William Mook wrote:
On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 6:03:19 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 1:47:53 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
General Atomics markets a rail gun that shoots 30 rounds per second 25 pounds each at Mach 7.
No, it doesn't. Try 10 rounds per minute and even that isn't working
yet at those kinds of rates for long because of heat issues and rail
erosion and ablation.
Already publicly GA is reporting 60 rounds per minute, FROM A SINGLE RAIL. By stacking rounds in the barrel, over 14,000 rounds per minute is achieved. That's 233 rounds per second - well above the 30 rounds per second I've quoted.
http://www.defensetech.org/2010/05/0...c-rail-cannon/
Note: "working on" vice "reporting".
Its well above my figure and no mention of the limitations you made up.
Only in MookieMath is 1 round per second "well above" 30 rounds per
second. Only in MookieWorld is "working on" the same as reporting it
as accomplished. Only up Mookie's Ass does the MetalStorm approach
work with railguns.
Reality is TEN ROUNDS PER MINUTE for the first operational system. But
reality has no place in Magical MookieWorld.
Using multiple rounds per rail, and multiple rails with high current switching between them, its fairly easy to see that millions of rounds per minute can be achieved, as has been achieved with more traditional methods of propelling rounds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKlnMwuCZso
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEu9LLQpOF8
MetalStorm ain't the same thing as a railgun, you nitwit. Trying to
fire 'multiple rounds per rail' is a particularly spectacular way to
blow up your launcher.
So, why did I quote 1,800 rounds per minute (30 rounds per second)?
Because that was the first number you found when you reached into your
ass.
No, I leave that modus operandi to you.
I note you fail to give a source for the number you pulled out of your
ass. I further note that the system you keep pointing to will manage
a rate of fire that is 1/180th of the number you pulled out of your
ass. I will even further note that the 'stretch goal' being worked on
by that system for the second generation is still only 1/30th of the
figure you pulled out of your posterior.
The conclusion is obvious...
Because you have to reload and resurface the rails, and recharge the capacitor bank.
Neither of those occurred to you until I mentioned them.
Nonsense.
You were
shooting every second of every day of every year. Magic.
Over the course of a synodic period I said there would only by 92 days of firing - and that the average rate of fire would be 30 rounds per second. This necessarily involves reload and routine maintenance.
This necessarily involves pixie dust and magic.
Teledyne and Cubic already market a self guided 50 cal round. These impart up to 150 m/s delta ver to bullets ising MEMs solid rockets.
Yes, it's a little tiny lightweight projectile.
Haha. You have no idea how things scale do you? Fact is, the 25 pound Blitzer fired projectile already has a guidance system on it. A 50 cal round weighs 1.73 ounces actually shows just how small lightweight and low cost these guidance systems can be. The EXACTO round masses 1.73 ounces - the Blitzer round weighs 25 pounds and a B61-12 weighs 700 pounds! All have guidance systems on them and use a combination of aerodynamic and rocket forces to guide them to their targets.
Haha. It's you who has no idea how things scale.
No, based on your statement you're the moron. Not me.
Rubber/Glue/Waaaaa!!!!!!
The fact that you
can multiply doesn't mean you can just scale up.
You obviously do not understand how scaling works with arrays of MEMS engines.
You obviously do not understand, well, much of anything.
snip MookSpew
This is why I label
so many of your 'calculations' as "MookieMath".
No, you use derogatory terms because it makes you feel superior and is a way to compensate when you clearly don't understand a topic you apparently don't care about.
And Mookie adds mindreading to his resume...
Adapted to use the water and energy resources of the moon and Mars using cryogenic ZBO lox/lh2 MEMs rockets these easily provide sufficient guidance to deliver products anywhere required cheaply.
Handwavium.
Nonsense. Saying we're going to use abundant water resources and energy resources found in place on either the moon or Mars to produce cryogenic zero boil off lox/lh2 propellants to cheaply guide rounds to customers on Earth is the exact opposite of hand waving. Its very precise and gives a clear indication exactly how things work.
Except things don't work that way.
They do work the way I describe. They don't work the way you imagine. You don't see that its your problem, no one elses.
I'm hardly the only one here who thinks you're a havering loon, Mook.
In fact, pretty much everyone here with any sort of engineering
background seems to think you're an ignorant loony.
Hence "handwavium".
Of course, this is how you dismiss anything you don't understand. Given your general lack of intelligence, there are a great deal of things you don't understand.
Poor Mookie. It's always the other person who's stupid because he
doesn't understand things.
MEMS rockets deliver only small amounts of thrust (hence
'MEMS').
Liquid bipropellant rockets have been made that produce 50 psi using 300 psi pressure fed propellants. A square inch of these cost less than $1 in quanitity on Earth, and vastly less on Mars given the lower energy resource and labour costs.
So why don't you past a couple square feet of the things to your ass
and fly to the Moon?
I gave you a paper that describes just that.
No you didn't. Do you really hallucinate so heavily that you think
that?
You can't just paste a zillion of them on something and
multiply.
I just bought a 4K, Ultra HD, TV. This has a resolution of 3,840 x 2,160 pixels four colour pixels. That's four times the 1,920 x 1,080 pixels found in your full HD TV. That's 33.17 million plasma points that are switched at 120 times per second through a dynamic range of 12,000 to 1 across a 65" diagonal screen. This is a screen that's 31.87 inches tall and 56.65 inches wide and has an area of 1805.3 square inches. Retail this is $5 per square inch. On Mars this would cost $0.05 per square inch to produce given the lower labour, energy, taxes, regulatory and resource costs. At 50 psi exit plane pressure a MEMS array the size of this screen using very much the same control methodology, would produce 90,267 pounds of force under highly controlled conditions.
I'm happy you have a nice TV, but the rest of that is bull****.
None of it is. That's what you don't get.
I frequently "don't get" lunatics' delusions. And that's what you
post.
You have now also added heavy insulated tanks to your
'cheap carrier'.
Advanced tanks,
http://www.compositesworld.com/artic...s-for-cryogens
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/index...iquid-h2-fuel/
Advanced cryocoolers,
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10....19-2_25#page-1
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...16/10/002/meta
http://www.colorado.edu/MCEN/mems/research_simon1.htm
Built at very low cost, in quantities of billions rather than dozens, are easily achieved.
'Easily achieved' means "because Mook says so". Handwavium
No easily achieved means that its been done and you can call up any competent supplier and get one made.
Nonsense.
You can't go solid fuel because you need to be able
to turn them on and off.
When you have millions of engines across your thrust surface and several surfaces stacked in layers, you can produced controlled thrust across that surface.
And if you have magic pixie dust you can do whatever you want.
Its not magic and it has nothing to do with pixie dust. You don't get that.
You're posting nonsense. You don't get that.
The only liquid fuel MEMS rockets I've seen
anyone talking about use hydrogen peroxide, not deeply cryogenic fuels
Why doesn't that surprise me.
Because there aren't any?
No, because you're clueless.
I note you still haven't posted a single cite pointing to the
existence of liquid fuel MEMS rockets using deeply cryogenic fuels.
There's a reason for that...
(although feel free to cite such an engine) and they only manage tiny
amounts of thrust. Their thrust/weight ratios are high, but that
rapidly goes to **** once you start adding plumbing, tanks, multiple
engines, etc.
The Shuttle External Tank achieves a tank mass fraction of 3.71% of the propellant it carries at 22 psi for the LOX and 29 psi for the LH2. With advanced construction techniques this same level of performance (4%) is achieved at 300 psi.
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/382034main_...k_Masses. pdf
Thrust to weight ratios of 1000 to 1 are achieved with MEMS based engines as you point out. So, a 4.9 lb propellant tank will weigh less than 0.2 lbs and a 90 lb MEMS thrust array will weigh less than 0.1 lbs.
I note you don't cite any such cryogenic MEMS rockets.
http://cap.ee.imperial.ac.uk/~pdm97/...53_Epstein.pdf
On page 155 this twelve year old paper talks about cryogenic operation of rocket propulsion systems.
Well, actually, no it doesn't. Did you read it or just search for the
word 'cryogenic'? What the page does is talk about the potential
operating range for a particular type of valve actuator. That's all.
And it doesn't even give a real bottom range. It merely says
'cryogenic'. I will note that LNG is 'cryogenic' but only mildly.
You're blathering on about LH2, which is a whole different kettle of
fish.
I also note
your arithmetic above is, well, full of logical flaws. The thrust to
weight ratio of AN ENGINE has nothing to do with tank weights.
That's why I quoted tank weights separately and gave you a pointer to it.
Yes, and it was funny how you did it, turning five pounds into less
than a quarter point with no effort at all.
I find
it interesting how you magically make 4.9 lbs weight 0.2 lbs and so
on. Magic.
4% is achievable in flight systems the size I'm describing and built at very low cost. Consider a soda can that masses 0.46 ounces carries 12 ounces of fluid and can withstand 200 psig pressure and when made in the billions cost $0.02 each - including the inert lining, the pop top opening mechanism, and the colourful printing on the outside. A 3 litre system made in comparable quantities massing about the same mass, coated with foam insulation and thermal protection layers impressed with propellant flow lines and headers - will cost about the same when made of Earth sourced materials, and cost substantially less when made of Mars sourced materials.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUhisi2FBuw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annota...&v=7dK1VVtja5c
We're not talking soda cans here, Mookie.
30 rounds per second x 25 pounds per round x 3600 seconds per hour x 8766 hours per year =
23.66 billion pounds per year per launcher to nearly a billion location each year.
Now divide your numbers by 180 for a realistic firing rate,
General Atomics already reports 14,000 rounds per minute from their Blitzer. This is 233 rounds per second. I'm proposing 30 rounds per second - largely due to reloading concerns.
Horse****. Cite or admit you're lying.
I gave the link elsewhere. Here's one;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annota...&v=7dK1VVtja5c
That's making a soda can, you idiot. The only link for a firing rate
anything like you're talking about is for MetalStorm, which is neither
Blitzer nor any other sort of railgun.
Multiple rounds launched per firing. A firing rate here of 6 to 12 per minute and up to 14,000 projectiles per minute - which is more than the 1800 projectiles per minute I cited.
Which is pure fantasy, doesn't exist, and doesn't work. Do you know
ANYTHING about magnetic fields, Mook?
deduct the
weight of all the extra **** you have to put on the round for
midcourse corrections and surviving reentry, and adopt a realistic
maintenance cycle for your equipment.
The round is 33.1 pounds to carry a 25 pound useful cargo. If you wish to limit the entire system to 25 pounds then the cargo is reduced to 19 ponds.
Mookery of the facts. Your number are whacked, no matter how you
scale them.
No they're not. You are the one whacked.
Rubber/Glue/Waaaaa!!!!
This is on par with a fleet of bulk ocean carriers or railroads with the added capacity to deliver r directly to consumers.
Yeah, because I WANT projectiles doing interplanetary speeds slamming
into my house.
They won't, any more than oil tankers will slam into your house, or any more than your house will be covered with crude oil.
So *NOT* "delivering directly to consumers", then.
Delivering directly to consumers means they're NOT slamming into your house any more than a delivery truck arriving at your drive is not running into your house.
So how are they 'delivering directly' to me, Mookie? Transporters?
So there is no reason to believe off world colonies cannot trade with Earth as easily as power or information can be delivered to Earth by off world assets.
No reason unless you live in the real world and aren't allowed to use
magic.
The world you live in is certainly different than mine. That makes your world less real in many respects because the real world has inertially guided 50 calibre rounds using MEMS rockets, the real world has magnetically launched rounds also inertially guided capable of achieving planetary escape velocities firing at rates well in excess of 1800 rounds per minute, the real world has planets with vastly more resources than exist on Earth free of many of the constraints that we face here.
Do you know what the phrase "inertially guided" means?
Yes. You obviously do not.
Of course not. I only worked in the field for 30+ years. The .50
caliber rounds you're talking about are OPTICALLY guided (where's the
IMU?). Blitzer is RADAR guided. Inertial guidance can only get you
approximately to a specific point. It can't track a target to hit it.
It appears
not, since EXACTO is NOT 'inertially guided', which is sort of the
point of the thing.
EXACTO, and similar systems developed by Sandia are 'fire and forget' systems that are built into rounds, including smart bullets.
That doesn't make them 'inertially guided' and EXACTO is *NOT* 'fire
and forget'. You can't just throw phrases out, Mookie. Words have
meanings. EXACTO requires the gunner to hold on the target until the
bullet arrives. That is *NOT* 'fire and forget'.
As for the rest of your Mookery of reality,
'magical'.
snip MagicalMookieMalarky
How's that Lunar XPrize going for you, Mookie? 'Magical'...
Thanks for asking!
snip MookSpew
What you avoid relating is that you are NOT part of an existing team
and insist you are somehow magically going to win anyway.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine