[AR] Re: SSTO

  • From: "Doug Jones" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "randome" for DMARC)
  • To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 16:34:14 -0800

Isothermal LOX and propane tanks allow the propane density to rise to 728 kg/m3, approaching the density of kerosene with nearly the Isp of methane. No fuel vapor boiloff makes for reduced fire hazards, too.

On 2018-02-13 11:08 AM, William Claybaugh wrote:

Is anyone aware of a careful comparison of LH2 vs. Propane fueled SSTO?

Hydrogen tanks generally weigh around 10% of the fuel mass whereas Propane tanks are closer to 1%....

Bill

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 11:56 AM Rand Simberg <simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

    I'd hope that we learned from Shuttle that the key to reducing the cost
    of access to space is not a massive government program.

    On 2018-02-13 10:53, Keith Henson wrote:
     > Henry Spencer wrote
     >
     > On Sat, 10 Feb 2018, John Dom wrote:
     >>> ... Who knows where the Skylons would be by now if they got the
    same
     >>> help SpaceX got..
     >
     >> Probably not much farther than they are now, given that the help to
     >> SpaceX
     >> was hundreds of millions to produce flying rockets with flying
     >> capsules on
     >> top, while Skylon development is still forecast to cost tens of
     >> billions and
>> there is no plan for a less-expensive demonstrator first. (Which puts
     >> Skylon in the "need not be taken seriously" category, in my opinion,
     >> since
     >> nobody is going to spend that kind of money on an unproven concept.)
     >
     > Let's turn this around.  What would it take for someone (governments
     > most likely) to fully develop Skylon?
     >
     > The last time this happened was nuclear weapons during WW II.  So it
     > would take the moral equal of a war of survival.  Is the threat to
     > climate due to CO2 high enough for that to happen?  I don't know, but
     > there are not a lot of other carbon-free energy sources on tap.
     >
     > I am agnostic about how we transport parts into space for power
     > satellites.  Skylon, BFR, witches brooms, all the same to me.  The
     > critical thing is cost.  If you can't get the cost per kW of
    installed
> power to $2400 or less, then power satellites are a hard sell. At the
     > current design point, that needs about $100/kg to LEO.  I don't think
     > rockets can reach that number, but if they can, we have the tools to
     > solve the carbon and energy problems.
     >
     > Keith
     >
     > PS.  The other option is to go to the moon or asteroids for
    materials.


Other related posts: