Recent rocket failures lead me to re-emphasize my
proposition to simplify the rocket designs and their trajectories. Most of the
time the additional complexity brings only couple of percent of fuel efficiency.
On the other hand, that complexity increases the design and manufacturing costs
as well as probability of a failure. I propose simplification of the rocket as
a hole. Re-design it and solve the obstacles in a simplified manner. If your
solution gets complicated, go one step above and change the design in the upper
level to decrease the complexity at the lower levels. Designing the rocket a little
larger and using more fuel actual costs less!
Invest in the cost reduction of the propellants. Liquid
fuel, RP1 is almost ideal. Just find ways to lower its cost. The cost at the
fueling point (launch site) is important therefore manufacture it close and
transport it cheap. Liquid oxygen on the other hand has no alternative.
Manufacture it on launch site using renewable energy (wind). I see no wind
turbines on a space hub. Rockets are not nuclear bombs or an erupting volcanos.
If they fail, they don’t demolish large areas. If placed properly, the probability
of a wind turbine hit by a rocket debris is not that high.
It may not be a perfect example, but an electronic device
that has discrete parts are easy to build, easy to maintain and easy to repair.
Compared to chip and software-based designs. An example: Push-Pull amplifier vs
DSP based Class D amplifier.
A much better example: Raptor engine.
No comments :
Post a Comment