The Next Lunar Landing - BOTE with NOX/HTPB

(william mook) wrote in message:
snip
snip
Since we clearly operate on very different bandwidths and I have such
little time to further explain myself... it may be polite just to
leave things as they are for now.

Best,
Abdul Ahad

(AA Institute) wrote in message . com...
(william mook) wrote in message:
snip
snip
Since we clearly operate on very different bandwidths and I have such
little time to further explain myself... it may be polite just to
leave things as they are for now.

Best,
Abdul Ahad


Yeah, the stuff obviously made sense to you, it just didn't comport
with anything I knew or could figure out.

(william mook) wrote in message
sinp

Since you are insisting and as I now have a bit more time to hand, let
me elaborate upon my points to a finer level of detail for the benefit
of your understanding.

Conceptually it sounds a good idea -

Um, its not my idea, I was responding to another person's idea,
analyzing it.

I didn't say this was your idea, I am talking here about professor
Winglee's magnetic plasma sail propulsion concept as depicted in this
article:-

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n...arspropulsion/

My only contribution you snipped.

Sorry... I was in a hurry and only wanted to put some quick opinions
forth on professor Winglee's article, which was "breaking news" on the
day.

If the suborbital rocket is a laser light craft

http://www.lightcrafttechnologies.com/technology.html

This light craft business of lifting things from the ground all the
way up to orbital height, just doesn't sound too promising to me (I'm
just handwaving here... what I do best!). If you or anyone else
believes in this concept, I'd hope you could fill me in on the hard
evidence that supports advancing light craft technology?


if it can be worked. I think most
people have already raised the 'action = reaction' dilemma, where

Here you've lost me. Right off the bat. I don't know what you're
talking about.

Newton's third law. When the emitting plasma station exerts a force on
the mag-sail to drive it forward, the emitting plasma station itself
will experience a motion in the opposite direction, so how will it
keep its beam continuously firing at the mag-sail vehicle without
getting misaligned and needing constant realignment via additional
fuel and thrusters?

Even if the emitting plasma station at LEO pushing the vehicle outward
from Earth is somehow stabilised, how will the *opposite* braking
plasma station at the destination planet be stabilised? What happens
when *its* stabilising fuels run dry? Surely the costs of re-fuelling
a station orbiting a remote planet would be mega?


Robert Winglee is a NASA scientist who is trying to scope out what it
might take to build a magnetic sail to ride the solar wind. Creating
our own directed pulses of plasma to allow such a sail to outperform
the solar wind is feasible once such a sail is operational. To date,
I have seen nothing but a lot of handwaving.

Your statement, in context of this data is meaningless to me.

Let me explain the basic workings of this THING as I understand it. In
this concept that Winglee is working on, an electronically excited
stream of plasma ions (which have a measurable mass - as opposed to no
mass at all in the case of photons of light) is emitted from a
transmitting station which will push an interplanetary vehicle from
Earth orbit to the orbit around a destination planet, e.g. Mars. The
plasma ions are fired from a gun in Earth orbit to impact upon an
invisible, but electro-magnetically inflated, sail that is deployed
around an interplanetary spacecraft which is also carrying a light
weight *payload*. The plasma beam hits the electro-magnetic sail
deployed around the spacecraft and exerts a force ("thrust") on the
sail, which pushes the spacecraft forward. Accumulation of thrust from
continuous plasma beam firing over time accelerates the spacecraft
toward its target planetary destination. Before it reaches that
destination, another gun stationed in orbit around the destination
planet then fires an identical beam onto the spacecraft's magnetic
sail from the opposite direction which slows it down to enable either
a gentle glide into orbit around or descent down into the destination
planet's atmosphere.

As I understand it, the magnetic plasma sail propulsion concept is
strictly an *in space* concept that has no bearing on how payloads are
transported up from Earth's surface to LEO or how they make their way
down onto the surface of the destination planet. Its operational
limits are strictly 'orbit to orbit', as I mentioned in my earlier
post. That's where I was saying that Mars Rover style aeroshell
packaging and airbags and parachutes could be used for the entry,
descent and landing from Mars orbit down to its surface.

Are you with me so far?



I see one immediate benefit in a manned Mars mission where *fast*,
straight-line transfers of small loads are required from Earth=Mars
(orbit to orbit), without having to rely on long time windows dictated
by Hohmann transfers.

Again, I don't understand this. You're implying small loads, and
straight lines and claiming a benefit. Then, you tack on a sentence
about Hohmann transfers. It don't make any sense son.

You've got minimum energy transfer orbits, which is the lower limit of
performance for interplanetary flight. You've got high-speed transfer
orbits, that are still elliptical. You've got parabolic orbits that
are faster still. You've got hyperbolic orbits even faster yet.
Heck, even light beams bend, and at the solar surface that's 2 G Ms
/(Rs c^2) = 4.2 x 10^-6 radians = 0.87 arc sec, as shown by Einstein
(Annalen der Physik vol.35, p.398) in 1911 and nothing is known to
travel faster than light!

So, your straight line comment is right out the window. The words
that follow it don't have any logical connection to it as far as I can
tell.

A "Hohmann least energy co-tangential transfer orbit" is the standard,
conventional method by which an interplanetary spacecraft achieves a
low fuel flight from Earth to a destination planet. That method of
Earth = Mars transfer typically takes 6 to 8 months, since the
Hohmann ellipse is a *curved* heliocentric trajectory going half way
around the Sun to reach Mars. It has as its perihelion point where the
Earth is at launch and its aphelion as the point where Mars is at
arrival. This is standard textbook stuff we've been using since the
60s, you can easily re-familiarise yourself with this if need.

With professor Winglee's magnetic plasma sail propulsion, he is
proposing to bypass that Hohmann long winded elliptical trajectory
business and going for a "straight line" crossing when the Earth
overtakes Mars in its orbit every 780 days (the 'synodic period')
around *opposition* time. 48 million miles is the average minimum
Earth-Mars distance during such close approaches between the two
planets in their respective orbits. Winglee projects speeds of 26,000
miles per hour = 625,000 miles per day for the magnetic plasma sail
spacecraft. At that speed, a mag-sail spacecraft will zip *straight*
across to Mars in 76 days around the *opposition* time between Earth
and Mars. There is not much room here for a curved trajectory in the
Hohmann sense, especially if the *round trip* time is to be further
shortened to just 90 days, as stipulated in the news article:-

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n...arspropulsion/


This is an example of a benefit that I see if you want to transport
equipment across at *speed* ahead of sending human expedition crews to
the surface of the Red Planet. This might be necessary if you want to
build up substantial amounts of infrastructure very quickly. Okay, if
the propulsion is ultimately proven to be 100% viable and *safe* for
humans to travel on a... small boat with its sails adapted to the
breezes of heaven... then sure, let the two way Earth = Mars
crossings be done using magnetic plasma sail propulsion on *manned*
vehicles, where the real benefits of fast transit times for astronauts
would most certainly start to be realised.


snip

But, again, you're changing gears! You began the conversation talking
about Mars, now you're talking about the moon! Heck, you don't need
high speeds to get to the moon. It only takes 3.5 days to get to the
moon along a lunar free return trajectory. That only takes 10.85
km/sec. If you could send plasma pulses across 1 million km, as you
need to do with interplanetary flight, you could send them to the moon
reliably. That means all you've gotta do is wait for the luar craft
to transit across the backside of the moon and be traveling toward
Earth, and then, slow it with your Earth based pulse -into lunar
orbit. Then, you could deorbit with conventional rockets. This gets
you stuff on the moon pretty cheaply.

Where I propose we use the LEO to Moon crossing for zipping small
loads back and forth is purely as a nearby *test bed* for evaluating
the magnetic plasma sail propulsion technology at minimal cost. Of
course the Earth = Moon transit times are very short and will
probably not make using magnetic plasma sail propulsion worthwhile
here. Also LEO = Moon _means_ LEO to *lunar orbit*, where the plasma
generating station is in orbit around the Moon and powered solely
using solar panels (as is the one at LEO). Now you can advise me on
the feasibility of using solar electricity for generating the
plasma... I don't understand the temperature requirements for
generating plasma beams... that part is over to you!


So what seems to be the delay?!

You're kidding right? Jesus, Winglee hasn't even fully characterized
what a magsail is let alone how to build one.

Let's wait until Winglee has completed his US$75,000 advanced
propulsion feasibility studies, and I'm sure NASA will publish his
results in 6 months time with all the *hard numbers* and *equations*
(as opposed to *handwaving*) on thrust versus load versus power versus
.... whatever else.



Abdul Ahad

Where do you live friend?

How is that important?

"william mook" wrote in message
om...
The magnitude of what has been accomplished isn't fully realized.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/204/3
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-52.htm

The X-15 program cost about $1.5 billion and the B52 development
program cost far more.

Scaled composites developed a high-altitude carrier craft similar to
the B52, that exceeded the B52's altitude record, and a sub-orbital
manned spacecraft, for about 1/1000th the cost of these earlier
programs IN TWO YEARS! With a crew of about 60 people iirc the data
presented on the Science Channel.

And scaled composites aircraft carries how big of a bomb load? (Hint: the
B-52 wasn't designed as a high-altitude carrier craft, it was used as one
because it was available. Before that they used, IIRC, B-36s for the earlier
X planes.)

And how fast does SS1 go in level flight? (Hint: the X-15 was designed for
high-speed flight in a variety of environments, and in fact only flew a
mission profile similar to SS1s on a handful of occasions.)

Ami Silberman wrote:

And scaled composites aircraft carries how big of a bomb load? (Hint: the
B-52 wasn't designed as a high-altitude carrier craft, it was used as one
because it was available. Before that they used, IIRC, B-36s for the earlier
X planes.)


B-29 and B-50* IIRC; although there was a plan to carry the X-15 on a
B-36. Also one to carry it on a B-70.

*Actually a P2B; the Navy version of the B-50- this carried the Douglas
Skyrocket.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:


Ami Silberman wrote:

And scaled composites aircraft carries how big of a bomb load? (Hint: the
B-52 wasn't designed as a high-altitude carrier craft, it was used as one
because it was available. Before that they used, IIRC, B-36s for the earlier
X planes.)


B-29 and B-50* IIRC; although there was a plan to carry the X-15 on a
B-36. Also one to carry it on a B-70.

*Actually a P2B; the Navy version of the B-50- this carried the Douglas
Skyrocket.


The B-29 design was popular for drop tests - one of the postwar
Soviet rocket planes had the interesting distinction of being
carried aloft on various flights by an He-111, a B-29, and a
Tu-4 (the latter two being distinguishable only on very close
inspection).

There were plenty of concepts for B-36 carriage, it being such a honking
big plane and all (including the X-15 in some designs). Were B-36s
ever used for any drops aside from the (seemed like a good idea at
the time) FICON tests?

Bill Keel

William C. Keel wrote:


The B-29 design was popular for drop tests - one of the postwar
Soviet rocket planes had the interesting distinction of being
carried aloft on various flights by an He-111, a B-29, and a
Tu-4 (the latter two being distinguishable only on very close
inspection).


I was going through my book on Tupolev aircraft a couple of nights ago,
and was surprised to see that the Soviets appear to have mounted a copy
of the Sperry Ball Turret on the TU-4's underside- which seems somewhat
redundant, as you have the two remote-controlled turrets down there
also. Later this was apparently replaced with a retractable
blind-bombing radar housing.

Pat



There were plenty of concepts for B-36 carriage, it being such a honking
big plane and all (including the X-15 in some designs). Were B-36s
ever used for any drops aside from the (seemed like a good idea at
the time) FICON tests?


Not that I know of; there was also the "Tom-Tom" wingtip carriage
technique for the towing the two F-84's after they joined up with the
aircraft in flight: http://www.air-and-space.com/tomtom.htm and of
course FICON got used operationally with the RF-84K; there were also
three B-36H's that were modified for Rascal missile tests.
The above page has a truly maniacal idea on it- hang a B-47 on either
wingtip of a B-36! I assume the B-36 serves to keep them fueled up till
they are within range of their targets....can you imagine trying to bank
this mess in a turn?
I still like the look on this pilot's face as he eyes the XF-85 Goblin
fighter...rather like he doesn't know whether to laugh, or make out his
last will and testament:
http://www.air-and-space.com/peacemkr/46524b%20l.jpg
Is the guy in the overalls holding a screwdriver, or getting ready to
hand him his Tanto knife as he prepares for his kamikaze mission?

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:



Not that I know of; there was also the "Tom-Tom" wingtip carriage
technique for the towing the two F-84's after they joined up with the
aircraft in flight: http://www.air-and-space.com/tomtom.htm and of
course FICON got used operationally with the RF-84K; there were also
three B-36H's that were modified for Rascal missile tests.
The above page has a truly maniacal idea on it- hang a B-47 on either
wingtip of a B-36! I assume the B-36 serves to keep them fueled up till
they are within range of their targets....can you imagine trying to bank
this mess in a turn?
I still like the look on this pilot's face as he eyes the XF-85 Goblin
fighter...rather like he doesn't know whether to laugh, or make out his
last will and testament:
http://www.air-and-space.com/peacemkr/46524b%20l.jpg
Is the guy in the overalls holding a screwdriver, or getting ready to
hand him his Tanto knife as he prepares for his kamikaze mission?



And I called myself keeping up with B-36 lore - not even close!
I had seen some of the triple-36 notions, but the only match
I can see between B-47s and a B-36 is the engine pods.
Though one of the books referenced in the Goleta page does
tell of an F-84 pilot in trouble (some kind of leak) who
did manage to link up in flight with a B-36 equipped for
TomTom ferrying and later said it was the finest kind of
mission abort he;d ever heard of.

Bill Keel

In article ,
"William C. Keel" writes:
Pat Flannery wrote:



Not that I know of; there was also the "Tom-Tom" wingtip carriage
technique for the towing the two F-84's after they joined up with the
aircraft in flight: http://www.air-and-space.com/tomtom.htm and of
course FICON got used operationally with the RF-84K; there were also
three B-36H's that were modified for Rascal missile tests.
The above page has a truly maniacal idea on it- hang a B-47 on either
wingtip of a B-36! I assume the B-36 serves to keep them fueled up till
they are within range of their targets....can you imagine trying to bank
this mess in a turn?
I still like the look on this pilot's face as he eyes the XF-85 Goblin
fighter...rather like he doesn't know whether to laugh, or make out his
last will and testament:
http://www.air-and-space.com/peacemkr/46524b%20l.jpg
Is the guy in the overalls holding a screwdriver, or getting ready to
hand him his Tanto knife as he prepares for his kamikaze mission?



And I called myself keeping up with B-36 lore - not even close!
I had seen some of the triple-36 notions, but the only match
I can see between B-47s and a B-36 is the engine pods.
Though one of the books referenced in the Goleta page does
tell of an F-84 pilot in trouble (some kind of leak) who
did manage to link up in flight with a B-36 equipped for
TomTom ferrying and later said it was the finest kind of
mission abort he;d ever heard of.

The operational system was FICON, which used the controlled trapeze &
brace system in the bomb bay to carry, launch, and retrieve a single
RF-84K. A neat system - it allowed photos to be snapped, or a Mk 7
nuke to be delivered, far beyond the B-36's, let alone the F-84's
range. The fighter pilot had the advantage of being able to leae the
cockpit, & stretch out, eat, & use the head.

Tom-Tom was a horse of a different color. It grew out of studies by
Dr. Richard Vogt, formerly of Blohm & Voss, that indicated that
extending the span of an aircraft by attaching flexibly-hinged,
free-floating sections to the tips would increase its cruise
efficiency. It was only a short leap to decide that the free-floating
tips could just as easily be other aircraft. He sold sonefolks at
Wright-Pat on the idea, and Tip-Tow and Tom-Tom were born.
Tip-Tow wS the initial trial - It started with a pair of Culver PQ-14
drones (Which could also be piloted, adn wwere in this case), linking
up to a C-47. That seemed to go O.K. The next step was to link a
pair of plank-wing F-84Gs to a B-29. That didn't go so very well.
One of the F-84s started to divergently oscillate whiel attached to
the B-29, and all 3 airplanes were lost. The final flight trial was
"Tom-Tom", which had 2 swept-wing RF-84Fs hooking up to a B-36.
This worked, kinda, but the project was shot down due to a surfeit of
Teutonic Handwaving - Oil supply to the windmilling engines of the
F-84s was a problem, as was developing a linked autopilot system to
prevent those pesky divergent oscillations. The physiological
problems were completely ignored - the F-84 pilots were stuck in their
cockits for the duration (As in 24+ hours). That means you're only
eating and driinking what you've squeezed into the cockpit with you,
you'll only get one shot at the relief tube before it freezes, you're
firmly strapped in without even the option of wiggling, and you're
cold-soaking in the -50 (F or C, it makes no difference) with no
heat. (Jet fighter heat comes from hot air tapped from the compressor.
The engine doesn't go, you don't stay toasty.)

(Vogt, BTW, is a favorite of the Luft '46 folks - the ones who believe
that the Germans invented the 21st (or is it the 24th & 1/2 Centuries
in the last months of WW2, and wrote it all down on Bierstube napkins
before the fall of the 12 Year Reich. This is a good example of what
doesn't get taken into account - the concept is theooretically O.K.,
but making itwork is a gold-plated S.O.B., and better systems (Such as
U-2s, and Flying Boom-type refuelling) are easier to develop.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Ami Silberman" wrote in message ...
"william mook" wrote in message
om...
The magnitude of what has been accomplished isn't fully realized.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/204/3
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-52.htm

The X-15 program cost about $1.5 billion and the B52 development
program cost far more.

Scaled composites developed a high-altitude carrier craft similar to
the B52, that exceeded the B52's altitude record, and a sub-orbital
manned spacecraft, for about 1/1000th the cost of these earlier
programs IN TWO YEARS! With a crew of about 60 people iirc the data
presented on the Science Channel.

And scaled composites aircraft carries how big of a bomb load? (Hint: the
B-52 wasn't designed as a high-altitude carrier craft, it was used as one
because it was available. Before that they used, IIRC, B-36s for the earlier
X planes.)

And how fast does SS1 go in level flight? (Hint: the X-15 was designed for
high-speed flight in a variety of environments, and in fact only flew a
mission profile similar to SS1s on a handful of occasions.)

I agree, America got its money's worth with these programs. My point
is that a private initiative can focus on the money making potential
and pare away all the stuff that doesn't contribute to money making.
Strategists take note. Commercial space vehicles are very unlikely to
be effective weapons systems for this very reason.