How to Get to Orbit Cheaper than SpaceX's Starship
Ian Brooke has developed a new kind of jet engine that can act as the first stage of a rocket.
I get brunch with him every Sunday and have grilled him for hours on how it works.
Adaptive Cycle Jet Engines, the primer 🧵
Two facts about rockets:
- They have to carry a lot of fuel
- Structurally they are quite weak
The miracle of the Falcon 9 and Starship is they can be re-used, 10, maybe even 20 times.
But even a Falcon 9 that lasts forever has to consume massive amounts of fuel
On the other hand, commercial airplanes are designed for 30,000 cycles. They don't carry as much fuel for an important reason:
Jets use the atmosphere as a ladder
Air is mixed with fuel, combusted, and used as reaction mass. Rockets have to carry their own liquid air
"But jets can't go to orbit because they need air, and there's no air in space"
Space is an altitude. Orbit is a velocity
Using the atmosphere for reaction mass up to Mach 6 is like a free booster.
( Falcon Heavy boosters detach at Mach 10 )
This is the beauty of the adaptive cycle jet engine for orbit - a far more reusable first stage with tiny fuel requirements.
A second stage rocket takes you from Mach 6 to Mach 25, orbital velocity.
You skip using rockets when they suck - at low speeds with variable pressure
More re-usability, far less fuel, means cheaper, easier, more frequent launches.
To appreciate how it works, we need to look at the pinnacle of air-breathing engine design, the SR-71 Blackbird.
The fastest plane ever flown.
The SR-71 uses the J58 Pratt and Whitney engine, capable of two modes of operation:
Normal Turbojet, for speeds up to Mach 2.
"Turbo Ramjet," for speeds up to Mach 3.3
Ramjet mode is by far more fuel efficient, and can go up to Mach 6 in principle.
Ian's engine? Three modes
Three modes are what make this jet engine adaptive - maintaining high efficiency at different velocities.
Turbofan for low speeds, then Turbojet, then Ramjet.
What enables this is using a second turbine which is always running at its ideal RPM to drive the fan
Normal commercial jet turbofans are optimized to be efficient at cruising speeds, and so burn massive amounts of fuel at lower velocities.
Ian uses a second turbine that drives the main turbofan with a cryogen-cooled AC motors, like an electrical transmission.
This all sounds obvious - why now?
Electric motors are finally getting good enough in performance. Before, losses in the motor windings and weight would've killed the efficiency gains from having a second turbine drive an adaptive cycle jet engine.
Now it makes sense.
The net-net of all this is that @k2pilot developed a platform that traverses this entire chart to stay maximally efficient.
See how badly rockets perform at low velocities? Ian waits until ramjet speeds to use rockets. Smart.
But orbital launches are just the beginning
While the Space Launch market is projected to reach $30 billion in a few years, the commercial aircraft market is 15x larger.
Boeing and Airbus are the only two players. Both have become sprawling bureaucracies that don't innovate. 737MAX was a tragedy
The problem with trying to build a new commercial aircraft is that its absurdly expensive to certify and operate.
This means your jets have to be absurdly expensive too, or else just assume you can raise unlimited venture capital.
Boom goes your business model.
This is why people love @k2pilot's startup so much.
Like his engine, the company has three modes:
- Generate massive free cash flow through high-margin space launches
- Use this money and flight data to certify a new airframe
- Use this airframe to make the world 3x smaller
That's the win - Commercial flights anywhere in the world 3x faster than anything today, same price.
@k2pilot isn't competing with SpaceX.
Rather, he's building the Tesla of airplanes, to take on 110-year old Boeing.
Space planes just happen to be how you get there
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There's 40+ fusion companies and they all claim they'll be first
To be first you have to burn DT fuel - the absolute worst choice for economic energy production
The best long-term approach burns pB11 - yet no traditional approach can do it
Here's my contrarian fusion thread🧵
DT burns at the lowest temperatures but what it releases is horribly nasty: a 14 MeV neutron that takes a solid meter of metal to fully shield.
This means your magnets are further from the last-closed flux surface of the plasma, demanding more current to operate
Tritium isn't something that's easily obtainable either - the number one engineering challenge for fusion companies is engineering a Tritium-Breeding Blanket, something that can let high-energy neutrons combine with Li6 to produce more tritium.
One of the biggest mysteries of biology is why life on Earth has a specific chirality: left-handed amino-acids and right-handed sugars
This is less surprising if you consider that amino acids come from stellar nebula
The building blocks of life then 'rain down' onto planets 🧵
Spectroscopic analysis of stellar nebula has found the presence of amino acids in large enough quantities to be detectable at astronomic distances.
These form by a simple reaction of methane, ammonia and formaldehyde by exposure to ultraviolet radiation even in absence of H2O
The interesting thing is that amino acids recovered from meteorites show the same chirality preference as amino acids from biological origins on Earth.
It's possible life's building blocks came from space first - but why would they have this chirality preference?
Archeologists just found ancient highly advanced stone structures in West Java radiocarbon dated to be between 27,000 - 16,000 years old, drastically upending our theories of human civilization.
Along with Gobli Tepeke it seems like our entire conception of history is flawed 🧵
This study made extensive use of Electrical Resistance Tomography to reconstruct subsurface features, chambers, and structures leveraging high sensitivity measurements, spacing metal electrodes in a 3D grid to measure the entire area and reconstruct it volumetrically
Stunningly the authors found that the lowest layer dated back to between 25,000 - 14,000 BCE, showing extremely advanced monolithic masonry and structures suggesting construction skills far surpassing the expected level of hunter-gatherer technological development
My last job was as Senior Stellarator Engineer at an early stage fusion startup. I was the lead design 'ideas' guy for stellarator systems - here's some things I learned about the art and science of stellarator design 🧵
First off, a stellarator is indeed a work of art:
Like Tokamaks stellarators have a kind of periodic symmetry in the coordinate space of the magnetic field enclosing the plasma, but, unliked Tokamaks this doesn't translate into nice symmetries in our 3 dimensions.
A Stellarator is every CAD designers nightmare
The key to having good confinement in a Tokamak or Stellarator is as-perfectly as-possible reconstructing the 'last closed magnetic flux surface' with superconducting magnets.
If the magnetic field is perfectly closed then charged particles can't escape, helping trap heat
Collectivism has a natural advantage over individualism in political fights because every cell of the collectivist body politic is programmed to fight against unorthodox views, while individualism naturally defends diversity of perspectives 🧵
Under collectivism, there is only one acceptable narrative and any departure from that is viewed and then portrayed as an existential threat to the entire society.
To be contrarian is to be a threat to the "progressive revolution" and painted as counterrevolutionary
Meanwhile individualism respects the right to dissent and form ones own belief system, supporting and defending things like free speech and the diversity of ideology that naturally emerges from different experiences of social reality