Ballooning to orbit?

On 10/2/2010 6:34 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:


I have a lot of idea which, if they worked, would cut the cost to LEO
dramatically.

Here's how the thing is supposed to work:
http://www.jpaerospace.com/atohandout.pdf
Actually, the idea isn't as crazy as it sounds; once it's up far enough,
even the low thrust of the ion engines can start accelerating it in the
very low air drag environment. As speed increases centrifugal force will
cause it to climb further and further, till finally it gets up to
orbital speed and altitude.
The trick is getting the ion engines to generate enough thrust to let it
overcome the still existing air drag at 200,000 feet, from which it
starts its climb to orbit.

Pat

On 10/2/2010 9:12 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

I'd have thought this would require detailed knowledge of the
interaction between the air and the vehicle at near orbital velocities.
I'm pretty sure that knowledge isn't to hand. It's as if they're doing
the easy bits first, on the assumption that the hard bits can be
managed. That seems like a way of spending a lot of money before coming
across a total show-stopper.

Well, they do say they've tested out their ion engine technology out at
altitudes of over 100,000 feet after hauling them up there via high
altitude balloons. Modeling air drag on a object at those altitudes
shouldn't be too difficult after all the data we've gotten during
Shuttle reentries regarding air densities at various altitudes.
One thing you will run into at those altitudes is atomic oxygen, so you
will have to watch out for its corrosive effects on the vehicle's structure.

Pat

Sylvia Else wrote:
Wishful Thinking.

Hey it worked for John Carter!

In true NASA tradition I'm thinking we need an acronym: hmm, how about this:

Wishful Assisted Thinking i.e. WAT

-or- more descriptive:

Mushroom and Wishful Assisted Thinking To Orbit i.e. MWATTO

-finally we have-

Mushroom Enabled Wishfully Assisted Concept for Kinematic Orbiters

;-)

Dave

On 10/3/2010 8:41 PM, David Spain wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
Wishful Thinking.

Hey it worked for John Carter!

In true NASA tradition I'm thinking we need an acronym: hmm, how about
this:

Wishful Assisted Thinking i.e. WAT

-or- more descriptive:

Mushroom and Wishful Assisted Thinking To Orbit i.e. MWATTO

-finally we have-

Mushroom Enabled Wishfully Assisted Concept for Kinematic Orbiters

;-)

Dave

You know, if they actually get that to work, the first one almost _has_
to be named the "Hans Pfaall":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unp...ne_Hans_Pfaall

Pat

In article c739002a-3b01-4c3c-8773-5bd427b3e786
@w19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, says...

On Oct 1, 11:02*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
They're definitely *on* something, but I'm thinking it's some sort
of
mind altering substance rather than they're on to some sort of
technological breakthrough. *

Eliminates the infrastructure required for a conventional first stage,
but now you've got infrastructure for the balloon. Since the balloon
contributes nothing to orbital speed, you're either doing sounding
rockets or packing a lot of wallop into your second stage.

You must have missed the part about the electric propelled air ship to
orbit. This is the airship that never lands, it only goes from the air
station to orbit and back. That's the really screwball part of this
whole proposal. And without that, there really is not much of a point
to the whole floating launch platform idea.

Jeff
--
42

Sylvia Else wrote:
I have a lot of idea which, if they worked, would cut the cost to LEO
dramatically.

Eg
Anti-Gravity
Teleportation
Wishful Thinking.

Choose two

rick jones
--
I don't interest myself in "why". I think more often in terms of
"when", sometimes "where"; always "how much." - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On 10/4/2010 5:51 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In articlec739002a-3b01-4c3c-8773-5bd427b3e786
@w19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, says...

On Oct 1, 11:02 am, Jeff wrote:
They're definitely *on* something, but I'm thinking it's some sort
of
mind altering substance rather than they're on to some sort of
technological breakthrough.

Eliminates the infrastructure required for a conventional first stage,
but now you've got infrastructure for the balloon. Since the balloon
contributes nothing to orbital speed, you're either doing sounding
rockets or packing a lot of wallop into your second stage.

You must have missed the part about the electric propelled air ship to
orbit. This is the airship that never lands, it only goes from the air
station to orbit and back. That's the really screwball part of this
whole proposal. And without that, there really is not much of a point
to the whole floating launch platform idea.

Except for a lot of UV and atomic oxygen at 200,000 feet, conditions
are pretty benign up there; you are way above any weather up there other
than maybe getting hit by a blue jet from a thunderstorm under you.
The idea intrigues me because it's so completely off-the-wall and
original. It is probably worth looking into because how much it could
change things if it actually could work.

Pat

In article 1
hdakotatelephone,
says...

On 10/4/2010 5:51 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
You must have missed the part about the electric propelled air ship
to
orbit. This is the airship that never lands, it only goes from the air
station to orbit and back. That's the really screwball part of this
whole proposal. And without that, there really is not much of a point
to the whole floating launch platform idea.

Except for a lot of UV and atomic oxygen at 200,000 feet, conditions
are pretty benign up there; you are way above any weather up there other
than maybe getting hit by a blue jet from a thunderstorm under you.
The idea intrigues me because it's so completely off-the-wall and
original. It is probably worth looking into because how much it could
change things if it actually could work.

Yea, lots of luck. You can do anything with enough thrust. I hope that
electric engine of theirs is really powerful.

Jeff
--
42

In article
tatelephone,
says...

On 10/5/2010 4:35 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

Yea, lots of luck. You can do anything with enough thrust. I hope that
electric engine of theirs is really powerful.

You aren't catching on to the concept, it doesn't need much thrust; just
enough to overcome the tiny amount of air drag at 200,000 feet and start
slowly accelerating

Drag force scales with velocity squared. As the speed increases, the
force required goes up dramatically. I'm sure they've "done the math",
but the sheer size, and fragility, of the vehicle required is mind
boggling.

If it does work, however, it would be the next best thing to a space
elevator.

Jeff
--
42

On 10/5/2010 4:35 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

Yea, lots of luck. You can do anything with enough thrust. I hope that
electric engine of theirs is really powerful.

You aren't catching on to the concept, it doesn't need much thrust; just
enough to overcome the tiny amount of air drag at 200,000 feet and start
slowly accelerating
Over a period of several days they intend to get it going fast enough
that centrifugal force starts raising its altitude as it's moving around
15,000 mph or more, till finally it ends up in LEO at 18,000 mph, having
been basically spun out into orbit by its own horizontal velocity.
Whether this is done via engine pods mounted on it or by turning the
whole surface area into a giant ion engine is something they haven't
gone into detail about, but if it does indeed accelerate by sucking the
air over its whole surface and accelerating it rearwards, like a giant
version of a Ionic Breeze air cleaner, then it becomes virtually
dragless. Once clear of most of the atmosphere I assume the ion engines
then shift over to something like xenon for reaction mass, which may
account for the little pods hanging off of the giant "V" balloon in the
artwork.
Power could either be beamed up from the Earth's surface to power the
ion engine(s) or the upper surface of the thing could have amorphous
solar cell material on it.

Pat