Solar Power Satellite Concept

On Sep 2, 2:16*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 1f47a0ce-1be9-4ee7-b2f0-ee099b5a0882
@t2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says...





On Sep 1, 1:56*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 6724e6c6-e98c-47aa-8a94-f0e7def44492
@z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, says...

Careful mass balance analysis of a fully engineered system determined
that the mass of a fold-away wing system capable of maintaining the ET
in gliding flight is;

* 5.26 metric tons *WING
* 1.23 metric tons TAIL
* 0.84 metric tons FLIGHT CONTROL
* 0.21 metric tons INSTRUMENTATION
* 0.31 metric tons ACTUATORS
* 0.89 metric tons ELECTRICAL
* 0.55 metric tons AVIONICS

By careful integration with existing ET systems, the mass of the final
system is 55 metric tons.

I see what you're trying to do now (page 5 of that document on Scribd). *
Those wings fold up oragami like into "shrounds placed along the length
of the ET". *Good luck with that.

I don't think you've got it since oragami has nothing to do with it,
thank you I think. *lol..

*If you could get something like that
to work, the US Navy would pay a pretty penny for the technology. *

They already have, its called the Tomahawk cruise missile.

Strike that. *The US Navy would already have such wings if the
technology were within our reach.

Yes. *They do.

Call me skeptical,

You're a bit more than that.

but I want to see a scale demonstration of the
folding wing technology being deployed in flight. *

That's part of the development program.

Those wings make the
X-33's composite tanks look like child's play by comparison.

No they don't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HlM_0xCmXI

The above does not look like your drawing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CeeAggBUn4

Again, the above does not look like your drawing.

In what way?

Riddle me this, does your ET based design somehow stuff the wings into
*externally* mounted pods on the side, or does the tank have slots built
into it so the wings can fold into the ET?

There are shrouds placed on the outside of the tanks that hold the
wings in the folded position - they aren't really folded 'into'
anything.

If the former, I'm still wondering how those big wings fit into that
small space on your drawings.

Hmm... so, you want to see a more detailed mechanical drawing of how
it works?

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

The ability to fold a wing along the airframe is well-established;

http://www.gizmag.com/icon-a5-fold-u...picture/45505/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seamew_folded.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F6...%28CV-6%29.jpg

There are two axes of rotation around the root of the wing to allow
the wing to lie along the length of the air-frame. The wing is then z-
folded into a compact shroud where it is then erected.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...PYl2oqi8DSBcTg

The T-tail assembly hinges down along the base as shown and z-folds
into the shroud where indicated.

On Aug 22, 8:00*am, William Mook wrote:
On Aug 7, 7:08*pm, Brad Guth wrote:



On Aug 7, 9:59*am, Jim Davis wrote:

William Mook wrote:
What kind of reception did it receive when you presented it at
this year's International Space Development Conference/Space
Investment Summit in Chicago this past May? They had a two day
Space Solar Power Symposium this year.
I didn't present.

Any particular reason why not? Surely you would have received much
more useful feedback there than you could expect here?

Jim Davis

Mook is only a good talker, not a team doer or much less an actual
leader.

His feedback needs are more intended as mind teasers and diversions
than anything else. *If I were running NASA/DARPA, I'm not sure if I
could safely fit William Mook into any one of our think tanks, because
he'd always insist upon running the whole show and doing everything
extremely large.

*~ BG

Jim, I wasn't asked to present anything. *If I were asked, I would
certainly have presented something.

Brad, as usual, what you say makes no sense on so many levels, its
useless to respond to what you think you said. *I will say however,
most large container ships and tankers top 100,000 tons. *My External
Tank derived RLV lifts 695 tons into LEO. *That's not extremely large
by any stretch of the imagination. *It is just large enough to get the
job done economically. *The $44 billion program I have outlined
elsewhere will return a value of $275 billion the day it is switched
on by selling energy at $0.06 per kWh anywhere on the world.

A wholesale price of 6 cents/kwhr isn't exactly cheap, but at least
eventually it''ll pay for itself if absolutely nothing goes wrong.

Have you any fly-by-rocket prototype, or do we just get to trust you
on 100% of everything?

Assuming that you want the general public to basically pay for
everything and prey for the best, and yet you don't need any help or
expertise from anyone, much less require partners because you're doing
all the thinking and calling all the shots. Is that about it?

~ BG

On Aug 22, 8:40*am, William Mook wrote:
On Aug 7, 7:44*pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"



wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Aug 7, 3:42 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
William Mook wrote:
I have developed a system that masses 600+ tonnes and is lofted into
orbit by a reusable vehicle derived from our experience with the
External Tank only.

Really? Where is the hardware?

Oh that's right. That's "I've designed on paper."

We've been done this road before Mook. Bend metal, get someone to
bend metal or go away.

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

I didn't know this Usenet/newsgroup was a certified shop-class for
fly- by-rocket expertise. *Where's your better rocket or satellite of
bent metal?

When I claim to have developed one, I'll be more than willing to show it.

In article ,
says...

William Mook wrote:

The ability to fold a wing along the airframe is well-established;

http://www.gizmag.com/icon-a5-fold-u...picture/45505/


Not designed to deploy in flight.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seamew_folded.jpg


Not designed to deploy in flight.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F6...%28CV-6%29.jpg


Not designed to deploy in flight.


There are two axes of rotation around the root of the wing to allow
the wing to lie along the length of the air-frame. The wing is then z-
folded into a compact shroud where it is then erected.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...PYl2oqi8DSBcTg

The T-tail assembly hinges down along the base as shown and z-folds
into the shroud where indicated.


Apparently 'z-fold' is Mookeese for 'magic geometry'.

Agreed. He's trivializing the complexity of this problem. I don't
believe this size and mass estimates for the wings and tail.

I wonder if he's even done the wing loading calculations for his wings
when they deploy. You know, the sort of calculations you'd do for an
aerospace engineering senior design project. You'd need to do that to
figure out how to load the structural model to make sure the wings don't
snap off when they're deployed.

On top of that, figuring out the aerodynamic loads *while* the wing is
*being* deployed is where the really hard problems are. Those will need
to be fed into a set of time dependent structural/dyanamic analyses so
that you can verify that the wings won't snap off or encounter plastic
deformations *while* being deployed.

Again, I don't feel off base calling this design a napkin drawing. The
details are sorely lacking.

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

On Sep 3, 8:11*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Aug 24, 2:42*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Aug 22, 1:23*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Aug 11, 11:01*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 8/11/2010 5:20 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

http://www.amazon.com/EST-Scissor-wi.../dp/B0007U9MES

That's why that thing looked familiar! *Estes should have sued them.

LOL.

I actually checked the patents to see if Estes had patented the design,
but couldn't find any patent for that particular rocket.

The fold-away wing is very similar to that used on the Tomahawk Cruise
Missile and requires only off-the-shelf technology.

Wrong. *The 'scissor wing' is a totally different concept.

Wrong? *Who said the Tomahawk uses a scissor wing? *I certainly
didn't. *That you think I did makes you wrong Freddie. **again*

Mookie: *"The fold-away wing [what is being discussed is the 'scissor
wing' from the URL quoted above] is very similar to that used on the
Tomahawk Cruise Missile..."

No, it isn't. *It is nothing like it.

The wing system I am using on my RLV elements is based on the Tomahawk
Cruise Missile design. *period!

Oh, is it, now?

Yes, they are a clss of folding wings.

*So your claim is that you have stolen designs from my
company? *

No, you are misquoting me again.

Or is your claim that if I walk across the office wing at
work today and ask the Tomahawk folks about this, they'll say
something like, "Oh, yes. *Mookie has our designs for use on his
(imaginary) hardware."

Again, you mischaracterize what I've said. Aftward folding wings of
the type used on the Tomahawk, did not originate with the Tomahawk as
this picture of a Seahawk testifies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F6...ise_(CV-6).jpg

You have said wrongly time and again fold-away wings won't work,
without really saying why. I have pointed to examples of aftward
wings - quoted respected sources about lift drag and mass balance - to
show why your statements are wrong and my plans to use aftward fold-
away wings to recover rocket boosters.



X-wing scissor wings and all of that have nothing to do with it.

Freddie is reduced to typing things I didn't say, then wrongly
attributing it to me, in order to reply to what he wishes I said but
didn't! *lol.

Yeah, I'm being so horribly deceptive as to quote what you actually
said!

No, you are making things up and wrongly attributing them to me since
I never said anything of the sort that you suggest I said. Sorry
Freddie.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...HQVSwPe9DvoZPA

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...7QTQZuk98Qnqmg


In my design I have combined the bearing design of an aftward fold
away wing with inflating elements, the drawings I show in page 5 of my
online paper on this subject

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum

Show how this works.

As I mentioned elsewhere, slight changes in the shape of the External
Tank airframe combined with smaller wings (see the illustration on
page 2 of the second paper above) have the capability of reducing the
parasitic weight to about 1/3 that quoted on page 5 of my paper.

Your comments suggesting this cannot or will not work are wrong.

On Sep 3, 8:19*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Aug 30, 1:58*pm, William Mook wrote:

Mookie talking to himself again? *Just as well. *Probably the only
person he can find who will believe his tripe.



On Aug 24, 2:42*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:

wrote:
On Aug 22, 1:23*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:
On Aug 11, 11:01*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 8/11/2010 5:20 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

http://www.amazon.com/EST-Scissor-wi.../dp/B0007U9MES

That's why that thing looked familiar! *Estes should have sued them.

LOL.

I actually checked the patents to see if Estes had patented the design,
but couldn't find any patent for that particular rocket.

The fold-away wing is very similar to that used on the Tomahawk Cruise
Missile and requires only off-the-shelf technology.

Wrong. *The 'scissor wing' is a totally different concept.

Wrong? *Who said the Tomahawk uses a scissor wing? *I certainly
didn't. *That you think I did makes you wrong Freddie. **again*

Mookie: *"The fold-away wing [what is being discussed is the 'scissor
wing' from the URL quoted above] is very similar to that used on the
Tomahawk Cruise Missile..."

No, it isn't. *It is nothing like it.

The wing system I am using on my RLV elements is based on the Tomahawk
Cruise Missile design. *period!

X-wing scissor wings and all of that have nothing to do with it.

Freddie is reduced to typing things I didn't say, then wrongly
attributing it to me, in order to reply to what he wishes I said but
didn't! *lol.

Yeah, how DARE I *quote what you actually said*!



See page 5:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum

snork

Yeah, that's your idea of 'your system'.

snicker



Note how the Cruise Missile is launched like a rocket, then flies like
an airplane, after unfolding its wings and tail.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/cruise-....htm/printable
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x17...issile_extreme

Listening to Freddie you would believe such things were impossible.

Mookie, as usual, can't read plain English, so he makes up stupid
claims.

It'd be real embarrassing at work if I thought what Mookie claims,
since we build the damned thing!



Clearly, they are achieved, and the only question is how much the wing
system weighs for the recovery system needed for an RLV. *The answer
is, not much!

Oh? *I fail to see how you arrive at that conclusion. *In case you're
unaware, we don't ever try to 'recover' those missiles. *They're
supposed to hit stuff at high rates of speed, you know.



Just look at the mass of the wing system and what it lifts, and
compare that to the structural weight of an empty RLV stage - and note
that the system will be towed in flight back to the launch center by a
recovery aircraft. *I give the numbers in my addendum above.

Get back to us when you've done something other than crayon drawings.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

Why Freddie chooses to attack me for things he thinks, not things I
say and do, is the proper subject of psychological analysis for poor
Freddie. As far as believability. My stuff works. Reality needs no
defense.

On Sep 3, 8:29*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:

Wings folding into the body of the fuel tank may work well for a
Tomahawk cruise missile, but not so well for the design of a pressurized
rocket propellant tank. *You're going to have a freaking huge mass
penalty for your napkin drawing design of wings folding *into* an ET.

Note that on the Tomahawk the wings don't fold into the fuel tank at
all. *While the fuel tank and the wings, wing deployment hardware, and
wing doors are all part of the missile mid-body structure, the fuel
tank structure is independent.

http://onwardoverland.com/tomahawk/diag3.html



And your drawing of the "now you see me, now you don't" t-tail design is
goofy. *Just how does *that* disappear into the tank?

Your napkin drawings just aren't feasible. *Where is the math to back it
all up? *I don't for one minute buy your estimate of 50 metric tons for
dry mass. *#1, it's far too low to pass the giggle test. *#2, it's far
too round of a number to be real. *Prove to us that you didn't just pull
that number out of your @$$

But Mookie thinks that constitutes 'designing a system', Jeff!

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

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/

On Sep 3, 8:52*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:

I see what you're trying to do now (page 5 of that document on Scribd). *
Those wings fold up oragami like into "shrounds placed along the length
of the ET". *Good luck with that. *If you could get something like that
to work, the US Navy would pay a pretty penny for the technology. *
Strike that. *The US Navy would already have such wings if the
technology were within our reach.

He's going to use aerodynamic forces to deploy the airfoils?
Preposterous!

Why? Parachutes do it all the time, even Rogallo wing systems. No
reason an inflatable system can't do it. Since the wing itself changes
shape as it inflates, the process is easily manipulated to cause the
required rotations so as to minimize total power levels.


Call me skeptical, but I want to see a scale demonstration of the
folding wing technology being deployed in flight. *Those wings make the
X-33's composite tanks look like child's play by comparison.

You don't get the sort of effects and forces he's relying on to deploy
his wings merely by altering alpha of the main fuselage. *

That's right, a number of other things are going on with the wing
itself and the shroud. The process is started by pitching nose down -
which is all I said. There is a single phugoid oscillation that
produces the desired rotation moments around the wing root as it
inflates. It really rather elegant and simple in wind tunnel tests -
harder to describe. It all starts by initiating single phugoid
oscillation that by the time the aircraft is back in nose up position,
wings are deployed and locked in place.


real systems have things called 'wing deployment drivers' in them.

Again, you are saying things that are wrong and attributing them to
me. Please note on page 5 of my online paper on this subject, I
discuss the sorts of actuators (including drivers) and their weight.
So, yes, you're right that the wings are deployed by well times
drivers. Even so, you're not right to suggest I didn't think this
through.

The power of the deployment system depends on air loads and inertial
loads when an aircraft is in flight. Parafoils deploy with simple
release of a covering flap. My system is slightly more complex. Even
so, obviously, by being intelligent about this system - one can
minimize the energy used by these drivers, and the weight associated
with them.

Note that Tomahawk, which he claims his silliness is 'derived from'

Nothing silly about any of my comments. The Tomahawk uses a folding
wing system, I use a folding wing system. They share a common
heritage in airplanes like the Seahawk. In responding to your
baseless assertions that such wings cannot exist, I pointed to these
wing systems which are already in operation. You wrongly
mischaracterize what I did say to persist in baseless attacks against
what I have proposed here

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV

Which support deployment of 10,000 MW solar power satellite described
here;

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35449912/S...tellite-Orbits

uses such drivers (hydraulic in the case of Tomahawk, I think), as
does every other missile that sprouts wings in flight that I am aware
of.

Again, page 5 in my addendum clearly estimates the weight of the
hydraulic and pneumatic system for the wing I've designed. Since
parachutes, and parawings routinely use the slipstream to deploy
without any active system, its the height of foolishness to suggest
that a thinking engineer cannot use slipstream forces to help deploy
the sort of system I've designed.
--
"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

Freddie, you don't know what you're talking about here. Everything
you've said just convinces me of that.

On Sep 3, 9:04*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Sep 1, 1:56*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 6724e6c6-e98c-47aa-8a94-f0e7def44492
@z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, says...

Careful mass balance analysis of a fully engineered system determined
that the mass of a fold-away wing system capable of maintaining the ET
in gliding flight is;

* 5.26 metric tons *WING
* 1.23 metric tons TAIL
* 0.84 metric tons FLIGHT CONTROL
* 0.21 metric tons INSTRUMENTATION
* 0.31 metric tons ACTUATORS
* 0.89 metric tons ELECTRICAL
* 0.55 metric tons AVIONICS

By careful integration with existing ET systems, the mass of the final
system is 55 metric tons.

I see what you're trying to do now (page 5 of that document on Scribd).. *
Those wings fold up oragami like into "shrounds placed along the length
of the ET". *Good luck with that.

I don't think you've got it since oragami has nothing to do with it,
thank you I think. *lol..

Then your art skills are deficient.

No they're not. haha..

*If you could get something like that
to work, the US Navy would pay a pretty penny for the technology. *

They already have, its called the Tomahawk cruise missile.

No, it isn't. *

Yes it is. The Tomahawk (BGM-109) missile uses an aft folding wing, I
use an aft folding wing.

Even at the level of crayon drawing and 1st grade
reading exercise your system is nothing at all like Tomahawk.

Yes it is. The BGM-109 is fired like a rocket, and turns mid flight
into an aircraft capable of flying 1,000 miles by deploying aft
folding wings from its airframe precisely to its designated target.

The ET derived heavy lift launcher I have designed is fired off like a
rocket and turns following re-entry and slow-down to subsonic speed
downrange, into an aircraft capable of gliding to a recovery aircraft
that tows it back to its launch point.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...7QTQZuk98Qnqmg

Strike that. *The US Navy would already have such wings if the
technology were within our reach.

Yes. *They do.

No. *They don't.

Yes they do.

Call me skeptical,

You're a bit more than that.

Yes, he is. *He's sane. *You aren't.

Nonsense.

but I want to see a scale demonstration of the
folding wing technology being deployed in flight. *

That's part of the development program.

Which will happen when, exactly?

Now.

Those wings make the
X-33's composite tanks look like child's play by comparison.

No they don't.

Yeah, they do,

No they don't.

since you need to violate both material science

No they don't.

AND the
laws of physics

No they don't.

for your system to work as described.

Nonsense.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HlM_0xCmXI

Not what you describe in your 'design'. *Not what Tomahawk does.

Nonsense. The video shows a very compact lightweight system that
deploys into a very large area system capable of significant lift.
Something you just said violates the laws of material science and
physics. haha..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CeeAggBUn4

Easy to do on models. *Not so easy to do on actual flying structures.

I've posted references to actual flying models that describe what I'm
talking about in more detail. Let's be clear Freddie, about what I'm
talking about and the plethora of bull**** you keep talking about.

Not what you describe in your 'design'. *Not what Tomahawk does.

The Tomahawk uses folding wings in flight to convert from a rocket to
a winged aircraft. The ET derived heavy lift vehicle I propose uses
folding wings in flight to convert from a rocket to a winged glider.
So, you claim that such systems cannot work and that they violate the
laws of physics and so forth, is wrong.

I guess that finishes you off, then.

No, Freddie, it finishes you off.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine