and/or fuel depot refueling
*This would also have a rather fast relaunch time as all that is needed is the insertion of a new payload, and gas repressurization
*Barrel wear is one concern
*Some groups propose the use of a coilgun or railgun for a similar but electric approach, which especially makes sense in enviroments with lots of sunlight (for electricity generation), and low temperature + air pressure.  Earth's moon is one such place
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quicklaunch The Wikipedia Page on Quicklaunch]
 
=See Also=
*[[Open Source Spacecraft Construction Set]]
 
=Useful Links=
*
*[https://www.reactionengines.co.uk/ Their Website]

Latest revision as of 15:59, 6 October 2022

Energetics

One of the most important points for space travel is energeitics - assuming reusable rockets are available in the public domain. How much fuel does a Falcon 9 Heavy take? 75k gallons. [1]. How long would it take to generate that amount of fuel from renewable energy in a village? Take a Dunbar village of 200 acres with only 2 acres in fuel crop: photovoltaics + 400 kW wind turbine. Each day produces an equivalent of 200 gallons of hydrogen. One year of energy generation is sufficient to go to space. Not bad - meaning that even a modern village can afford to have a space program. The cost of 75k gallons of fuel is only $150k, meaning that a trip to the Space Station could cost only $500k in fuel at current fuel prices - assuming open source, modular, lifetime design technology. This is about 100x cheaper than the current $1.8B contract with Space X for a dozen flights to the Space Station. This is a baseline, and it would require significant development to realize, probably on the order of $1B R&D costs, depending on availability of open source prior art.

Development Costs

  • $90M for Space X's first rocket, and $300M for Falcon Heavy. [2]. At least 10x lower cost than NASA.

Companies of Intrest

SpaceX

  • Known for making vertical launch systems reusable and far cheaper than the competition by using retrorockets for landing the boosters, and catching the aerodynamic fearings in large nets
  • Their Website

Copenhagen Suborbitals

  • A hobbyiest group attempting human spaceflight
  • User:Eric speaking here, on my personal, non business youtube account (i think, i'll double check just in case) i asked and they said they wanted to be open source, but had to not be due to the risk of missile development by nefarious groups
  • Their Website

Rocket Lab

  • A company who makes the Electron Launch Vehicle, which is one of, if not the, smallest orbital launch platforms
  • This is useful, as many payloads, such as Cubesats need to get to orbit, but do not need a large launch payload overall
  • Thus the Electron Launch Vehicle saves money for groups looking to launch small payloadss, and lowers the barriers to entry into the feild
  • Their Website

Bigelow Aerospace

Reaction Engines Limited

  • A group specializing in combined cycle, precooled hypersonic engines
  • Their main development is Skylon, a SSTO HTOL Spaceplane
  • Skylon is an ofshoot of the British Aerospace HOTOL Program
  • If successful, this will allow for heavily reusable, and safe delivery of cargo, and human payloads to orbit, on a reliable basis
  • Also the horizontal takeoff and landing is more familiar to the average person, and thus may be more approachable to the average person than vertical launch solutions

Quicklaunch

  • This company has been put on hold, mostly due to spaceX reducing its place in the market, but it still may have a place
  • This is a company that proposed a SpaceGun utilising a Light Gas Gun based of hydrogen as the light gas being pushed, and natural gas for the explosive push
  • it would consist of a 1.1 km long pipe submerged in a body of water at an angle. It would accelerate payloads to around 6km/s. A small booster would be used for circularizing the orbit, but price would be dramatically reduced
  • This would not be human rated, but it could be very beneficial for resupply and/or fuel depot refueling
  • This would also have a rather fast relaunch time as all that is needed is the insertion of a new payload, and gas repressurization
  • Barrel wear is one concern
  • Some groups propose the use of a coilgun or railgun for a similar but electric approach, which especially makes sense in enviroments with lots of sunlight (for electricity generation), and low temperature + air pressure. Earth's moon is one such place
  • The Wikipedia Page on Quicklaunch

See Also

Useful Links