Solar Power Satellite Concept

On Sep 3, 9:14*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Sep 2, 2:16*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:

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.

So the 'slots' you show on your vehicle

I don't show slots on my vehicle, I show shrouds attached to the air
frame, just as I said in my addendum.

in your crayon drawing

I don't have crayon drawings Freddie, I have the results of ray
tracing against a 3D model based on engineering drawings of my system.

aren't
really there

There are no slots - there are shrouds.

and your wings are nothing at all like those of a
Tomahawk.

Yes they are, the main wing is an NACA 65-209 used on some models of
the main wing of the BGH-109 cruise missile, commonly known as
'Tomahawk'.

Ok, so much for all those claims.

Yes indeed, and your bone-headed commentary.

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?

He wants you to do something past the level of crayon drawings to
support your claims.

So, what would you like to see?

Me, I don't care, because I don't think you have anything better.

Okay. This comment, as all others you have made, are profoundly and
utterly wrong.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
*soul with evil."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Socrates

On Sep 3, 9:18*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
The ability to fold a wing along the airframe is well-established;

http://www.gizmag.com/icon-a5-fold-u...-plane/9470/pi...

Not designed to deploy in flight.

Others are, like those of the Tomahawk.

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

Not designed to deploy in flight.

That's right. Yet, aft folding wings have a long history, and other
aft folding wings, like the Tomahawk cruise missile wing, use such a
system to fold away during launch and *are* deployed in flight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F6...g_on_USS_Enter...

Not designed to deploy in flight.

You must like repeating yourself Freddie. You can see, I hope, since
everyone else can, that these references are to establish the history
of aft folding wings. Parachutes deploy in flight. Even para-wings.
Systems like the Tomahawk cruise missile use a mechanical system very
much like the one's shown, along with actuators, to deploy from an aft
folded position to a flight position. My system does likewise.

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=...www.doverpac.c...

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'.

Not at all. If you've every been sky diving and folded your own
parachute you know exactly what z-folding is.

The wings I use make use of this capability to reduce the size and
weight of the attached system while maintaining lift and low drag.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...qZFZ-x6w3K9y2w

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...GQXb36AYH1qXKQ

See particularly figure four of the second document.




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

On Sep 3, 9:55*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
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...-plane/9470/pi....

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...g_on_USS_Enter....

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=...www.doverpac.c...

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. *

Idiocy on your part Jeff.

He's trivializing the complexity of this problem.

No I'm not.

*I don't
believe this size and mass estimates for the wings and tail. *

Why?

I wonder if he's even done the wing loading calculations for his wings
when they deploy.

How else would I worke out the power requirements for the deployment
system and its weight unless I did this?

*You know, the sort of calculations you'd do for an
aerospace engineering senior design project. *

That's right.

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. *

That's right - among other things. That's why I used the Tomahawk
wing.

On top of that, figuring out the aerodynamic loads *while* the wing is
*being* deployed is where the really hard problems are. *

That's right.

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.

Yep.

Again, I don't feel off base calling this design a napkin drawing. *

You should.

The
details are sorely lacking.

No they're not.

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

What's sorely lacking is any detail that supports what you keep
claiming regarding weight and workability of the system I've described
generally here in these posts.

On Sep 2, 9:25*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
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

Reality belies your statements Brad. Lets look at the actual data
shall we?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...tablees1a.html

According to the US DOE EIA the average retail price for electricity
generation was 9.8 cents per kWh. So, 6.0 cents per kWh represents a
substantial savings from these figures. Also, since the power is
carbon-free there is another 1.2 cents per kWh benefit from that in
nation's that have signed the carbon cap and trade agreement.

The initial cost of putting up four power satellites, building the
supply chain for those satellites, and the 32,000 ground stations,
1.25 MW each, along with the cost of putting together a fleet of five
ET derived heavy lift launchers to put them up, along with a launch
center and recovery center and operations center, and the supply chain
for continued operation of that fleet, costs $44 billion and takes
five years.

The value of the first four power satellites is based on the revenue
they generate over their useful lives discounted at rates typical
today. This value exceeds $275 billion the day they become
operational.

So, buyers of the ground stations, along with investors in the
project, obtain substantial returns.

Paying $2 per watt for ground stations that produce 1.25 MW baseload
power costs customers $2.5 million. 32,000 such stations is worth $80
billion. Nearly double the cost of the entire program. Of course
utility buyers won't put out that kind of money since they deal with
the public purse and this is an unproved system. That doesn't
matter. They can agree to pay a small deposit, and progress payments
as milestones are met, and also enter a power purchase agreement, and
make a final payment once the system has been operational continuously
for 72 hours.

So, here are the revenue values for the system;

$80 billion - receiver charges - 40 million kW at $2,000 per kW.

$21 billion/year - energy charges - 6 cents per kWh, 8,766 hrs/year,
40 million kW
$ 4 billion/year - carbon credits - 1.2 cents per kWh, 8,766 hrs/
year, 40 million kW

The value of the $25 billion per year in recurring income when
discounted at 3.25% per year over 30 years is $459.8 billion present
value. Add this to the $80 billion in receiver charges at $2,000 per
kW - the four satellites are worth $539.8 billion the day they're
switched on.

A $44 billion development cost spread out over the five year
development period as follows;

Year 1 $ 4.40
Year 2 $ 8.80
Year 3 $ 8.80
Year 4 $11.00
Year 5 $11.00
Total $44.00

Subtracting out the payment schedule for each ground station - from
utilities

$50,000 Year 1 (sign off-take agreement)
$50,000 Year 2 (with milestones)
$50,000 Year 3 (with milestones)
$50,000 Year 4 (with milestones)
$50,000 Year 5 (with milestones)


$250,000 TOTAL Prepayment

$2,250,000 DUE AT SWITCH ON


Which produces the following cash requirements from lenders

Year 1 $ 3.60
Year 2 $ 8.00
Year 3 $ 8.00
Year 4 $10.20
Year 5 $10.20

Total $40.00

Offering lenders 40% compounded annualized rate of return, obtains the
following value schedule;

Time Borrowed Repaid

Year 1 $ 3.60 $ 19.36
Year 2 $ 8.00 $ 30.73
Year 3 $ 8.00 $ 21.95
Year 4 $10.20 $ 19.99
Year 5 $10.20 $ 14.28

Total $40.00 $106.32


The borrowings are repaid at switch-on as follows;

$66.32 billion due at switch-on from final receiver payments.
$1 billion due each month for 48 months from revenue payments.

Additional satellites and ground stations are placed the same way,
applying 7.7% per annum interest rates. The initial lending
consortium has rights of first refusal for these at this rate.

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

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

On Sep 2, 9:37*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
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.
Notice, I don't make those claims.

There have been others here who HAVE made those claims and some have
actually bent metal.

Mook simply wears out keyboards.

*~ BG

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

Greg, you obviously don't know a damn thing about how to get things
done. *Clearly a thing must be designed before it is built. *Plainly
that means things have to be worked out in detail on computer.
Surely, I am free to discuss and share the results of my efforts here
or anywhere. *You sound like you suffer from 'small man' syndrome, and
are merely jealous of the ideas, capabilities, knowledge and women I
have. *lol. * I got a new keyboard, and that's not the only thing I
wear out with my 6 ft 3 in frame! *lol.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35449912/S...e-Orbitshttp:/...

My company operates along the successful project financing model. *TO
that end we promote and sponsor a wide range of projects that create
value using solar energy and my proprietary technology throughout the
world, and in this case, beyond it.

I have recently developed a business plan for four satellites like
those described here with the four powering 32,000 ground stations
totaling 40,000 MW capacity. *This energy when sold at $0.06 per kWh
generates revenue valued at $275 billion the day it is switched on.

Selling off nearly half this value to investors over the five year
construction program provides them with a compounded 40% annual rate
of return for the $44 billion placed at risk.

This is quite an exciting program and has the potential to radically
alter our relationship to the cosmos.

Half the budget is used to build a fleet of reusable heavy lift
launchers. *The other half is used to build a supply chain and operate
it to build four satellites described above, along with the compact
ground stations.

The project plan ends here. *However, success opens other
possibilities.

Once the initial complement of satellites is operational half the
revenue generated by those satellites is used to continue building and
launching five satellites per year adding $300 billion per year to the
project's valuation. *Within a few years the project is worth over $1
trillion.

Rather than blindly launching a continuous stream of 10 GW satellites,
it makes sense to consider what might be done with a small portion of
the revenue in developing more advanced systems. *Systems that are too
complex to consider out of the box. *These more advanced systems will
service smaller users directly, send energy to mobile as well as
stationary users, and operate more efficiently in the solar system,
rather than be bound to Earth.

So, accepting a little higher risk, following initial success at lower
risk, the same launchers may also launch an advanced satellite system
that builds on the knowledge gained by building the first generation
satellite. *Here, there are a two satellites consisting of two 500 m
diameter CPV targets with no concentrator. *One satellite, the
Receiver, flies from LEO to GEO using solar powered ion rockets
normally used for station keeping. *Another satellite, the
Transmitter, flies from LEO to L1 using its ion station keeping
rockets.

The transmitter beams 160 MW of energy from L1 to GEO which then gets
reformed and directed into 160,000 beams of 1 kW each. *Unlike its
predecessor, this satellite is capable of beaming energy to moving as
well as stationary targets, at far higher energy than previously.

This satellite test proves out some of the most difficult elements of
the advanced satellite system.

If successful, the advanced satellite will restart its ion engines and
fly a Hohmann transfer orbit to Jupiter. *There it will execute a
sling shot maneuver to bring it to zero speed relative to the Sun. *It
will then fall into the Sun.

When the Transmitter's altitude reaches a mere 3.75 million km from
the Sun, it executes a method of station keeping using controlled
reflection of ineffective photons. *In this way it hovers above the
solar surface beneath the Earth as it orbits the Sun.

At this distance the Transmitter is now capable of beaming 250,000 MW
of laser energy to the Receiver, which generates 220 million laser
beams, each 1 kW to stationary and mobile receivers throughout the
world. *At $0.04 per kWh the revenue stream generated by the satellite
pair is worth over $1 trillion.

A successful installation of this very difficult and risky system,
will result in the installation of 70 more over the three years
following the first one. *70 of these satellites replaces all our
present energy use and captures the revenues now earned by OPEC and
others in the energy business.

Success at this level allows us to consider taking some risks in our
launch infrastructure to expand capabilities there.

At this point a program to develop a replacement engine for the RS-68
derived aerospike engine using 220 GW of laser power beamed to a
launcher, will be funded. *The result will be the conversion of the
five multi-element launchers into a fleet of thirty-five SSTO
launchers of similar capacity. *This combined with improvements in the
CPV arrays will allow pairs of satellites each 2.5 km in diameter to
be placed in space. * When operated at 3.75 million km these will
generate 7.8 trillion watts of laser energy. *This energy is beamed
throughout the solar system to be used for any of a variety of
industrial processes, including making use of asteroids to feed space
factories that make things on orbit by remote control and dispatch
them to any point on Earth. *Also, MEMS based laser rocket arrays make
possible the personal spaceship and personal ballistic travel to all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxV2F...utube.com/watc....

Do we get to hear that tiny pin dropping again?

What is it about my 1.2 TW platform of laser cannons as part of my LSE-
CM/ISS package deal that you didn't like?

*~ BG

From what I've seen of your system Brad is it won't work for several
sound reasons.

Also, GEO is a much better locale for a power satellite to serve Earth
and lunar Lagrange point. However, to supply lunar bases, and power
laser powered rockets, lunar Lagrange points have some things to
recommend them.

Obviously, starting by serving well defined terrestrial markets is a
better first step. Should demand for power beyond Earth develop for
any reason, then more advanced systems can be considered.

On Sep 3, 8:37*pm, William Mook wrote:
On Sep 2, 9:37*pm, Brad Guth wrote:



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.
Notice, I don't make those claims.

There have been others here who HAVE made those claims and some have
actually bent metal.

Mook simply wears out keyboards.

*~ BG

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

Greg, you obviously don't know a damn thing about how to get things
done. *Clearly a thing must be designed before it is built. *Plainly
that means things have to be worked out in detail on computer.
Surely, I am free to discuss and share the results of my efforts here
or anywhere. *You sound like you suffer from 'small man' syndrome, and
are merely jealous of the ideas, capabilities, knowledge and women I
have. *lol. * I got a new keyboard, and that's not the only thing I
wear out with my 6 ft 3 in frame! *lol.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35449912/S...e-Orbitshttp:/....

My company operates along the successful project financing model. *TO
that end we promote and sponsor a wide range of projects that create
value using solar energy and my proprietary technology throughout the
world, and in this case, beyond it.

I have recently developed a business plan for four satellites like
those described here with the four powering 32,000 ground stations
totaling 40,000 MW capacity. *This energy when sold at $0.06 per kWh
generates revenue valued at $275 billion the day it is switched on.

Selling off nearly half this value to investors over the five year
construction program provides them with a compounded 40% annual rate
of return for the $44 billion placed at risk.

This is quite an exciting program and has the potential to radically
alter our relationship to the cosmos.

Half the budget is used to build a fleet of reusable heavy lift
launchers. *The other half is used to build a supply chain and operate
it to build four satellites described above, along with the compact
ground stations.

The project plan ends here. *However, success opens other
possibilities.

Once the initial complement of satellites is operational half the
revenue generated by those satellites is used to continue building and
launching five satellites per year adding $300 billion per year to the
project's valuation. *Within a few years the project is worth over $1
trillion.

Rather than blindly launching a continuous stream of 10 GW satellites,
it makes sense to consider what might be done with a small portion of
the revenue in developing more advanced systems. *Systems that are too
complex to consider out of the box. *These more advanced systems will
service smaller users directly, send energy to mobile as well as
stationary users, and operate more efficiently in the solar system,
rather than be bound to Earth.

So, accepting a little higher risk, following initial success at lower
risk, the same launchers may also launch an advanced satellite system
that builds on the knowledge gained by building the first generation
satellite. *Here, there are a two satellites consisting of two 500 m
diameter CPV targets with no concentrator. *One satellite, the
Receiver, flies from LEO to GEO using solar powered ion rockets
normally used for station keeping. *Another satellite, the
Transmitter, flies from LEO to L1 using its ion station keeping
rockets.

The transmitter beams 160 MW of energy from L1 to GEO which then gets
reformed and directed into 160,000 beams of 1 kW each. *Unlike its
predecessor, this satellite is capable of beaming energy to moving as
well as stationary targets, at far higher energy than previously.

This satellite test proves out some of the most difficult elements of
the advanced satellite system.

If successful, the advanced satellite will restart its ion engines and
fly a Hohmann transfer orbit to Jupiter. *There it will execute a
sling shot maneuver to bring it to zero speed relative to the Sun. *It
will then fall into the Sun.

When the Transmitter's altitude reaches a mere 3.75 million km from
the Sun, it executes a method of station keeping using controlled
reflection of ineffective photons. *In this way it hovers above the
solar surface beneath the Earth as it orbits the Sun.

At this distance the Transmitter is now capable of beaming 250,000 MW
of laser energy to the Receiver, which generates 220 million laser
beams, each 1 kW to stationary and mobile receivers throughout the
world. *At $0.04 per kWh the revenue stream generated by the satellite
pair is worth over $1 trillion.

A successful installation of this very difficult and risky system,
will result in the installation of 70 more over the three years
following the first one. *70 of these satellites replaces all our
present energy use and captures the revenues now earned by OPEC and
others in the energy business.

Success at this level allows us to consider taking some risks in our
launch infrastructure to expand capabilities there.

At this point a program to develop a replacement engine for the RS-68
derived aerospike engine using 220 GW of laser power beamed to a
launcher, will be funded. *The result will be the conversion of the
five multi-element launchers into a fleet of thirty-five SSTO
launchers of similar capacity. *This combined with improvements in the
CPV arrays will allow pairs of satellites each 2.5 km in diameter to
be placed in space. * When operated at 3.75 million km these will
generate 7.8 trillion watts of laser energy. *This energy is beamed
throughout the solar system to be used for any of a variety of
industrial processes, including making use of asteroids to feed space
factories that make things on orbit by remote control and dispatch
them to any point on Earth. *Also, MEMS based laser rocket arrays make
possible the personal spaceship and personal ballistic travel to all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxV2F...utube.com/watc...

Do we get to hear that tiny pin dropping again?

What is it about my 1.2 TW platform of laser cannons as part of my LSE-
CM/ISS package deal that you didn't like?

*~ BG

From what I've seen of your system Brad is it won't work for several
sound reasons.

Also, GEO is a much better locale for a power satellite to serve Earth
and lunar Lagrange point. *However, to supply lunar bases, and power
laser powered rockets, lunar Lagrange points have some things to
recommend them.

Obviously, starting by serving well defined terrestrial markets is a
better first step. *Should demand for power beyond Earth develop for
any reason, then more advanced systems can be considered.

A 10,000 MW beam can energize a 221.7 metric ton force rocket with an
exhaust velocity of 9.2 km/sec. Since things are not 100% efficient,
this should be reduced to 150 metric tons of force for early systems,
rising to 200 metric tons of force for later systems.

A two stage lunar rocket, massing 125 metric tons at lift off, would
consists of 58 % propellant mass. With 12% structure fraction,
that's 30% payload. A two stage system would consist of 9% of
payload. That's 11.25 metric tons of payload. The first stage is
recovered downrange.

The RLV that launched the power satellites could launch a 700 ton
lunar stage which is launched into LEO. It is powered by a laser
rocket and would burn off 62% of its starting weight as propellant.
That's 434 metric tons of propellant. With 86 tons of structure, this
leaves 180 tons of payload on the moon and back!

11.25 metric tons of payload is about that 1/3 that of a 747
180 ton metric tons of paylod is about 5x that of a 747

So, these two developments based around the 10,000 MW power satellite
- four in GEO and one at LL1 - would give us an interesting capability
when combined with the HLRLV described here.

The smaller vehicle can be considered a quick response low cost
passenger vehicle, the larger stage a slower cargo vehicle.

Similar calculations can be done for Mars operations as well as other
interplanetary operations.

On Sep 3, 8:42*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
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.

The Tomahawk wing is ***NOTHING*** like what you have described your
wing as being.



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

No, you are misquoting me again.

Yes, how dare I actually look at what you actually wrote!

If you actually read what I wrote you'd know that the system I've
described uses a NACA 6 series airfoil shape the same I use.

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

Yep.

So you either stole the design (illegal)

Nonsense. You are getting your shorts in a twist over nothing. NACA
airfoils are public knowledge, as are several elements of fold away
wings.

or you are lying in your
remark above.

Again nonsense. I can use all the public domain elements that are
precisely those used aboard the Tomahawk for precisely the same reason
they were used on the Tomahawk in precisely the same way without
violating either of the false choices you are attempting to make.

*And since you don't have any "RLV elements",

Now you're just grasping at straws Freddie! haha - I have the most
complete and detailed designs and models prepared by anyone to date.

I think we
know just which it is.

I think anyone troubling themselves to read this conversation knows
just how far you are willing to go in a vain attempt to smear me.
haha...



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.

Yes, once again I have actually gone and taken you at your word!

No, you have mischaracterized what I've said. If you actually read
what I said, you'd know exactly what I said, and wouldn't have to make
stuff up.



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...g_on_USS_Enter...

Those wings are nothing like the wings on a Tomahawk, either.

1) Tomahawk wings deploy in flight. *Those don't.

You are quoting out of context Freddie. I said that folding wings
have a long history and gave this example. YOU added the observation
about in flight deployment. The wings shown fold aft just as the
tomahawks do, using the same sort of bearing system - which is the
point of me mentioning it here.

2) Tomahawk wings don't fold. *Those do.

If you'd ever look at a video of a tomahawk deploying its wings and
tail you'd see they fold aft along the airframe at their root just
like these. If you'd look at the mechanical model of the tomahawk
wing you'd see they use the same sort of bearing system. If you'd
look at the NACA lift moment profile of 6 series wings you'd see they
are well suited for this sort of turning in a slip stream. Which is
why I used them in my design as well.


Are you starting to catch on here, or must I continue to ridicule you?

You are only holding a mirror up to yourself Freddie. You have yet to
say anything that makes sense. Sorry.



You have said wrongly time and again fold-away wings won't work,

Where have I said any such thing? *You're a liar.

You said fold away wings wouldn't work. Who's the liar?

Now, I *have* said that your crayon drawings

Anyone who looks at the ray tracings of my engineering drawings knows
they are not crayon drawings. Sorry Freddie.

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

aren't a design

In every respect of the meaning of the word design, my system is the
most advanced design of a vehicle of this size produced in the last 40
years.

and won't
work,

Yes it does.

but that's hardly the same thing as what you are claiming.

I'm not claiming anything. I'm proving things. You on the other hand
are making gratuitous claims to the contrary. Give it up Freddie.
Take a pill and then a nap. Maybe you'll fill better.



without really saying why.

If you'd like to hire me

Given the low quality of your commentary here why would anyone hire
you for any purpose?

to explain that to you,

You don't have any reason whatever to support your silly statements -
got it.

please submit a
contract

I wouldn't hire you to screw in a light bulb Freddie.

at my usual rate

hahahaha...

plus a 50% 'stupid customer' offset.

You certainly are a dreamer aren't you? hahahaha...



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.

Not a complete sentence. *

What is not a complete sentence? I couldn't tell what you were
talking about after reading the fragment you wrote! Jesus Freddie, if
you're reduced to correcting grammar, at least use proper grammar
yourself. hahaha.

Blot your drool and try again.

I don't drool Freddie. Do you?





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.

Do you seriously believe people can't read, Mookie?

People can read Freddie. So can I. That's why I seriously believe
you'd say anything in a vain attempt to discredit what I've proposed
here. I think most who read our exchange also believe this.

*Do you honestly
believe that you protesting that you've never said things that you
have just said is going to be believable to *anyone*?

I honestly believe that you made up things and attributed it to me in
a vain attempt to discredit what I did say.

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

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

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...www.empa.ch/pl...

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.

So build it

I will.

and prove me (and everyone else telling you that what you
have isn't even close to a 'design') incorrect.

I have already proved you and those others incorrect.


But you can't,

Can't what Freddie? Show you for the ass you are? No, you've done
that.

because what you've got right now is at the level of an
elementary school student scribbling with a crayon.

Nonsense.

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

On Sep 3, 8:44*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Sep 3, 8:19*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:

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

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.

So when did it fly?

What are you referring to Freddie? 'it'? If you mean the CFD model
or the wind tunnel models, sign a non-binding letter of intent as to
the purpose of your review, a non-disclosure non-compete agreement,
and I will give you more access.


Never?

Is this supposed to mean something? Never? Never what Freddie? You
really aren't making much sense.

Then it's not 'reality' and you have no clue that it 'works'.

It means what in this context Freddie?

Crayon scribblings and some childish arithmetic is what you've got so
far.

Nonsense.


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

On Sep 3, 8:49*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
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!

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

Crayon drawings and junior high school math is what you've got,
Mookie.


Nonsense.


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

http://www.flightlevelengineering.com/

You really haven't a clue, have you? *

It doesn't take much to put together a CFD model and from that a wind
tunnel model.

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

On Sep 3, 8:58*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
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?

Submit a contract at my usual consulting rates with a sufficient
number of hours on it for me to try to educate you.

haha - I wouldn't hire you to screw in a light bulb. Neither would
anyone else, which is why I guess you're so keen to troll for a
contract in response to me asking you to support your gratuitous
statements. Fact is, you don't know what the hell you're talking
about, and you don't have an answer to my question - all you can do is
backpedal and pose.





Parachutes do it all the time, even Rogallo wing systems. *No
reason an inflatable system can't do it.

If you first get your speed down far below where you can get it.

You don't know how to calculate the terminal velocity of a ballistic
re-entry body - something any undergrad can do.

Got 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.

You really are both clueless and hopeless, aren't you?

That would be you Freddie, not me.






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.

What absolute horse manure!

Nonsense. You're reduced to calling names and have nothing at all to
say of substance. Why don't you do us all a big favor and shut your
clueless trap? hahaha..





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.

Absolute horse manure! *

Nonsense.

This is like claiming that a bicycle and an
Indy car are the same because they both have rubber tires.

Your objections are like saying that tires can't exist.



In responding to your
baseless assertions that such wings cannot exist,

Where did I say any such thing? *

You said they violate the laws of physics. THAT'S clearly horse
manure.

You're a liar,

No I'm not.

you're insane,

No I'm not.

or
both.

Neither - that suggests something about you doesn't it Freddie.

I vote for 'both'.

Looking in the mirror again Freddie.



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

Get back to us when you have more than crayon drawings and some junior
high school level arithmetic.

You are clueless Freddie.




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.

You haven't 'designed' anything yet, Mookie.

Yes I have. The design I have here is the most advanced design for a
heavy launch system that has been produced in the last 40 years.

*You've drawn a few
pretty pictures,

Based on mechanical drawings.

pulled some numbers out of your ass,

I've done a thorough analysis.

and done a
little simple arithmetic.

I've described what I've done in general terms here and online.



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.

You really haven't a clue, have you? *

I have far more a clue than you Freddie.

Please describe the aero flow
fields, loads, and speeds under which such existing systems 'deploy'.

Why should I download the CFD models and wind tunnel tests just to
have a civilized conversation about what I've done here?

Then describe the same things for your proposed system. *

What the hell are you talking about Freddie? I don't have to prove
your statements - you do! I have designed and developed a workable
heavy lift launcher and recovery system for it. This is the most
complete design completed for such a system over the last 40 years.
In response to this you are making inane statements in a crazy attempt
to discredit what I've done for some reason - calling ray tracings
crayon drawings and detailed mass balance analysis high school math.
What idiocy you spout for no good reason.

I have given ample response to what you've said, you are now repeating
yourself and calling names or making things up and wrongly attributing
it to me.


Once you've done that, you'll have STARTED a design.

I've gone well beyond CFD and wind tunnel tests Freddie.

--
"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.

Fortunately for me, you're a bloody idiot

Unfortunately for you, I am not, but you clearly are.

whose convictions simply
don't matter in the real world.

I have completed very detailed work supporting every aspect of what I
am proposing here. You are attacking what I've said here for no real
reason. That makes you sort of a nut, not me.

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