Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
By Maxwell W. Hunter
Publication History
First published by Holt, Rinehard and Win
ston, Inc., New York in 1966. Library of Con
gress Catalog Number: 6523276, ISBN: 13822
0116. Coordinating Editor: James V. Bernardo,
Director Educational Programs and Services,
NASA.
Copyright reverted to estate of Maxwell
Hunter in 2001 with his death. Reformatted
and color illustrations added by Mark Duncan
in May 2009.
He joined Douglas Aircraft Company as a
member of the Aerodynamic Performance
Group, and then for eight years was in charge
of the Missiles Aerodynamics Group which
was responsible for the aerodynamic design of
NikeAjax and Hercules, Sparrows; Honest
John, and other missiles.
2. Artillery Rockets 12
Ballistics 12
Energy 12
Atmospheric-Drag 13
Gravity Losses 14
Airplane Lift/Drag Ratio 14
Surface Transportation “Lift/Drag” Ratio 15
Regions of Travel 16
Solid Propellant Rockets 16
Goddards Early Solid Rocket Experiments 17
Post World War Solid Rockets 18
Liquid Propellant Rockets 19
Storable Liquid Propellant Rockets 20
Table 1 — Theoretical Propellant Performance 21
Storable Liquid Propellants versus Solid Propellants 21
Cryogenic Liquid Propellant Rockets 22
6. Interstellar Ships 99
Stellar Mechanics 99
Probability of Planets 99
Communication with Intelligent Life 100
Acceleration 101
Time Dilation 101
Escape from the Galaxy 102
Fusion Rockets 102
Photon Rockets 105
Mass Annihilation Rockets 106
Bibliography 113
Glossary 114
Chamber Temperature
0.8 0.2
Vacuum Thrust
Energy Efficiency
Exit Temperature
controlled release of increasingly larger Efficiency k = 1.2
0.6 0.4
amounts of energy. Periodically, reference will
be made to these simple expressions as a 0.4 0.6
means of grasping the magnitude of the forces Momentum Thrust Efficiency
and Temperature Ratio
and energies involved. 0.2 0.8
0 1.0
Internal Energy Release 1 101 102 103
Nozzle Area Ratio,
If it were possible to convert all thermal energy
in the combustion chamber to nozzle exit ve Figure 1-2 — Rocket energy efficiency
locity, then the expression for exit velocity The nozzle expansion is measured by the ratio
would be: of nozzle exit area to throat area, called the
ve = 2g0 Jh = 224 h 112 expansion ratio . A nozzle of infinite expan
sion ratio, operating in a vacuum, should pro
where h = enthalpy per unit weight in BTU per duce complete conversion of the thermal to
pound; and J = mechanical equivalent of heat kinetic energy, and Equations 110 and 112
778 footpounds per BTU. would give the internal energy release to within
five percent. Such large nozzles are impractical.
Enthalpy is the term applied to the total heat Furthermore, there is a point at which the ex
released by the combustion process. haust gas cools down to where it liquefies and
Complicated engineering calculations are re the whole nozzle expansion process breaks
quired to go from Equations 110 and 112 to down.
the actual energy release within the rocket Figure 12 shows both the momentum thrust
chamber. Eciency of the combustion process, and the total vacuum thrust of nozzles as a
heat lost through the chamber walls, fluid fric function of the nozzleexittothroatarea ratio
tion losses and flow angularities in the nozzle, and the ratio of specific heats of the propel
and other phenomena must be considered. For lants. The value of varies between 1.2 and 1.3
ecient rockets, all of these eects amount to for almost all rocket propellants. It is impor
less than five percent of the total energy except tant to note that a rocket engine in a vacuum
for the amount of energy lost due to the tem can easily convert over 80 percent of propel
perature of the exhaust jet. Only the kinetic lant energy into useful thrust. This number is
energy of the exhaust jet is useful. Any thermal usually about 20 percent for closed cycle ther
energy remaining in the hot jet represents a mal combustion engines and guns. If rockets did
penalty exactly analogous to the thermal en not have to carrya propeant aboard, they would
ergy lost in the hot exhaust of any closed cycle be at least three times as ecient as other thermal
combustion engine, or that lost in the hot gas propulsive devices.
from the muzzle of a gun.
The combustion temperature of chemical pro
A nozzle accelerates flow by expanding it so pellants tends to be limited, not only due to
that the gas temperature decreases. limited energy release, but also because above
about 4000 degrees Fahrenheit °F, increasing
amounts of energy go into breaking apart the
gas molecules a phenomenon called dissocia
tion rather than raising their temperature.
Temperature is a measure of the average ki
(p c / p at
1.0 acuum
tion in V pc / pat = 200 are averaged, then the pump power for both
Opera
0.8
propellants may be approximated with the aid
Separation point
Thrust
pc / pat = 20
of Equation 18 as:
0.6
Maximum thrust 144pT
at given pressure Ppu = 116
0.4 I sp
pc / pat = 2
Initial Weight
Final Weight
Ro ' =
cke
ts 1.0
where V = velocity change in feet per second; 10 -1
'
I = initial weight of rocket in pounds; and F ' = ' =
Ea
= 0 Roc
0.8 0.9
rly
= final weight of rocket in pounds. V is
.25 ket
known as the impulsive velocity to dierenti
ate it from the actual velocity change including
s
10-2
drag and gravity eects. This is the classical 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Velocity Increment
rocket equation. It is plotted as the top curve Effective Exhaust Velocity
in Figure 15. Equation 16 is an approximation
to it at very low velocity increments. Figure 1-5 — The rocket equation
Practical rockets unfortunately require struc Much can be learned by understanding the
ture to contain the propellants. The weight of classical rocket equation. Figure 15 shows that
the thrust chambers, nozzles, and other rockets can be made to go to any desired veloc
equipment must also be considered. Conse ity, regardless of their own exhaust velocity, as
quently, high velocities can only be obtained by long as the final weight is small enough com
discarding part of the weight along the way. pared to the initial weight. This figure can be
This is known as staging. Most rockets cur extrapolated to any desired velocity by extend
rently use several stages, since practical stage ing the curves shown. A convenient rule to re
empty weights will not permit the high veloci member is that for a given final weight, the
ties desired. Theoretically, it would be nice to rocket weight must increase by a factor of 10
discard weight continuously infinite staging. for every velocity increase of about twice the
The rocket would then behave simply as if it exhaust velocity for modern rockets with stag
had a greater propellant consumption by the ing approximating the ultimate. Penalties in
amount of weight discarded, and the rocket rocket design may occur up to ridiculous ex
equation would become: tremes, however, if one pursues high velocity
rockets too recklessly. An example worked out
w 50 years ago is pertinent.
V = vet ln I 118
wF
Useful Load
A useful form of Figure 15 can be obtained for
single stage rockets by separating the weight of
useful load carried from the weight of engines
and structures necessary for propulsion. In this
case, useful load UL is defined as everything
Early Goddard Rocket including structure above the propulsion unit.
When Goddard first started his experiments, Hence:
he measured the exhaust velocities of the w pr
rockets in use at that time as about 1000 feet wI = wUL + 119
per second Isp = 31 seconds. These rockets car
ried only about 25 percent of their weight as ' =
Propellant Weight
Propulsion System Weight
fuel. Figure 15 shows that even with infinite 1.0
staging, the initial rocket weight would be 10 Single
Stage
times the final weight at a velocity of about
580 feet per second. If one were to try to gen
Initial Weight
' =
1.0
intermediate range ballistic missile by staging 10 -1
'
such rockets, a typical velocity of 14,500 feet =
0.9
5
' =
' =
=
0.8
(useful load = 0)
multiplied by itself 25 times or 1025. The weight * * * *
of the earth is 1.32 x 1025 pounds. In this case, it 10-2
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
would require the entire weight of the earth to Velocity Increment
Effective Exhaust Velocity
put one pound up to IRBM velocity.
Goddard’s first report in 1919 revealed excel Figure 1-6 — The Rocket Equation
lent experimental work and superb imagina where pr = weight of propellant in pounds;
tion. It also revealed that when Goddard and UL weight of useful load in pounds. Fig
worked out a similar example compared to the ure 16 shows the rocket equation in terms of
weight of the earth, an error was made of a fac useful load.
tor of about 27,000,000 in weight of the earth.
and the total energy expended by the exhaust Effect of Initial Velocity
is given by: The eect of initial velocity not equal to zero
w v 2 can also be obtained. To do this, the energy of
KEet =
pr et
121 the final mass must be compared to the energy
2g0 expended in the exhaust plus the initial kinetic
energy of the propellant. The kinetic energy
The ratio of these terms is plotted in Figure 1
increase of the useful load is:
7, as the external energy eciency. This figure
shows that for good external energy eciency
the design velocity increment should be close KEUL =
(
wUL VF2 VI2 ) = w ( V UL
2
+ 2VVI ) 122
to the eective exhaust velocity, with the ac 2g0 2g0
tual optimum value a function of the stage N. where VI = initial velocity in feet per second;
The most important point to be learned from VF = final velocity in feet per second; and V =
Figure 17 is that rocket external energy e velocity increment of rocket in feet per sec
ciencies can easily be 40 or 50 percent over a ond. The total energy expended in the jet in
wide range of design velocities, as long as the cludes the initial kinetic energy of the fuel and
velocity increment is somewhere around the is given by:
eective exhaust velocity.
KEet =
(
w pr vet2 + VI2 ) 123
2g0
0.8
0.5
0.0
0.6
1.0
0.4
2.0
3.0
0.2
' = 1.0
0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Velocity Increment
Effective Exhaust Velocity
10
Engine
Transport transportation equivalent of aircraft L/D. Ef
Supersonic
Transport
fective L/D’s of modern automobiles are shown
Supersonic
Combat in Figure 23. Air drag and large amounts of in
5 ternal friction combine to make the “L/D” of
Helicopter
an automobile not much dierent from that of
0 an airplane.
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Flight Mach Number The eective L/D of a ship is determined
mostly by the wavemaking resistance of the
Figure 2·2 — Airplane lift/drag ratio
water. This depends both on the velocity and
Airplane L/D values range from 25 for a highly the length of the ship. Figure 24 shows typical
ecient subsonic aircraft to 14 for a typical values for dierent classes of ships. They range
1965 jet transport to eight for a supersonic from over 300 for cargo ships and tankers, to
transport. A curve of typical current values is 60 for large fast ships such as cruisers, to 22 for
shown in Figure 22. For a modern jet transport destroyers at high velocities. Ships are not
with L/D of 14, Equation 28 gives a velocity of greatly dierent from automobiles or airplanes,
103
the propellants in the combustion chamber.
Acceleration (g0’s)
40 00 00
30 20 (fps
00
Ve
101
tained a number of patents on mechanisms.
10
0
Vaccuum = 40 Sea
Level
Red Fuming Nitric Acid Analine 3.10 1.38 300 290 255
The point of an orbit which is farthest from The purpose of illustrating one derivation of
earth is called the apogee. The point closest is the VisViva Law was to show that the kinetic
called the perigee. The prefixes apo and peri and potential energy relations result in simple,
useful expressions. Furthermore, easy exten
Planet Circumference
ICBM
Time (minutes)
this chapter are made as if for earth, the curves IRBM
0.3 30
0)
are plotted in ratio form and apply throughout
Distance
(x1
ee
og
the solar system, or beyond it for that matter. 0.2 Ap 20
e
Tim ge
The rate at which the radius vector sweeps out R a n
0.1 10
area at perigee, rpVp/2, applies throughout an V2
g
orbit due to conservation of angular momen 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
tum. Since the area of an ellipse is a ra rp , Velocity
Zero Altitude Circular Velocity
Equations 37 and 310 may be applied at peri
Figure 3-2 — Optimum ballistic missile trajectories
gee to derive the orbital period for elliptical
orbits, Kepler’s Third Law. The result is: Figure 32 shows velocity required, angle of
launch, maximum altitude, time of flight, and
2 a 3/2 range for ballistic missiles fired on an idealized
Por = 313
g0 R 2 earth with no atmosphere. These curves are for
optimum trajectories, i.e., at the angle shown
where Por = orbital period in seconds. the minimum velocity is required to achieve
the desired range.
Minimum Energy Trajectories An ICBM has come to be defined as a ballistic
In Chapter 2, simple flatearth ballistic equa missile with range approximately onequarter
tions were presented. In this chapter, some of the way around the earth. Maximum alti
useful expressions from celestial mechanics tude is reached when one travels precisely that
have been discussed. Much more complicated distance and at that point the optimum angle
derivations are necessary for the velocity re of launch is exactly onehalf 45 degrees. The
quirements of interest. These include filling in velocity required, however, is 23,400 feet per
from short range to escape velocity, and in second, about 90 percent of satellite velocity.
volve interest in travel times and trajectory de This is why intercontinental ballistic missiles
tails as well. The VisViva Law gives only the and orbital launch vehicles are so closely re
magnitude of velocity as a function of radius, lated.
but tells nothing of the direction of that veloc
ity. The velocities required for orbitchanging General Trajectories
maneuvers also depend on flight path angles. In actual usage, one would not always use the
Total velocities will be presented by means of minimum energy trajectories. It might be de
curves with the previous expressions used to sired to launch at either higher or lower angles
aid in a feel for their nature. than optimum. This could be done in military
Because high performance rockets are a recent applications to help confuse the defense or in
development, and originally were thought to space applications when special missions are
Lau 15o
0.8 Vc
Planet Circumference
30o
0o
0.6
Earth
Range
45o
0.4
90o
Vp
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Velocity Fig. 3-4— Hohmann transfer
Zero Altitude Circular Velocity
The rocket is first put into an elongated ellipse
Figure 3-3 — Global rocket velocities called a transfer orbit. It has its apogee at the
At 45 degrees launch angle, for instance, the orbital altitude to be achieved. The perigee will
rocket goes only half way around the earth, be somewhere a few hundred miles down range
even at escape velocity. from the launching point. Enough velocity be
yond circular is put in at perigee to achieve the
The flight times become extremely long at the
desired apogee and at apogee an additional ve
high velocities since the rocket’s apogee be
locity input is made to inject the payload into
comes infinitely large at escape velocity. Flight
the circular orbit. This is called a Hohmann
times of two hours are spotted on Figure 33 to
Transfer, after Walter Hohmann who was not
show these regions. This may be contrasted
an astronomer, as one might expect, but the
with the 32 minute standard ICBM flight time
city engineer of Essen, Germany. He showed
and the zero altitude satellite period of 84.5
that this type of transfer resulted in minimum
minutes see Equation 34. The latter means
velocity in a paper published in 1925.
that the low orbit satellite form of global
Asteroids
VI 160.1 75 250.6
X 164 12 260
XI 313 15 696
IX 332 14 755
90o
Note that a, which represents the semimajor
axis for elliptical orbits, is a negative number
Pluto
for hyperbolic orbits. Equation 41 may then
be substituted back into Equation 311 to give,
Neptune
with the aid of Equation 37:
Uranus
V 2 = VE2 + V2 42
Saturn Jupiter
or
180o
0 o
Mars V = V 2 VE2 43
0.2
Whatever mechanism placed the Earth on its
current orbit has supplied energy which can
0
now be utilized.
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Initial Velocity
Escape Velocity Braking within Gravity Fields
Figure 4-2 — Hyperbolic excess velocity When a planet is approached, the vehicle is
accelerated by the gravity field. The closer the
One eect of Equation 43 is that high velocity
vehicle comes to the planet, the greater will be
rockets that cross gravity fields quickly are far
the kinetic energy imparted to the rocket fuel
more eective at covering the large distances
by the planet’s gravity. Thus, a greater amount
of space than might be thought at first from
of kinetic energy will be dissipated by the
Hohmann Transfer calculations. Indeed, the
rocket when braking is applied. For the same
eect is compounded by the rapid traversing
reason that launch velocity inputs should be
of both the Earth and the Sun’s gravity fields.
made at the lowest altitude possible, all brak
Figure 43 shows both Earth and solar system
ing velocity removals should be done as close
hyperbolic excess velocity as a function of
as possible to the center of gravitation,
Earth launch velocity. The rapid gain with
whether the vehicle is landing on the planet or
launch energies beyond minimum is so great
braking into an orbit around it. This applies
that at an Earth launch velocity of 67,000 feet
equally to elliptical, parabolic, or hyperbolic
per second, the solar system hyperbolic excess
trajectories. For hyperbolic approach, Equa
velocity is also 67,000 feet per second.
tion 42 gives the braking velocity required for
Direct Earth Launch a given hyperbolic excess, since it is the same
250K
Solar Escape Velocity oci
ty as the initial velocity.
c Vel
tr i ess
200K
l i o cen i c Exc
e l s
Ear
th H ype
rbo
Ex
ces Atmospheric Braking
+ l H l i c
ch tia
Velocity (fps)
150K aun Ini rbo Extensive calculations have been made of at
r th L y pe
E a H
lar ss mospheric braking and entry for the planet
So xce
100K
o l ic E Earth and substantial calculations have been
b
per
t y t h Hy performed for both Mars and Venus. A very
oc i Ea r
50K Vel rough rule of thumb from this work is that 1.5
a u nch
th L
Ear times the planetary escape velocity could be
0 braked aerodynamically by a lifting body if a
0 20K 40K 60K 80K 100K 120K 140K
Earth Launch Velocity (fps) planetary landing were being made and that 0.5
times escape velocity could be braked in an
Figure 4-3 — Solar system hyperbolic excess velocity
atmospheric pass while establishing a satellite
If one were to launch toward a distant star, the orbit. For many cases of interest, the atmos
result of launching from the earth at 67,000 pheres of the planets Earth, Mars, and Venus,
feet per second would be the same as by may be capable of supplying all necessary brak
Velocity (fps)
Neptune
the moon on arrival, and return to selected 60K
spots on earth, also make the actual calcula locity
tions complicated. aun ch Ve
40K
E arth L
Neptune
Mercury
Uranus
Jupiter
Asteroid
Saturn
Venus
Earth
Mars
Belt
The planets are suciently far away from the 0
Earth that it is customary to use a dierent 10-1 1 101 102
Distance From Sun (Astronomical Units)
measure of their distance. Since the Moon is
only about 240,000 miles away from Earth, it Figure 4-4 — Hohmann transfer velocities
is relatively convenient to use miles. When
In addition to basically long flight times, the
measuring planetary distances, however, the
use of Hohmann Transfers between the planets
astronomical unit AU is used. It is defined as
has another undesirable eect. Since the plan
the average distance between the Earth and
ets rotate around the Sun at dierent rates,
the Sun, and is approximately 92.96 million
they constantly change their positions with
miles. An idea of the size of the solar system
respect to each other. Consequently, after arri
may be obtained by realizing that Pluto at
val at a planet, it is necessary to wait until con
aphelion is 49.3 astronomical units from the
ditions are right for return. The term “launch
sun, or about 4.6 billion miles. It takes almost
window” is widely applied to that period of
seven hours for light from the Sun to reach
time when celestial bodies are in proper posi
Pluto at aphelion.
tion for launch.
It is natural to try to use minimum energy tra
jectories throughout the solar system. In fact,
preoccupation with the apparent extreme dif
ficulty of building high velocity rockets led
Hohmann to derive his minimum energy trans
fer system. Hohmann transfers between plan
ets are calculated as described in Chapter 3,
using heliocentric and planetary orbital veloci
ties with Equation 42 used to convert plane
tary hyperbolic excess to launch or braking ve
600 Venus
Travel Time (years)
Saturn Neptune
10 400 Jupiter Uranus Pluto
200
Mercury
0
10-1 1 10 102
1 Distance From Sun (AU)
Neptune
Mercury
Asteroid
Uranus
Jupiter
Saturn
Venus
Belt
Earth
Mars
Velocity
0.1
low periapsis starting from a high orbit. An ex rinitial
0.2
ample is a solar probe vehicle which is trying 0.4
0.4
to reach as close to the sun as possible when
launched from the earth. The Hohmann Trans 0.2 0.8
decreasing velocity at aphelion. Figure 47 Figure 4-7 — Solar probe type missions with two impulse
shows the velocity required to perform such transfers
maneuvers. When trying to reach final radius In addition, the periapsis can be placed at any
less than 0.2 initial radius, substantial gains can desired radius, which is why the curves of Fig
be made by the use of two impulses. ure 47 coincide at large values of maximum
Figure 47 shows a case where velocity inputs radius.
should be made at great distances. Previously,
it has been emphasized that velocity changes Use of Planetary Energy
should be made as deep in the gravity field as
It is possible to make use of the energy of
possible in order to take advantage of the high
planets to reduce the rocket energy required
initial velocity of the vehicle. This previous
for interplanetary travel. This is done by flying
conclusion clearly only applies if the initial ve
close enough to a planet to use its gravity field
locity is in a helpful direction, as when one is
to deflect the vehicle so as to put in or extract
adding or subtracting energy in the direction
energy from the trajectory. This mechanism
of the trajectory. If the objective is to make
can be understood by reference to Figure 48,
major changes in the tilt of the trajectory, a
for the net result is the same as if the vehicle
large velocity vector is a detriment. At apoap
had been bounced o the planet.
sis, a vehicle will be moving slower than at
periapsis and inclination changes from the ba If two bodies collide, a perfectly elastic impact
sic trajectory can be made with smaller veloc is said to have occurred if no energy is dissi
ity inputs. In the extreme case, at an infinite pated in the collision. This would occur if a
distance, all elliptical orbits have zero velocity perfect spring were to absorb the energy of
and the inclination of the orbit can be changed impact and then retransmit this energy to the
to any desired value with zero velocity input. two bodies by springing back to its original
length. Perfect springs are hard to find.
process. 150
The role of the planet’s gravity field in this 120
process is similar to that of a perfect spring, 90 Swing
Around
since it absorbs the energy of the incoming ve 60 Angle
hicle and retransmits it with perfect eciency. 30
It does this in a manner somewhat like lassoing
0
the flying body, pulling on the rope to swing it 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Hyperbolic Excess Velocity
around, and then letting go. Since there is fi Velocity of Escape at Periapsis
nite energy in the planet’s gravitational field,
there are limitations upon the angle through Figure 4-9 — Planetary swing-around angle
which the trajectory can be turned. The simple If the “impact” is not headon, less than this
relation between turning angle, hyperbolic ex value will be obtained. Were the planet not
cess velocity, and energy of the gravity field at moving, the vehicle velocity direction would
closest approach is shown in Figure 49. change but its heliocentric energy would not.
In describing the swingaround process so far, If one were to fly enough vehicles by a planet
it is not clear how energy can be obtained since in this manner, it is at least theoretically possi
there is no change in vehicle energy with re ble to extract enough energy from the planet’s
spect to the planet before and after. One can orbit so that it would spiral into the Sun.
not take energy from the planet’s gravity field, There is relatively little danger of this, how
since the field contains the same amount of ever, since Equation 46 shows the planet ve
energy before and after. It could only be locity decrease to be reduced by the ratio of
changed by removing mass from the central vehicle to planet weight. Even on a planet as
4.82 Years
60K
Via Jupiter Fly By 2.25 Years
Mercury
3.61 Years
40K
Surface of Sun
30 Solar Radii
10 Solar Radii
20 Solar Radii
Venus
20K
0
10-2 10-1 1
Distance from Center of Sun (AU)
Second Impulse n
80K rom Su
at Jupiter Orbit 1 AU F pears to be the use of a multiple Mars swing by,
ergy
Minimum En each time turning the trajectory to one which
60K 1 AU From Sun
will intercept Mars after several solar orbits,
Minimum Energy
40K
Via Jupiter Fly By
and eventually turning into one which reached
Jupiter. It might be possible to escape from
20K
the solar system, if flight time were no object,
0
for about 40,000 feet per second Earth launch
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 velocity by this means.
Orbit Angle From Ecliptic (degrees)
20K
Uranus Jupiter
Hohmann
4 Time 10K
Saturn
0
2 0 20K 40K 60K 80K 100K
Planetary Hyperbolic Excess (fps)
Jupiter
Uranus
100K
Saturn
V
Ganymede
20K Callisto iron asteroid one mile in diameter containing
Tethys
Dione
s
Rhea Triton
Titan Jupiter nine percent nickel typical of meteorite per
10K ng
Ri centages would supply the current world pro
Saturn
Neptune
Uranus duction rate 400,000 tons in 1962 for over
0
0 10 100 4,000 years. Since iron meteorites contain
Orbit Radius/Planet Radius about 0.5 percent cobalt, the same asteroid
Figure 4-15 — Payload velocity requirements
might supply current cobalt needs for even
longer. The asteroids are typical of space ob
jects which would be of great interest, if trans
Asteroids and Comets
portation problems could be solved.
Asteroids are relatively small objects which ex
ist mostly in a belt between Mars and Jupiter.
Comets exist in many dierent varieties and thought to consist of large masses of ice of
with many dierent orbits. They seem to various sorts, ranging from 0.5 to 5 miles in di
group roughly into two classes, the short pe ameter. As they approach the Sun, solar radia
riod comets which have orbits with aphelion tion causes evaporation and creates brilliant
less than Jupiter’s orbit, and long period com gas heads and spectacular tails. The previous
ets with extremely large aphelion and periods Table 6 lists various comets.
of hundreds of years. It is not possible to de
No attempt will be made to discuss the many
termine the orbit of some comets accurately
dierent requirements created by the wide va
enough to be absolutely sure that the comet is
riety of orbits possessed by asteroids and com
a member of the solar system. Comets are
Launch
plicated than it might at first seem. A discus Window
sion of Mars will be sucient to illustrate the 0.4
phenomena involved.
The contours shown in Figure 416 are the 0.2
curves of travel time from Earth to Mars as a
function of launch day for a total launch veloc
0
ity of 60,000 feet per second. The relationship 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
between two succeeding synodic periods is Maximum Flight Time (days)
shown utilizing the same contours as an ap Figure 4-17 — Earth-Mars launch windows
proximation.
At least one other limitation exists. If one uses
Atmospheric Braking at Mars, Launch Velocity = 60,000 fps
Contours Were Calculated for 1964-1965 Launch Period the completely open arrival window, then part
500 A of the time Mars will be on the opposite side
of the Sun from Earth. Direct communication
Travel Time (days)
300
Operations
sB
eh Operations is not possible then. Data must be stored for
in
d
Su
n
later transmission, or a communication relay
200 planetoid in solar orbit must be used. Until
B
100 such a planetoid is available, it is desirable to
0
Launch Window
Arrival Window know when during the synodic period this
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 problem exists.
Launch Date (days)
Accordingly, the band of time during which
Figure 4-16 — Earth-Mars launch windows
Mars is hidden from Earth by the Sun is shown
Although it is possible to launch at any time of in Figure 416 and 417. Perhaps one should
the year with 60,000 feet per second, there is limit maximum flight time to about 280 days.
200 0 0
tions, and 18,600 feet per second for landing
,00
,0
60,000
00
0
Travel Time (days)
Va
acuum, = 40 Sea Level
Oxidizer Fuel Mixture Specific Isp Isp
Ratio Gravity (seconds) (seconds)
Only recently have radioisotope heated rockets started or stopped at will is invaluable, and the
received attention. In spite of low thrust/ use of radioisotopes for main drive rockets in
weight ratio, availability and cost problems, large vehicles does not seem appropriate.
they may have utility in certain missions, per
haps in high performance unmanned probe ve Shielding
hicles. The alpha particle helium nuclei emit
ters are of particular interest since they require One might intuitively expect the shielding
almost no shielding. Alpha particles cannot weight of nuclear rockets to be so high as to
even penetrate clothing. Alpha emitters exist cripple their utility. Shielding weight was a ma
with almost any halflife desired down to less jor problem of the nuclear aircraft program
than a second. Since power density increases as and rocket reactors must be more powerful,
halflife decreases, very powerful alpha emit while rockets are notoriously more sensitive to
ters exist. Suciently rapid production and weight than airplanes. This viewpoint seems
incorporation into rockets would be dicult, rational, but such is not the case. Figure 422
even if the launching site were next to the iso illustrates the pertinent facts involved.
tope factory. The ability of a reactor to be
Regenerative
Radiators
Required
0.8
Propellant Weight
Cooling
thought has gone into using airbreathers as a
Launch Weight
0.6
means of greater eciency for boost to orbit.
Typical Jet Transport
With a specific impulse of 3500 seconds, an
Solid Core Nuclear
102 akin
g Io (Jupite
r)
Earth to Io
103
Pluto
Triton
(N eptun
Miran e)
Mercu da (Ur
ry anus)
10
102
Io (Jup
0 200 400 600 800 1000 iter)
Total Velocity Increment (1000 fps)
Mars
Figure 5-1 — Minimum travel times from Earth including Venus
braking requirements
Minimum Velocity for Completely Mercu
ry
This is somewhat surprising at first, but not 10
Open Launch Window
illogical when one realizes the problem during 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Total Velocity Increment (1000 fps)
adverse times of the synodic period is that of
reaching to the other side of the sun. This ma Figure 5-2 — Average travel times from Earth including
neuver is likely to cost the same amount of braking requirements
time for a given velocity regardless of where
the subsequent trajectory terminates. Planetary Bases
The curves of Figure 52 show that even at one
million feet per second, flight time to the outer
solar system is somewhat inconvenient. Fur
thermore, these curves give travel times be
tween planets only if the ship can be refueled
at each terminal. If it must carry fuel for the
return journey, it must operate at half the total
velocity shown in Figure 52. Except for Pluto,
refueling bases at the major planets are needed
much more than at the minor ones. As dis
cussed previously in Chapter 4, bases on the
larger planets’ satellites would be expected to
be used rather than surface bases. Figure 52
was drawn on that basis.
Uranus Based
103 800
es m
Neptune
Ti imu
ax
m
Uranus 600
M
102
Saturn
Jupiter 400
es m
10
Ti imu
in
m
200
M
Mars
1 Earth
Venus
0 -1
Mercury 10 1 10
10-1 Distance From Sun (AU)
10-1 1 10 102
Distance From Sun (AU) Figure 5-4 — Travel times between planets
Figure 5-3 — Solar system synodic periods Although Mercury might be the best plane
Only travel between Earth and other planets tary base, Earth is suciently close to the Sun
has been discussed. Travel between other plan that it represents a good compromise. Major
ets excluding Earth may also be of interest. space logistics support operations could, from
Use of bases in other parts of the solar system a celestial mechanics viewpoint, be located ef
to aid in the exploration of even more remote ficiently on the Earth or its Moon. This is very
portions should be considered. It might dictate convenient since the known industrial and re
the strategic location of bases. search bases of the solar system also happen to
be located in that vicinity.
At first, it would seem a good idea to use a base
on a distant planet say, Saturn to aid the
exploration of another say, Pluto. Although
intriguing, such deep bases would have restric
tions. The reason is the extremely long synodic
periods of the outer planets. Figure 53 shows
synodic periods among all the planets in the
solar system. The worst case, the synodic pe
riod between Neptune and Pluto, is slightly
over 500 years.
The dierence between travel at the optimum
and at the least desirable time of the year be
comes more extreme in proportion to the
planet’s distance from the Sun. This is illus
trated in Figure 54 where eects of basing on
selected planets are shown for a ship velocity
of 500,000 feet per second. It is true that a
deep space base will be closer to other deep
space objects than Earth when in favorable po Mercury, Farside, Source: NASA
sition, but equally true that it will be much far The slow movements of the outer planets leads
ther away when in unfavorable position. Sur to an interesting paradox. One would assume a
prisingly enough, the base wants to be rea base on Triton to be an excellent place from
sonably close to the Sun, emphasizing again which to explore Pluto, since Neptune aver
that the Sun is the center of the solar system. ages 30.09 astronomical units from the Sun
while Pluto will be within 33.0 astronomical
units for the next 50 years. At the moment,
Total Velocity
1.0
1.4
1.2
400 of the band given in the previous chapter, but
1.0
easy to remember. The figure delineates vari
300
0.8 Neptune ous regions of nuclear rocket application. Both
0.7
fission and fusion rockets are shown, but only
0.6 fission will be discussed in this chapter. The
200
Uranus
solid core rocket region discussed in the previ
ous chapter is shown in Figure 57. The middle
100
Jupiter
Saturn region labelled Solar System Transportatio is
the subject of this chapter. The top region,
0
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Early Interstear Travel, is the subject of Chap
Heliocentric Trip Time (days) ter 6.
Figure 5-6 — Heliocentric velocity requirements 108
Mass Annihilation Undiluted
(Exhaust at Velocity of Light)
Early Interstellar
The comparable highthrust Hohmann Trans 107
Travel
Specific Impulse (sec)
Nuclear Thermal Rockets Figure 5-7 — Specific impulse from nuclear reactions
S = 10-2
Fuel Plus Propellant Cost
10 S = 10-3
Most liquid rocket engines use regenerative
S=
Unburned Fuel Lost
Propellant Expelled
cooling. One of the incoming propellants is
S = 10-4
1
Water Propellant at No Cost circulated through nozzle and chamber walls
Hydrogen Propellant at
S=0 $0.25 per lb
before injection into the chamber. This results
10-1
Nuclear Fuel Cost = $5000 per lb in almost no decrease in specific impulse, since
the energy lost through the wall is carried back
10-2 3
10 104 105 106 into the combustion chamber by preheated
Specific Impulse (sec)
fuel. Much skillful design is required to insure
Figure 5-9 — Cost of nuclear fission fuel and propellant that cooling tubes are of the right size and
It is assumed in Figure 57 fuel loss rates are strong enough so that heat flows into the pro
suciently low that fuel lost has a negligible pellant quickly enough to avoid melting the
eect on exhaust average mass flow. walls. Many a rocket chamber has burned
through in test programs while solving these
Although propellant consumption is given by problems, but the techniques are now highly
Figure 57, fuel consumption depends directly developed.
on the degree of containment of unburned
fuel. Figure 59 shows the eect of fuel con It is necessary for regenerative cooling that the
tainment on fuel plus propellant cost for both propellant be capable of absorbing the heat
hydrogen and water propellants. Fission fuel load. Only a certain amount of propellant is
releases about 17 million times more energy available. It can only absorb so much heat be
per pound than smokeless gunpowder but fore it becomes too hot to cool the chamber.
costs only about 5000 times as much 5000 This problem is increased at high specific im
per pound. It is 3000 times more economical pulse since the energy release in the chamber
on an energy basis. So little is consumed that at per pound of propellant increases as the square
specific impulses less than 10,000 seconds, the of the specific impulse see Equation 19 and
fuel plus propellant cost is determined almost Equation 111.
completely by containment. Even a loss of only If the propellant of a gaseous nuclear rocket is
one pound of fuel per 10,000 pounds of pro opaque enough, the thermal energy transmit
pellant expelled aects fuel plus propellant ted to the walls will be small. However, nuclear
costs. With water propellant and perfect con radiation will still heat the chamber and sur
tainment, specific impulses of over 2000 sec rounding materials. If the incoming propellant
onds could be obtained for only one cent per has been raised to wall temperature, it has an
pound fuel plus propellant cost. enthalpy when entering the chamber which
corresponds to the specific impulse of a solid
Cooling Limitations core reactor at that temperature. The amount
by which the gaseous heating further raises the
The problem of cooling rocket engines has
specific impulse is given by:
been referred to only briefly. It is an engineer
ing problem rocket designers have learned to I sps
handle. Solid rocket motors simply insulate the I sp = 58
f
chamber walls. Recently, liquid rockets which
use techniques similar to solid chambers have where Isps = specific impulse of propellant at
appeared. They are called ablating motors and temperature of solid material; and f = fraction
contain materials in chamber and nozzle simi of energy release which appears as thermally
lar to those used on reentry bodies. They insu eective nuclear radiation. The value “f” is
late the walls and also vaporize into the cham
Solid Core
onds has been shown in Figure 510. This is due
Engine Plus Radiator Weight
Wa
10
tures, they apparently become transparent at
35
Ze
Hy
(undiluted fission)
40
ro
dr
oF
R
og
ad
Ra
Transparency) to
at
rW
or
ei
gh
Limit
t
1 tions may occur at lower specific impulse.
Limit
* * * *
where = weight of power supply in pounds, 10-2
*
and p = weight of propellant in pounds. Thus, 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Velocity Increment
the exhaust velocity can only be increased with Characteristic Velocity
respect to characteristic velocity by devoting
less of the total power plant weight to propel Figure 5-12 — Electrical rocket performance
lant. Clearly there will be an optimum value for Electrical rockets give large payloads at long
exhaust velocity. travel times but fall o rapidly at short times
The rocket equation can be derived in terms of since the velocity requirement goes up at the
characteristic velocity with optimum exhaust same time the characteristic velocity goes
velocity program. The result is shown in Figure down. If specific power is around 40 pounds
512 which bears a strong resemblance to Fig per kilowatt, they are only marginally competi
ure 16. Figure 512 can be used with Figures 55 tive with solid core nuclear thermal rockets. At
[ lb$ ]
Hydrogen Propellant Water Propellant
velocity increment which the ship can achieve. No Radiator With Radiator
8 Isp = 250 sec
Payload
Isp = 900 sec
4
ability to deliver payload to a certain velocity Chemical
Isp = 900 sec
Optimum Isp
S=0
economically can be easily understood. Com 2 S = 10-4
plex mission analyses can then be made to re
0
flect the maximum design velocity increment 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Total Velocity Increment (1000 fps)
required.
Figure 5-13 — Single-stage spaceship fuel and propellant
Fuel and Propellant Costs costs
In understanding spaceship operating costs, it On a fuel and propellant cost basis alone, a
is instructive to consider first only fuel and gaseous fission engine without radiators and
propellant cost. This cost represents the with separation ratio of 103 is not significantly
minimum achievable. It is particularly impor better than a solid core engine. Gaseous en
tant to understand how to achieve a low fuel gines with better containment would be much
and propellant cost when truly reusable ships better. Gaseous engines with space radiators,
are employed. In transport aircraft practice, but with specific impulse limited to 10,000
reuse is so high that initial airframe costs are seconds, can drive ships up to about 500,000
only a small fraction of the operating cost, and feet per second and still maintain reasonable
fuel costs represent about onehalf of the total. fuel cost. The attainment of a fuel separation
We shall examine fuel costs for their basic ratio of 104 is almost as eective as perfect
limitations on performance, then see how fuel containment.
closely these limits can be approached with The optimum fuel cost curves for gaseous fis
reusable ships. sion engines with radiators were obtained by
Fuel and propellant costs as a function of total determining the optimum specific impulse for
velocity increment for chemical, solid core nu each velocity and separation ratio. This is nec
clear, and gaseous nuclear rockets are shown in essary since too low a specific impulse will re
Figure 513. A number of dierent propellants sult in excessive propellant cost, while too high
and degrees of containment are shown for a specific impulse will result in excessive fuel
gaseous fission engines using the fuel costs of cost. The optimum specific impulse is much
Figure 59. All curves are for singlestage ships. higher than 10,000 seconds for all velocities
’ of 0.85 was assumed. This corresponds to an beyond a few hundred thousand feet per sec
advanced reusable vehicle design. In addition, ond. Hence, these curves represent a future
the payload was taken as 0.85 useful load to capability presently unattainable due to pro
make an allowance for the structure containing pellant transparency problems at high tem
the payload. peratures. Were this not so, gaseous fission
ships could be driven to almost one million
feet per second before fuel costs became a
limitation.
“ammunition”
assumptions
150 than 50 percent utilization, such a vehicle
30%
20%
would last for 10 years. They always last much
100
longer but the amortization time of the air
10%
Already frame is usually about 40,000 hours, since new
50 0% Achieved
Refurbishment Cost in Air equipment always becomes available in even
Transport
0
(Percent of Initial Cost)
shorter time.
60 70 80 90 100
Recovery Reliability (percent) Selecting a suitable lifetime for a spaceship
Figure 5-14 — Transportation versus ammunition re-use
presents a technical dilemma. One viewpoint
assumptions would take ten years as above. An even shorter
lifetime might technically be justified due to
Typical ammunition assumptions are recovery
severe loads associated with atmospheric en
reliabilities of 75 percent and refurbishment
tries and the generally unknown operational
costs of 25 percent. After spending that much
environment of space.
on refurbishment with that low a recovery reli
ability, an improvement of two in cost is the It may be, however, that spaceships will last
best to be expected. longer than transport aircraft. The transport
main propulsion system operates continually
Also shown in Figure 514 are values already
during flight, and it continually faces the tem
achieved in air transportation many decades
peratures and gust loads within our atmos
ago. Recovery reliability is so close to 1.00 that
phere. The question is whether spaceship op
it cannot be seen on this scale. The same is
erating life should be determined by the total
true of maintenance cost, which is about 0.04
time of operation, or only by the times during
percent. A transport airplane is more compli
which the main engines operate and/or it is
cated than a ballistic missile. After one lands,
within an atmosphere. In other words, is a
however, a few people turn it around, give it
spaceship coasting between planets actually
some fuel, pat it on the head, and it takes o
operating in the transport aircraft sense, or is
again. This should be the goal for future space
[ lb$ ]
8
within a few decades. As a base for calcula Titan
(Saturn) Io (Jupiter)
Mars
6
Payload
tions, we shall assume 25 years as useful ship
Cost
Titan
lifetime. 4
(Saturn)
Io Fuel
(Jupiter) Cost
Various spaceship weights versus velocity are 2 Mars
shown in Figure 515 for specific impulse lim Fuel Cost
0
ited to 10,000 seconds and for optimum spe 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Total Velocity Increment (1000 fps)
cific impulse. These curves are for versatile
ships designed for 20 percent payload, then Figure 5-16 — Single-stage spaceship fuel, propellant, and
operated by oloading propellant at less than structure costs
design velocity and oloading payload at The average travel time between planets corre
greater than design. velocity, just as transport sponding to the velocities of Figure 516 is
aircraft. shown in Figure 517. With specific impulse
Design Point — 20% Payload at Maximum Weight
Specific Impulse = 10,000 sec limited to 10,000 seconds, the travel time to
Optimum Specific Impulse
Zero Payload Jupiter is under four months. Inner solar sys
1.0
Launch tem travel times need not exceed two months.
Maximum Launch Weight
Weight
0.8 Optimum specific impulse is more important
at Saturn and beyond.
0.6
Weight
Propellant
Weight Water Propellant, S = 10-4
Specific Impulse = 10,000 sec 25 Year Ship Lifetime
0.4
Optimum Specific Impulse Refueling at All Terminals
12
0.2 Io
(Jupiter)
Payload
10 Triton
0 (Neptune)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
[ lb$ ]
6
Payload
4
By using the travel time data of Figure 52, the Titan
(Saturn)
weight data of Figure 515, the fuel plus propel 2
Mars
lant cost data of Figure 59, and assuming a ve
0
hicle cost of 100 per pound, the curves of 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Figure 516 were obtained. The currently esti Total Velocity Increment (1000 fps)
mated cost of a supersonic transport is 100 Figure 5-17 — Single-stage spaceship fuel, propellant, and
per pound. These curves show fuel plus amor structure costs
tization of spaceship cost as a function of ve
It must be realized Figures 516 and 517 repre
locity increment for the missions selected.
sent certain assumptions. Better or worse
The lowest curves on Figure 516 are fuel cost situations may occur. A specific impulse of
only. For operations as far as Saturn, structural 10,000 seconds requires gaseous fission en
costs are comparable to fuel costs. Further im gines with radiators, and most 1965 thinking
provements in convenience of operation could concerns engines without radiators. In that
design looks more like a Buck Rogers space Figure 5-19 — Gaseous fission powered spaceship
ship than a conventional ballistic missile. Since
The first ships to explore the solar system will
standard cargo densities are about 10 pounds
operate, for the most part, from totally unpre
per cubic foot, the cargo compartment takes
pared facilities. Only on Earth will they oper
up more space than the propellant tank. That
ate from a spaceport. It is necessary the ships
is the way a good spaceship should be.
be able to take o without requiring either
This particular configuration is presented as an launch complex or takeo roll. It is also desir
illustration of possibilities. The lifting body able for ease of cargo handling that cargo doors
configuration for atmospheric entry is ideal be close to the ground when the ship is at rest.
ized. Such a shape assumes it will not be neces One can spend many hours developing ship
sary to supply artificial gravity for long dura designs which meet most or all of these re
tion missions. If artificial gravity is needed, a quirements. Many possibilities exist, just as
radically dierent shape, perhaps a spinning many dierent ship, automobile, and airplane
disc, might be required. designs have been used. Oddly enough, in spite
An analysis of the shielding weight for such a of extensive rocket work, there has been rela
ship indicates 20,000 pounds to be a conserva tively little serious spaceship design as of 1965.
tive shielding allowance. Cargo itself is about Performance curves so far have stressed the
70 percent eective as shielding material, and use of high specific impulses. Weight estimates
most cargo would not be harmed by exposure assumed an engine thrust/weight ratio of 20.
to the radiation levels present. Some radiation With the radiator area shown, the spaceship of
is beneficial as in the case of food preservation. Figure 519 would have an acceleration fully
The expediency of never flying the ship with loaded of only 0.10 go at 10,000 seconds spe
less than 10 percent cargo weight, properly cific impulse. It could, however, operate at
packaged, would eectively reduce the shield lower specific impulse when high thrust was
ing penalty almost to zero. required. Once orbital velocity is attained, 0.10
go is adequate.
Ceti
were visible at the antenna location. The at
15 tempt was unsuccessful. The probability of
Procyon Indi
there being transmissions from an alien race,
10
61 Cygni
however, remains of interest. To say the least,
Eridani
it is dicult to estimate this probability. We
5 have reason to believe due to research into
Centauri chemical evolution during the past two dec
0 ades that life would arise spontaneously on
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Distance (light years) any planet with temperatures not unlike those
of the earth. There remains still the question
Figure 6-1 — The near stars of rise of intelligence and culture. Further
Multiple stars are counted as only one star. more, if a culture reaches the point where it
Multiple and single stars with F, G, or K type wants to communicate, how long will it have
components are designated. this urge? Perhaps after another 5,000 years,
the human race will not have a scientific cul
The nearest single stars of F, G, or K type are
ture. It may be something entirely dierent.
Eridani at 10.8 lightyears, Indi at 11.4 light
Our descendants may not care about commu
years, and y Ceti at 11.8 lightyears distance.
nicating with anyone.
Figure 62 is an extension of Figure 61 to the
whole galaxy. It assumes, based on local star Figure 63 adds an estimate of the occurrence
counts, that single F, G, and K type stars con of intelligence throughout the galaxy to Figure
stitute five percent of the galactic stellar popu 62. The bottom curve, labelled Social Interest,
lation. They may run as high as 67 percent of assumes that life would develop at each single
multiple stars. F, G, and K type star; that after five billion
years, it would produce a society; and that the
1012
Single F,G, or K Type Stars average society would be actively interested in
Assumed to be 5 Percent
of Total communicating with other civilizations for
1010
only about 50,000 years. Astronomical and
geological evidence agree that the planet Earth
1018
s
Number of Stars
St
ta
pe
fS
rK
be
G
lN
F,
ng
To
Si
104
102
1
1 101 102 103 104 105
Distance (light years)
1018 Acceleration
Number of Stars
s
t ar
fS s
ar The great distances to the stars make it clear
106 ro St
be p e
um ty st that no interstellar travel, even to the nearer
lN rK re
ta , o Inte stars, can occur within reasonable travel times
10 4 To G l
F, ca
le gi in terms of a human life unless an appreciable
i ng olo
S Bi st
ere amount of the velocity of light can be attained.
10 2
nt
lI
c ia If a constant acceleration of one go could be
So
1
maintained, it would take one year to reach the
1 101 102 103 104 105 velocity of light. Consequently, accelerations
Distance (light years)
of this order are mandatory for starships.
Figure 6-3 — Hypothetical galactic community There appears to be no place for lowthrust
Unfortunately, we only have one data point on electrical rockets requiring millennia to gener
this subject. We do not even have one data ate any significant portion of the velocity of
point on the 50,000year active communica light in interstellar travel.
tion assumption. Speculation ranges all the way A starship starting from earth and accelerating
from only a few decades if scientific cul at a constant one go would reach 32 astronomi
tures tend to destroy themselvesto millions of cal units in 11.4 days and would be going at 3.24
years if they learn to live in peace after re percent of the velocity of light. A tracking
leasing nuclear energy. It is not surprising, in network covering the entire solar system would
view of the great distance to the nearest prob observe only the beginning of such a flight.
able communicating civilization, that many
people dismiss going to the stars. If it is only Time Dilation
societies which are currently communicating
who are of interest, then perhaps it is appro If ships can approach the velocity of light then
priate to just listen from earth and hope to the various eects predicted by Einstein’s The
learn that way. ory of Relativity must be considered. Of major
consequence is the limitation that the velocity
There is, however, another class of stellar sys of material particles cannot exceed that of
tem which could be of interest. A spaceship light. Since our galaxy is about 100,000 light
that travels to the stars is, in a way, a time ma years across, this restriction seriously limits
chine. Deliberate communication records of interstellar travel within our galaxy, let alone
human society on this planet cover thousands travel to other galaxies.
of years. Ancient races have communicated to,
if not with, us by their writings. We have been In addition to the limitation on maximum ve
able to look hundreds of millions of years into locity, the Theory of Relativity predicts that
the past, learning things of biological interest, time dilation will occur as the ship approaches
such as patterns of the development of life. If the velocity of light. That is to say, time, as
one goes to the planets of a distant star with measured in the ship, will appear to go slower
suitable scientific personnel and equipment, than time measured by those who remain on
one can look both back and ahead in time earth.
compared to the limited real time contact with The relation between earth time and ship time
any currently communicating society. If we as is given by:
sume 500 million years as the time during
which a planet is of biological interest, based
4
As Figure 62 indicates, our galaxy is so large
3 100,000 light years across, and contains so
Time
Initial Weight
Final Weight
tion becomes: 106
c
sti
V
c/2vef
104 tivi
stic
wI 1 + c
ela ivi
R
n-R
e lat
= 62 No
wF 1 V
102
c
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
For the case of rocket braking on arrival, plot Maximum Velocity
ted in Figure 65, this expression becomes: Velocity of Light
Initial Weight
Final Weight
106
not the partial conversion of normal nuclear
/8
reactions. =c
, v ef
104
si on
Fu
Total mass annihilation is theoretically con
ceivable and has been observed in particles. 101
Antiparticles have been found for all known Mass Annihilation
, vef = c
particles. When a particle and its antiparticle 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
combine, they annihilate each other with re Maximum Velocity
lease of the total energy equivalent of their Velocity of Light
masses. Antideuterons antihydrogen nuclei
Figure 6-8 — Starship weight ratio
have been observed. Someday we presumably
will be able to manufacture antimatter with With this type of rocket, nothing is ejected
antiparticles in the nucleus and positrons from the rocket but radiation. They are the
around the nucleus, as electrons surround the ultimate in photon rockets. The rocket equa
nuclei of normal atoms. It is conceivable that tion for mass annihilation rockets is obtained
we will discover stars and planets made of an by placing Vef = c in Equation 62 or = 1 in
timatter but no indication of this possibility Equation 65 to give:
has yet occurred.
V
1/2
Even if we could create antimatter at will, its wI 1 + c
= 67
production and use present fantastic engineer wF 1 V
ing problems. Any contact with normal matter c
must be avoided, and magnetic storage in very
hard vacuums must be arranged. It would not For the case of rocket braking, this expression
be surprising should we find that antimatter becomes:
could only be produced in quantity and stored
V
wI 1 + c
in space. The very good, almost unlimited vac
uum of space may never be reproducible on a = 68
planet. Even to handle antimatter in space wF 1 V
would be a very tricky operation with a spec c
tacular intolerance to minor engineering mis
A comparison of final to initial weight ratio for
takes.
fusion and mass annihilation rockets is shown
in Figure 68. Mass annihilation rockets would
Material stress
Subscripts
a Apogee
ac Acceleration
B Bullet
c Circular
co Combustion chamber
Nozzle exit
E Escape
ef Eective exhaust
F Final
G Gun
i Inner
I Initial
o Outer
p Perigee
P Planet
Nozzle throat
UL Useful load
Robert W. Buchheim editor; Space Handboo. Walter Sullivan; We Are Not Alon. New York:
New York: Random House Modern Library McGrawHill Book Company, 1964.
Paperbacks, 1959. George P. Sutton; Rocket Propulsion Elements.
Cyril Ponnamperuma and A. G. W. Cameron; New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1963.
editors, Interstear Communication: Scientific Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy; Exploration of th
Perspectives. Houghton Miin Harcourt, 1974. Universe with Reaction Flying Machines, Russia,
ISBN 0395178096 1903. Technical translation, F237, Coected
Armin J. Deutsch and Wolfgang B. Klemperer Works of K. E. Tsiolkovskiy, Washington, D.C.,
editors; Space Age Astronomy. New York: Aca National Aeronautics and Space Administra
demic Press, Inc., 1962. tion, 1965.
Exhaust velocity. Average velocity at which Gram. A measure of weight. 454 grams equals
the exhaust gases are expelled from the nozzle one pound.
of a rocket. Gravity. Force imparted by the earth to a
Expansion ratio. Ratio of the exit area of a mass on or close to the earth.
nozzle to its throat area. Gravity loss. Velocity lost due to part of the
Fast neutron. Neutron with relatively high thrust on a rocket being nullified by the force
velocity compared to other neutrons. of gravity.
Heliocentric. Relative to the sun as a center.
Fission. The splitting apart of a large atom
Measured from the center of the sun.
into two or more smaller pieces with release of
large amounts of energy. Hohmann transfer. Elliptical path between
two circular orbits which requires least energy
Fission products. Atoms or other particles,
expenditure.
frequently radioactive, produced by the fission
process. Horsepower. Rate of expenditure of energy.
One horsepower equals 550 footpounds per
Flightpath angle. Angle made by the tan
second.
gent to the flight path or trajectory with the
horizontal. Hybrid propellant. Propellant system using
both a solid and a liquid propellant.
Flyby. Passing close to a planet as opposed to
orbiting or landing upon it. Hyperbola. One of the conic sections. The
open trajectory followed by a body with more
Force: That which changes the state of rest or
than escape velocity.
motion in matter. The rate of change of mo
mentum. Hyperbolic excess velocity. Velocity re
maining at an infinitely great distance from a
Footpound. Work done in moving a force of
gravitating body.
one pound parallel to itself through a distance
of one foot. Hypergolic. Combinations of chemical fuels
and oxidizers which spontaneously ignite when
Free radical. Electrically neutral atom or
brought together.
group of atoms with unstable electronic con
figuration. Impulsive velocity. Velocity attained by a
rocket in the absence of drag and gravity.
Fuel. Material which is used to release energy
in chemical reactions usually in combination Infinite staging. Continuous discarding of
with an oxidizer. tanks and engines as propellant is consumed.
Potential energy. Energy of position in a Slug. Unit of mass weighing 32.174 pounds at
gravitational field, measured in footpounds. the earth’s surface. Solidcore nuclear rocket.
Nuclear rocket with all nuclear fuel in solid
Power. Time rate of expending energy or do form.
ing work, measured in footpounds per second,
horsepower, or watts. Solidpropellant rocket chemical.
Rocket engine using a solid propellant.
Power density. Power produced per unit vol
Space radiator. Hightemperature surface
ume. Pressure. Force exerted per unit area of a
used to radiate energy into space.
surface.
Spacestorable liquid propellants. Liquid
Pressure thrust. Thrust due to atmospheric
propellants which can be easily stored in space
pressure at the exit of a nozzle.
with little loss of propellant due to evapora
Propellant. In chemical rockets, fuel and tion, etc.
oxidizer used for propulsion. In nuclear rock
Stage rocket. Propulsion unit of a rocket,
ets, the working fluid heated by the nuclear
especially one unit of a multistage rocket, in
fuel and expelled for propulsion.
cluding its own fuel and tanks.
Radiation. Energy transmitted by electro
Swing around. Close flyby of a planet to
magnetic waves rather than by particles.
change vehicle trajectory.
Radioisotopes. Atomic particles which decay
Synodic period. Time interval between suc
by natural radioactivity.
cessive conjunctions of two planets.
Reactor nuclear. Assembly of nuclear fuel,
Thermal energy. Energy a body or gas pos
moderators, reflectors, etc., which creates and
sesses by virtue of its temperature.
controls a nuclear energy release.
Thermal neutrons. Neutrons at the same
Recombination. Process by which free radi
temperature as the material through which
cals and atoms join to form neutral molecules.
they move.
Reflector. Material which reflects neutrons in
Thermal reactor. Nuclear reactor which op
a nuclear reactor.
erates on thermal neutrons.
Rem. Roentgen equivalent man. A measure of
Thrust. Force exerted by the exhaust of a
biological damage causing ability of nuclear
rocket engine.
radiation.
Time dilation. Slowing down of time which
Regenerative cooling. Cooling of a rocket
occurs at velocities close to the velocity of
combustion chamber or nozzle by circulating
light.
fuel or oxidizer, or both, around the part to be
cooled.