Time to Think ‘Horizontal’ for Future Space Launches

On 9/27/2010 5:03 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

That and he wants to "land" on a vertical stand like some of the US tail
sitters from the 50's.

That would be the unfortunately numbered Ryan X-13 Vertijet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53iQbz-TQGU

Although they did get that to work, when they flew it publicly and had
it land on its trailer on the Washington Mall, it was just about out of
fuel by the time it locked onto the landing trapeze.

I'd think more conventional vertical landing
gear would allow for landing on just about any open surface (i.e.
concrete), which is what DC-X did and what many of the small reusable
demonstrators (as seen on A-Rocket email list) are doing today. But
Mook just loves to do things the hard way, based on unproven 50's tech
rather than using current tech.

What made DC-X so odd is that they were dead-set on having it land
anywhere and not on a prepared surface. I don't know how that was all
supposed to be related to the Star Wars program, which is where the
program originated from.
Maybe Delta Clipper was seen as some sort of suborbital troop transport
like the later SUSTAIN program is working on, an idea that hearkens back
to Martin's Ithacus giant troop transport of the 1960's:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...ne/ithacus.jpg
(I still like the idea of B-70's being used for low altitude cargo
drops). :-D

A largely empty ET is a huge, lightweight structure, and like I
mentioned before, any sort of a side wind, especially a gusty one, would
be a recipe for disaster.
One thing here is that the plug-nozzle engine on the bottom of the ET is
the only thing worth recovering from a economic viewpoint. The ET itself
is basically a big aluminum-lithium beer can, and by the time you stuck
effective recovery gear and a TPS on it, you will have raised its weight
so much that you will have severely compromised its ability to carry a
worthwhile payload into orbit. NASA realized this when they built the
Shuttle, which is why I've never seen a NASA proposal for a recoverable
ET since the Shuttle entered service near three decades ago.
Russia played around with a recoverable core stage for the Energia
launch vehicle with wings on it (very similar to this idea), but ditched
that idea also.

Well, that big empty can does make reentry easier. Heat shields for
small, dense vehicles/payloads are harder than heat shields for large,
less dense vehicles/payloads. The max temperature experienced by
something large and "fluffy" is quite a bit lower than something very
small and dense.

That was the idea Lockheed's VentureStar was going to use.

And it was going to glide-land horizontally, not try to descend
tail-first. If you stick wings on it, the only reason is to have it
glide-land; if it's going to land vertically, then there is no need to
stick wings on it.

Tell that to Mook.

The horrible thing about this is now he's got me figuring out how to
recover an ET, an idea that really doesn't make any sense from a
economic point of view.
If you were going to stick engines on the back end of the tank, it might
make sense to recover those, but even that's iffy.
Here's the fully reusable Energia booster, where the four booster flip
out wings and glide land or descend under parachutes, and the core stage
has wings and glide lands after dropping off its payload in orbit:
http://www.k26.com/buran/Info/Energi...k_booster.html
Trying to get the boosters down safely to a ground landing via
parachutes pretty much screwed the pooch for Energia-Buran; they never
did put the parachutes aboard for the two Energia test flights, as their
added weight meant that the Buran could carry almost no payload.
Still, they are worth looking at for the complexity of the landing
system being proposed: http://www.buran.ru/htm/09-3.htm
Parachutes, extensible landing gear, massed solid-fuel landing rockets -
you can see how it all got pretty heavy.

Pat

On Sep 27, 9:03*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article CtudnVJDw-
,
says...



On 9/24/2010 6:55 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

The fact that this tail sitting technology has not been used in an
unmanned winged vehicle means you have no valid point.

Oh, it's pretty easy to do nowadays in a fairly small RPV; the problem
here is scale.

That and he wants to "land" on a vertical stand like some of the US tail
sitters from the 50's.

No, the motorized platform I've designed to receive the returning
booster elements is automated in ways not possible in the 1950s.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/30988234/E...Ground-Process

*I'd think more conventional vertical landing
gear would allow for landing on just about any open surface (i.e.
concrete),

In order to reduce weight the landing platform has the shock absorbing
elements - and the hold down clamps that are used during lift-off are
re-engaged to hold the booster element secure after landing.

which is what DC-X did and what many of the small reusable
demonstrators (as seen on A-Rocket email list) are doing today.

The DC-X failed when its landing gear didn't properly deploy.

*But
Mook just loves to do things the hard way,

Nonsense. What is hard about catching a baseball in a mitt?

based on unproven 50's tech

Unproven 1950s technology is an oxymoron. The technology is well
proven as of 1950, and today is improved with modern technology.

rather than using current tech.

How is 1950s technology not a part and parcel of current technology?

Your comments per usual are idiotic nonsensical and illogical. The
mobile platform I've designed allows me to reduce structural mass on
the ETderived booster to a minimum, while maximizing safety. Landing
on mobile platforms using 1950s tech with tail sitting aircraft was
routinely achieved

http://www.aiaa.org/tc/vstol/25.jpg

With modern automation and GPS and sensing tech, a motorized platform
can easily catch a descending spacecraft more safely and reliably than
any other way while reducing structural mass and processing to a
minimum.

http://www.cs.umbc.edu/courses/under...ort/page2.html


A largely empty ET is a huge, lightweight structure, and like I
mentioned before, any sort of a side wind, especially a gusty one, would
be a recipe for disaster.
One thing here is that the plug-nozzle engine on the bottom of the ET is
the only thing worth recovering from a economic viewpoint. The ET itself
is basically a big aluminum-lithium beer can, and by the time you stuck
effective recovery gear and a TPS on it, you will have raised its weight
so much that you will have severely compromised its ability to carry a
worthwhile payload into orbit. NASA realized this when they built the
Shuttle, which is why I've never seen a NASA proposal for a recoverable
ET since the Shuttle entered service near three decades ago.
Russia played around with a recoverable core stage for the Energia
launch vehicle with wings on it (very similar to this idea), but ditched
that idea also.

Well, that big empty can does make reentry easier.

Correct. The big issue is not smashing it with aerodynamic forces.

*Heat shields for
small, dense vehicles/payloads are harder than heat shields for large,
less dense vehicles/payloads. *The max temperature experienced by
something large and "fluffy" is quite a bit lower than something very
small and dense.

Correct. But, accelerations are higher, unless you can control the
rate of 'let down' - to maintain a reasonable acceleration level.
This means the CG must be offset somewhat from the CP - which is the
reason for the base shroud - which gives some L/D capability - and
some control over rate of descent through the high -gee portions of
the flight.

And it was going to glide-land horizontally, not try to descend
tail-first. If you stick wings on it, the only reason is to have it
glide-land; if it's going to land vertically, then there is no need to
stick wings on it.

Tell that to Mook.

Six out of the seven elements are booster elements. Four of the seven
never leave the atmosphere. The Hyperion and other Bono designs had
toroidal lox tanks in their fat conical base. A totally different
design than the relatively slender ET with a lox tank in the nose.
So, when you pitch the ET over to present tail first, you expose a lot
of area to high speed air flow - smashing the ET like stepping on a
beer can. Not good! You can add structure and thermal protection to
take that, but its far simpler to maintain nose first flight attitude
and put a small inflatable heat shield on the nose (and a skirt around
the base to give required aerodynamics to control rate of descent)
and slow - putting the pressure along the length of the ET cylinder
which is what it is designed to take. By the time you slow to
subsonic speeds you deploy the fold away wing and tail, and convert to
a subsonic glider - which the ET can easily take. A Boeing 737
converted to a tow plane, snags the glider and tows it back to the
launch center. There it is released at a controlled altitude, and it
glides over a landing platform. As it approaches it ignites a small
landing engine - pitches up its nose into vertical, and then descends
on its landing engine and is then caught by the mobile landing
platform - clamped into place - and the engine is shut down.

We looked at putting landing gear on the ET, but again, the shock of a
hard landing imposed lateral forces that required major structural
refit and increasing structural fraction - in addition to the complex
landing gear. We even looked at a mobile landing platform that raced
down the airstrip catching the ET as it glided in. This had more
problems than the vertical landing mode.

So, why aren't we all flying those big SSTO plug-nozzle reusable
boosters like Philip Bono designed back in the 1960's?
Because there's a repetitive pattern one can notice in the "wonder
rockets" that are going to revolutionize space travel:

1.) Specific impulse of the new rocket engine to be used is overestimated.
2.) Fuel consumption of that engine to produce the desired thrust is
underestimated.

...and the big one:

3.) Total structural weight of the vehicle is _way_ underestimated,
particularly when its TPS weight enters the equation.

Mook insists his numbers are good,

My specific impulse is in the 438 sec range. My structure is 49.6
metric tons. My propellant mass is 730 metric tons of hydrogen and
oxygen. I have given detailed mass budget.

If there is something wrong with these numbers, what are they?

even though he openly admits that no
detailed analysis and design has been done. *

I never said that.

He's only done a very high
level parametric analysis to come up with his numbers.

I've done that as well, I would remove the prejudicial 'only' -
parametric analysis is a valid step in developing any sort of complex
flight system.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freea...rnumber=736758

That's why you end up with things like Black Horse that somehow has a
mass ratio identical to a Atlas ICBM, despite having wings, a cockpit,
landing gear, non-integral non-pressure rigidized propellant tanks, and
a TPS on it.
That is one of the silliest things I've ever seen in my life, and why
people ever took it seriously for even a moment is completely beyond me,
particularly given its kerosene-hydrogen peroxide choice of propellants,
which hearkens back to the 1950s.

It was somewhat silly,

Black Horse could not work - they didn't even complete a parametric
study of what they proposed to do. Transferring propellant mid
flight? That was dumb! What I'm proposing is much simpler - all
with proven elements.

but not laughably silly like Mook's napkin
drawings.

Nonsense. Dimensioned prints are more than napkin drawings.
Parametric studies got the numbers right. The system uses proven
elements. There is nothing silly about any of what I propose to do.
Certainly nothing to laugh about.

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?

On Sep 27, 12:04*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 9/27/2010 1:51 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:



In fact, the ideal situation for them is if the program gets canceled
before flying; then you can design something that you know can't work,
get paid for working on it, and know that it well never be finished...so
you won't get sued for defrauding the US government.

Pat

Sounds like a good incentive for dragging it out as long as possible,
especially if it's meant to be man-rated.

Which may explain why SpaceX could get their Falcon 9/Dragon capsule
combo ready so much faster than NASA could do Ares 1/Orion.
The excuse the aerospace industry uses is that by dragging the program
out over many years, they cut down the cost per year.
What they don't mention is that by doing it this way, the total cost is
far greater when everything's finished, as now you are keeping all the
companies working on it overhead's paid for many years for something
that you could have built a lot faster if you had really needed to.
The way they do things nowadays, we would have had the B-29 in full
production around 1955. ;-)

Pat

Since Boeing and Lockheed are losing money as a result of their space
launch activities,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...063240410.html

it makes sense to buy the companies, sell off the more productive
assets for more than it cost to buy them, and use the difference to
reorganize the space faring assets into a profitable company that made
money developing off world resources and assets.

This would include;

(1) A fleet of 2.53 ton payload seven element parallel staged
launchers that cost $135 million to develop and $1 million to launch,
selling launches at $25 million to $55 million per launch with 24 hour
turn around - winning the bulk of the world's 120 rocket launches per
year.

(2) A fleet of 35 ton payload seven element parallel staged launchers
that cost $4 billion to develop and $2 million to launch. Placing a
company owned network of 800+ satellites in polar orbit sporting open
optical peta bit lasers and phased array uplink/downlink - to provide
a global wireless hotspot that generates $100 billion per year.

(3) A fleet of 700 ton payload seven element parallel staged launchers
around the ET as a common mode airframe - that cost $8 billion to
develop and $4 million to launch. Placing company owned satellites
that beam 10,000 MW to 8,000 ground stations simultaneously each
producing 1.25 MW - generating billions of dollars per yer per
satellite.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO

Buying controlling interests in both companies, and stripping them of
their money losing portions, and rationally organizing their military,
missile, and civilian aircraft operations - not only increases
profits, but also increases P/E - especially for Lockheed's revenue;

Boeing Market Cap: 46.92 billion P/E 46.38
Lockheed Market Cap: 26.30 billion P/E 9.18

Total: 73.22 --- $36.66 billion

So, control would cost $37 billion - and a 20% rise - $14.6 billion
would accrue, and you'd end up with ALL the space faring assets of the
nation (including control of United Space Alliance)

Reorganization costs would be around $5 billion for the entire program
- leaving $9.6 billion on the table. Those costs include developing
the small 2.53 tonne launcher described above. Success with that
creates tremendous value. $1 billion in launch sales at 40x earnings
- would generate a market cap of $40 billion. $100 billion from a
successful global network would produce a trillion dollar company.
Power satellites have the potential to take the wealth of the Middle
East and put it in the hands of this US company's owners.

In article
tatelephone, Pat
Flannery wrote:

One has to remember that all science fiction authors rely on their
ability to talk their readers into buying highly improbable, or indeed
completely impossible, concepts for their financial success.
Not to put too fine of a point on it, but they live off their ability to
be top-notch bull****ters.
Putting one in charge of designing an actual space launch vehicle is
rather like putting an astrologer in charge of a major space
astrophysics project.

Greg Bear has commented that his theories on evolutionary biology are
likely correct, and that he has the advantage over real scientists in
that he doesn't have to prove it

--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'

On Sep 27, 9:11*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 7e7188c0-1901-4d12-93f1-
, says...



On Sep 24, 2:04*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
From memory, the landing gear couldn't retract without
disconnecting and reconnecting the hoses used for lowering the landing
gear. *Before the final flight, someone forgot to reconnect a hose, so
one of the gear failed to deploy.

Yes. *Some thought sabotage at the time,

Only loony conspiracy theorists.

He's comparing apples and oranges since the DC-X is
so different than what he's proposing.

Nonsense. *If you actually looked at the numbers, you would see that
the empty weight of the DC-X divided by its surface area is very low
as well.

Apples and oranges. *DC-X had no wings, and you said yourself it wasn't
"flight weight". *

*Those wings are just silly in
the way they're designed and in the way they're planned to be used.

No they're not.

More repeated assertions backed up by a cursory, high level, parametric
based design. *In other words, a napkin drawing.

Wait a minute, I have a parametric study, some detailed CFD and FEA
along with wind tunnel tests of models, and you have just hand waving
comparisons with no numbers whatever. Your assertions are gratuitous
and may be gratuitously rejected.


And you're trying to demean a real engineer who has something
spectacular playing word games without one iota of real engineering
analysis.

And you're trying to present yourself as a "real engineer".

How am I not a real engineer dude? Real engineers do real
engineering. I've done so here, and I have done so in the past. What
engineering have you done?

*So, you're
a certified P.E. now? *

You're talking badges, I'm talking about designing and building stuff
that works.

You do know that asserting you're a "real
engineer" without a P.E. is a very dangerous thing to do in many states.

More nonsense. Aerospace engineering is specifically exempted from
certification requirements. I do have a DOT space launch license
however.

I need to be certified if I'm building a bridge or a boiler or
offering engineering services directly to the public - like doing
surveys or housing inspections, or designing HVAC and plumbing systems
electrical systems for buildings or homes. As I said, automotive
engineering and aerospace engineering is specifically exempted from
certification requirements under an industrial exemption.

Civil engineers account for a large portion of licensed Professional
Engineers. Many of the remainder are mechanical, electrical, and
structural engineers whose practice involves areas that states
regulate, such as HVAC, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection
systems for buildings or public infrastructure. However, some
engineers in other fields obtain licenses for the ability to serve as
professional witnesses, or just for prestige, even though they may
never actually sign and seal design documents.

Since regulation of the practice of engineering is performed by the
individual states in the U.S., areas of engineering involved in
interstate commerce are essentially unregulated. These areas include
much of Mechanical Engineering, such as Automotive Engineering,
Aerospace Engineering, and Chemical Engineering, and may be
specifically exempted from regulation under an "Industrial Exemption"



Jeffie, you and Freddie can stroke each other all you want. *It won't
make up for the absolute lack of real analysis to support any of your
bogus objections.

You're the one with the "design" that needs to be backed up by real
analysis and design. *

You are the one saying it won't work, but won't say why.

Your napkin drawing doesn't count.

A dimensioned print is more than a napkin drawing. The numbers I've
published are well within the range of experience. The procedure and
process I've described is based on real world experience with flight
hardware.

All your 'objections' are gratuitous assertions by comparison.

I'm a supporter of getting NASA out of the launch vehicle business. *

Me too.

There are more than enough US launch providers in existence today. *

I doubt any of the majors will stay in the business, that is where the
major assets are.

The
US certainly doesn't need anything as big and expensive as you're
proposing.

I agree that it is not a good use of public funds. I do not agree
that its not needed. Oil companies routinely build off shore drilling
platforms and shipping to support them to get at energy resources.
There is no reason whatever that a space energy company shouldn't
build an appropriately sized launcher to support their business
operations using undervalued assets owned by Lockheed Boeing and
United Technologies.

The system I've proposed launches a 10,000 MW power satellite that
generates several billion dollars per year for over 30 years for each
satellite. Earth industry currently needs 17,000,000 MW of power and
that need is growing 680,000 MW per year. So, building a supply chain
to supply a portion of this need makes sense.

*Heck, NASA couldn't' even afford to finish Ares I, let alone
Ares V, or anything bigger than that.

NASA has $17 billion budget, and a total of $480 billion has been
spent since 1958. Most of the $17 billion each year is used to cut
lawns, wash windows, and operate the huge infrastructure that grew up
around the space program of the 1960s. As a percentage of national
budget, NASA budget peaked in 1964, and declined thereafter. SO, the
psychology of those who work for NASA is shaped by that experience.
As a nation we certainly could afford to do something in space.
Whether the public purse should be tapped for that, I don't know. I
think it better to get rid of NASA instead of funding it at $17
billion. I think better than getting rid of it, we should expand its
budget to $65 billion per year and give it some exciting missions to
perform. Killing it will be politically easier.

Without NASA the small space launch providers will dry up and blow
away.

A larger program such as I describe will not.

I outlined in another post how $36 billion would get control of the
major holders of space faring assets today, and earn $9 billion
profits in 180 days - by restructuring and selling off profitable
divisions. Then, reforming the space faring assets in to a highly
reusable launcher that uses the RL-10 pump set in seven flight
elements as I've described - to put up 2.53 tonnes - for less than $1
million. Selling the launches for $55 million each. (including self
insurance) with proven flight vehicles. This creates an asset wort
$40 billion from the assets. And provides kicker to the funds that
got the original consortium together.

This is the start.

Next, is to use profit stream from the RLV to build a 35 tonne
version. This uses 12 RL10 pump sets per booster element. Same
approach. This puts up 800+ comsats that turn the world into a
wireless hotspot, and create a trillion dollar business.

This is the next step.

Next is to use profit stream from the global network to build the RLV
that lifts 700 tonnes into orbit. This uses 3 RS68 pump sets per
booster element. Same approach. This puts up IR laser solar power
satellites that produce 10,000 MW of energy.

At $0.05 per kWh each satellite generates $4.38 billion per year, and
over 30 years produces a total of $131.49 billion. When discounted at
current bank rates this revenue stream is worth $80.6 billion the day
it is turned on.

A six year development program costing $10.5 billion for the launcher
and satellite supply chain - when discounted at venture capital rates
obtains 50% ownership of the FIRST SATELLITE - for the money
investors.

With 26 launches per year - the value of a company that owned 50% of
the revenue of each 10,000 MW satellite - would grow in value at a
rate of $1,047.8 billion per year!

Enough to expand on this early stage success along the lines I've
described elsewhere.

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?

On Sep 27, 12:54*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 9/27/2010 5:03 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

That and he wants to "land" on a vertical stand like some of the US tail
sitters from the 50's.

That would be the unfortunately numbered Ryan X-13 Vertijet:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53iQbz-TQGU

Although they did get that to work, when they flew it publicly and had
it land on its trailer on the Washington Mall, it was just about out of
fuel by the time it locked onto the landing trapeze.

Just like the ET derived booster -


I'd think more conventional vertical landing
gear would allow for landing on just about any open surface (i.e.
concrete), which is what DC-X did and what many of the small reusable
demonstrators (as seen on A-Rocket email list) are doing today. *But
Mook just loves to do things the hard way, based on unproven 50's tech
rather than using current tech.

What made DC-X so odd is that they were dead-set on having it land
anywhere and not on a prepared surface. I don't know how that was all
supposed to be related to the Star Wars program, which is where the
program originated from.

Bill Gaubatz told me the LEM landed on an unprepared surface why not
DC-X and DC-Y?

Maybe Delta Clipper was seen as some sort of suborbital troop transport

That too.

like the later SUSTAIN program is working on, an idea that hearkens back
to Martin's Ithacus giant troop transport of the 1960's:http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...ne/ithacus.jpg

Yep.

Getting the troops back was another problem.

However, with remotely operated soldier robots this is less of a
problem.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freea...number=4343985

Imagine a future where all our forward bases are replaced by unmanned
nuclear sub equipped with Tomahawk style cruise missiles, that deploy
ASIMO type robots - that are driven by crews 24/7 until it runs out of
ammo and fuel. To be replaced by another robot by another cruise
missile launch. Replacing the supply chain needed to support humans
on the front line.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm

It would make an interesting packge to add to the mix.

(I still like the idea of B-70's being used for low altitude cargo
drops). :-D

Yep.



A largely empty ET is a huge, lightweight structure, and like I
mentioned before, any sort of a side wind, especially a gusty one, would
be a recipe for disaster.
One thing here is that the plug-nozzle engine on the bottom of the ET is
the only thing worth recovering from a economic viewpoint. The ET itself
is basically a big aluminum-lithium beer can, and by the time you stuck
effective recovery gear and a TPS on it, you will have raised its weight
so much that you will have severely compromised its ability to carry a
worthwhile payload into orbit. NASA realized this when they built the
Shuttle, which is why I've never seen a NASA proposal for a recoverable
ET since the Shuttle entered service near three decades ago.
Russia played around with a recoverable core stage for the Energia
launch vehicle with wings on it (very similar to this idea), but ditched
that idea also.

Well, that big empty can does make reentry easier. *Heat shields for
small, dense vehicles/payloads are harder than heat shields for large,
less dense vehicles/payloads. *The max temperature experienced by
something large and "fluffy" is quite a bit lower than something very
small and dense.

That was the idea Lockheed's VentureStar was going to use.

Yep.

And it was going to glide-land horizontally, not try to descend
tail-first. If you stick wings on it, the only reason is to have it
glide-land; if it's going to land vertically, then there is no need to
stick wings on it.

Tell that to Mook.

The horrible thing about this is now he's got me figuring out how to
recover an ET, an idea that really doesn't make any sense from a
economic point of view.

Depends on how you do it. There are a lot of ways to do it badly.
One way to do it right. My way.


If you were going to stick engines on the back end of the tank, it might
make sense to recover those, but even that's iffy.

Depends on the details and the price point you want to achieve.

Here's the fully reusable Energia booster, where the four booster flip
out wings and glide land or descend under parachutes, and the core stage
has wings and glide lands after dropping off its payload in orbit:http://www.k26.com/buran/Info/Energi...k_booster.html

They don't have the guidance or avionics capabilities of a Boeing or
Lockheed.

Trying to get the boosters down safely to a ground landing via
parachutes pretty much screwed the pooch for Energia-Buran; they never
did put the parachutes aboard for the two Energia test flights, as their
added weight meant that the Buran could carry almost no payload.

Cite?

Still, they are worth looking at for the complexity of the landing
system being proposed:http://www.buran.ru/htm/09-3.htm
Parachutes, extensible landing gear, massed solid-fuel landing rockets -
you can see how it all got pretty heavy.

How heavy exactly?

I go from 26.5 metric tons and 733.5 metric tons of propellant of the
SLWT to 49.6 metric tons of structure carrying 730 metric tons of
propellant. I gave a break down elsewhere. This is all based on
actual experience with the hardware I propose using.

The extensible landing gear and the structure needed to use it and not
ruin the tank is the killer here. Pitching manuevers also are to be
avoided in the atmosphere for the same reason - too much structural
add on.

Much better to put your shock absorbers in a ground platform and reuse
the hold down hardware to capture the booster in a vertical position-
landing vertically to take advantage of the ability of the tank to
handle longitudinal loads with very little added structural weight.


Pat

On Sep 27, 1:41*pm, Invid Fan wrote:
In article
tatelephone, Pat

Flannery wrote:
One has to remember that all science fiction authors rely on their
ability to talk their readers into buying highly improbable, or indeed
completely impossible, concepts for their financial success.
Not to put too fine of a point on it, but they live off their ability to
be top-notch bull****ters.
Putting one in charge of designing an actual space launch vehicle is
rather like putting an astrologer in charge of a major space
astrophysics project.

Greg Bear has commented that his theories on evolutionary biology are
likely correct, and that he has the advantage over real scientists in
that he doesn't have to prove it

--
Chris Mack * * * "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' * * * * * * - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'

If it isn't proven by reference to reality, its not real science.
Sorry.

On Sep 27, 5:10*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 9/27/2010 5:11 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

Yes. *Some thought sabotage at the time,

Only loony conspiracy theorists.

I'll tell you one thing that incident taught: Next time around, _five_
not _four_, landing legs. ;-)

Pat

Or four that work. The conspiracy theorist regarding the Northrup
Flying Wing was Northrup himself!

In 1979 Jack Northrop said that all Flying Wing contracts had been
canceled because Northrop Aircraft Corporation had refused to merge
with competitor Convair at Stuart Symington's strong suggestion,
because according to Jack Northrop, Convair's merger demands were
"grossly unfair to Northrop." A short while later, Symington became
president of Convair upon leaving his post as Secretary of the Air
Force.

The first of these new YB-49 jet-powered aircraft flew October 1947.
The YB-49 set a trans-continental speed record, flying from Muroc Air
Force Base in California to Andrews Air Force Base near Washington,
D.C. in 4 hours 20 minutes. The return flight from Andrews was marred
by a multiple failure in six of the eight engines. Inspection after a
successful emergency landing revealed no oil had been replaced in
these engines after the Muroc-to-Andrews leg, raising a suspicion of
industrial sabotage.

The Air Force engineer in charge of this detail became ill shortly
before the scheduled departure and did not accompany the YB-49 back to
Muroc. He later died in a motorcycle accident under mysterious
circumstances.

Flying Wing contracts were then canceled by order of Stuart Symington,
Secretary of the Air Force. Symington also turned down a request from
the Smithsonian for the Air Force to donate one of these big wings to
its collection. Symington ordered all remaining Flying Wing bomber
airframes chopped up and the materials smelted down with portable
smelters brought to Northrop's facility.

Jack Northrop and his employees could only stand by and watch.

The McDonnell Douglas DC-Y had it flown would have given its larger
competitors stiff competition and captured the public's imagination in
the same way Northrup's Flying Wing did 50 years earlier - setting off
the same sorts of organizational concerns and responses.

On Sep 25, 2:44*pm, William Mook wrote:
Given the unfortunate statements made by George Bernard Shaw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bernard_Shaw

who was a Nobel Prize winner and founder of the London School of
Economics, it is entirely likely that there are those working in one
or more nation's secret service, dedicated to depopulating the Earth
in deniable ways so as to preserve the standard of living enjoyed by
those they work for.
No doubt, such as those pesky Rothschilds.


Obviously, those that contribute least to the prosperity of society
are a burden, and are the ones that would be likely to be targeted for
elimination.

Clearly, a disease that was costly to treat, and fatal if untreated,
would fulfill this role.

If it were felt that this 'depopulation bomb' - to use Shaw's phrase -
arose naturally - there would be *high degree of deniability - and the
provision of money for treatment would be another lever whereby
wealthy nations could exercise control over poorer nations.

This all fits in with Shaw's rather bleak world view.

He died in 1950 and didn't credit anything to do with space travel or
off world assets. *He dealt strictly on this world.

Now, what if this were true?

What if there were a dedicated cadre of folks in the secret services
somewhere who cooked up diseases that would be costly to treat and
provide us with Shaw's depopulation bomb - easy to spread costly to
treat - always fatal.

AIDS is a likely candidate for being a depopulation bomb created by
the US military in the 1960s. *It meets all the criterion.

If there were a massive die off and the survivors were immune after a
few generations - it would serve its purpose - provided those
survivors were in your country.

What if we were to expand into interplanetary space and tap into the
resources that are there? *Unlimited energy! *Unlimited raw
materials! *Unlimited space for growing crops, trees, and people!

Those who unleashed the depopulation bomb would feel rather foolish.
They may even be 'outed'!

This would then attract negative attention to the governments that
supported the program, and put them at a disadvantage - something the
program was not intended to do.

So, they would likely oppose anything that reduced the deniability of
their program - if the program indeed exists.

Of course such opposition if it exists would itself be deniable. *This
means it is characterized as something else. * Nuclear and missile
controls would fit the bill. *Making sure aerospace doesn't shake its
leash to the government. *etc.

We cannot know these things, they are highly speculative. *They do
form a consistent pattern though that is vaguely reflected in events
over the past 50 years.

The only thing we can do as supporters of space development, is focus
on the things we want to do, and make sure they can be done with
technology at hand. *Once a foothold is gained, then things will
unfold revealing themselves to be what they are - whatever that is.

Those "what ifs" along with all those "could have been and should have
been" outcomes are certainly adding up to a very comprehensive
chapter.

Your idea of focus seems anything but. Whatever happened to all of
that cheap and essentially renewable hydrogen, as well as those other
easily related elements and subsequent other energy related products
and transportation made better, cheaper and way cleaner for the
environment?

How is saving Earth from ourselves and raw nature of what our sun is
doing to us, not a good enough focus?

~ BG

In article 248beba1-15af-4abb-bdac-2a4e44028368
@a19g2000yql.googlegroups.com, says...

On Sep 27, 9:11*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
More repeated assertions backed up by a cursory, high level,
parametric
based design. *In other words, a napkin drawing.

Wait a minute, I have a parametric study, some detailed CFD and FEA
along with wind tunnel tests of models, and you have just hand waving
comparisons with no numbers whatever. Your assertions are gratuitous
and may be gratuitously rejected.

You have nothing which you've shared with the group. "detailed CVD and
FEA" could mean anything. Besides, when I asked you pointed, specific
questions about the FEA, you "punted" and it was clear from your answers
that all you have is some extremely high level FEA analysis.

It's no wonder why I keep calling your "design" a napkin drawing.

A dimensioned print is more than a napkin drawing.

In this day and age, not much. A high school student can crate a
"dimensioned print".

The numbers I've
published are well within the range of experience.

Simple parametric analysis which ignores the details and systems
engineering required to make this a reality.

The procedure and
process I've described is based on real world experience with flight
hardware.

Most of your chosen technologies have not been proven at the large scale
you propose. Others have not been proven on a launch vehicle in the
actual conditions experienced by a launch vehicle. Still others are
simply Rube Goldberg in appearance (e.g. your "catcher's mit" ground
support hardware which is intended to catch your landing rocket stage
and balance it like a Segway).

The fact that you can't see how "far out" your "design" really is speaks
volumes.

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?