<p>If you could find partners and financiers, I could envision the blimp to be a standard platform for rocket launches in 10 years, because of the heavy lift capabilities. If the blimp could boost the 2nd stage like you calculated, this is the way airborne launches could be done in the future.</p><p>Have you checked whether there have been attempts to launch a rocket from a balloon or a blimp in high altitude? </p>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you could find partners and financiers, I could envision the blimp to be a standard platform for rocket launches in 10 years, because of the heavy lift capabilities. If the blimp could boost the 2nd stage like you calculated, this is the way airborne launches could be done in the future.Have you checked whether there have been attempts to launch a rocket from a balloon or a blimp in high altitude? <br />Posted by aphh</DIV><br /><br />The only things I have seen through my research and patent searches that are close entailed 1. tethering a rocket to something akin to a weather balloon and releasing at the point of neutral buoyancy (Impracticle for large systems and very dangerous since there were no control mechanisms for the balloon) and one that claims it has an electrostatic hydrogen containment bubble that they could use to feed gaseous hydrogen to a rocket motor (this one is older). </p><p>To my knowledge no serious effort has been applied toward solving the real technical challenges associated with the idea prior to our work. I am not saying, that, at some time in the past someone didn't think of the idea, but if they did and if they published their work I have been unable to locate it. That said if anyone has different information I would be interested in hearing about it.</p><p> As far as the ten year timeframe goes, given the resources I think I could field a working ready to fly system in 24 mos or less.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
<p>I see potential and savings in this method, because now you could fly to optimal location to launch the rocket. Less infrastructure on the ground would be needed, basically a hangar for the blimp and a facility to mate the blimp with the rocket.</p><p>If you think about it, current launch methods of rockets start to look outdated, as if they were 50 years old 
</p><p>One thing that worries me is the separation of the rocket from the blimp. How to prevent a collision or the rocket exhaust from damaging the blimp? I'm sure that could be solved, though.</p>
</p><p>One thing that worries me is the separation of the rocket from the blimp. How to prevent a collision or the rocket exhaust from damaging the blimp? I'm sure that could be solved, though.</p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I see potential and savings in this method, because now you could fly to optimal location to launch the rocket. Less infrastructure on the ground would be needed, basically a hangar for the blimp and a facility to mate the blimp with the rocket.If you think about it, current launch methods of rockets start to look outdated, as if they were 50 years old One thing that worries me is the separation of the rocket from the blimp. How to prevent a collision or the rocket exhaust from damaging the blimp? I'm sure that could be solved, though. <br />Posted by aphh</DIV><br /><br />aphh form drag would provide plenty of deceleration. just drop the 2nd stage and cut the engines. Then fire engines on the second stage once you had clearance. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
One thing that worries me is the separation of the rocket from the blimp. How to prevent a collision or the rocket exhaust from damaging the blimp? I'm sure that could be solved, though. <br />Posted by aphh</DIV><br /><br />aphh form drag would provide plenty of deceleration. just drop the 2nd stage and cut the engines. Then fire engines on the second stage once you had clearance. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>aphh form drag would provide plenty of deceleration. just drop the 2nd stage and cut the engines. Then fire engines on the second stage once you had clearance. <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV><br /><br />Another nice feature of the system used in this fashion. For ground launch, small failures can become catastrophic losses real fast due to the lack of time to recover. From 80,000 ft+ you can add some recovery modes not practical when you are close to the dirt. Might save some very expensive hardware from ending up in the bits and pieces bin. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
<p>Ok I'm confused.</p><p>How many different operational concepts are there here? A blimp to act as a launch platform for a conventinal rocket? A blimp that becomes a rocket at high altitude, as part of an expendable launch vehicle? A blimp that becomes part of a single stage to orbit reusable vehicle? A blimp that first rises under buoyancy and then provides the hydrogen fuel for a conventional rocket engine in a reusable single stage to orbit vehicle ?</p><p>What do you think is your intellectual property and what is covered by patent ? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>I've always liked the idea of hauling rockets up on balloons first... great to see a real, reasoned concept for it! I have always seen trouble at the seperation / firing of the first stage as the main problem... </p><p>looking forward to seeing more of your ideas, thanks!</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok I'm confused.How many different operational concepts are there here? A blimp to act as a launch platform for a conventinal rocket? A blimp that becomes a rocket at high altitude, as part of an expendable launch vehicle? A blimp that becomes part of a single stage to orbit reusable vehicle? A blimp that first rises under buoyancy and then provides the hydrogen fuel for a conventional rocket engine in a reusable single stage to orbit vehicle ?What do you think is your intellectual property and what is covered by patent ? <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Dr. Rocket,</p><p> All of the above represent a range of possibilities, except for the expendable option, I don't believe that was ever proposed as an option, The options range from what I know is possible (worst case=large rocket lifted as second stage to high altitude to reduce delta-v requirements for a conventional system) to what I think is possible (best case = SSTO vehicle operation) and everything in-between. All of this is predicated on using off the shelf propulsion systems that are augmented with hydrogen from gas storage that has to be dumped overboard anyway as altitude increases and as much external oxidizer as I can gather and use on the way up. The patent covers everything in the design that enables the above in very broad terms as possible to prevent circumvention. I would be happy to provide a copy of the patents for the asking the only thing I require is a non disclosure no compete agreement signed before I release that info. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I've always liked the idea of hauling rockets up on balloons first... great to see a real, reasoned concept for it! I have always seen trouble at the seperation / firing of the first stage as the main problem... looking forward to seeing more of your ideas, thanks! <br />Posted by l3p3r</DIV></p><p>l3p3r,</p><p> Many thanks. We look forward to being part of the solution for many years to come </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Dr. Rocket, All of the above represent a range of possibilities, except for the expendable option, I don't believe that was ever proposed as an option, The options range from what I know is possible (worst case=large rocket lifted as second stage to high altitude to reduce delta-v requirements for a conventional system) to what I think is possible (best case = SSTO vehicle operation) and everything in-between. All of this is predicated on using off the shelf propulsion systems that are augmented with hydrogen from gas storage that has to be dumped overboard anyway as altitude increases and as much external oxidizer as I can gather and use on the way up. The patent covers everything in the design that enables the above in very broad terms as possible to prevent circumvention. I would be happy to provide a copy of the patents for the asking the only thing I require is a non disclosure no compete agreement signed before I release that info. <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>If you have a patent then it is public information. If not, you don't have patent protection, but you may have a trade secret. But anything you talk about in the forum is not a secret any more. In any case, I am not in a position to be signing any agreement. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you have a patent then it is public information. If not, you don't have patent protection, but you may have a trade secret. But anything you talk about in the forum is not a secret any more. In any case, I am not in a position to be signing any agreement. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />I recommend checking at USPTO.gov <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I recommend checking at USPTO.gov <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>I'm not sure what your point is. The patent office site provides a place for the publication of patents, and if you have a patent, and if knew the number or full name of inventor or something else to identify the patent I could call it up and see the patent. They are public.</p><p>The only other item that I found was a reference to a procedure whereby you might secure some protection after applying for a patent and before it was actually granted, but that procedure requires publication of the patent. There is also a provision for withholding publication of the application, but at I read the item you don't get any protection without publication.</p><p> Publication of patent applications is required by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 for most plant and utility patent applications filed on or after November 29, 2000. On filing of a plant or utility application on or after November 29, 2000, an applicant may request that the application not be published, but only if the invention has not been and will not be the subject of an application filed in a foreign country that requires publication 18 months after filing (or earlier claimed priority date) or under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. Publication occurs after the expiration of an 18-month period following the earliest effective filing date or priority date claimed by an application. Following publication, the application for patent is no longer held in confidence by the Office and any member of the public may request access to the entire file history of the application. </p><p>"As a result of publication, an applicant may assert provisional rights. These rights provide a patentee with the opportunity to obtain a reasonable royalty from a third party that infringes a published application claim provided actual notice is given to the third party by applicant, and a patent issues from the application with a substantially identical claim. Thus, damages for pre-patent grant infringement by another are now available."</p><p>My point is that if you have a patent I think that you lose nothing by revealing the patent number.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm not sure what your point is. The patent office site provides a place for the publication of patents, and if you have a patent, and if knew the number or full name of inventor or something else to identify the patent I could call it up and see the patent. They are public.The only other item that I found was a reference to a procedure whereby you might secure some protection after applying for a patent and before it was actually granted, but that procedure requires publication of the patent. There is also a provision for withholding publication of the application, but at I read the item you don't get any protection without publication. Publication of patent applications is required by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 for most plant and utility patent applications filed on or after November 29, 2000. On filing of a plant or utility application on or after November 29, 2000, an applicant may request that the application not be published, but only if the invention has not been and will not be the subject of an application filed in a foreign country that requires publication 18 months after filing (or earlier claimed priority date) or under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. Publication occurs after the expiration of an 18-month period following the earliest effective filing date or priority date claimed by an application. Following publication, the application for patent is no longer held in confidence by the Office and any member of the public may request access to the entire file history of the application. "As a result of publication, an applicant may assert provisional rights. These rights provide a patentee with the opportunity to obtain a reasonable royalty from a third party that infringes a published application claim provided actual notice is given to the third party by applicant, and a patent issues from the application with a substantially identical claim. Thus, damages for pre-patent grant infringement by another are now available."My point is that if you have a patent I think that you lose nothing by revealing the patent number. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Dr. Rocket,</p><p>I will not provide specific details on what measures and procedures were used in open forum. I started this thread to debate the merits of the idea and will be happy to respond to any questions concerning same to a point again because this is an open forum.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Dr. Rocket,I will not provide specific details on what measures and procedures were used in open forum. I started this thread to debate the merits of the idea and will be happy to respond to any questions concerning same to a point again because this is an open forum. <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>Is this you or has someone else already patented the idea?</p><p><br />http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=4&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=Blimp&s2=Rocket&OS=Blimp+AND+Rocket&RS=Blimp+AND+Rocket</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is this you or has someone else already patented the idea?http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=4&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=Blimp&s2=Rocket&OS=Blimp+AND+Rocket&RS=Blimp+AND+Rocket <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Dr. Rocket,</p><p> No this is not one of our patents. Our claims are in other areas.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is this you or has someone else already patented the idea?http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=4&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=Blimp&s2=Rocket&OS=Blimp+AND+Rocket&RS=Blimp+AND+Rocket <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Dr. Rocket,</p><p> Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I don't believe it is quite the same as what I am proposing. They speak of lifting an airplane with the "derigibles" and then dropping it loaded with the rocket to try to achieve the final airspeed and altitude. Their claims include "at least one winged aircraft" as part of the configuration and no mention of using the lifting gas to augment thrust.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Dr. Rocket, No this is not one of our patents. Our claims are in other areas. <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>Something here seems a bit strange.</p><p>You have a concept that is rather hard to nail down, but the web site offered talks about a vehicle 1400' long and 20' in diameter -- for a length to diameter ration of 70. That is huge, and will offer some real challenges in controllability under powered flight. It does not appear to have been fully considered. I think there are quite a few loose ends in the concept.</p><p>You claim patent protection, yet offer no patent numbers or patent application numbers. Such would be public if they exist, so there is no value in withholding such information. </p><p>A quick patent search reveals only one patent combining lighter-than-air technology with rocket technology, and you state that it is not yours. No patents or applications seem to be associated with Escape Velocity Inc. or with a Brian Slee. Perhaps there are other companies or names involved and these are only fronts. I understand the desirability of an anonymous user name, but that reasoning does not apply to an organizational name.</p><p>The web site talks to a desire for a partnership in order to procure an SBIR. Yet the technologies proferred would require a major integration effort, far beyond the scope of a typical SBIR contract. </p><p>There seem to be multiple and not very clearly defined operational concepts. Comments are solicited, but details that might define the concept on which one might comment are sparse. </p><p>I'm not quite sure what your objective is. Would you care to make that clear ?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Something here seems a bit strange.You have a concept that is rather hard to nail down, but the web site offered talks about a vehicle 1400' long and 20' in diameter -- for a length to diameter ration of 70. That is huge, and will offer some real challenges in controllability under powered flight. It does not appear to have been fully considered. I think there are quite a few loose ends in the concept.You claim patent protection, yet offer no patent numbers or patent application numbers. Such would be public if they exist, so there is no value in withholding such information. A quick patent search reveals only one patent combining lighter-than-air technology with rocket technology, and you state that it is not yours. No patents or applications seem to be associated with Escape Velocity Inc. or with a Brian Slee. Perhaps there are other companies or names involved and these are only fronts. I understand the desirability of an anonymous user name, but that reasoning does not apply to an organizational name.The web site talks to a desire for a partnership in order to procure an SBIR. Yet the technologies proferred would require a major integration effort, far beyond the scope of a typical SBIR contract. There seem to be multiple and not very clearly defined operational concepts. Comments are solicited, but details that might define the concept on which one might comment are sparse. I'm not quite sure what your objective is. Would you care to make that clear ? <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Dr. Rocket,</p><p>So far you seem to be the only one not getting it. Or maybe you do get it and have an agenda. Do you possibly work on something this might replace? Again given my situation as a small company with what I think is a very valuable idea I have taken steps to ensure protection of my intellectual property. Again I will not discuss what those measures entail in an open forum. I have offered to present my models, my technical documentation, and my patents to anyone wishing to see them for the huge cost of signing a piece of paper that protects my interests in my ideas. I believe an SBIR would be more than adequate to refine and "validate" the models and perform CFDA and FEA on the proposed system. Additionally I ask that if you quote information from the paper please ensure that what you quote is accurate. And once again my objective here is to offer ideas that I think have merit for peer review and to discuss those ideas with people who are interested in advancing the science of space access. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Dr. Rocket,So far you seem to be the only one not getting it. Or maybe you do get it and have an agenda. Do you possibly work on something this might replace? Again given my situation as a small company with what I think is a very valuable idea I have taken steps to ensure protection of my intellectual property. Again I will not discuss what those measures entail in an open forum. I have offered to present my models, my technical documentation, and my patents to anyone wishing to see them for the huge cost of signing a piece of paper that protects my interests in my ideas. I believe an SBIR would be more than adequate to refine and "validate" the models and perform CFDA and FEA on the proposed system. Additionally I ask that if you quote information from the paper please ensure that what you quote is accurate. And once again my objective here is to offer ideas that I think have merit for peer review and to discuss those ideas with people who are interested in advancing the science of space access. <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>No, I am retired, so you won't be replacing anything that I am working on. Your interests in any patents that you might have are already protected -- that is what patents do. And if a patent exists then it is published in the public domain. But I think I get it. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, I am retired, so you won't be replacing anything that I am working on. Your interests in any patents that you might have are already protected -- that is what patents do. And if a patent exists then it is published in the public domain. But I think I get it. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />So if you are retired what prevents you from signing the agreement. Are you currently involved with what might be considered a similar project? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So if you are retired what prevents you from signing the agreement. Are you currently involved with what might be considered a similar project? <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>No, I am not involved in any similar project.</p><p>I don't sign secrecy agreements unless there is a compelling professinal reason to do so, such as a consulting contract. I have seen too many misunderstandings come about as a result of such agreements, and I do not want to be involved in any real or imagined infringement of your ideas. </p><p>I would not want to be in a contractual arrangement on this idea in any case, since I am not sure that my advice would prove useful to you. From what I have gleaned thus far I do not think the idea will work on a large scale. I could be wrong, and perhaps I would see it differently if I saw the level of detail that is required to be published in a patent. In any case, I hope your idea works out for you. Best of luck with it. </p><p>Just as an aside, I remain mystified by your position on making known the subject of a patent, which is a public document. Secrecy agreements do not cover the contents of patents, since they invariably specifically exclude information obtained outside of the controlled channel of information flow covered by the secrecy agreement. And patents are published in the public domain. I can assure you that any major competitors that you might contemplate will have the ability to perform a sophisticated patent search. Their lawyers would insist on it, and their patent attorney can either do it himself quite quickly or has an outside firm on retainer to perform such searches. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I would not want to be in a contractual arrangement on this idea in any case, since I am not sure that my advice would prove useful to you. From what I have gleaned thus far I do not think the idea will work on a large scale. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Dr. Rocket,</p><p> Any advice offered in a positive constructive manner is useful to some degree. If you have a physical, functional or financial basis for your assesment I will gladly address it.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am working on a concept that I think has merit. It attempts to insert LTA systems into the launch cycle for orbital insertion. a brief white paper is available at the following URL: http://www.escape-velocity.biz/LTA_Orbital_Launch_Systems.htmlall feedback is welcomed. <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV><br /><br />OK score so far</p><p>I like the idea and I think it has merit - 2 </p><p>I need more info to determine but I dont like what I see - 1</p><p> </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Something here seems a bit strange.You have a concept that is rather hard to nail down, but the web site offered talks about a vehicle 1400' long and 20' in diameter -- for a length to diameter ration of 70. That is huge, and will offer some real challenges in controllability under powered flight. It does not appear to have been fully considered. I think there are quite a few loose ends in the concept.You claim patent protection, yet offer no patent numbers or patent application numbers. Such would be public if they exist, so there is no value in withholding such information. A quick patent search reveals only one patent combining lighter-than-air technology with rocket technology, and you state that it is not yours. No patents or applications seem to be associated with Escape Velocity Inc. or with a Brian Slee. Perhaps there are other companies or names involved and these are only fronts. I understand the desirability of an anonymous user name, but that reasoning does not apply to an organizational name.The web site talks to a desire for a partnership in order to procure an SBIR. Yet the technologies proferred would require a major integration effort, far beyond the scope of a typical SBIR contract. There seem to be multiple and not very clearly defined operational concepts. Comments are solicited, but details that might define the concept on which one might comment are sparse. I'm not quite sure what your objective is. Would you care to make that clear ? <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>My mistake, I misread the dimensions and took 250' dia for 250". That puts the L/D at more like 5 1/2 which is not so large, alathough what really counts is the L/d for the core of the structure. But building a 250 ft diameter vessel will be a challenge, and the drag will quite high.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My mistake, I misread the dimensions and took 250' dia for 250". That puts the L/D at more like 5 1/2 which is not so large, alathough what really counts is the L/d for the core of the structure. But building a 250 ft diameter vessel will be a challenge, and the drag will quite high. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Thank you for the correction</p><p>Right now the core structure is 50' in diameter. But that is really an arbitrary starting point and this should be addressed in the refinement process. FEA and CFDA will determine optimum characteristics. </p><p>I think what will make or break the design is the lift to drag ratio. The big question is, have we managed to reduce drag enough to get going fast enough (through the use of large thrust vectors) with enough wing area to make it work. I think CFDA is going to produce results that will really surprise people. What if I can produce a flight condition where I have a Drag coefficient of less than .04 (which is the drag coefficient for a wing profile). Now that speed might not be real fast but is it fast enough? And I have a lot of trade space to make it work.</p><p>You are right it is a challenge. But the payoffs are enormous. And as far as I can tell even assuming the worst results for the project will still produce a lot of good alternatives in other areas.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
-
You can now wear an Apollo Guidance Computer keypad as a wristwatch- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram