Solar Power Satellite Concept

On Sep 8, 9:43*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...





William Mook wrote:

On Sep 7, 2:04*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 1db3b1b1-11ae-4562-83e1-377ea9825ba0
@m1g2000vbh.googlegroups.com, says...

Yeah, Jeff got that one wrong. *Just as you got the one wrong about
the design status of my ET derived launch system.

You might want to read the manual for a modern engineering
workstation.

http://www.flightlevelengineering.com/

I've got 20 years of experience writing engineering software (some of
that has been supporting customers in the aerospace engineering field). *
I know all about garbage in/garbage out when it comes to these sorts of
napkin drawings. *CFD software is getting better all the time, but it's
still a poor substitute for wind tunnel and flight testing.

Have you run a fatigue analysis on your wing structures yet? *How about
a vibration analysis? *Is there any coupling between your dynamics and
control model and the results from your vibration analysis?

I agree that's why we had a few universities do wind tunnel tests with
models.

I don't think he understood the question, Jeff...

Clearly. *

Nonsense. I fully understood the question. It was the answer you're
not understanding. The answer was yes.

This clear lack of understanding of the details is why he
thinks his concept (napkin drawing) is an actual design. *

Bull****. The answer was yes. I've done all these things. The
important difference for the ET based launcher was that all the
elements are lifted equally so active feedback is possible, and loads
are far less than in the Shuttle. The ET is actually over-designed
for this application. As far as fatique, if you look at the vibration
induced by solid fueled engines, liquid fueled engines and aerospike
engines like the J2T-250k and the RS-2200 you will see that the
vibration levels of the aerospike engine driven vehicle will be far
far less than the Shuttle as well. Again, making the ET over-designed
for this application.


The fact that his "design" relies on so many technologies which have
never flown on an operational vehicle the size of shuttle ET would scare
away any investor with half a brain. *

More nonesense. Aerospike has flown on the N1, and has rumored to
have flown on a few secret projects as well. The N1 was larger than
the shuttle. I gave a point by point rebuttal of your foolish
comments in your previous post. Suffice to say, your assertion here
is wrong.


He's got the makings of at least 5
R&D programs with the aerospike engines, the cross-fed propellants, the
inflatable wings, the inflatable TPS, and the capture and towing of the
gliding vehicle back to the launch site. *

Nonsense. All of these technologies have flown and an extensive data
set is preserved in NASA technical libraries and among various
qualified vendors who have provided firm price quotes. This is what
investors would look for it I were to seek investors.

If funded, this would be such a disaster of a program

Nonsense. There is no basis whatever for this conclusion.

that it would make
the X-33 program look like a resounding success by comparison.

More stuff and nonsense. Your comment presumes that the X-33 program
was a failure for some technical reason. It wasn't. The X-33 was
abandoned by NASA. The plug was pulled on the X-33 program
Construction of the prototype was some 85% assembled with 96% of the
parts and the launch facility 100% complete when the program was
canceled by NASA in 2001. NASA had invested $922 million in the
project before cancellation and Lockheed Martin a further $357
million. Lockheed felt that the X-33 was viable. Lockheed Martin
deemed that continuing development of the X-33 privately without
government support would not be profitable.

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

On Sep 8, 9:49*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article dc8591ea-da30-4f00-8100-577f8f16a2f5
@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com, says...



Does pat even know where the CG of the empty ET is? *Or why they
loaded the dense oxygen up front? *Or why a rocket is more stable if
as it empties the CG moves back? *Or done a CG estimate by adding
weight equal to the ET itself AFT of the rear bulkhead? *No, obviously
he hasn't so he has just revealed himself to be an idiot, and you've
revealed yourself to be an ass.

Do you know what phugoid mens Fred? *I doubt it.

Just so you know, you're spouting trivia that any aerospace engineer
would learn in his required undergraduate introduction to aircraft
design class (provided he or she didn't learn such trivia while building
and flying model rockets or model aircraft as a teenager). *

Wait a minute, I answered a question about how the wings deployed, and
I used the term phugoid. Freddie in responding to that made a snide
comment about me using phugoid. I said do you know what it means
Freddie? More pointless abuse! Now, you come along in a tag team
match and lecture me about how simple the word is. Hey, I used it
because it was the best word to describe what was going on when I
answered the question - you and Freddie are making a big deal out of
it. Get a grip dude! hahaha.

Congrats! *You're now qualified to carry on a conversation with a 20
year old engineering student. *This does not inspire confidence in your
launch vehicle concept in any way, shape, or form.

Utter bilge. You are so full of humbug it hurts to read what you
write.

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

On Sep 8, 2:06*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 9/8/2010 4:52 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:



In article857cfbea-3269-428f-97bc-6d9d000e4692@
11g2000yqq.googlegroups.com, says...

On Sep 7, 4:20 pm, Jeff *wrote:
In article8ca3fad7-25b4-4439-a437-24c9e8fa7558
@i5g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says...

I did subsonic tests only of the winged structure to get moments and
lift right on 1:100 scale. *I relied on published data for transonic

Truly this is only a first step. *The tricky part is those folding
wings. *I want to see the deployment of those tested in a wind tunnel.
Heck, I'd settle for seeing the design of how they fold. *Care to share?

Think of an accordian and an airbag and you have most of it.

Inflatable wings made of flexible material or are these made of
conventional materials such as aluminum? *The details here are sorely
lacking. *Even with this scant bit of info, to my knowledge there has
never been a wing on an operational aircraft made in the way you're
describing.

The wings shown on his drawings look like something taken off of a DC-9,
not something inflatable.

What about the shape of a DC-9 planform or any planform makes it
impossible to implement in inflatable form?

Also, if they inflate there is no reason for
the slot shown in the side of the ET

I said there is no slot. There is an attached shroud that also
doubles as a strake in the hypersonic regime.

for them to fold into,

More stuff and nonsense. I said several posts ago that there is not
slot and that the wings don't fold into a slot. I posted five papers
describing how the wings collapsed into the shroud and how the shroud
worked as a strake to stabilize the ET shaped airframe as it re-
entered the atmosphere.

I've already described this in great detail. But, here you are
repeating the same bull**** you said before as if I said nothing. You
and Jeffie's tag team tactics are laughable and sad really. Do your
bosses know you're wasting you time in such fruitless activity?
Sheez.


which is
longer than it needs to be anyway,

Nonsense. The shroud is attached to the outside, and the leading edge
of the shroud trails into a strake that helps stability at higher
speeds while protecting the foldaway wing.

given the length of the wings shown

You make a series of unfortunate assumptions all of which are wrong
and then use your wrong-headed assumptions to make equally wrong
headed conclusions and then say abusive things about me. hahaha - the
only people you are hurting are yourselves.

As far as inflatable wings for spacecraft recovery, although it was
never used operationally, remember the inflatable Rogallo parawing for
the Gemini:http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers...araglider%2004...
There was also some investigation into using it to recover the first
stage of a Saturn I.

Yes.

If you really did want to recover a ET, sticking one of these inside the
intertank structure would make a hell of a lot more sense than trying to
put wings on it,

We looked into a number of features.

although the parawing would have to be mighty big to
let it land on water slowly enough that it could surf over the surface
without collapsing

Crashing into the water is not recommended if you plan to reuse the
hardware. Air tow is the best option. In order to make it the best
option you've got to get the L/D in the right range. This is the
challenge of an inflatable wing and leaves lesser L/D lift like the
Rogallo out.

(keeping the propellant tanks pressurized,
Atlas-style would help a lot)

Yes - more so during re-entry.

The big problem is of course that a ET
isn't designed for surviving reentry,

Yes.

and adding a TPS covering on it
that would let it survive will make it a lot heavier..

That's one way. Another is to create a shock wave in front of the
airframe, and fly behind it. This provides a much lower mass system
than covering every inch with material.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...fx_XufMo-PnfZg


.although when
empty it might have fairly low heating loads on

Yes, especially if there is slight L/D in the hypersonic range. 1.2
would do to control rate of descent, which controls the density
altitude you fly at, which controls drag which controls deceleration
and heat loading.

it compared to the
Shuttle, as its light weight for its size would mean it would decelerate
fairly quickly at high altitude, like the Lockheed Venture Star was
supposed to do.

Correct.

Pat

On Sep 8, 2:17*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 9/8/2010 5:13 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:



Perhaps you should. *There has been some *research* into inflatable
wings, but they've never been used on any operational aircraft, to my
knowledge.

CIA apparently used some of the Goodyear Inflatoplanes for extracting
agents from hostile territory. I imagine its rubber structure meant it
had a very low radar signature other than the engine.
The concept was that the agent would be inserted with the folded up
Inflatoplane in a big storage bag, bury or otherwise conceal it at some
remote hidden location (maybe hide it submerged in a lake?) and then
return to inflate it and leave when they wished to.

Pat

Yep

On Sep 8, 4:33*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article
tatelephone,
says...



On 9/8/2010 5:13 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

Perhaps you should. *There has been some *research* into inflatable
wings, but they've never been used on any operational aircraft, to my
knowledge.

CIA apparently used some of the Goodyear Inflatoplanes for extracting
agents from hostile territory. I imagine its rubber structure meant it
had a very low radar signature other than the engine.
The concept was that the agent would be inserted with the folded up
Inflatoplane in a big storage bag, bury or otherwise conceal it at some
remote hidden location (maybe hide it submerged in a lake?) and then
return to inflate it and leave when they wished to.

O.k. I'll have to ammend my comment to inflatable wings have not been
used on an operational aircraft as large as the shuttle ET. *Scaling the
concept up to ET size may prove problematic (still an R&D problem).

Nonsense. Wings have been built far larger than the one's I'm
proposing here. The surface area needed to lift a 49.6 tonne aircraft
is less than that of a B-737. The Lockheed P-791 is a neutral
buoyancy aircraft that lifts 5 tons but the flexible structure is
about 10x the area I'm calling for here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKAyJ3zKTus

The point is, the surface area of the wings is far less than the
surface areas of flexible fabrics already being used in other
aerospace applications and there is no real basis for the objection
you've made here.

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

On Sep 8, 4:49*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article
tatelephone,
says...



The wings shown on his drawings look like something taken off of a DC-
9,
not something inflatable. Also, if they inflate there is no reason for
the slot shown in the side of the ET for them to fold into, which is
longer than it needs to be anyway, given the length of the wings shown

He insists that the wings fold up to fit into those small sections on
the *outside* of the tank and he insists that there are *no* slots cut
into the ET tankage.

Correct.

*He does seem schizophrenic when it comes to the
drawings

Nonsense.

and the mercurial descriptions he posts in these groups. *

Nonsense. I get angry when personally abused.

I'm
convinced he has about as much aerospace engineering expertise as a
sophomore in an aerospace engineering college.

See? I'm convinced you're living with your mother and operating out
of her basement.

As far as inflatable wings for spacecraft recovery, although it was
never used operationally, remember the inflatable Rogallo parawing for
the Gemini:
http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers...araglider%2004...
There was also some investigation into using it to recover the first
stage of a Saturn I.
If you really did want to recover a ET, sticking one of these inside the
intertank structure would make a hell of a lot more sense than trying to
put wings on it, although the parawing would have to be mighty big to
let it land on water slowly enough that it could surf over the surface
without collapsing (keeping the propellant tanks pressurized,
Atlas-style would help a lot)

Don't forget he proposes to snag the gliding stage mid-air (ala Corona
return capsule) and tow it back, presumably to the launch site.

Correct.

*I
didn't bother asking how he expected that combination to land

The tow plane releases the returning rocket element and they land
separately.

because I
thought the capture and towing of something so large and heavy was
absurd to begin with.

Why do you think that? A 50 tonnes weight gliding on wings with a 12
to 1 L/D would have 4,167 kg lift induced drag. This is easily
handled by a B-737 many of which are available at rock bottom prices
from airlines.


*You'd need something as big, or bigger, than an
AN-225 to pull this off.

Nonsense. Even a sophmore aerospace student living their mom's
basement, someone like you, can see that a 50 ton glider is easily
towed by a B-737.

For someone of even less mental capacity take a look at this picture

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...le_Transit.jpg

Here a 78 tonne Shuttle is carried atop a Boeing 747 and flown
anywhere at high speed.

We're talking about towing a 49.6 tonne ET airframe behind a plane - a
far easier proposition.

The big problem is of course that a ET
isn't designed for surviving reentry, and adding a TPS covering on it
that would let it survive will make it a lot heavier...although when
empty it might have fairly low heating loads on it compared to the
Shuttle, as its light weight for its size would mean it would decelerate
fairly quickly at high altitude, like the Lockheed Venture Star was
supposed to do.

Oh, but he plans on using an inflatable TPS on the nose of the ET for
reentry. *

Yes.

It's all good Pat. *Trust him, he knows what he's doing. *

I know more than you dude. lol.

He invented
and patented the first practical PC based cash register, he's *got* to
know what he's doing. *(you can't see me rolling my eyes on Usenet, can
you?)

You can see the firm price quotes I have from qualified vendors can't
you?


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

Can you see what I'm doing with my finger Jeff?

Good.

On Sep 8, 9:54*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 9/8/2010 12:49 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:

Don't forget he proposes to snag the gliding stage mid-air (ala Corona
return capsule) and tow it back, presumably to the launch site. *I
didn't bother asking how he expected that combination to land because I
thought the capture and towing of something so large and heavy was
absurd to begin with. *You'd need something as big, or bigger, than an
AN-225 to pull this off.

Wait till you see this; the giant helicopter that grabs Saturn V first
stages in mid-air:http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1045/1
NASA said "No thank you.". :-D

Pat

This is an unworkable concept. Mid-air recovery of a 49.6 tonne
glider by a Boeing 747 tow plane is vastly simpler.

On Sep 9, 12:33*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
In article
otatelephone,
says...

On 9/8/2010 5:13 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

Perhaps you should. *There has been some *research* into inflatable
wings, but they've never been used on any operational aircraft, to my
knowledge.

CIA apparently used some of the Goodyear Inflatoplanes for extracting
agents from hostile territory. I imagine its rubber structure meant it
had a very low radar signature other than the engine.
The concept was that the agent would be inserted with the folded up
Inflatoplane in a big storage bag, bury or otherwise conceal it at some
remote hidden location (maybe hide it submerged in a lake?) and then
return to inflate it and leave when they wished to.

O.k. I'll have to ammend my comment to inflatable wings have not been
used on an operational aircraft as large as the shuttle ET. *Scaling the
concept up to ET size may prove problematic (still an R&D problem).

Is there any evidence that these things were ever used operationally
for anything? *I'm not buying the CIA story. *There are easier ways to
get in and out of places.

So far as I see, it was only ever an experimental aircraft.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
*man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
*all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --George Bernard Shaw

Remember James Bond in Octopussy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO8pAOQ-f78

On Sep 9, 12:35*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
In article
otatelephone,
says...

The wings shown on his drawings look like something taken off of a DC-
9,
not something inflatable. Also, if they inflate there is no reason for
the slot shown in the side of the ET for them to fold into, which is
longer than it needs to be anyway, given the length of the wings shown

He insists that the wings fold up to fit into those small sections on
the *outside* of the tank and he insists that there are *no* slots cut
into the ET tankage. *He does seem schizophrenic when it comes to the
drawings and the mercurial descriptions he posts in these groups. *I'm
convinced he has about as much aerospace engineering expertise as a
sophomore in an aerospace engineering college.

I think you give him far too much credit.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson

I think you're an ass Freddie.

On Sep 9, 10:49*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 8p-
lephone,
says...



On 9/8/2010 12:49 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:

Don't forget he proposes to snag the gliding stage mid-air (ala Corona
return capsule) and tow it back, presumably to the launch site. *I
didn't bother asking how he expected that combination to land because I
thought the capture and towing of something so large and heavy was
absurd to begin with. *You'd need something as big, or bigger, than an
AN-225 to pull this off.

Wait till you see this; the giant helicopter that grabs Saturn V first
stages in mid-air:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1045/1
NASA said "No thank you.". :-D

Quote from above:

* *"But back in 1965 the company made a proposal so bold that
* * it bordered on insane: a giant helicopter with a rotor
* * diameter bigger than the length of a football field,
* * capable not merely of transporting a Saturn 5 first stage,
* * but of actually catching it in midair as it fell on a
* * parachute. Strike that?it did not border on insane, it
* * was insane."

That about sums it up. *;-)

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

The dry weight of the Saturn V first stage was 131 metric tons.
Nearly 2.5x the weight of the element I've designed and nearly 4x the
weight of the ET. The largest helicopter ever built, the Russian
MI-12 Homer lifts 40 tonnes. The speed of the helicopter is far less
than that of an airplane so getting them to meet up is a problem. The
sink rate of the Saturn V on a parachute is far higher than a glider
so time to do the maneuver is severely shortened. The trajectory of
the parachuting Saturn V and the flight of the helicopter don't mesh
well. The down draft of the helicopter adversely impacts the
operation of the chute collapsing it.

In short helicopter recovery has many challenges facing it.

Turning the ET into a 50 ton glider allows it to be towed back to the
launch center by a B-737 aircraft where it is released for landing.