Author Topic: More developed European Space Agency/Program  (Read 19952 times)

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
More developed European Space Agency/Program
« on: October 05, 2014, 09:17:32 PM »
Hmm, Europe doing the supporting infra-structure could definitely influence how NASA approached the moon landing effort (Apollo having the option of recovering to a space station would be nice).  I could see NASA using their heavy lift rockets, developed for Apollo, to loft space station segments as part of a joint effort with ESA doing the cargo, passenger, and re-supply means.  You'd definitely get an ISS earlier, even without Soviet/Russian participation.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2014, 02:31:19 AM »
The background is a rough one that I worked out where an earlier and better-funded ESA does a deal with NASA in the 1960s. Instead of wastefully competing, Europe does the small steps "infrastructure" stuff like a space station and a spaceplane, while NASA concentrates on the cash-hungry beat-the-Soviets-to-the-moon program.

I love your scenario! :)  This could provide some very interesting ideas.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #2 on: October 06, 2014, 06:10:45 AM »
Hmm, Europe doing the supporting infra-structure could definitely influence how NASA approached the moon landing effort (Apollo having the option of recovering to a space station would be nice).  I could see NASA using their heavy lift rockets, developed for Apollo, to loft space station segments as part of a joint effort with ESA doing the cargo, passenger, and re-supply means.  You'd definitely get an ISS earlier, even without Soviet/Russian participation.


IIRC, I suggested a space-station recovery for Apollo, but someone pointed out that the velocity of the retuning craft would be so high that that would take a large amount of fuel and time to slow it down and do the orbital maneuvering. The original discussion is here: http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,33142.0.html
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2014, 06:47:11 AM »
Well, if you've got a working orbital base, you can go with a full-up, non-streamlined, spaceship for Earth-orbit to lunar orbit/landing operations, much as Bonestell depicted for Willy Ley's books in the 1950's (or, really, in some of Clarke's stories from that time frame).

Alternatively, you could go with the three classes of space ship that the Hariman Corporation used in Heinlein's series of stories, Earth-to-orbit and return, space-to-space, and space-to-airless-landing, operating from stations in both Earth orbit and Lunar orbit.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2014, 07:27:25 AM by elmayerle »

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2014, 11:37:27 AM »
The way I see it now is that during the 1960s, NASA does the Apollo program pretty much as per real life (because politically, they need the speed), while ESA develops a semi-recoverable rocket that's sized for commercial satellite launches and can be "clustered" to launch heavier payloads, including a spaceplane upper stage, with the ultimate goal of getting a small space station into orbit by 1970.

Then in the mid 1970s, roles reverse somewhat. ESA uses it's space station, modular rocket system and NASA's pioneering moon experience to assemble three multi-vehicle "super-science" moon missions in orbit which can do far more science than any Apollo mission. Meanwhile, NASA starts using Saturn V technology and ESA's pioneering space station experience to start lifting large components for a really serious space station.

Next steps are a high-capacity, fully (or mostly) reusable launch system (not neccessarily of RW shuttle configuration) as a full joint project, large, unmanned planetary probes, using the modular launch system, and preparations/research for a manned Mars mission.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #5 on: October 06, 2014, 12:10:42 PM »
That sounds quite plausible (NASA might even continue Saturn 5 production longer and keep the last three Apollo missions; I can certainly see Saturn 5 elements boosting modules for a serious space station - Skylab was launched by a Saturn 1B, IIRC, and the Saturn 5 could lift more).  The multi-vehicle moon missions sound like some of the 1950's concepts made real.  Personally, I wish things had proceeded that way.

Given the on-going research into lifting bodies, I could see the fully reusable system using such for the upper stage.  For the lower one, I like the supersonic air-breather concept described in the novelization of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #6 on: October 06, 2014, 12:34:00 PM »
Folks,

A dedicated thread for the scenario(s) involving a more developed European Space Agency/Program - spinning off from the above discussion.

Kind regards,

Greg
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #7 on: October 07, 2014, 09:26:25 AM »
Given the on-going research into lifting bodies, I could see the fully reusable system using such for the upper stage.  For the lower one, I like the supersonic air-breather concept described in the novelization of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Indeed. Although I support efforts like Skylon, I've always thought that SSTO is kind of missing the point, i.e. if all the parts of the vehicle are recoverable, then it doesn't matter how many stages you have. A high speed, high altitude carrier vehicle (SR-71 engines plus a rocket motor?) that launched a spaceplane off it's back at 150,000 ft at Mach 3 would be one way to go.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #8 on: October 07, 2014, 10:25:08 AM »
The original Space Shuttle concept was fully reusable, it only became what it was when it got proxmired in the early 1970s.  I still think that the horizontal take-off approach to a two-stage fully-reuseable system that Clarke used in his 2001 novel or his earlier [/I]Prelude to Space[/I] (1951) made a lot of sense and still does.  It does make me wonder what Sierra Nevada's efforts to have Spacelifter launch Dream Chaser will lead to, if anything.  That would probably need an unmanned, fully reusable booster stage from the drop aircraft, but it could work.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #9 on: October 07, 2014, 12:26:04 PM »
That sounds quite plausible (NASA might even continue Saturn 5 production longer and keep the last three Apollo missions; I can certainly see Saturn 5 elements boosting modules for a serious space station - Skylab was launched by a Saturn 1B, IIRC,

Actually Skylab was launched by a Saturn V (it was basically a Saturn V third stage shell). Saturn 1Bs were used to launch the Apollo capsules that ferried crew to it.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #10 on: October 07, 2014, 12:54:16 PM »
The original Space Shuttle concept was fully reusable, it only became what it was when it got proxmired in the early 1970s.  I still think that the horizontal take-off approach to a two-stage fully-reuseable system that Clarke used in his 2001 novel or his earlier [/I]Prelude to Space[/I] (1951) made a lot of sense and still does.  It does make me wonder what Sierra Nevada's efforts to have Spacelifter launch Dream Chaser will lead to, if anything.  That would probably need an unmanned, fully reusable booster stage from the drop aircraft, but it could work.

The Brooke Bond tea company used to issue cards in their packs which you collected and stuck into albums, and I have a large collection of these from the early 1970s. One of them, issued in the middle of Apollo (after Apollo 13 but before any missions with rovers) is all about the space race and has quite a few future projects that look rather folorn now. These include a space shuttle with short, swept wings that rides on top of a "booster" that's just a bigger version of itself (vertical launch though), the US space station after Skylab, and serried ranks of NERVA-powered boosters ready to send two ships to  Mars. Just about the only one that actually happened was The Grand Tour which became Voyager.

I'll try to scan some of the pages tomorrow.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #11 on: October 07, 2014, 07:47:41 PM »
That was a very early iteration of the space shuttle derived from studies of recoverable Saturn 5 stages.  The first real shuttle design that I remember seeing was something similar to the final fuselage with barely swept wings (1/4 chord line was swept, trailing edge was not) and conventional tail surfaces, launched, underside to underside, on a larger, similar, fly-back booster.  This Orbiter configuration was the first one I actually saw in low-speed wind tunnel testing (low-speed, 7' x 10' tunnel at Texas A&M, out by Easterwood Field).

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #12 on: October 07, 2014, 10:39:35 PM »
Okay, here's the pics. I've editied some half-pages and small images together and blown up the shuttle images as much as I can. I think the graininess in the latter is actually in the painting, not a digital artifact, as though it was painted on heavily textured board.








"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #13 on: October 08, 2014, 01:17:09 AM »
Yeah, that looks like one of the earliest iterations.  The next round had them underside to underside for a more compact vehicle and simpler interfaces.  That's very much the first shape I saw in the wind tunnel, though.

Of course, the underside-to-underside configuration also keeps the orbiter's exhaust plume from impinging on the vertical tail of the booster.  That and allowing parallel burn of both booster and orbiter engines for vertical lift-off is a pretty good argument for that configuration.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2014, 12:20:51 PM by elmayerle »

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #14 on: October 08, 2014, 01:57:51 PM »
Yeah, that looks like one of the earliest iterations.  The next round had them underside to underside for a more compact vehicle and simpler interfaces.  That's very much the first shape I saw in the wind tunnel, though.

Of course, the underside-to-underside configuration also keeps the orbiter's exhaust plume from impinging on the vertical tail of the booster.  That and allowing parallel burn of both booster and orbiter engines for vertical lift-off is a pretty good argument for that configuration.

So, one crew will always be hanging upside-down?  Who gets to decide which way is "up"?  ;)

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #15 on: October 08, 2014, 07:57:07 PM »
Since that concept was still a vertical launch, neither.

Offline Frank3k

  • Excession
  • Global Moderator
  • Formerly Frank2056. New upgrade!
    • My new webpage
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #16 on: October 09, 2014, 12:12:59 AM »
Wow, two+ years in space without any obvious shielding. Do you want to die from radiation induced cancers? Because that's how you die from radiation induced cancers.

It's sad to compare the progress made in the 30 years of spaceflight between 1951 and 1981 (the flight of the first Shuttle) and the lack of progress made in the 30 years between 1981 and 2011. I wish we would have had Von Braun stations by 1980.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #17 on: October 09, 2014, 08:15:42 AM »
Since that concept was still a vertical launch, neither.

But what about "roll over" (I think that is the term) when the stack starts going down range and moves from vertical to an angled climb?

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #18 on: October 09, 2014, 08:21:39 AM »
Wow, two+ years in space without any obvious shielding. Do you want to die from radiation induced cancers? Because that's how you die from radiation induced cancers.

What about Osteoporosis?

Space in those days was much more benign.  All you had to worry about was that pesky vacuum.

Quote
It's sad to compare the progress made in the 30 years of spaceflight between 1951 and 1981 (the flight of the first Shuttle) and the lack of progress made in the 30 years between 1981 and 2011. I wish we would have had Von Braun stations by 1980.

However, as you've noted, building stations like that would have been quite dangerous.

In some ways the "lack of progress" is reflective of how much more difficult things became as people found out the realities of designing and building for such a hostile environment.   Economics was the main reason though.   The 1970s "stagflation" and the "Vietnam syndrome" did more to kill the space programme than anything else IMO.   Basically the US lost it's bottle and became risk adverse.  It had won the space race and didn't really have anything driving further space efforts.  The fUSSR had lost it, so what was the point?   Nothing like a bit of healthy competition and an existential crisis to drive things along.

Offline Frank3k

  • Excession
  • Global Moderator
  • Formerly Frank2056. New upgrade!
    • My new webpage
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #19 on: October 09, 2014, 09:08:07 AM »
Hn some ways the "lack of progress" is reflective of how much more difficult things became as people found out the realities of designing and building for such a hostile environment.   Economics was the main reason though.   The 1970s "stagflation" and the "Vietnam syndrome" did more to kill the space programme than anything else IMO.   Basically the US lost it's bottle and became risk adverse.  It had won the space race and didn't really have anything driving further space efforts.  The fUSSR had lost it, so what was the point?   Nothing like a bit of healthy competition and an existential crisis to drive things along.

The Space Shuttle was a poor compromise and a flawed design by the time it flew.  It should have been sent to museums long before 1986 (much as the Russians did with the Buran.) The ISS was a good aerospace welfare program and a good place to send rich people and high paid maintenance workers, but little else.  NASA is definitely risk adverse.

Offline Alvis 3.1

  • Self acknowledged "Bad Influence"…but probably less attractive than Pink
  • The high priest of whiffing
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #20 on: October 09, 2014, 09:27:17 AM »
While being a compromise and having flaws (and name me one manned spaceflight vehicle that wasn't?) the Shuttle was far from needing to be put in a museum by 1986. The ONLY heavy lift flying body, with a damn good safety record for an experimental craft. Yes, it lost two orbiters in the entire time it was in service. That's the risks you take with rocketry. Stick with a limited, tiny capsule like Soyuz, and sure, you can keep them flying for a long time, but don't forget, they lost two crews with that vehicle early on, and have had a fail to orbit on one occasion as well.
As for Buran, the Russians shelved it as they were broke and in disarray. It had some advantages over the US Shuttle, but would have likely shown to have had failings as well.
NASA and the US have had two situations where they were nearly shut down: Apollo 1 and Apollo 13. Given the public nature of their funding, and the high profile they had from day 1, anything that led to a loss of life was highly troublesome for their funding. Then you get into the whole Proxmire style politicians, who saw NASA as a nice place to claw money from for their own pet projects, and a population that's not the most attentive or capable of anything long term, and you have an organization that cannot make those great leaps into the unknown in fear of being eliminated if something bad happens.
You want to look at a welfare program, well, look at any country's military program. There's more money going into keeping people employed for no real purpose other than keeping them employed than those organizations, but god help you if you try to cut there, you're labelled a traitor or worse.

Alvis 3.1

Offline Alvis 3.1

  • Self acknowledged "Bad Influence"…but probably less attractive than Pink
  • The high priest of whiffing
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #21 on: October 09, 2014, 09:31:17 AM »
Since that concept was still a vertical launch, neither.

But what about "roll over" (I think that is the term) when the stack starts going down range and moves from vertical to an angled climb?

I would have to guess the booster would be the one facing down, as it would be required to make the downward pitch to recovery. The orbiter would be the one needing to go upwards. The STS Shuttle rotated to be on the bottom on the way up, but it was for communication purposes, the antenna in the orbiter being blanked out by the ET and SRBs. Lacking that requirement, it could have ridden on the top side.
I think when you're undergoing 4+ gs, whether you are oriented up or down doesn't really matter much.

Alvis 3.1

Offline Alvis 3.1

  • Self acknowledged "Bad Influence"…but probably less attractive than Pink
  • The high priest of whiffing
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #22 on: October 09, 2014, 09:33:49 AM »
Elmayerle, are you visualising Ariane type boosters being used by the ESA, or the older Blue Steel derived vehicles? Timeframe wise, the Blue Steel would allow the Europeans decent sized launch capability by the early 70s.

Alvis 3.1

Offline Frank3k

  • Excession
  • Global Moderator
  • Formerly Frank2056. New upgrade!
    • My new webpage
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #23 on: October 09, 2014, 09:56:27 AM »
While being a compromise and having flaws (and name me one manned spaceflight vehicle that wasn't?) the Shuttle was far from needing to be put in a museum by 1986.

The Shuttle and the ISS are what killed the US space program.  The US did nothing worthwhile in space during the Shuttle period, other than lob some people into LEO. Over and over again. About all that has been learned is that microgravity is bad for you (which was known in the 70s) and if your spaceship breaks up going up or coming down, you're going to have a Bad Time.

OTOH, the period from the early 50's through late 70's saw a steady evolution in space capabilities and goals, from launching mice 50 miles up in a V-2 to landing several men on the Moon and building a space station that had more living space than the ISS. NASA and the manned US space program from 1980 on has been a deep embarrassment.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #24 on: October 09, 2014, 10:49:39 AM »
Elmayerle, are you visualising Ariane type boosters being used by the ESA, or the older Blue Steel derived vehicles? Timeframe wise, the Blue Steel would allow the Europeans decent sized launch capability by the early 70s.

Alvis 3.1

Think you mean Blue Streak rather than Blue Steel. Before Ariane there was Europa, which used Blue Streak as it's first stage, and it turned out to be the only bit of it that actually worked reliably. My proposed European rocket would use Blue Streak technology, although not neccessarily being limited to literally using the same components.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #25 on: October 09, 2014, 11:03:13 AM »
Elmayerle, are you visualising Ariane type boosters being used by the ESA, or the older Blue Steel derived vehicles? Timeframe wise, the Blue Steel would allow the Europeans decent sized launch capability by the early 70s.
To start with, I could see them beginning with Blue Streak -->Black Knight -->Black Prince for immediate launch capability while developing new, Ariane-type, boosters.  I would hope the new boosters would be designed to be ganged together like the Delta 4 Heavy and Falcon 9 Heavy concepts.  Too, given when lifting body designs were first developed, I could see the ESA reusable upper stage "shuttle" being one rather than the classic Von Braun concept as illustrated by Chesley Bonestell.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2014, 11:05:26 AM by elmayerle »

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #26 on: October 09, 2014, 11:10:31 AM »
The Shuttle and the ISS are what killed the US space program.  The US did nothing worthwhile in space during the Shuttle period, other than lob some people into LEO. Over and over again.
If the Space Station (originally Space Station Alpha) had been built in the original time frame instead of Congress sending it back for multiple re-designs, we might have done more.  OTOH, if I'm reading Encyclopedia Astronautica correctly, I'd much rather have the Russian module at the core of the ISS in that usage rather than it's original purpose, as the hub of a space battle station to counter the Strategic Defense Initiative.  Of course, I'll contend that a large chunk of the problem with NASA is that the dreamers moved on and the bureaucrats moved in; of all the agencies of the US Government that I've dealt with, NASA probably left the worst taste in my mouth.

Offline Alvis 3.1

  • Self acknowledged "Bad Influence"…but probably less attractive than Pink
  • The high priest of whiffing
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #27 on: October 09, 2014, 09:36:35 PM »
Elmayerle, are you visualising Ariane type boosters being used by the ESA, or the older Blue Steel derived vehicles? Timeframe wise, the Blue Steel would allow the Europeans decent sized launch capability by the early 70s.

Alvis 3.1

Think you mean Blue Streak rather than Blue Steel. Before Ariane there was Europa, which used Blue Streak as it's first stage, and it turned out to be the only bit of it that actually worked reliably. My proposed European rocket would use Blue Streak technology, although not neccessarily being limited to literally using the same components.

Oops, yes, that's what I was thinking of.

A lack of any sort of clear goal is currently what appears to be hampering manned spaceflight. This is what happens when you don't follow the Von Braun method. First, build a space plane. Use it to assemble a space station. Use the space station to launch your lunar and Mars missions.
That stupid space race in the 60s completely screwed that idea right up, so you have the moon missions coming first, then a space station, and then last the shuttle.
It's been argued elsewhere the competition between the US and the USSR is what has led to a demise of manned exploration, but modern micro-electronics has a large hand in it as well. When you can send a rover to Mars instead of astronauts, the costs outweigh the golly gee factor. Arthur C Clarke figured that without the modern communications satellite, we'd have a very robust manned program just to service the bulky electronic devices 1950s technology would have required.

The Shuttle was designed around a payload size dictated by the DOD. This drove size and cross range capabilities far past what NASA had desired from the get go. Jumping into partnership with DOD had advantages, like a budget, but cost them in other areas as well. Back to the original idea...how would being in a partnership with the Europeans limit or expand NASA's options?

Alvis 3.1

Offline Frank3k

  • Excession
  • Global Moderator
  • Formerly Frank2056. New upgrade!
    • My new webpage
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #28 on: October 09, 2014, 10:00:06 PM »
A lack of any sort of clear goal is currently what appears to be hampering manned spaceflight. This is what happens when you don't follow the Von Braun method. First, build a space plane. Use it to assemble a space station. Use the space station to launch your lunar and Mars missions.

The Von Braun plan would have given us a true space infrastructure: a useful station (with artificial gravity and resupply capabilities) and tugs/ferries for orbital construction and exploration. Repeat on the Moon and you have construction supplies, radiation shielding and a forward base to explore the rest of the solar system.

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #29 on: October 09, 2014, 10:14:50 PM »
If memory serves me correctly (and it was a fair while ago), the size of the shuttle's cargo bay was determined by a notional standard module size for a Mars mission vehicle to be assembled in orbit.

Offline Alvis 3.1

  • Self acknowledged "Bad Influence"…but probably less attractive than Pink
  • The high priest of whiffing
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #30 on: October 09, 2014, 10:29:52 PM »
We're definitely not where we could have been, but we're also nowhere near what may have happened, with no manned flight at all. I really keep expecting to see the plug pulled on that in my lifetime, more so than a new manned mission to anywhere. I sure hope I'm really wrong on that. I've seen at least 3 "return to the moon" ideas end with a change in administrations. It's really disheartening.

I've been eyeing the re-issued Von Braun launchers Lindberg has brought out, with an eye to give them the more "modern" NASA style paint schemes. Some of his ideas were impractical but were glorious to look at. I've always been amazed at how far he was able to push space flight.

Alvis 3.1

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #31 on: October 10, 2014, 01:55:20 AM »
Of course you have to wonder what would have eventuated if more folk had paid attention to what Goddard was doing in New Mexico (you have to wonder if "someone" was, given that he was working in Roswell, NM) as his 1940 efforts had every feature that the V-2's motor did.

Still, I agree that we're not doing as much as we could here.  Of course, I could argue that the bureaucrats running NASA brook no competition if they can avoid it (they took DC-X over from BMDO and managed to break it without developing a replacement and went with the most technically challenging X-33 concept (I'd argue that composite hydrogen tankage was a challenge too far, but...).

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #32 on: October 10, 2014, 03:35:56 AM »
Folks,

Please try to keep to the thread topic which is about a "More developed European Space Agency/Program"!

Regards,

Greg
« Last Edit: October 10, 2014, 03:44:26 AM by GTX_Admin »
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #33 on: October 10, 2014, 06:16:01 AM »
getting back on the European track as our Fearless Leader reminds us, would the small orbiter of more developed European sapce effort be a delta-winged vehicle like Von Braun's concepts or might it be an early high-speed lifting body concept?  I know that lifting bodies were being studied by the mid-1960's.  Would it, perhaps, draw on teh developmental experience from Concorde?  Lots of possibilities here (imagine a Concorde prototype used as a supersonic drop-test launch vehicle) that could make for very interesting concepts.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #34 on: October 14, 2014, 03:39:01 PM »
getting back on the European track as our Fearless Leader reminds us, would the small orbiter of more developed European sapce effort be a delta-winged vehicle like Von Braun's concepts or might it be an early high-speed lifting body concept?  I know that lifting bodies were being studied by the mid-1960's.  Would it, perhaps, draw on teh developmental experience from Concorde?  Lots of possibilities here (imagine a Concorde prototype used as a supersonic drop-test launch vehicle) that could make for very interesting concepts.


In my mind's eye, the European spaceplane is more Von Braun-like, because it's actually more similar, aerodynamically speaking, to a 1960s Skylon, in that it carries a large amount of empty tankage into orbit in order to reduce it's density on re-entry, which in turn leads to a more benign heating curve than the NASA shuttle. That means it's shape doesn't have to be driven by re-entry considerations so much, which was a major factor behind the lifting body studies.

Here's a thought: could you design a liquid fuel rocket motor that used two different fuels with the same oxidiser? The reason I ask is that putting kerosene in the spaceplane's wing would offset some of it's drag/weight/cost penalty at lift off, but I doubt that the volume would be enough for the whole third-stage fuel requirement. You could go for all-kerosene with more fuel in the fuselage, but kerosene isn't the most efficient rocket fuel, just one of the more convenient ones (no pressurisation or cooling required and not outrageously horrible to handle), so I was wondering if you could have, say, liquid hydrogen in the fuselage and kerosene in the wings and mix both in the combustion chamber with the oxidiser of your choice.

In my concept Concorde never happened, which is one of the sources of cash for the ESA programme. It's been said that Concorde was "Europe's moonshot": in my world, we actually had that moonshot (eventually) instead.

Logically, I suppose you could argue that a Mirage IV airframe would be a better spaceplane analogue than a Mirage III for training purposes, but I originally came up with the idea because I've bought a Falcon 3 x 3-seaters conversion in which the Mirage IIIF bits were surplus to requirements.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #35 on: October 15, 2014, 01:50:59 AM »
Dual-fuel liquid-fueled rocket engines are possible, but they get complicated; I'd look at staying with a Kerosine/LOX engine (or, if you wanted something that was highly energetic yet safe to store, go with JP10/LOX.  You need a bit of extra work with the aromatic molecules in JP10, but it would give more "oomph" that straight kerosene).  Another advantage to this approach is that it simplifies using attachable jet engines for ferry flights.

Yeah, I can see going with a delta for the first generation since they'd have experience with that configuration.  With no Concorde, would they still be experimenting with blended-delta planforms?  Alternatively, they get part-way into research for Concorde before going this route and the BAC 221 ends up being a chase plane for the trainer and the ESA shuttle.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2014, 10:26:12 AM by elmayerle »

Offline aerospacer

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #36 on: October 19, 2014, 02:28:21 AM »
Weaver,

as elmayerle stated, dual fuel or tripropellant rocket engines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripropellant_rocket would certainly be more complex than conventional ones, but there has been some (mostly analytic) work, and even your exact idea of putting the kerosene in wing tanks has been considered in this context http://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/spacelvs/sld039.htm. The concept was pioneered by Robert Salkeld in the Sixties, and in the late Eighties/early Nineties the Russians developed and tested some experimental engines to demonstrate the technology for their tripropellant RD-701 and RD-704 engine concepts. The complexity of a combined engine could be alleviated somewhat by using separate engines for the different operational phases, but of course that has geometric and mass disadvantages and would certainly reduce any potential performance advantage. Still, it could be interesting to speculate on how the French HM-4/HM-7 development line of cryogenic engines from the late Sixties/early Seventies (with the HM-4 being the first cryogenic rocket engine developed outside the USA) could be combined with the kerosene fuelled Rolls Royce RZ2 engine technology of the Blue Streak...

Martin
Would be marching to the beat of his own drum, if he didn't detest marching to any drumbeat at all so much.

Offline aerospacer

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #37 on: October 19, 2014, 03:27:14 AM »
With reliable, cost effective transportation to orbit (and back) being a prerequisite for a successful and sustainable space program, I think the various European Aerospace Transporter Studies from the Sixties, some of which are shown in Figure 9 of the paper at http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/new_opportunities_in_commercial_space.shtml, would make a good point of departure for alternate history considerations and associated designs.

Martin
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 03:30:23 AM by aerospacer »
Would be marching to the beat of his own drum, if he didn't detest marching to any drumbeat at all so much.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #38 on: October 19, 2014, 03:41:04 AM »
Is this the image you were referring to?

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline aerospacer

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #39 on: October 19, 2014, 03:44:47 AM »
That's it, GTX. I wasn't sure about potential copyright issues, which is why I didn't post it directly.

Martin
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 03:46:20 AM by aerospacer »
Would be marching to the beat of his own drum, if he didn't detest marching to any drumbeat at all so much.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #40 on: October 19, 2014, 04:17:15 AM »
A European effort based on something like these Dassault proposals from the early '60s might be interesting:



All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #41 on: October 19, 2014, 01:20:02 PM »
That would be very interesting structurally.  I wonder how they would maintain sufficient torsional stiffness once the spaceplane and booster were launched?

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #42 on: October 19, 2014, 11:48:13 PM »
I suspect that the structure over that area is probably rather on the massively reinforced side (I'm not saying it couldn't be done, just that the stress analysis and applying the results would be rather challenging).

My own personal favorites are the BAC and HSA proposals.  I could see that HSA booster stage, or a derivative of t, as the launch stage for the Orion used in 2001 per Clarke's novelization.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #43 on: October 20, 2014, 02:04:59 AM »
What about a winged Europa?  Maybe give the Europa first stage the ability to fly back for re-use?

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #44 on: October 20, 2014, 02:38:44 AM »
One that people might appreciate in light of this thread topic:  The Ministry of Space (Also known as “Briiiiiits iiiiin Spaaaaace!”). Created by Mr.Bluenote
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Alvis 3.1

  • Self acknowledged "Bad Influence"…but probably less attractive than Pink
  • The high priest of whiffing
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #45 on: October 20, 2014, 03:36:09 AM »
I'm very intrigued by the idea of a Concorde-like booster. I see they were thinking of lift jets in the manned thried stage though...egads!

Alvis 3.1

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #46 on: October 20, 2014, 04:25:33 AM »
What about a winged Europa?  Maybe give the Europa first stage the ability to fly back for re-use?
Something like the flyback Saturn 5 booster studies or something more like a fairing with a deployable Rogallo wing and an adequate control and navigation system to bring it back gently to a predetermined location?  Parenthetically, it's amusing that the Rogallo wing started from a study to bring Gemini back safely to a landing, rather than a splashdown, and ended up being the starting point for a lot of the early ultralight efforts.

What would be nice for Europa would be to return in a manner that Musk is working toward for the Falcon 9, but I doubt the requisite technology, including electronics, existed in the 1960s.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #47 on: October 20, 2014, 08:18:22 AM »
I suspect that the structure over that area is probably rather on the massively reinforced side (I'm not saying it couldn't be done, just that the stress analysis and applying the results would be rather challenging).

Exactly.  Looks pretty in the pictures though...

Quote
My own personal favorites are the BAC and HSA proposals.  I could see that HSA booster stage, or a derivative of t, as the launch stage for the Orion used in 2001 per Clarke's novelization.

I like the BAC triple spaceplane.  You'd get at least some economies of scale with that, while two would have their bays filled with fuel tanks, the middle one would carry the orbital load.  IIRC it was called "Mustard".

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #48 on: October 20, 2014, 09:39:39 PM »
Yep, the BAC triple spaceplane was called MUSTARD: Multi-Use Space Transport And Return Device. A rare example of British industry coming up with a good, catchy marketing-driven acronym - somebody would need shooting if they didn't paint it yellow...........

There were a whole bunch of different configurations studied, with manned and unmanned spaceplanes and boosters, different numbers of each and combinations of MUSTARD boosters and conventional upper stages. I like MUSTARD for an all-British effort.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #49 on: October 21, 2014, 03:18:53 AM »
Ysomebody would need shooting if they didn't paint it yellow...........


Well, at least the prototypes... ;)
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #50 on: October 22, 2014, 10:54:59 AM »
Speaking of MUSTARD:

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #51 on: October 27, 2014, 09:24:02 AM »
I remember reading about another interesting scheme, but I can't recall what it was called. The idea was that you had a spaceplane powered by turbofans and a kerosene/LOX rocket motor. The spaceplane would take off horizontally on jet power alone at a relatively low weight, with it's LOX tank full but it's kerosene tanks mostly empty. It would then fill up the latter via air-refuelling before lighting up the rocket and pointing the nose upwards.

IIRC it was a cost-conscious private-enterprise job, so it would have used an exisiting Russian rocket motor and a KC-135 tanker. However you could see the advantage of having a faster, higher-flying tanker developed specially for it if the budget allowed.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #52 on: October 27, 2014, 09:46:04 AM »
I believe the proposal was named "Black Horse" and a smaller version was referred to as "Black Colt" and I've thought it made considerable sense.  If Boeing's Sonic Cruiser had been developed, a tanker version of that would be perfect for this application.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #53 on: October 27, 2014, 10:35:53 PM »
Ah, thanks for that! Managed to find something out about it now:

http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/im/magnus/bh/analog.html

I got it a bit wrong: it's the oxidiser that's transferred in flight, not the fuel, since the former represents a much greater weight/volume of the total fuel requirement: HTP:JP-5 ratio is about 7.3:1. I'm not crazy about HTP but it seems to be the best option here. Best refuelling performance is M=0.85 at 43,000ft using a KC-135Q with it's isolated offload fuel system modified for HTP. Not sure that a dedicated tanker with higher speed/height performance would be worth having now if 43,000ft is feasible. The optimised Black Horse proposed would have been all-rocket-powered with two sea-level optimised motors for take-off and five 43,000ft-optimised ones for the orbital shot, all based on the same core engine (to reduce development cost). Black Colt used jets and a rocket, but could only refuel at 20,000ft.

All makes a hell of a lot of sense to me! In the context of a European space programme, this gives a real reason to develop the spaceplane due to it's launch flexibility: you can fly out over the Atlantic and turn around to launch eastwards instead of having to ship the whole thing to Kourou, and if it does blow up in flight, it's no worse than any other aircraft crash. Britain had done a lot of work to make HTP operationally useable for the SR.177 so that would feed straight in.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2014, 10:38:59 PM by Weaver »
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #54 on: October 28, 2014, 10:19:59 AM »
The British were particularly enamoured of HTP for some reason as a rocket fuel.  Most of their major projects used the stuff, despite it's fearsome reputation.   Ideally suited perhaps more for use from desert spaceports (Woomera), rather than wet tropical ones (French Guyana)?  It does have some advantages in that you don't need to carry separate fuel, by pumping the HTP over a catalyst instead.  However, as a monopropellant it has a fairly low specific impulse which limits its usefulness.

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #55 on: October 28, 2014, 10:46:38 AM »
Hmm, that leads to the interesting thought of using it in monopropellant form for reaction control thrusters and bipropellant form for main engines; it would simplify the fueling aspects.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #56 on: October 28, 2014, 01:08:22 PM »
HTP's main advantage in the context of the air-refuelled spaceplane is that it's a room-termperature liquid so the tanker and it's hardware can be relatively standard, rather than trying to get into the unknown territory of air-refuelling cryogenics or pressurised gas. Basically, you'd "just" have to pay attention to the seals and materials used to handle the HTP. The Royal Navy were planning to use it for carrier-based SR.177s and at least one of the carriers got as far as having the HTP tankage installed, so moisture can't be that much of a problem with it.

Passing HTP over a platinum catalyst gets you 500 deg C, oxygen-rich steam, which makes a nice low-power rocket in it's own right: the Germans used this technique for RATO units in WWII. I presume I'm right in thinking that if you spray vaporised kerosene into that mixture then it will spontaneously ignite? If so, then that's another advantage, i.e. it doesn't need an ignition system, or have I got the wrong end of the stick? If I'm right, then it would have the advantage of hypergolics (reliable ignition) without the disadvantage of a huge explosion if the fuels became accidentally mixed (say in a crash).
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #57 on: October 28, 2014, 02:58:01 PM »
HTP's main advantage in the context of the air-refuelled spaceplane is that it's a room-termperature liquid so the tanker and it's hardware can be relatively standard, rather than trying to get into the unknown territory of air-refuelling cryogenics or pressurised gas. Basically, you'd "just" have to pay attention to the seals and materials used to handle the HTP. The Royal Navy were planning to use it for carrier-based SR.177s and at least one of the carriers got as far as having the HTP tankage installed, so moisture can't be that much of a problem with it.


The Royal Navy abandoned the use of HTP in torpedoes after the loss of HMS SIdon:
Quote
On the morning of 16 June 1955, Sidon was moored alongside the depot ship HMS Maidstone in Portland Harbour. Two 21-inch Mark 12 High test peroxide-powered torpedoes, code-named "Fancy", had been loaded aboard for testing. Fifty-six officers and crewmen were aboard.

At 08:25, an explosion in one of the Fancy torpedoes (but not the warhead) burst the number-three torpedo tube into which it had been loaded and ruptured the forward-most two watertight bulkheads. Fire, toxic gases, and smoke accompanied the blast. Twelve men in the forward compartments died instantly and seven others were seriously injured.

Source]

It was believed that moisture got into the torpedo fuel tank and caused a spontaneous explosion.  The Royal Navy abandoned all development of HTP fuelled torpedoes afterwards.   So, I've always wondered how they were going to handled HTP onboard carriers.   The RAF which used it for the fuel on their Blue Steel missiles had to take very great precaution with it when servicing the Blue Steels.  Blue Steel use a bipropellant rocket engine with HTP and Kerosene.

Quote
Passing HTP over a platinum catalyst gets you 500 deg C, oxygen-rich steam, which makes a nice low-power rocket in it's own right: the Germans used this technique for RATO units in WWII. I presume I'm right in thinking that if you spray vaporised kerosene into that mixture then it will spontaneously ignite? If so, then that's another advantage, i.e. it doesn't need an ignition system, or have I got the wrong end of the stick? If I'm right, then it would have the advantage of hypergolics (reliable ignition) without the disadvantage of a huge explosion if the fuels became accidentally mixed (say in a crash).


Unless there is any moisture present which is extremely likely.  Even if the atmosphere is humid, that can be enough.


Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #58 on: October 28, 2014, 08:24:16 PM »
I don't understand the idea that moisture causes HTP accidents. 98% HTP is 2% water anyway, and the standard safety precaution for an HTP spill is to flood the area with water to reduce the concentration. HTP's greatest risk is that a relatively large range of common materials can act as a catalyst to provoke it's decomposition into oxygen-rich superheated steam, which then causes damage by a) it's temperature, b) increasing the pressure in a closed space or c) feeding an already exisiting fire with oxygen.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #59 on: October 29, 2014, 12:15:12 AM »
From the navweaps site in reference to the failed Brit torpedo:
"Notes:  This design was developed from German and USA hydrogen-peroxide torpedoes of World War II, but generally was a Mark 8 torpedo body modified to use HTP.  Renamed "Fancy" sometime during development.  Hydrogen-peroxide is a notoriously unstable fuel, as was shown when the "S" class submarine HMS Sidon loaded two Mark 12 torpedoes on 16 June 1955 for a test firing planned for later that day.  Sidon was very badly damaged when one of these torpedoes exploded in her No. 3 torpedo tube, killing 13 men.  Sidon was raised a few days later, declared CTL and was eventually scuttled as a sonar target.  Another Mark 12 torpedo suffered an explosive failure on the Arrochar test range during the same year.  The development program was eventually canceled and all of these torpedoes were withdrawn from service in 1959.  An analysis of the failures showed that the basic problem was the decision to reuse the Mark 8 torpedo body.  Hydrogen-peroxide in contact with materials other than synthetic rubber and porcelain is corrosive and explosive.  The British shared their design studies and failure analysis with the Swedish Navy who profited from this knowledge to make their reliable and high-speed Tp 61.  This implies that had the British continued HTP development they might have had a high-speed torpedo much sooner."

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTBR_PostWWII.htm

Bolded italics added.

Bugger all about 'moisture sensitivity' in the following paper:
http://www.student.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/~teney/h2o2propulsion/The%20safe%20supply%20and%20handling%20of%20HTP.doc

Also nothing about avoiding moisture in the Safety Data Sheets, not surprising as water is the primary dilutent for H2O2.


“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #60 on: October 29, 2014, 02:04:41 AM »
Hmm, HTP over a catalyst sounds like a comparatively benign alternative to Hydrazine over a catalyst such as some aircraft emergency power systems use.  Both seem to have very exacting requirements for materials they come into contact with (I've plumbed Hydrazine lines for an emrgency power system, I had to be quite selective in materlial selection and had to use some special hoses without the standard anti-static-electricity internal coating because it would catalyze the Hydrazine).  That plumbing effort also ended up using titanium lines and beam seal fittings (normally used for 4000+ psi hydraulic systems) to prevent problems and those positive seal fittings to prevent leaks.  I would imagine that the same approaches would work for handling HTP.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2014, 11:37:38 PM by elmayerle »

Offline aerospacer

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: More developed European Space Agency/Program
« Reply #61 on: November 01, 2014, 10:58:58 PM »
A pretty good compilation of HTP related data and information and discussion thereof can be found at http://hydrogen-peroxide.us/uses.htm and http://hydrogen-peroxide.us/chemical.htm. Note especially the paper AIAA 2007-5468.

Martin
« Last Edit: November 01, 2014, 11:10:48 PM by aerospacer »
Would be marching to the beat of his own drum, if he didn't detest marching to any drumbeat at all so much.