Disk Moonship

http://www.scribd.com/doc/40549127/Disk-Moonship

On Oct 31, 1:55*pm, William Mook wrote:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/40549127/Disk-Moonship

Available for $25 million each. Five orders required to break escrow,
six years development and construction. All ship components are fully
reusable up to 100x and all use readily available technologies that
have been demonstrated in the lab.

Cost: $25 million (including suit)
Storage: $1 million per year (includes routine maintenance)
Flight: $500,000 per flight
Duration: 4.5 days out, 4.5 days back, up to 11 days on lunar surface
Refurbish: $750,000
Refurbish Duration: 6 weeks

Purchase price includes 1 year's maintenance, flight training, and one
flight to the lunar surface and back with trainer. (trainer in
separate vehicle)

Replacement sphe $500,000
Replacement suit: $750,000 (or different suit for multiple owners)
Replacement aeroshell: $2,000,000

On Oct 31, 10:55*am, William Mook wrote:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/40549127/Disk-Moonship

I don't know quite what to make of this one, but lets see if you get
any takers, or at least constructive topic replies of other than
myself and you.

~ BG

William Mook wrote:

Available for $25 million each.

William,

How large was the team that developed this design?

Who led the design effort?

What was his background and experience?

Who were the project leaders in aerodynamics, propulsion, structural
dynamics, etc?

What were their backgrounds and experiences?

How many man-hours did it take to develop this design?

What manufacturer have you contracted to build this vehicle?

What firm has been retained to market this service?

From where will this vehicle be launched?

When does construction begin on the launch site?

Thanks,

Jim Davis

On 10/31/2010 1:16 PM, Jim Davis wrote:

From where will this vehicle be launched?

The flying island of Laputa.


Pat

In article 7b2207b5-5022-4a71-896b-e96424f829f7
@h7g2000yqn.googlegroups.com, says...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/40549127/Disk-Moonship

More b.s. schizophrenic engineering. In order for this design to be
credible, you'd need to first design, build, test, and fly one of these
spheres. This would prove that you could obtain the claimed dry mass,
thrust, and engine efficiency you claim.

Let us know when you've done that.

Jeff
--
42

In article f2036bbd-da77-4d06-87e3-a60e4ed47552
@t13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says...

On Oct 31, 10:55*am, William Mook wrote:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/40549127/Disk-Moonship

I don't know quite what to make of this one, but lets see if you get
any takers, or at least constructive topic replies of other than
myself and you.

The above reply is simply cheer-leading. Don't forget your pom-poms.

Jeff
--
42

On Oct 31, 5:16*pm, Jim Davis wrote:
William Mook wrote:
Available for $25 million each.

William,

How large was the team that developed this design?

Smaller than the team that developed the Ares


Who led the design effort?

I did.


What was his background and experience?

http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view...US&trk=tab_pro


Who were the project leaders in aerodynamics, propulsion, structural
dynamics, etc?

Proprietary

What were their backgrounds and experiences?

Proprietary

How many man-hours did it take to develop this design?

I've been thinking about it for some time now. Over ten years. I've
talked to a few people I know and trust about it - working out the
details as I had time and money. I felt I had enough information and
enough IP protection to put out there what I've done.

What manufacturer have you contracted to build this vehicle?

I have asked for quotes from a number of manufacturers. I have
received positive responses from them all. I will select one when I
have the prospect of funds to pay them.

What firm has been retained to market this service?

After talking to several I am leaning toward these folks, due
primarily to their experience with Edward Jones - who targets the same
audiences as I.

http://www.c-k.com/


From where will this vehicle be launched?

http://spaceport.zianet.com/

and I will make use of testing facilities here

http://www.wsmr.army.mil/Pages/Home.aspx

and I'm negotiating to acquire manufacturing facilities here, to do
final assembly and integration

2 Photos
One McDonnell Douglas Street
Pueblo, CO

West Bldg. - 40' height at eave, 47,500 SF manufacturing & support,
14,250 SF office/lab space. Two...

* $5,800,000
* 193,150 SF Bldg
* Manufacturing

When does construction begin on the launch site?

It is underway.

Thanks,

Jim Davis

No problem.

On Oct 31, 2:22*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Oct 31, 10:55*am, William Mook wrote:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/40549127/Disk-Moonship

I don't know quite what to make of this one, but lets see if you get
any takers, or at least constructive topic replies of other than
myself and you.

*~ BG

Well, I've been looking at MEMs for quite some time. When was looking
at wafer fabs and talking to their engineering teams I realized that
we could do some interesting MEMS related stuff. Making little
aerospike engines convinced me that this was a very interesting
technology. Lots of open issues obviously. Still, some very
interesting results.

Earlier designs I have discussed on use net were pretty traditional.
Take off the shelf hardware and assemble it into a new airframe - that
seemed the lowest cost way to go. The cost of the DC-X program
reflects that approach.

Still, the potential of MEMS to reinvent the way rockets are done
should not be ignored. I developed some designs based on results of
work I have done and they seemed good.

Yet the critical component to this design is not the rocket, which has
been done by university researchers for nearly 20 years now - no, 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.

This should be thought of as a logical extension of my seven element
External Tank design. Here we have 48 self-contained elements that
have the ability to transfer propellant between them through a
seamless network of connections that create a strong space frame
structure through innovative MEMS contacts. They also have the
ability to network together to operate collectively as a single
element.

So we have a new approach to space travel!

A common element that combines with other similar elements to
efficiently implement multi-stage operations safely, reliably, simply.

Small focused teams - particularly at universities - can achieve much
more than large teams working toward ill-defined goals within large
public or private groups.

The way one selects vendors is one creates a specification for the
work to be performed and then gets quotations from vendors qualified
to do that work. One then develops a budget based on these quotations
and arranges the financing. It is only after the financing is
arranged that you actually hire the vendors to do the work specified.
There really is no other way to proceed.

Vendors and research teams are 'coin operated' that means they can be
hired away if you do not have sufficient funds to fully engage them.
Giving away technical descriptions and those who are familiar with
them and have helped develop them is an invitation to better funded
entities to steal away important assets. That's why NDAs and NCs are
signed prior to attainment of full funding.

I am the best person qualified to build those things I create and
design.

I have spoken with and visited with many people over many years at
both White Sands Missile Range and New Mexico's Space Port - including
Governor Richardson. The vehicle described here will operate from the
space port using portable support equipment. Very similar to the way
the DC-X was supported.

With 3 ton of LH2 carried aboard 2 tank trucks and and 22 ton of LOX
carried on 1 tank truck - we have adequate capacity to fill and
launch

HYDROGEN
http://www.fibacanning.com/Cryogenic..._available.htm

OXYGEN
http://www.fibacanning.com/Tube%20Tr...s_trailers.htm

CONTROL & OTHER
http://www.mtsmanufacturing.com/

Advertisers are hired to reach buyers, not vendors. My buyers are
HNWI with $30 million in assets or more. My vendors are aerospace
companies and others with specific skill sets.

Those who say you must have funding before knowing how you're going to
spend it in detail, have it backwards. You have to know precisely
what you're going to be doing with the money before anyone trusts you
with it. So, not only do you need talented people with the right
skills and tools, you also need all the facilities spelled out.

* * *
Jeff Findley said spheres should be built and tested. I agree.

The idea of multiple free flying elements that use rockets to maneuver
is already being studied - in a different context. The results of
these tests are a treasure trove for the avionics and control system
I'm building.

So, much of the software to perform the maneuvers needed of my spheres
have been done by NASA already with their Synchronized Position Hold
Engage Reorient Experimental Satellites (SPHERES)

Air Table Experiment (2D)
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/1...n_SPHERES3.jpg

KC-135 Vomit Comet Experiment (3D)
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/1...n_SPHERES2.jpg

ISS Experiment (3D)
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/1...n_SPHERES6.jpg

Jeff also points out that flight systems would prove I could achieve
the performance I require for the proposed mission.

He is correct. This is a function of thrust to weight as well as
overall thrust and size along with specific impulse. These are
derived from bench tests first before being put into a flight element.

Here are some tests that have already been performed.

TRW/Caltech Experiments (1998)
http://design.caltech.edu/micropropu...color_jpg.html

http://design.caltech.edu/micropropu...small_jpg.html

Northwestern University Experiments (2002)
http://clifton.mech.northwestern.edu...crorockets.pdf

AIAA Position Paper (2005)
http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyM...V2005_3650.pdf

Thrust to weight ratios of 1,000 to 1 and higher have been achieved.
5,000 to 1 thrust to weight ratios are possible with more advanced
techniques of assembly and fabrication. Specific impulses to the
limit possible with the propellants used are also possible even with
polysilicon based substrates. 50 psi thrust has been demonstrated
with arrays and higher pressures are possible - up to 300 psi.

For liquid fueled cryogenic engines a crucial concern is controlled
mass flow of the propellants. To this end careful analysis must be
carried out with the proposed pump technologies. Fortunately, the
history of ink jet printing is quite informative when working on the
scale of interest;

http://www.dcsc.tudelft.nl/Research/...ation-6507.pdf

Jeff also wants to know what I've done.

Well, my goal is to produce a LOX/LH2 rocket array on a 300 mm wafer
(11.8 inch) that can produce up to 30,000 lbf using hydrogen and
oxygen supplied to it.

The spheres in question operating at 2 gees max acceleration using my
propulsive skin concept and massing 175 kg (385 lbs) fully loaded
require a total of 3 square inches of thruster area per sphere -
costing in quantity $45. 30 lift surfaces per wafer are produced by
my development effort.

My propulsive skin uses three sets of engines for each thrust element,
just like a TV screen uses three sets of colors for each picture
element. Each engine is pointed in a different direction - X,Y,Z -
and the resultant with each at maximum thrust is pointed normal to the
point on the propulsive surface the thrust element is located. In
this way a continuous range of tangential and normal forces can be
applied to each point on the surface to provide the ultimate in
control.

A benefit of this process is that very advanced and sophisticated
control circuitry to control these engines are available from HDTV
experience - to provide real time fine degree of control unprecedented
in rocket experience.

Why 300 psi?

Its a function of mass flow rate.

Newton tells us F=ma, and the fundamental theorem of calculus tells us
that we can rewrite it

F = m * vdot = mdot * v

Where mdot is mass flow rate and v is exhaust velocity.

This shows the importance of mass flow rate of propellants into an
engine for maintaining thrust.

Inkjet printers deliver 1 to 10 picoliters of water or oil based ink
per droplet and have the capacity to deliver 60,000 drops per second
from each injector - with 2,656 ejectors per square mm over 150
million drops per second per mm - or 100 billion per square inch!

Microfabricated structures have been made on large sections of
polysilicon. Panasonic has made a 150 inch (3.8 meter) UHDTV with
over 21 million plasma elements on it (3 images of 7 million pixels
each)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_H...ion_Television

Each of these plasma elements has a sophisticated system of control
built in to maintain precise color balance. This suggests what is
possible.

With 100 cc's per square inch at 1 pL drop size and 1,000 cc's (1
liter) per square inch at 10 pL drop size - per square inch at maximum
rate. Lower droplet delivery rates provide even lower flows and lower
thrusts.

Of course, ink jet print heads deliver reliable amounts of different
color ink by varying speed and droplet size with a very high degree of
precision.

Adapting this core technology to cryogenic liquids is the challenge to
the system described - and the focus of our program to bring about
the
Hydrogen/Oxygen rocket called for in this design.

Delivering 4.38 kg of liquid oxygen and 1.00 kg of liquid hydrogen per
second to an engine array that produces an exhaust of 4,411 m/sec
would produce 23,730 Newtons of thrust. (5,326 lbf thrust).

WIth a density of 1.14 kg/l for the LOX and density of 0.07 kg/l for
the LH2 we have the need to deliver 3.8 liters per second of LOX and
14.3 liters per second of LH2. A total of 18.1 liters per second to
produce the thrust above.

This is done in 18.1 square inches of surface using cryogenic micro
pumps that achieve the same performance as today's ink jet print
heads. This is 295 lbf/in2. This is 500x more lift per unit area
than produced by wings.

My experience is that cryogenic systems have the potential to
outperform print head systems. This is due to the fact that cryogenic
liquids have lower viscosities than inks.

Even so, the 150 inch plasma screen TV adapted to produce thrust would
deliver 2.8 million pounds of thrust from its 9,600 square inches!

At $15 per square inch - the system would cost less than $150,000 - an
amazing savings over something like the M-1 - in both development and
production.

A $20 million program that allows us to turn a used wafer fab into a
rocket engine facility capable of producing 50,000 wafers per month -
each of which produces a total of 30,000 lbf - or 1,500,000,000 lbf of
lift per month at a cost of $0.30 per lbf - in scalable units is an
unprecedented opportunity to advance the state of the art in rocketry!

Attaching the lift elements to an airframe with controlling
electronics - to create a wide range of vehicles will result in the
vehicle described among others.

An 'airbag' type system for motorcyclists that involve a vest that
bring the motorcyclist to a safe stop if s/he drops his/her bike at
speed - is one of the first products we're looking at. A flying
skateboard is another.

Motorcycles to the moon
48 spheres each 1 meter in diameter have the potential to send 125 kg
to the moon and back. Enough for 1 person.

RVs to the moon
Increasing the sphere size to 2 meters increases payload 8x - to 1,000
kg - enough for 8 people.

Cities on the moon.
Increasing sphere size to 20 meters increases payload 8,000x to 1,000
metric tons - enough for 8,000 people - or fewer people with more
stuff!

A 20 meter diameter sphere would mass 1,400 metric tons each - but
would use the same approach and concepts that the minimum ship uses.
The same wafer fab described above would be able to produce thrust
systems for 500 of these spheres per month - supporting construction
of 10 of the larger moonships PER MONTH.

Something worth looking into don't you think? I do!