Time to Think ‘Horizontal’ for Future Space Launches

On Sep 28, 8:37*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article eca1e4fe-7500-42a1-96d1-
, says...



On Sep 27, 8:29*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Has anyone ever used a tow plane to grab onto a glider as it
descended?

Yes.

I can't think of a case of that being done.

Typically gliders are launched with tow planes, not grabbed after
being released. *But, with the right equipment it can be done, and has
been done in test. *Its not that hard.

Cite? *Exactly what kind of glider and tow plane was used?

Why do you need to know this?


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

On Sep 28, 9:03*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...



William Mook wrote:
Of course it could. *It means more than what you've done to support
your view that the idea is unworkable.

And this rather shows where you lose the bubble on being a 'real
engineer'. *People don't have to prove your wet dreams won't work; you
have to prove that they will.

It's hard to buy into Mook's claims that his "design" will work when he
can't even demonstrate proper reasoning skills. *

You make such claims all the time, and routinely show an abject lack
of reasoning skills.


I'd still like to see his "FEA" of his design. *I'm sure it would be
good for a laugh. *

Not as good as your idiotic diatribes I'm sure.

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

In article bbbbb939-3b2d-4e33-b518-
, says...

On Sep 28, 8:13*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 14b39657-93cd-4e67-9472-6773e59eac66
@r10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com, says...



On Sep 27, 5:05*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
What's wrong with your design is that it's "unique" to put it
lightly. *

In what way?

Really? *For someone who claims to be practicing "real engineering", you
really don't grasp the concept that things that are different just
aren't the same. *Again, good luck.


Jeff, you didn't answer the question. How is what I'm doing with my
launcher unique?

I've pointed the "unique" ares of your design out to you several times.
Specifically, they are the R&D programs that will be required for each
of your non-spaceflight proven technologies. Anything not flight proven
is considered "unique" in aerospace. The more "unique" technologies you
include in any given design, the higher the R&D risk becomes. You've
included so many "unique" technologies in your "design" that it invites
open laughter from aerospace engineers who don't have a vested interest
in the project.

Surely anyone can see the similarities my system has
with pre-existing systems.

Apples and oranges.

Here is one, of about half a dozen, example: You point to a video of an
inflatable wing that looks to be the size needed by a small remote
controlled plane and say such an inflatable wing will work during
reentry on a launch vehicle stage the size of an ET. An flight proven
inflatable wing on a small UAV is not the same as a flight proven wing
on an ET sized reentry vehicle.

Things that are different, just aren't the same.

haha - this is an argument we are having
with our patent examiners - lol. They say many of the elements we
wish to patent are NOT unique! So, how can a patent examiner come to
a conclusion diametrically opposed to your view? Obviously one of
you has to be wrong! Which is it?

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/h..._systems.shtml

To recap - examiner's observations of non-uniqueness;

*Use of ET sized airframe - the Shuttle External Tank is already
flying

Big hairy deal. The shuttle derived launch vehicle which NASA will be
developing in the next few years will do the same. That's not an issue.

*Putting an aerospike nozzle on the base of the ET - obvious to anyone
practiced in the art

Except that an *aerospike nozzle* has *never* flown on any orbital
launch vehicle. The N-1 did *not* have an aerospike nozzle. The N-1
had multiple conventional bell shaped nozzles which were arranged in a
circular configuration. You've got an R&D program here.

Things that are different, just aren't the same.

*Parallel Staging multiple ET airframes - the Shuttle External Tank
already parallel staged

True, if you are referring to the SRB's dropping off when the SSME's are
still under power. Not true if you're talking about the ET
disconnecting from the shuttle because that's done in free-fall, not
under power. At any rate, parallel staging is nothing new, so I'm not
sure why you keep dragging this one up.

*Cross Feeding Propellant to implement multiple stages with common
element - the Shuttle External Tank already cross feeds propellant to
Shuttle Orbiter.

The shuttle does not cross feed cryogenic propellants from one tank to
another, let alone one stage to another. There is only one LH2 tank and
one LOX tank on the shuttle ET and they feed directly to the orbiter's
SSME's. This is absolutely not an example of cross feeding propellants
from one tank to another. This is an R&D program.

Things that are different, just aren't the same.

*Inflatable Nose Thermal Shield - DC-Y, and many ICBMs already use
nose shield and inflatable shield go back to 1964

DC-Y was not a flight vehicle, it was a concept that was never
developed. I'd like to see an example of an inflatable nose shield on
an operational (i.e. deployed) ICBM. Cite? If you can't cite open
literature, then the technology isn't exactly "commercial off the
shelf" and will need to be independently developed in the commercial
world.

This is an R&D program.

http://www.jamesoberg.com/112003irv_his.html

its use to protect ET airframe is obvious to anyone practiced in the
art.

You completely missed the point that Oberg was making. To *some*
engineers, inflatable reentry vehicle technology certainly *looks*
promising, but the several R&D projects in that area show that there is
still much R&D to be done. Your statement that application of this
technology "to protect ET airframe is obvious to anyone practiced in the
art" is an absolute falsehood. The very article you cite is proof of
that.

You left out the vertical landing on the "catcher's mit". Great for
baseball, not proven on a vertical landing rocket with an annular
aerospike engine. Have you modeled the air flow interaction of the
engine exhaust with the air near ground and the "catcher's mit"? Any
surprises there? Note that there were surprises with DC-X landing
vertically on some of the surfaces they tried. This is an R&D program.

You also left out the capture and towing of the glider as well as the
transition from gliding flight to vertically powered flight. Those are
certainly "unique". This is an R&D program.

I'm sure I'm leaving out other "unique" aspects of your "design" which
constitute other R&D programs.


You can keep saying that your "design" will work, but that doesn't stop
it from being laughable because the whole thing is one R&D program piled
on top of a stack of other R&D programs.

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

In article b11df2c2-8589-4402-b50d-
, says...

On Sep 28, 8:36*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article t-
elephone,
says...

Has anyone ever used a tow plane to grab onto a glider as it
descended?
I can't think of a case of that being done.

Not to my knowledge, but it won't stop Mook from claiming that it's an
easy thing to do.

Well its something I've done already

On the scale required by your design? I don't think so Mook. Try
again.

You can snag parachutes on a descending space capsule with an
aircraft;
that was the standard method of grabbing spy satellite film return capsules.
But hooking on to a glider in flight would be difficult to do. You would
have to fly above it or ahead of it and figure out some way to attach to
it with a line or boom of some sort.

It would be similar to snagging a hose used for in air refueling (i.e.
the method used before refueling booms became common), only instead of
hooking up a hose, you're hooking up a cable strong enough to actually
tow the glider.

Yep.


I'm not saying this would absolutely work because the devil is in the
details.

That's why we did it on a couple of small experimental craft.

Not with a glider as big as a shuttle ET. Try again.

*Based on the sheer size of Mook's ET derived stage, I'd say
you'd need something along the lines of an AN-225 to pull this off
simply due to the massive drag that the ET derived stage will cause. *

Have you actually computed the drag? The B-737 has adequate power
for the wings chosen and the speeds we fly at.

Enough power for all conceivable situations, including an engine out on
the 737? How about flight through turbulence or wind shear? How's that
737 fare while towing an ET glider?

The shuttle carrier aircraft have a hard enough time with the much
smaller shuttle on its back due to the drag of the thing. *

Do you know anything? Really? haha - I was visiting the guy who
designed the structural system that carries the orbiter on back of the
privately owned 747. Bert is his name, he just turned 90 and he's a
good friend. So, I'm familiar with the figures.

A rigid mount is still not the same as towing. You'll get transients
due to the fact that the cable is flexible. You don't have that on the
747/shuttle combo. Things that are different, just aren't the same.

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

In article bb44d531-7fee-4f5c-83bc-
, says...

On Sep 28, 8:37*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article eca1e4fe-7500-42a1-96d1-
, says...



On Sep 27, 8:29*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Has anyone ever used a tow plane to grab onto a glider as it
descended?

Yes.

I can't think of a case of that being done.

Typically gliders are launched with tow planes, not grabbed after
being released. *But, with the right equipment it can be done, and has
been done in test. *Its not that hard.

Cite? *Exactly what kind of glider and tow plane was used?

Why do you need to know this?

You claim you've proven that it will work. I want to know what planes
were used to see how close they would be to an ET based glider and a
Boeing 737.

Things that are different just aren't the same.

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

In article
tatelephone,
says...

On 9/28/2010 4:36 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

I'm not saying this would absolutely work because the devil is in the
details. Based on the sheer size of Mook's ET derived stage, I'd say
you'd need something along the lines of an AN-225 to pull this off
simply due to the massive drag that the ET derived stage will cause.

Which begs the question of how well you expect the ET to glide, being
that big and light and draggy, wings or no wings.
The Soviets did carry their Energia core tankage around by air:
http://www.buran-energia.com/vmt-atlant/vmt-desc.php

True, but this wasn't necessarily easy. As far as drag and thrust goes,
the article says:

The aircraft was re-engined with more powerful Dobrynin VD-7MD
non-afterburning turbojets rated at 10,750 kgp for take off.

Sounds like the original engines weren't up to the task.

The text also said:

In fact the 3M-T undergo so many modifications that it's not a
simple evolution of the 3M but a new plane.

This is backed up by a drawing which shows how much of the structure was
unmodified versus the rest of the plane which was a mixture of modified
sections and some completely new sections.

It certainly looks like it was a huge undertaking to design, build, and
fly this aircraft. It's my opinion that Mook's B-737 used to snag and
tow his ET derived stages may prove to be a similar undertaking,
resulting in a very unique, possibly expensive to maintain, aircraft.

Jeff
--
42

On Sep 28, 11:35*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article bbbbb939-3b2d-4e33-b518-
, says...





On Sep 28, 8:13*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 14b39657-93cd-4e67-9472-6773e59eac66
@r10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com, says...

On Sep 27, 5:05*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
What's wrong with your design is that it's "unique" to put it
lightly. *

In what way?

Really? *For someone who claims to be practicing "real engineering", you
really don't grasp the concept that things that are different just
aren't the same. *Again, good luck.

Jeff, you didn't answer the question. *How is what I'm doing with my
launcher unique? *

I've pointed the "unique" ares of your design out to you several times. *

Not in any convincing way. Others believe them not to be unique
enough to patents. What are they missing?

Specifically, they are the R&D programs that will be required for each
of your non-spaceflight proven technologies. *

R&D is required for any new spaceflight system. There is nothing to
suggest what I propose makes anything harder than it otherwise might
for a system of this size.

Anything not flight proven
is considered "unique" in aerospace. *

Well, that's a usage of the term that isn't followed by the patent
examiner who is an aerospace engineer.

The more "unique" technologies you
include in any given design, the higher the R&D risk becomes. *

You haven't really defined the term or shown how anything I've
proposed meets that definition. Nor have you made a convincing
connection between any item and higher than expected costs in getting
it to flight status at a reasonable level of reliability and cost.

You've
included so many "unique" technologies in your "design" that it invites
open laughter from aerospace engineers who don't have a vested interest
in the project.

So, you say you have no vested interest in any competing system and
have no reason whatever denigrate this as a competing system in any
way shape or form? You don't have any clients or work involving space
power or heavy lift launchers? or launchers in general?



Surely anyone can see the similarities my system has
with pre-existing systems. *

Apples and oranges. *

Nonsense when patent examiners say my system isn't unique enough for a
patent citing the very systems you say are apples and oranges.

Here is one, of about half a dozen, example: *You point to a video of an
inflatable wing that looks to be the size needed by a small remote
controlled plane and say such an inflatable wing will work during
reentry on a launch vehicle stage the size of an ET. *

Alright.

An flight proven
inflatable wing on a small UAV is not the same as a flight proven wing
on an ET sized reentry vehicle. *

I agree. Their size is different.

Things that are different, just aren't the same.

Sure their size is different. No one's done what I propose with the
ET yet. Even so, despite the difference in size the systems are
similar in many respects, and the same in some respects. So, things
are different, except when they're the same.

The point is its not a totally outlandish sort of thing. In fact, the
weight estimates and cost estimates for the development program to
bring about this feature is very well understood. If you wish someone
to believe this not to be the case then you have to do better than
talk in vague generalities and say specifically why an inflatable fold
away wing cannot work in this application.

haha - this is an argument we are having
with our patent examiners - lol. *They say many of the elements we
wish to patent are NOT unique! *So, how can a patent examiner come to
a conclusion diametrically opposed to your view? * Obviously one of
you has to be wrong! * Which is it?

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/h...ix_vtol_ssto_a...

To recap - examiner's observations of non-uniqueness;

*Use of ET sized airframe - the Shuttle External Tank is already
flying

Big hairy deal. *The shuttle derived launch vehicle which NASA will be
developing in the next few years will do the same. *That's not an issue..

Alright, so this isn't unique.

*Putting an aerospike nozzle on the base of the ET - obvious to anyone
practiced in the art

Except that an *aerospike nozzle* has *never* flown on any orbital
launch vehicle. *

That's not germane. You said it was 'unique' - and the examiner said
its easy to see that if you put a rocket on an ET you can lift an ET
without a Space Shuttle and SRB attached. So, who's right? That's
all I'm asking. Why does my patent examiner say something is not
unique and you do?

The N-1 did *not* have an aerospike nozzle. *

Yes it did. Experts in the field describe it as such. Why don't
you? Just to win a stupid argument on usenet? lol.

To achieve the 9.2 million pounds of thrust with the NK-15s they had
available a large number of NK-15s clustered around the outer rim of
the lower-stage booster. The "inside" of the ring of six engines would
be open, with air piped into the hole via inlets near the top of the
booster stage.
The air would be mixed with the exhaust of the inside ring in order to
provide thrust augmentation, as well as additional combustion with the
deliberately fuel-rich exhaust.

The ring-like arrangement of so many rocket engine nozzles on the N1's
first stage created a crude version of a toroidal aerospike engine
system; more conventional aerospike engines were also studied for the
N-1.

The N-1
had multiple conventional bell shaped nozzles which were arranged in a
circular configuration. *

Yes, and that is one method of implementing an aerospike nozzle.
Segmented combustion chambers are another. Continuous combustion yet
another. The nozzle in the center can be physical, or truncated, and
gas fed in as in the case of the N-1. The ring had six nozzles at the
center of the larger outer ring with air fed into it to maintain the
flow of the outer ring as an aerospike.


You've got an R&D program here.

I agree. ANY new launcher has an R&D program facing it. The question
is, is this the most effective use of resources to produce the
greatest possible return? I believe it is, which is why I propose
it. You obviously believe not. Why is that?

Things that are different, just aren't the same.

Except when they are.

The Rocketdyne Aerospike produced from 50,000 lbf to 250,000 lbf of
thrust based on the J2 pump, L-1, 200,000 lbf, L-2 100,000 lbf. The
N-1 as stated produced 9.7 million pounds force of thrust, the AMPS-1
18,000 lbf of thrust based on the RL-10 with exotic propellants
fluorine and lithium along with hydrogen.

I'm proposing the use of 3 RS-68 pump sets to feed an annular
aerospike engine using liquid hydrogen and oxygen producing 2,200,000
lbf thrust.

This will be a challenge and involve significant development dollars.
It is not unique however or as bizarre or unbelievable as you would
have us believe.

An aerospike engine is actually preferred in a parallel staged
launcher equipped with cross-feeding.

http://www.astronautix.com/engines/aeroster.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/amps1.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/j2t250k.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/l1loster.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/l2loster.htm
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall...aerospike.html

*Parallel Staging multiple ET airframes - the Shuttle External Tank
already parallel staged

True, if you are referring to the SRB's dropping off when the SSME's are
still under power. *

Alright. Well, since I'm lifting each ET derived airframe with its
own engine, and four are dropped away while three continue under power
for the first stage, and two drop away later as a third continues
under power for the second stage - its an example of parallel staging
in the very way you talk about.

Not true if you're talking about the ET
disconnecting from the shuttle because that's done in free-fall, not
under power.

True, but since the ET doesn't have power throughout the entire ascent
while attached to the orbiter which is powered.

*At any rate, parallel staging is nothing new, so I'm not
sure why you keep dragging this one up.

So we agree. That's fine. Still looking for what's unique.

*Cross Feeding Propellant to implement multiple stages with common
element - the Shuttle External Tank already cross feeds propellant to
Shuttle Orbiter.

The shuttle does not cross feed cryogenic propellants from one tank to
another,

Neither do I in my design. You can cross feed tanks, but you can
cross feed engines too.

let alone one stage to another. *

Yes it does. The orbiter is a separate stage from the ET.

There is only one LH2 tank and
one LOX tank on the shuttle ET and they feed directly to the orbiter's
SSME's.

Through lines that flow out of one air frame and into another through
quick disconnect hardware.

The liquid oxygen tank feeds into a 17 in diameter feed line that
conveys the liquid oxygen through the intertank, then outside the ET
to the aft right-hand ET/orbiter disconnect umbilical. The 17 in
diameter feed line permits liquid oxygen to flow at approximately
2,787 lb/s with the SSMEs operating at 104%

The LH2 tank transmits the liquid hydrogen from the tank through a 17
inches line to the left aft umbilical. The liquid hydrogen feed line
flow rate is 465 lb/s with the SSMEs at 104%

*This is absolutely not an example of cross feeding propellants
from one tank to another. *

When propellant feeds from an EXTERNAL tank INTO another air frame
through disconnect umbilicals so the two airframes can separate later
in flight, what do you call it?

There are seven tanks in my design that use a similar approach. Each
equipped with an aerospike engine that produces 2.2 million lbs of
thrust at take off at an Isp of 428 seconds. To maintain this thrust
each engine requires 4,005.9 lbs per second of liquid oxygen and 734.3
lbs per second of liquid hydrogen. A total of 5,140.2 lbs per second
of propellant.

This uses three pump sets from the RS-68 which uses three pairs of 17
inch lines.

Now to understand what I propose lets look at the seven tanks from
above looking down. Lets number them

(1)(2)
(3)(4)(5)
(6)(7)

So, tanks 1,2,6,7 are the first stage
tanks 3,5 are the second stage
tank 4 is the third stage.

So, tank one pumps 4,005.9 lbs of LOX and 734.3 lbs/sec LH2 to its own
engine, and an additional 3,304.4 lbs/sec of LOX to the engines in
tank 3 through two 17 inch diameter disconnect umbilicals along with
an additional 550.7 lbs/sec of LH2 to the engines of tank 3 again
through two 17 inch diameter disconnect umbilicals.

Tank six does the same thing, pumping 5,140.2 lbs/sec of propellant to
its own engine, and an additional 2,570.1 lbs/sec to the engines of
tank three.

In this way tank three is supplied with 4,005.9 lbs/sec of LOX and
734.4 lbs/sec of H2, and has a spare quantity of LOX/LH2 to transfer
to the engines of Tank 4 through a single 17 inch disconnect umbilical
there 2,202.9 lbs/sec of LOX and 367.2 lbs/sec

Tanks Two and Seven feed propellant to the engines of Tank Five in the
same way Tanks One and Six work. Tank Five feeds propellant to the
engines of Tank Four in the same way Tank Three Works.

In this way, ALL ENGINES are fired at launch, and only tanks One Two
Six and Seven are drained - forming the first stage.

The four disconnect umbilicals disconnect from these tanks when they
are depleted, and the three elements - Tank Three Four and Five
continue on without any change in flow, except now Tank Three and Five
replace the propellant flow with flows from their own propellant
store. This is done in the header using FLUIDIC LOGIC which is
implemented by the natural closing of the valves as the disconnect
umbilicals are disconnected.

When tanks Three and Five are depleted,forming stage Two, they fall
away when their two disconnect umbilicals disconnect, and Tank Four
begins drawing its own propellant store forming stage Three.

This is an R&D program.

Sure, but it is a rather modest one extending proven technologies with
off-the-shelf hardware, not inventing totally new technologies.

Things that are different, just aren't the same.

Except when they are.

*Inflatable Nose Thermal Shield - DC-Y, and many ICBMs already use
nose shield and inflatable shield go back to 1964

DC-Y was not a flight vehicle, it was a concept that was never
developed.

True, but its a counter example that the patent examiner cited to
prove my proposed use was not unique. That's what we're talking
about. Whether or not your description of unique has any weight or
bearing on this design. Obviously an uninterested third party
disagrees with you. Why is that?

*I'd like to see an example of an inflatable nose shield on
an operational (i.e. deployed) ICBM. *Cite?

Um...

*If you can't cite open
literature,

Yep.

then the technology isn't exactly "commercial off the
shelf"

Its not unique however. That's the point here. There is sufficient
experience to allow a competent aeronautical engineering team to
estimate the cost and benefit of using this technology to recover an
ET.

and will need to be independently developed in the commercial
world.

All of it will be independently developed. The point is, this is the
least costly nearest term way to get to a highly capable flight
vehicle that supports the business model proposed for it.

Its not unique or outlandish in any way.


This is an R&D program.

Its all an R&D program. The issue is what is the cost timing and risk
associated with the proposed program and is there another program to
launch 600 to 700 tonnes into LEO called for by the business plan that
is funding it that is less expensive less risk or done more quickly?

Your assertion that what I propose is unique suggests that there might
be another better way to go, but doesn't say why. You speak as if
there are obvious alternatives to building a vehicle capable of
lifting 700 tonnes per launch into LEO that I didn't consider. I can
tell you I've considered a lot. This is the best - and your
objections are baseless.

http://www.jamesoberg.com/112003irv_his.html

its use to protect ET airframe is obvious to anyone practiced in the
art.

You completely missed the point that Oberg was making. *To *some*
engineers, inflatable reentry vehicle technology certainly *looks*
promising, but the several R&D projects in that area show that there is
still much R&D to be done. *

You are missing my point. Research into this area goes back to 1964
and earlier. The development program is well defined and less costly
than say aerogel tiles or reduced carbon composite structures.

Your statement that application of this
technology "to protect ET airframe is obvious to anyone practiced in the
art" is an absolute falsehood. *

I didn't say that, the examiner did.

The very article you cite is proof of
that. *

Nonsense.

You left out the vertical landing on the "catcher's mit". *

Yes I did.

Great for
baseball, not proven on a vertical landing rocket with an annular
aerospike engine.

True.

*Have you modeled the air flow interaction of the
engine exhaust with the air near ground and the "catcher's mit"? *

Yes.

Any
surprises there?

Yes.

*Note that there were surprises with DC-X landing
vertically on some of the surfaces they tried.

Yes.

*This is an R&D program.

Yes. I never said there would be NO R&D, I said the development
budget to get the vehicle flying would be less than $7 billion and
take less than six years. I also said in production the vehicle would
cost $700 million a copy, and lift nearly 700 tonnes to LEO. I also
said that the recurring cost would be less than $7 million per flight
cycle and that 700 flight cycles would be possible and we'd have a 7
day turnaround between launches.

I call the system 7-up.

You also left out the capture and towing of the glider as well as the
transition from gliding flight to vertically powered flight. *Those are
certainly "unique". *This is an R&D program.

I haven't left them out, I merely wanted to say that none of the
proposed system is unique in the mind of our patent examiners and
they're PE aerospace engineers. Why do you disagree with them?


I'm sure I'm leaving out other "unique" aspects of your "design" which
constitute other R&D programs.

I said from the outset that the flight vehicle would cost $7 billion
to bring to flight and that each launcher would cost $700 million.
That $7 billion will be directed toward development of the features
outlined here.

You can keep saying that your "design" will work,

It will work.

but that doesn't stop
it from being laughable

Wait a minute, saying something is laughable is tantamount to saying
it won't work. You have only said above this will require R&D.
That's not saying it won't work dude. That's just saying it requires
work to bring about. THAT'S WHAT REAL ENGINEERS DO! lol.

because the whole thing is one R&D program piled
on top of a stack of other R&D programs. *

Nonsense. I have a well structured program that will cost less than
$7 billion to carry out and result in a flight vehicle of
unprecedented performance and capability.

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

On Sep 28, 11:44*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article b11df2c2-8589-4402-b50d-
, says...



On Sep 28, 8:36*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article t-
elephone,
says...

Has anyone ever used a tow plane to grab onto a glider as it
descended?
I can't think of a case of that being done.

Not to my knowledge, but it won't stop Mook from claiming that it's an
easy thing to do.

Well its something I've done already

On the scale required by your design? *I don't think so Mook. *Try
again.





You can snag parachutes on a descending space capsule with an
aircraft;
that was the standard method of grabbing spy satellite film return capsules.
But hooking on to a glider in flight would be difficult to do. You would
have to fly above it or ahead of it and figure out some way to attach to
it with a line or boom of some sort.

It would be similar to snagging a hose used for in air refueling (i.e..
the method used before refueling booms became common), only instead of
hooking up a hose, you're hooking up a cable strong enough to actually
tow the glider.

Yep.

I'm not saying this would absolutely work because the devil is in the
details.

That's why we did it on a couple of small experimental craft.

Not with a glider as big as a shuttle ET. *

So?

Try again.

I learned what I wanted from the test. What's the point of trying
again? I know enough to proceed with full scale flight testing of
test articles when I get funded for that.

You act like its a physical impossibility to snag a glider in flight
with a powered aircraft.


*Based on the sheer size of Mook's ET derived stage, I'd say
you'd need something along the lines of an AN-225 to pull this off
simply due to the massive drag that the ET derived stage will cause. *

Have you actually computed the drag? * *The B-737 has adequate power
for the wings chosen and the speeds we fly at.

Enough power for all conceivable situations, including an engine out on
the 737? *

Yes, two engines out and you'll have to ditch however.

How about flight through turbulence or wind shear? *

How much? Since turbulence and wind shear can down a B-737 by
itself, its obviously an issue. Since I can choose when to launch
and how to return to the launch center, I have the luxury of choosing
when to operate which most operators don't have.

How's that
737 fare while towing an ET glider?

Depends on the details. These are certainly issues that have to be
worked out.

The shuttle carrier aircraft have a hard enough time with the much
smaller shuttle on its back due to the drag of the thing. *

Do you know anything? *Really? *haha - I was visiting the guy who
designed the structural system that carries the orbiter on back of the
privately owned 747. *Bert is his name, he just turned 90 and he's a
good friend. *So, I'm familiar with the figures.

A rigid mount is still not the same as towing.

That's true.

*You'll get transients
due to the fact that the cable is flexible. *

That can be true depending on the details.

You don't have that on the
747/shuttle combo.

No.

*Things that are different, just aren't the same.

Except when they are.

Its knowing how to extract relevant information to solve the problem
at hand with the least trouble possible that makes the difference.
You don't seem capable of getting that.

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

On Sep 28, 11:45*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article bb44d531-7fee-4f5c-83bc-
, says...





On Sep 28, 8:37*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article eca1e4fe-7500-42a1-96d1-
, says....

On Sep 27, 8:29*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Has anyone ever used a tow plane to grab onto a glider as it
descended?

Yes.

I can't think of a case of that being done.

Typically gliders are launched with tow planes, not grabbed after
being released. *But, with the right equipment it can be done, and has
been done in test. *Its not that hard.

Cite? *Exactly what kind of glider and tow plane was used?

Why do you need to know this?

You claim you've proven that it will work. *I want to know what planes
were used to see how close they would be to an ET based glider and a
Boeing 737.

Oh, they were tiny experimental aircraft. Not anywhere near the size
of the ET or B-737 airframes we'll eventually fly. The speeds were
lower too.


Things that are different just aren't the same.

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

In article 10380113-a138-4a00-b214-2f67383bb027
@m15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says...

On Sep 28, 11:35*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article bbbbb939-3b2d-4e33-b518-
, says...





On Sep 28, 8:13*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 14b39657-93cd-4e67-9472-6773e59eac66
@r10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com, says...

On Sep 27, 5:05*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
What's wrong with your design is that it's "unique" to put it
lightly. *

In what way?

Really? *For someone who claims to be practicing "real engineering", you
really don't grasp the concept that things that are different just
aren't the same. *Again, good luck.

Jeff, you didn't answer the question. *How is what I'm doing with my
launcher unique? *

I've pointed the "unique" ares of your design out to you several times. *

Not in any convincing way. Others believe them not to be unique
enough to patents. What are they missing?

I'm not talking about patents, I'm talking about the state of the art in
launch vehicle technologies.

Specifically, they are the R&D programs that will be required for
each
of your non-spaceflight proven technologies. *

R&D is required for any new spaceflight system. There is nothing to
suggest what I propose makes anything harder than it otherwise might
for a system of this size.

Your "design" is "unique" enough to scare away investors. Let us know
when you've crossed the $1 billion mark for money raised for your R&D.

Anything not flight proven
is considered "unique" in aerospace. *

Well, that's a usage of the term that isn't followed by the patent
examiner who is an aerospace engineer.

Again, I'm not talking about patents. You seem to think that patents
are more important than actually building and flying launch vehicles. I
see now. I think perhaps you are a patent squatter. You don't want to
actually build and fly anything, you just want to patent all of your
"unique" ideas and wait for someone to someone to sue. You're a patent
squatter, aren't you?

Jeff
--
42