Plausible ideas for Edwardian space travel ...

[Gearhead_Shem_Tov]

That's what I'm after. To be more precise, I'm researching for a novel predicated on the achievement of practical spaceflight some time in the first twenty years of the 20th century, with the following caveats, the first relatively easy, the second really quite hard, and the third perhaps impossible:

1) I'm disallowing handwavium, antigravitic timber, help from ancient astronauts, serendipitous discovery-and-reverse-enginnering of a crashed alien spacecraft, or any Tesla Super Scientrific Power Beams. Rockets are good enough for us, they oughta be good enough for my Edwardian Astronauts.

2) The fact of such space travel has to be completely unknown to and unsuspected by governments then and now -- this isn't to be an X-Files sort of tale.

3) The whole ~20-year R&D effort must be underwritten by the resources of about 20,000 non-rich, non-super genius people. In place of super-genius, assume super-stubborness.

I'm looking for ideas on just about anything that might help this work. I'm willing to accept one or two oddball breakthroughs in metallurgy or exotic energetic chemistry, but fission and fusion rockets, say, are out because it'd be too hard to to hide such a development.

I look forward to your comments.

-Bobby

 

[Vladd67]

Well here is a brief history that might be adapted
A Brief History of Rocketry

 

[Gearhead_Shem_Tov]

Well here is a brief history that might be adapted
...

I suppose I should mention that I have a solid, if somewhat dusty, engineering background, so I don't need information on rocketry per se, rather more toward things like high specific impulse fuels such as hydrogen free radicals (a.k.a. monatomic hydrogen) which would theoretically give an Isp of about 1200 seconds, three times better than hydrogen/oxygen. Only problem is stabilising the stuff -- it tends to go boom at inconvenient times.

Actually, this last is a horrendous understatement; it's wildly unstable since each atom of hydrogen really, REALLY prefers to bond with another. Anyone got some plausible sounding ways to stabilise Single-H? Dilution with helium, say, and some sort of nuclear magnetic resonance dingus to turn Instant Blam into Slow Burn?

Another thing: our space rockets evolved directly from ballistic missile technology, and no space booster has ever been designed for minimum cost; all have been designed for minimum weight, and that makes things much more expensive. The Big Dumb Booster idea applies, and would probably be the only approach that could even be approached with long-term private funding.

The bigger issue in the whole project in my mind, really, is how a secret space program could *stay* secret, assuming pioneering flights begin, say, in 1925 and continue for another thirty years? How about the logistics of getting materials and people to the launch site without arousing suspicion? Shucks, just moving the capital required might be tricky during the inter-war years.

I'm already assuming a remote, near-equatorial launch site, but how do you keep the dozen or so flights a year from being noticed? How do you keep tramp steamers and fishing fleets from seeing the rocket contrails, if nothing else? Launch only during overcast conditions? Or would a clear-air, broad-noon launch be best?

Assuming launch goes unobserved, how do you keep the spaceship from being noticed once it's in orbit? Paint it flat black? Hide behind a carefully oriented black sunshade until leaving parking orbit? Or dispense with parking orbits altogether and do a direct trans-Lunar injection while still on the day side of the trajectory?

(No method would prevent it being found if someone were actually looking for it in the right place, so the key is to never give anyone a reason to start scanning the skies for fast moving long-wave IR targets.)

Before WWII radar sighting wouldn't be much of an issue, especially if no radar-carring ships were in the area, and the equipment was so crude no radar operator of the era would assuming anything but equipment malfunction if the did manage to detect a hypersonic bogey at 200,000 feet. During and after the war, however, airborne radar becomes inconveniently common, so much so that I'm assuming that flights after 1941 would be at some risk of detection in many parts of the world, and such flights would be undertaken only on dire need.

Anyway, that's where my muddled thinking is so far.

-Bobby

 

[Boneman]

Hmm, what about manipulation of earth's magnetic field? (That spreads far beyond the moon, apparently) So that a magnetised hull would be whisked along the polarity lines that exist - some mathematical genius could work it out so that certain parts of the hull would de-magnetise at the right time, and jump to the next thread/line. Ley Lines, here we come!!!

 

[Gearhead_Shem_Tov]

Hmm, what about manipulation of earth's magnetic field? (That spreads far beyond the moon, apparently) So that a magnetised hull would be whisked along the polarity lines that exist - some mathematical genius could work it out so that certain parts of the hull would de-magnetise at the right time, and jump to the next thread/line. Ley Lines, here we come!!!

I can't see this being useful for a 500-tonne spaceship, unless by "manipulation of earth's magnetic field" you mean something along the lines of electromotive generators using conductive tethers and/or momentum transfers between tethers at different orbital altitudes. Even then, I'm a bit skeptical my Edwardian Astronauts could keep such elaborate infrastructure hidden in LEO for any useful amount of time.

It's a fun problem, though!

-Bobby

 

[pdurrant]

That's what I'm after. To be more precise, I'm researching for a novel predicated on the achievement of practical spaceflight some time in the first twenty years of the 20th century, with the following caveats, the first relatively easy, the second really quite hard, and the third perhaps impossible:

1) I'm disallowing handwavium, antigravitic timber, help from ancient astronauts, serendipitous discovery-and-reverse-enginnering of a crashed alien spacecraft, or any Tesla Super Scientrific Power Beams. Rockets are good enough for us, they oughta be good enough for my Edwardian Astronauts.

2) The fact of such space travel has to be completely unknown to and unsuspected by governments then and now -- this isn't to be an X-Files sort of tale.

3) The whole ~20-year R&D effort must be underwritten by the resources of about 20,000 non-rich, non-super genius people. In place of super-genius, assume super-stubborness.

I'm looking for ideas on just about anything that might help this work. I'm willing to accept one or two oddball breakthroughs in metallurgy or exotic energetic chemistry, but fission and fusion rockets, say, are out because it'd be too hard to to hide such a development.

I look forward to your comments.

-Bobby

From a brief look at the problem, it doesn't sound impossible. The only possible fuel seems to be Kerosene/Liquid Oxygen. Liquid oxygen was first made in 1877, and there's seem no reason why dedicated research couldn't have made large quantities fairly quickly, although in history it seems to have not been done until 1895. Hydrogen is a lot harder to liquify and store.

So - you need a group working on liquid-fuel rockets from the 1880s onwards. Consider that in history the first rocket flown using liquid oxygen was built Goddard in 1923 to 1926, and the first patent on a liquid fuel rocket was by Goddard in 1914. Pushing that 20-30 years earlier doesn't seem out of the question.

As for how to hide such a large undertaking - that's another matter entirely.

 

[Gearhead_Shem_Tov]

... The only possible fuel seems to be Kerosene/Liquid Oxygen. Liquid oxygen was first made in 1877, and there's seem no reason why dedicated research couldn't have made large quantities fairly quickly, although in history it seems to have not been done until 1895. Hydrogen is a lot harder to liquify and store.

Hydrogen is a tough nut, and not just from the low temperature; its low density is a pain because it requires such large tanks when burned with LOX. It requires about three times the tank volume as LOX & kerosene.

Liquid Fluorine & LH, on the other hand, while only a marginally better combination in terms of specific impulse (about 5% better), is much better in the size of the tanks required, (about 60% smaller). Added together, these effects would produce a lunar rocket about half the size and weight of an equivalent LH/LOX rocket.

How would it affect cost? No idea, other than it would surely be more expensive. Kerosene/LOX looks much more friendly than either on cost. It's a pity you can't make a single-stage-to-orbit ship with them, though; two stages seem to be the minimum.

So - you need a group working on liquid-fuel rockets from the 1880s onwards. Consider that in history the first rocket flown using liquid oxygen was built Goddard in 1923 to 1926, and the first patent on a liquid fuel rocket was by Goddard in 1914. Pushing that 20-30 years earlier doesn't seem out of the question.

My thinking, too. I leave the start of R&D until 1900-1910 to let them use wireless; it's much easier to do telemetry.

As for how to hide such a large undertaking - that's another matter entirely.

Indeed, this is the hard one.

-Bobby

 

[thepaladin]

Are you looking to try strictly hard science fiction (a tall order considering the time frame) or do you plan to include an element of fantasy?

If so, you could use an older idea combined with what was a fairly new discovery at the time. It was noted in 1880 that "some elements" emitted or released electrons when struck by sunlight. This has led to photovoltaics and some other solar technologies. The idea Vern used of launching the ship (or conversely parts of the ship to be assembled in space) by use of "explosive" (canon?) and then possibly a liquid rocket booster to break orbit with some sort of solar sail.

This would have to be heavily fictionalized....I'm not sure if you intend to try and stay completely away from fantasy.

 

[Gearhead_Shem_Tov]

Are you looking to try strictly hard science fiction (a tall order considering the time frame) or do you plan to include an element of fantasy?

My goal is to assume only what was already available or readily derivable from the materials and techniques of 1900-1925. If we couldn't duplicate it today given money and time, then I'm not interested.

... If so, you could use an older idea combined with what was a fairly new discovery at the time. It was noted in 1880 that "some elements" emitted or released electrons when struck by sunlight. This has led to photovoltaics and some other solar technologies. The idea Vern used of launching the ship (or conversely parts of the ship to be assembled in space) by use of "explosive" (canon?) and then possibly a liquid rocket booster to break orbit with some sort of solar sail.

This is an interesting idea. Solar sailing from LEO is probably too hard, given residual atmospheric drag, and radiation exposure from the Van Allen belts would be problematic, too. But a liquid booster to get quickly out of low orbit and through the radiation belts would certainly help.

This would have to be heavily fictionalized....I'm not sure if you intend to try and stay completely away from fantasy.

Heavily fictionalised, yes, of course. Comes with the territory, even without outright fantasy.

-Bobby

 

[pdurrant]

Kerosene/LOX looks much more friendly than either on cost. It's a pity you can't make a single-stage-to-orbit ship with them, though; two stages seem to be the minimum.

Something else just occurred to me. How about liquid methane? High density (6 x liquid hydrogen), similar cryogenic temperature requirements as LOX, and a slightly higher SI than Kerosene (although half the density). You'd need 10 times smaller tanks for liquid methane as liquid hydrogen, although, granted, about 2.5 times as big as for kerosene.

Basics of Space Flight: Rocket Propellants

Liquid oxygen can be made anywhere, given a source of power (hydroelectric?). How about also finding a remote location with an easily accessible natural gas field? Then the fuel requirements could all be met on site.

 

[Ursa major]

As for how to hide such a large undertaking - that's another matter entirely.

This may be the biggest problem. The more remote a launch site is (in order to avoid the launches being seen), the more visible the transfer of significant materiel to the back-of beyond location. And it isn't as if the world is full of places that are habitable but simultaneously inhabited. (There'd have to be bribes or more permanent restrictions on the locals. These things, too, risk being noticed.)

And after 1939 - and possible earlier in the Pacific - I expect closer watch was taken on sea traffic than before, so radar wouldn't be the only issue. (On the other hand, if one could get the materiel** into the ship at the dock, its later disappearance (and that of the ship) could be explained by "enemy" action. Then again, the ships would, presumably, be targets and as they wouldn't be travelling as part of armed convoys, could be vulnerable to attack or seizure.)


** - Don't forget that in this period there were no containers, so there'd be a risk of thieves trying to get at the goods at the docks and discovering what was there***. And to stop this, there'd be the risk of the security becoming noticeable, if the amount of materiel was significant.

*** - Who'd they tell is another matter.

 

[Gearhead_Shem_Tov]

...
** - Don't forget that in this period there were no containers, so there'd be a risk of thieves trying to get at the goods at the docks and discovering what was there***. And to stop this, there'd be the risk of the security becoming noticeable, if the amount of materiel was significant.

*** - Who'd they tell is another matter.

Ah, brilliant! I would never have thought of this. Very helpful, maybe a good plot point.

-Bobby

 

[Parson]

Maybe I'm being stupid, but it seems to me that when something can't be absolutely hidden the best way to avoid exposure of what you want hidden is to get people to direct their attention in another direction. Maybe you could envision something like a high performance airplane testing grounds. Provide the public occasional glimpses of exotic airplanes. Let the protagonists actually be in the forefront of airplane technology that is bought and sold. Thus contrails and material are explained but the real purpose is hidden.

 

[Ursa major]

In theory, I agree, Parson.

However, if the timeline coincides with a major conflict involving the country where the testing is occurring, wouldn't we expect that the government of that country might become very interested in the technology hinted at by the cover story?

 

[Parson]

Hm, But the lead in said the take off site was near the equator. That could easily mean Brazil or some other non-allied nation in WWI. Also there might be room for a little more alternative history in this yarn.

 

[Gearhead_Shem_Tov]

... when something can't be absolutely hidden the best way to avoid exposure of what you want hidden is to get people to direct their attention in another direction. ...

Misdirection could be very useful, but it would take real nerve to pull it off.

In a sense the story depends on this already in that the group of people behind the project would be considered by most other people as being incapable of such a thing. Biggots would never imagine a spaceship being built in Haarlem, say.

-B

 

[Ursa major]

Hm, But the lead in said the take off site was near the equator. That could easily mean Brazil or some other non-allied nation in WWI. Also there might be room for a little more alternative history in this yarn.

Wikipedia has a handy list of countries, oceans and islands along the equator:

Equator - Equatorial Countries and Territories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

All of the land territories save for Ecuador, Colombia and Brasil were colonial possessions. I did notice, however, this US-owned island:

Baker Island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

It was US from the beginning (though there may have been**, briefly, a UK claim), and it seems to have been entirely the domain of private endeavour until that UK claim was made.




** - A may-have-been that is easily deleted from an alternative history. Similarly, the attempt at colonisation in the 1930s could easily be averted.

 

[chrispenycate]

This thing is going to be BIG. Forget Saturn five's mere three stages; I can't see us getting up with fewer than five, increasing in size at about the same rate. Fortunately they would not have to build the VAB around it vertically (That would have been taller than any skyscraper built at the time) because we are going to launch it more or less horizontally – it makes no difference, as long as we achieve the necessary speed (and there's nothing in the way, like a mountain, of course).

Part of this extra size is due to the control systems – with no electronics, stability is achieved with gyroscopes mechanically linked to fuel controls, ropes like a ship's rudder, and lots of human intervention.

I'm going to start in the mountains; not for the tiny advantage in distance to be travelled, but reduction in atmospheric friction. Even with all the rivet heads polished smooth to the hull until a blind man can't sense where they are (that's right, rivets, like a steam boiler. and steel plate; none of your titanium or aluminium available in that sort of quantity) reasonable velocities at low altitudes are going to make heating a major problem. It also helps that I can gently slope the catapult track – oh, hadn't I mentioned the catapult? Just a few kilometres (ten or so) of wide gauged track, with a few steam engines for motive power. You really hope the first stage fires when they've got you up tou a thousand kilometres an hour, and you're ballistic over the Himalayan plateau…

Not a great percentage of your final velocity, but you've still got all your fuel.

(Short diversion – read Pournelle's "King David's spaceship" for an alternative means of propulsion.)

The thing is still going to weigh as much as a battleship, and the huge number of curved metal segments are going to look very military.

My first stage (for the time being) is solid fuel; possibly smokeless powder, but it is the age of the cookbook chemist, so probably tested with different compositions to give the most even, regular burn. This is fireworks technology; the fuel is its own combustion chamber and nozzle, and there is almost no shell; just a tinfoil tube that burns away. You need a region with a tradition of dragons; these things are going to be big, roaring overhead; at least three times the size of a Saturn first stage. But you're getting your thrust without heavy pumps, fuel tanks, complex directive systems; there's no way to steer, and nothing to aim at if you could.

Second nightmare moment, explosive separation of the first two stages. Fireworks technology again, and now you can steer. Unfortunately, there's nothing to tell you which way, and ground can't direct you over the radio; partly because you haven't one, pertly because the aerial build to withstand that treatment doesn't exist ( I'm looking forward to space heliographs and semaphore flags). It doesn't matter much, anyway; as long as you've still got acceleration, and not towards the planet, that stage is going to get you out of the atmosphere before it burns out.

Not into a stable orbit, no; but you've got time to think, time to get into your modified diving suit and take the steel plate off your windows, get the sextant out and check your trajectory, check the separation of the second stage; you're falling, but very slowly. If your line is reasonably good, you can steer by adjusting fuel flow to rocket motors, if not, use altitude rockets to change your heading. Then light up your third stage's relatively low power engines, and gently spiral out. Your tables, sextant and abacus (the Babbage engine is too heavy to bring with you) should get you to LEO with this stage, saving the last two for geostationary, and return (probably parachute braking, and very, very slowly)

How many people do I need to do life support for? (I assume this is manned; ---babbage robotics are a bit beyond me) There is a lot of money involved in all this, even if you say they're not super rich, and are all trained machinists, chemists, biologists and the like there are a lot of raw materials, like the quartz viewports, or the tungsten combustion chambers; millions, at least.

 

[ventanamist]

This covers the technology and the concealment aspects but it may be unworkable. Tunnelling and air pumping were well established technologies, but this would involve pushing them both to their limits.

Take a very tall, very isolated mountain, tunnel into its base, create a large launch chamber then continue a tunnel slowly curving upwards until it emerges at the summit. The launch is achieved by increasing the air behind the rocket and decreasing it in front. To decrease it in front will involve an air-lock at the summit that will flip open at the last minute. Other problems will include: keeping the rocket away from the sides of the tunnel with a minimum of friction, creating a fairly air tight plunger to fit behind the rocket, and creating a tunnel with totally smooth even sides.

If, by any chance, you can make this work, you will certainly eliminate the need for the first stage of the rocket, probably a lot more. What made me think of this was Brunel's atmospheric railway that ran between Exeter and Newton Abbot. This imaginative 19th century technology allowed the trains to reach 80 mph, pulled along by a plunger in an evacuated tube. It only failed because rats ate the leather seals.

Hope this helps.

 

[ventanamist]

I've been thinking some more.

Vast underground chambers would be created to store compressed air. A fraction of the high air pressure behind the plunger could be channelled forwards then projected out to cushion the rocket from the sides of the tunnel. These jets could also be used to make the vehicle rotate - this will make it more stable, like rifling in a gun barrel. It would of course put the astronauts under even more g force.

The whole enterprise could be disguised as a mining project. Launches could take place on overcast days. I am assuming a daytime launch would allow more accurate navigation.

The thrust should continue some way above the mountain top if the air pressure is high enough.

The seal at the top I visualise as a slightly domed circular segmented hatch. Each segment would be sprung so it would fly open when there is no longer low air pressure to hold it shut. Each segment must make a very good seal.

The plunger could be made from some sort of solid fuel mix that could be ignited to give more thrust.

Brunel - you could get him on board. Fake his death to escape his debts or something. He could make it work.