Disk Moonship

On 11/2/2010 10:48 AM, Alan Anderson wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:59 am, William wrote:
Earlier designs I have discussed on use net were pretty traditional.

Like flying package-delivery robots the size of a beach ball

They were not the size of beach ball, they were the size of a lunch box;
and powered by nearly silent rocket engines that used hundreds or
thousands of tiny exhaust nozzles.
We can't have a reasonable discussion about this unless we get the facts
of the proposals right. :-D

Pat

On Nov 2, 1:38*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article a8f7a794-711b-482f-a189-
, says...



China and India are in a way better position than DARPA or NASA, to
exploit off-world explorations and investments.

This is an unsupported assertion. *India is taking baby steps with an
unmanned program and China is taking baby steps with its manned program. *
Both are behind the US in terms of maturity of its space programs.

Jeff
--
42

That's true. They also are spending less. The US economy is 8x
bigger than the Indian economy despite India having 4 as many people.
China is somewhat better. Don't confuse the the differential with the
constant. The US has about 80 years to pull itself out of the
situation it has put itself into over the past 50 years. My money is
still on the USA.

On Nov 2, 2:48*pm, Alan Anderson wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:59*am, William Mook wrote:

Earlier designs I have discussed on use net were pretty traditional.

You are confused. When I speak of more traditional designs I was
talking about my ET-derived Heavy Lift RLV using the RS-68 engine
modified for aerospike operation - that's pretty traditional
macroscopic stuff - or my TSTO-RLV based on the SSME for the first
stage and the four RL-10s for the upper stage.


Like flying package-delivery robots the size of a beach ball, or solid-
rocket-powered motorcycle jackets, or individually-beamed laser power
for hundreds of simultaneous passenger vehicles? Those traditions must
belong to an extremely little-known culture.

haha This SSME design I presented at EOP OSTP back in 1996 on a
matter of urgent concern then. Those other discussions you mention
all make use of the more advanced MEMS rocketry. Something I think
you said was impossible back in the 1990s, but since then has become a
hot topic of research.

The package delivery robots are also the size of packages like those
used by FedEx and the US Post Office or UPS. I envision buying them
at Loew's or Staples for $20 and programming them with your bluetooth
enabled cell phone using a variant of Google Earth. Loading them up
and sending them on their way and then disposed of.


...this
design takes advantage of the ability of MEMS based actuators to form
strong bonds between surfaces in contact - think of velcro with motors
- that also have the capacity to transfer fluids through gas tight
seals without leaking.

It sounds like there's some deep magic going on here.

Only in your imagination. I never mentioned membranes. Why did you?

I can handle the
concept of a membrane passing fluids but not gases,

Why do you mention membranes? I didn't.

though "gas tight
seal"

So, passing gas through a connection that's gas tight is confusing to
you eh? lol. Certainly you understand that connectors exist that
allow to gas lines to be connected. You also understand that MEMS
based devices can be made very small. Now consider an array of
connectors that clip together the same way but only smaller.

MEMS mechanical connectors have been made

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2005/0120553.html
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/lo...hDecision=-203

They are capable of maintaining contact under considerable loads.

Certainly you can see that a mechanical connector array that possesses
of an array gas lines with built in valves is what I'm talking
about .

In a hexagonal close packed array of spheres, the points of contact on
each sphere are well defined, so, its obvious those points should have
MEMS based connector arrays each element of which is equipped with a
gas line and data line along with appropriate sensors to allow cross
feeding from sphere to sphere as needed.

has an established meaning and makes me think that might not be
what you're trying to describe.

Its clear you are going out of your way to misread things so as to
twist what I did say into something I didn't. When I say 'traditional
design' I meant just that. Large airframes macroscopic engines off-
the-shelf. When I say 'advanced design' I am saying MEMS based
mechanics and rockets. When I say 'MEMS connector' I don't mean
membrane. I mean a MEMS based connector array similar to those
described in the URLs I gave above.

The "without leaking" part implies the
usual meaning, the "through" part contradicts it,

So, you've never heard of valves? Mechanical connectors?

Here's a video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykl2PH2B-tM

Now imagine the same mechanism shown here about 1/1000th the size
shown here, and 1,000,000 of them in an array - operating together.
That's what I'm talking about.

Alan, as usual you are spouting nonsense and being an ass playing word
games and attempting to twist what I've said into nonsense to set me
up for one of your buddies to start calling me names. What I said was
quite simple; the Disk Moonship makes use of MEMS techniques
throughout - from rockets to avionics to life support to mechanical
connection and cross feed. The connector array is not a membrane it
is an array of small connectors that mechanically connect surfaces
together and have the capability of opening valves to let gases flow
between the connected elements. This is quite different than the ET-
derived Heavy Lift RLV or the TSTO-RLV using the SSME and RL-10
engines.


given much of a clue about how it relates to MEMS.

Alan you don't seem to know much about MEMS in your reply. Obviously
the array I've used requires tiny connectors, valves and motors
possible only with MEMS.

http://www.memx.com/images/ratchet.jpg

On Nov 2, 7:10*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 11/2/2010 10:48 AM, Alan Anderson wrote:

On Nov 1, 10:59 am, William *wrote:
Earlier designs I have discussed on use net were pretty traditional.

Like flying package-delivery robots the size of a beach ball

They were not the size of beach ball, they were the size of a lunch box;
and powered by nearly silent rocket engines that used hundreds or
thousands of tiny exhaust nozzles.
We can't have a reasonable discussion about this unless we get the facts
of the proposals right. :-D

Pat

Pat's right. Though he doesn't get it all.

I have proposed elsewhere the development of a range of pilotless
vehicles from lunch box size to pizza box to beach ball - and more -
look at the range of sizes you find in packaging

http://www.uline.com/Cls_04/Boxes-Co...hi2go dAl2VOg

There are over 1,500 box sizes for most applications. Like I've said,
I can see anyone that sells packages selling 'transit packages' that
transport the contents of the package along a ballistic arc where
desired, or just an advanced storage box that follows you around
without having to heave it yourself.

http://inventorspot.com/articles/rob..._carts_l_10769

A micro-engine has elements that deliver between 1 pico-liter and 10
pico-liter per droplet and up to 60,000 droplets per element per
second. A pico-liter is 1e-12 liter. Liquid hydrogen masses 70 grams
per liter and liquid oxygen masses 1,140 grams per liter. With 4.83
grams of oxidizer to 1.00 gram of fuel we have a volume ratio of
3.3717 hydrogen to oxygen. So, if we deliver 60,000 droplets from a
hydrogen nozzle per second we have 17,795 droplets of oxygen from the
other nozzle. Assuming the same sized drops.

At 1 picoliter per droplet - 60,000 x 0.07 kg x 1e-12 = 4.2e-9 kg/sec
Hydrogen
17,795 x 1.14 kg x 1e-12 =
20.2863e-9 kg/sec Oxygen

For a total 24.4863e-9 kg/sec propellant flow.

With an exhaust velocity of 4,410.9 m/sec we have a thrust per
expansion nozzle of

F = mdot * Ve = 24.4863e-9 kg/sec * 4,410.9 m/
sec = 108.01e-6 Newtons

An array of 10,000 engines produce a little over a Newton of
force.

At 10 picoliter per droplet - this is raised to 10 Newtons of force -
or 1 kg.

Between 2,500 to 3,500 engines per square millimeter produce surfaces
capable of generating 50 psi to 350 psi.

The cost of MEMS manufactured structures once the $20 million to $100
million development cost is paid is $1 to $15 per square inch. So,
we're talking about $0.02 to $0.30 per pound of lift.

A 1 pound package would have MEMS rocket elements on it costing no
more than a postage stamp - yet could sell for $20 or more.

But this isn't where you start, and it certainly isn't where you get
your original product build. You do that with something like this
Moonship here. Then, you progress in several directions at once -
cherry picking the low hanging fruit for quick expansion of profits.

Let's not forget the ability to reduce noise levels with arrays of
tiny rockets.

Rockets have a lot in common with steam whistles. They make a lot of
racket - hence their name. Just like a big steam whistle makes a loud
round low noise and a penny whistle makes a small high pitched tweet
and a dog whistle that can't be heard at all - so too is there a
difference between a big rocket engine with a 120 db noise level at 33
Hz - and a tiny engine that operates above the limits of human
hearing.

Now for an array of thousands of tiny rocket nozzles each controlled
by computer each with an accuracy equal to that of an HDTV plasma
screen dot - we can see that we can cancel noise of the array to
maintain a relative silence.

Noise canceling systems operate in many ways and on many scales

Here's an infrasound system that seeks to cancel natural infrasound
sources to detect bombs going off anywhere on Earth

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...vZOla8EuIVP7zw

Here's a more traditional noise canceling system

http://ultimateears.com/en-us/produc...FYpa2god01dyPg

The point is that several sources of sound can interact in ways that
allow their effects to cancel one another in specific directions and
distances. Which means that during take off and landing we can
operate quietly when needed.

With thousands of sources per square millimeter, emitting lots of
power, we have the ability to do many interesting things by turning
the rockets on and off very quickly. Audio holograms are possible.
Imagine a self powered flying speaker that amplifies sound signals
sent to it by digital signals. Great for addressing a large area.

In sci.space.policy message ,
Tue, 2 Nov 2010 13:38:30, Jeff Findley
posted:

In article a8f7a794-711b-482f-a189-
, says...

China and India are in a way better position than DARPA or NASA, to
exploit off-world explorations and investments.

This is an unsupported assertion. India is taking baby steps with an
unmanned program and China is taking baby steps with its manned program.
Both are behind the US in terms of maturity of its space programs.

The US Federal space programme attained its maturity at around the turn
of the century. After maturity comes senility.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

On Nov 3, 10:51*am, William Mook wrote:

haha *This SSME design I presented at EOP OSTP back in 1996 on a
matter of urgent concern then. *Those other discussions you mention
all make use of the more advanced MEMS rocketry. *Something I think
you said was impossible back in the 1990s, but since then has become a
hot topic of research.

It's been a while since I thought about it, but my recollection is
that I was focusing my derision mostly on your claims of *silent*
rocket engines (based, if I further recall correctly, on your
computation of carefully-controlled acoustic resonance in the
megahertz range).

Why do you mention membranes? *I didn't.

You talked about passing fluids through a seal. Since "seal" implies
to me something that *doesn't* pass fluids, I picked a different word
that I thought would fit what you were trying to describe.

So, passing gas through a connection that's gas tight is confusing to
you eh?

Yes, it is confusing. Is this a trick question? You're asking me to
comprehend a contradiction. My understanding of "gas tight" is that it
does *not* let gases through.

*lol. * Certainly you understand that connectors exist that
allow to gas lines to be connected.

Yes, though I would call such connectors "connectors" and not "seals".
A "connector" would allow gas to flow from one line to another. A
"seal" would act as a barrier to keep gas from escaping.

Certainly you can see that a mechanical connector array that possesses
of an array gas lines with built in valves is what I'm talking
about .

Certainly I could not see that before. You never mentioned "valves"
before; only "seals".

Its clear you are going out of your way to misread things...

Do you think I misread the "fluid through a gas tight seal" concept
because I wanted to?

So, you've never heard of valves? * Mechanical connectors?

Oh. You're just talking about a valve that can be closed when you want
a gas tight seal and which can be opened when you want to pass fluids.
This becomes apparent only *after* you use the word "valve". I do not
apologize for failing to infer it beforehand.

...The connector array is not a membrane it
is an array of small connectors that mechanically connect surfaces
together and have the capability of opening valves to let gases flow
between the connected elements.

If you had said that in the first place, I would have had no problem
understanding it. Since you instead elided the "connector" and "valve"
parts and just called it a gas tight seal that passes fluids, using a
phrasing which implies simultaneous yet apparently incompatible
actions, my ability to understand it was undermined.

Alan you don't seem to know much about MEMS in your reply. *Obviously
the array I've used requires tiny connectors, valves and motors
possible only with MEMS.

You obviously find more things to be obvious than I do.

(By the way, it seems to me that you are misusing the acronym MEMS.
Some of the things you are pointing to -- the small flat rocket
nozzle, for example -- are merely examples of micromachining using
adaptations of IC fabrication techniques. They are not examples of
electromechanical systems.)

On Nov 2, 10:38*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article a8f7a794-711b-482f-a189-
, says...



China and India are in a way better position than DARPA or NASA, to
exploit off-world explorations and investments.

This is an unsupported assertion. *India is taking baby steps with an
unmanned program and China is taking baby steps with its manned program. *
Both are behind the US in terms of maturity of its space programs.

Jeff
--
42

Both of them combined are not spending 1% as much as we did in the
bogus cold-war era. What do you think will happen when they start
spending serious loot on such matters?

Do you think India and China can't afford to pull off a trillion
dollar mission? (especially if they work together?)

~ BG

On Nov 3, 7:17*am, William Mook wrote:
On Nov 2, 1:38*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:

In article a8f7a794-711b-482f-a189-
, says...

China and India are in a way better position than DARPA or NASA, to
exploit off-world explorations and investments.

This is an unsupported assertion. *India is taking baby steps with an
unmanned program and China is taking baby steps with its manned program.. *
Both are behind the US in terms of maturity of its space programs.

Jeff
--
42

That's true. *They also are spending less. *The US economy is 8x
bigger than the Indian economy despite India having 4 as many people.
China is somewhat better. *Don't confuse the the differential with the
constant. *The US has about 80 years to pull itself out of the
situation it has put itself into over the past 50 years. *My money is
still on the USA.

That's a risky bet, unless you're counting on another false-flag
wartime or bogus cold-war economy, whereas via global inflation we
manage to extract a profit from both sides. Chances are better that
we'll be saved by whatever China and India can provide.

For one thing, in 50 years there will still not be any commercial
tonnes of Mook's cheap hydrogen, or any other form of Mook clean
energy, and government run programs will still be stuck in their usual
perpetual research mode as long as those special-interest cabals and
cartels of coal, oil and conventional nuclear energy can provide just
barely enough of their spendy, nonrenewable and polluting forms of
energy, that which they really don't care whatever it does to our
environment or how many it adversely affects or kills.

~ BG

On Nov 3, 1:19*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:
In sci.space.policy message ,
Tue, 2 Nov 2010 13:38:30, Jeff Findley
posted:

In article a8f7a794-711b-482f-a189-
, says...

China and India are in a way better position than DARPA or NASA, to
exploit off-world explorations and investments.

This is an unsupported assertion. *India is taking baby steps with an
unmanned program and China is taking baby steps with its manned program.
Both are behind the US in terms of maturity of its space programs.

The US Federal space programme attained its maturity at around the turn
of the century. *After maturity comes senility.

--
*(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. *Turnpike v6.05 *MIME.
* Web *http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links;
* Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
*No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

Exactly, and we (mostly ZNRs and GOP) did it all to ourselves better
than any new perpetrated cold-war could have managed.

~ BG