Community > Forum > The Spaceflight Cafe > CHATS (Cheap Human Access To Space) NOW

CHATS (Cheap Human Access To Space) NOW

Posted by: rpspeck - Tue Mar 08, 2005 4:37 am
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 4 posts ] 
CHATS (Cheap Human Access To Space) NOW 
Author Message
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 450
Post CHATS (Cheap Human Access To Space) NOW   Posted on: Tue Mar 08, 2005 4:37 am
Post Post insight – CHATS (Cheap Human Access to Space) is a better acronym and it includes that group which makes up the majority of compact humans. I have entered it as a replacement for CMATS (Cheap Manned Access To Space)

Step 1: Pray that Elon Musk will join Burt Rutan in breaking the “launch developer’s curse”, and achieve credible orbital launch performance.

Step 2: Talk Musk into flying lightweight reentry shells as an extension of his payload fairings. (This will prove that stable and reliable reentry is a no brainer for the classic “Mercury” configuration)

A. Convince Elon that the PR and future business value are worth the “semi reentry” licensing effort.

B. Get some entrepreneur to build a good composite capsule and adaptor structure.
(A cinch for Rutan, but he is probably too busy and has other ideas.)

C. Talk Aerotech into adding the head end ignition they use for the “Space Dev” / “Scaled Composites” (SpaceShipOne) ignition assembly into their 100 mm “N” reload motor.

D. Get another entrepreneur to build an angled triple nozzle into the reload rear closure. (Classic Mercury escape tower)

E. Fly a demonstration escape with a composite shell and these near stock propulsion components. (And a test with human occupant? This motor will lift a lightweight, capsule with one occupant (200 kg total mass) 1000 feet into the air.

Step 3: Help Musk sell a “Sample Return Service”, using this capsule as a “reentry bus” to get processed materials (and processing hardware) back from space. (We can forget the Shuttle for this use, although it was once promised.)

A. This involves full reentry licensing, plus recovery at sea.

B. However, the lightweight shell and contents could be flown as a partial payload along with an additional, probably heavier, payload.

Step 4: Try to find two people who want to spend $3 Million each to go into orbit in a partially proven system. Or one to spend a comparable amount to fly in company with a satellite. Given that the MMU proved that very little is necessary to comfortably fly in space, and that reentry systems should mass less than 10% of the reentering mass, the two man (200 pound each) system should come in under 450 kg and fit on the Falcon 1.

Step 5: Configure this system to fly regularly piggyback with Falcon 5 launches (still as an addition to a late ejection payload shroud), as these launches will often have hundreds of kg of extra lift capability. One Million $ each person should be reasonable compensation for this service ($ 2000 per pound, well above the projected cost .)

Step 6: Design a 16 to 30 passenger module. A BIG LOAD (Perhaps that’s a “Bigelowd”) to carry a group to an orbital habitat at a small multiple of the going suborbital price. :wink:

Post Post insight – CHATS is a better acronym and it includes that group which makes up the majority of compact humans. I am painfully reminded of the difference size makes whenever I fly (coach). COMPACT astronauts, overeducated jockeys and smart ladies, will fly two for the price of one. I myself, at 6 feet, 5 inches and 300 pounds (gravitationally challenged), fall in the “plus size, astrowanabe” category.

Then what? How about Mars?


Last edited by rpspeck on Wed Mar 09, 2005 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:04 pm
Uumph. I still don't think VTVL (vertical takeoff, vertical landing) rockets are either the best or the most efficient way to get to orbit......

But dammit man, you just blueprinted a method that gets the ASP won by the end of '10, at the latest!

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 450
Post    Posted on: Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:56 pm
I am pleased to see that SpaceX is flagging “Man Rated” design for the Falcon 5.
Launch is listed as 2Q, 2006 (less than 16 months away).

He can haul cargo to the ISS, and with a man rated capsule (as outlined) sell crew escape units as well. The man rated Falcon will make it easier to take passengers along.

It will take a miracle for Falcon 1 to achieve orbit on its first test flight. But, fortunately, miracles are available (hence item 1 above). Please join me in praying for credible success!

Please note that a lot of people in congress would like to funnel money to cost effective COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) launch products (and cut NASA funding without abandoning space). The president is making related noises. But we have to do something to get the “Giggle Factor” out of Washington.
Step one – Yeah Rutan (et al.)!
Step two , SpaceX ???

The plan I offered tries to quiet the giggle factor for manned flight with low bucks. The “fairing mod” proves that mercury style capsules still work and are very stable aerodynamically (the “Big Joe” failure/success proved that you could start out backward, with exhausted control systems, and the capsule would fix everything and fly perfectly).

A higher velocity demo proves that Allen and Eggers (1953) were right and that a few pounds of dish shaped fiberglass can keep you alive inside a reentry fireball.

The old escape tower makes worriers happy, and could double as the retrorocket for orbital return. Since the noted rocket motor costs only about $1000 (Not Million), and works well – just use it.

Many people will laugh at my weight estimates. When you are too exhausted to laugh any more – wipe your eyes and consider this: The one man Mercury weighed more than twice as much as Rutan’s SpaceShipOne (with the motor removed). Yet the latter had seats and mass added to equal three astronauts! And the later had wings, tail and landing gear as well. The Mercury had parachutes. SpaceShipOne had one also – on Melville’s back! Rutan’s product also had a full set of reaction motors for space maneuvering, plus control, communications and navigational systems. More oxygen? Each man (small women need less) sucks up about 2.2 pounds of the stuff a day.

Trim off the stuff you don’t need, squash a heat shield on the back, and Rutan’s craft might be able to carry three astronauts into orbit atop a Falcon 1. My two man estimate is conservative.

Post Post: My estimates for SSO mass were low - this is much heavier than Rutan's typical product. However, while "less conservative", my conclusion about two orbital astronauts remains.

ASP in 2006?


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:07 pm
I like it. I like it very much.

The KISS principle at its best.

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests


cron
© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use