Rocket Powered Blimps?

[BrianSlee]

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and a facility to mate the blimp with the rocket.If you think about it, current launch methods of rockets start to look outdated, as if they were 50 years old One thing that worries me is the separation of the rocket from the blimp.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 carried to extremes I could imagine a nuclear powered ship acting as the logistics support platform. <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>

 

[BrianSlee]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am working on a concept that I think has merit.&nbsp; It attempts to insert LTA systems into the launch cycle for orbital insertion.&nbsp; a brief white paper is available at the following URL:&nbsp;&nbsp; http://www.escape-velocity.biz/LTA_Orbital_Launch_Systems.htmlall feedback is welcomed. <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV><br /><br />&nbsp; I would like to thank everyone who was involved for taking their time and applying their talents to the review of this concept.&nbsp; I would especially like to thank Dr. Rocket for taking on the task of informed skeptic.&nbsp; Any ideas or theories&nbsp;worth pursuing must earn the right to recieve resources based on clear evidence of their merit and I hope that I have made that case for these ideas and concepts.&nbsp; I would also like to thank Space.com for allowing me an open&nbsp;venue to present and debate them, it is through these types of forums that the solutions will be found.&nbsp; I have added an e-mail link to the web site and will gladly respond to any and all queries and requests for additional information.&nbsp; Any person or organization wishing to collaborate may also contact me via the link provided.&nbsp; Once again Thank You all for your time. <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>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p>Whoops I almost forgot to do something.</p><p>insert shameless marketing plug here >>>>>>> "Wow, thats not your daddy's Zepplin......Yea but it's still a Stairway to Heaven"</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>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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>&nbsp; What is this assessment based on?&nbsp; What information do you think you require to asses the feasibility of achieving minimum design criteria.&nbsp; i.e. Large payload (500 tons) delivered to app 30Km at a speed of 250m/s.&nbsp; </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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Dr. Rocket,&nbsp; What is this assessment based on?&nbsp; What information do you think you require to asses the feasibility of achieving minimum design criteria.&nbsp; i.e. Large payload (500 tons) delivered to app 30Km at a speed of 250m/s.&nbsp; <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>Here are a few problems that lead me to doubt you will meet your design objectives:</p><p>1.&nbsp; Per your answer to my earlier question you have multiple operating concepts, none of which apparently have been thought through in detail.&nbsp; This question seems to relate to the most modest of the concepts that I have been able to understand.&nbsp; But the lack of detail at the web site and in response to questions indicates that there are a lot of items that have not been considered.&nbsp; Several are discussed below.</p><p>2.&nbsp; The composite core for the derigible is apparently roughly 1400 ft long and 50 ft in diameter.&nbsp; That is an extraordinarily large composite structure, and one that must carry significant structural loads -- supporting the inflated derigible, supporting the cargo that is being carried, carrying the thrust loads to carry this structure to the desired 250m/s speed, and providing rigidity for control of the vehicle in flight under aerodynamic loads.&nbsp; Facilities capable of making a structure of that size are at best rare.&nbsp; I don't know of any.&nbsp; It is probably far too big for the ATK facilities that manufacture composite parts for many current launch vehicles and aircraft.&nbsp; And those are some of the largest composite parts currently being manufactured.&nbsp; The central core would appear to be a tube manufactured by either filament winding or fiber placement.&nbsp; The largest such structures that have been built and of which I am aware are on the order of 10 ft. in diameter (Titan IVB rocket motor case segments).&nbsp; Manufacturing a tube 50 ft in diameter would require entirely new winding machines and likely new techniques and materials.&nbsp; I know of no autoclave or even cure oven that could handle the cure of such a part.&nbsp; So new cure equipment would have to be obtained, and likely designed from scratch.&nbsp; Or perhaps there is some work for shipbulding of which I am not fully aware that addresses parts of this size.&nbsp; In any case the scale of this structure presents some non-trivial problems.</p><p>3.&nbsp; The length/diameter of the core at 28 is fairly large, so stiffness will be a prime design driver.&nbsp; That will incur some significant weight.&nbsp; I don't see any clear weight estimates for the vehicle, but whatever that weight is it clearly will cut into payload.</p><p>4.&nbsp; I will take your word for the displacement of 60 million cubic feet,&nbsp; If I consider the balloon as a right circular cylinder 250 ft in diameter and 1400 ft long I gete a somewhat larger number of about 68 million cubic feet (about 1.946 million cubic meters), so the 60 million including tapering of the ends is in the right ballpark.&nbsp; But with that figure, and using air densities at altitude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barometric_Law) I find a potential lift of only 149,563Kg at 20 Km 22,460Kg at 32 Km if I assume that the vehicle is completely weightless.&nbsp; If you merely assume that it contains Hydrogen at standard temperature and pressure (STP)&nbsp;for sea level (0.0898 Kg/m^3)&nbsp;then the buoyancy is negative, even with no additional vehicle weight.&nbsp; You will note from the table that H2 at STP has about the same density as air at 20 Km.&nbsp; But by time you get to 32 Km, the density of air is so low that even a complete vacuum in the derigible will not provide your lift requirements of 500 tons (453,592 kg).&nbsp; At sea level you displace over 2 million kg of air, so the bouyant force is adequate there, but not at the altitudes that you specify.</p><p>5.&nbsp; I see no indication&nbsp;of the material or construction to be used for the skin of the derigible, but to drive it at a speed of 250 m/s, or approximately&nbsp;0.75 mach, will incur some fairly&nbsp;hefty aerodymanics loads.&nbsp;&nbsp;It will need some rigidity and there is no indication&nbsp;how that rigidity will be provided.&nbsp; That structure at 250 ft diameter and 1400 ft in length is colossal.&nbsp; Since it is unlikely to be gas tight, I assume that some&nbsp;sort of liner or additional compartmentalization will be provided to contain the hydrogen or helium gas.&nbsp;&nbsp;This structure will require quite a bit of engineering to design and manufacture and will not be weightless.&nbsp; If it is to be&nbsp;composite, then one is again challenged by the size of the parts required to build it.&nbsp; They will be expensive.&nbsp;It is hard to see how this structure would be much less dense than the fuselage of a conventional aircraft.</p><p>6.&nbsp; This is a huge vehicle, and must be able to navigate to pre-determined launch point despite wind conditions aloft.&nbsp; Given the low density and large frontal and side areas, controllability of the vehicle will require considerable design and analysis effort.&nbsp; I see nothing addressing these issues in your white paper or in your various postings.</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Here are a few problems that lead me to doubt you will meet your design objectives:</p><p>1.&nbsp; Per your answer to my earlier question you have multiple operating concepts, none of which apparently have been thought through in detail.&nbsp; This question seems to relate to the most modest of the concepts that I have been able to understand.&nbsp; But the lack of detail at the web site and in response to questions indicates that there are a lot of items that have not been considered.<br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />DR. Rocket,</p><p>&nbsp; I will respond to each point in turn as separate posts to preclude very long unreadable responses and try to debate each point in turn to some conclusion.&nbsp; I will also invite the other forum members with specific experience in the area of discussion to participate&nbsp;in order to&nbsp;reinforce my postion&nbsp;or argue against it as they see fit.</p><p>First there are not multiple operating concepts there are however multiple design choices that enable greater capability based on a risk matrix.&nbsp; The operational concept is simply stated...</p><p>Lift as much mass as possible as high as possible and impart as much velocity as possible to said mass.</p><p>The design choices are all based on this operational concept.&nbsp; Again the design choices range from what I am "reasonably" sure is possible to what I think is possible but need further data to prove the hypothesis.&nbsp; Since I don't have access to the super computers and math models required to substantiate the claim I list it as only a possibility.&nbsp; And as far as how well this has been thought out and considered I will re-iterate that thousands of man hours have been invested in these designs and concepts.&nbsp; Does that mean something has not been missed or overlooked...definitely not.&nbsp; That is one of the reasons we are here.&nbsp; But it does mean that this has all been carefully considered prior to publication, and it makes your statements to the contrary seem just a little bit insulting and abusive in this type of forum.</p><p>As an aside...&nbsp; There are a lot of ways to say something and it seems to me that you intentionally choose the verbiage that will impart the impression that&nbsp;everyone but you is either&nbsp;incompetent or stupid.&nbsp; If you do this unintentionally I ask that you review the tone of your posts and ask yourself what you might feel in the reverse position.&nbsp; This is not about ego.&nbsp; It is about trying to find real solutions to real problems.</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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>DR. Rocket,&nbsp; I will respond to each point in turn as separate posts to preclude very long unreadable responses and try to debate each point in turn to some conclusion.&nbsp; I will also invite the other forum members with specific experience in the area of discussion to participate&nbsp;in order to&nbsp;reinforce my postion&nbsp;or argue against it as they see fit.First there are not multiple operating concepts there are however multiple design choices that enable greater capability based on a risk matrix.&nbsp; The operational concept is simply stated...Lift as much mass as possible as high as possible and impart as much velocity as possible to said mass.The design choices are all based on this operational concept.&nbsp; Again the design choices range from what I am "reasonably" sure is possible to what I think is possible but need further data to prove the hypothesis.&nbsp; Since I don't have access to the super computers and math models required to substantiate the claim I list it as only a possibility.&nbsp; And as far as how well this has been thought out and considered I will re-iterate that thousands of man hours have been invested in these designs and concepts.&nbsp; Does that mean something has not been missed or overlooked...definitely not.&nbsp; That is one of the reasons we are here.&nbsp; But it does mean that this has all been carefully considered prior to publication, and it makes your statements to the contrary seem just a little bit insulting and abusive in this type of forum.As an aside...&nbsp; There are a lot of ways to say something and it seems to me that you intentionally choose the verbiage that will impart the impression that&nbsp;everyone but you is either&nbsp;incompetent or stupid.&nbsp; If you do this unintentionally I ask that you review the tone of your posts and ask yourself what you might feel in the reverse position.&nbsp; This is not about ego.&nbsp; It is about trying to find real solutions to real problems. <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>There is no point in responding, unless you simply want to.&nbsp; You came back to thread to specifically asks me to evaluate the potential for a specific mission.&nbsp; That evaluation is what you have received.&nbsp; I have no interest in any "debate".</p><p>Sorry if you don't like the results.&nbsp; That is how it is.&nbsp; I had concluded that you did not really want a critique when you posted your last entry spedifically asking me to evaluate a particular mission.&nbsp; That critique is what you received.&nbsp; It is the last one that you will get.</p><p>You have been less than forthcoming in providing clarification of your operating concepts and I have made what appear to be reasonable assumptions.&nbsp; There is no need for the secrecy that you adopt, if you have the patent coverage that you claim to have.&nbsp; Patents are published in the public domain, and for a reason.&nbsp; Since I find no relevant patent in the archives of the patent office and since you have behaved in a manner contrary to what would make sense if a patent did exist, I must conclude that it does not, and that you have occassion to be less than truthful.</p><p>I must also conclude that you have not done the engineering work that you claim, or else it is not of high quality, since you seem to be using this forum to vet your ideas.&nbsp; I am not interested in contributing any more free work to this particular cause.&nbsp; We are done.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is no point in responding, unless you simply want to.&nbsp; You came back to thread to specifically asks me to evaluate the potential for a specific mission.&nbsp; That evaluation is what you have received.&nbsp; I have no interest in any "debate".Sorry if you don't like the results.&nbsp; That is how it is.&nbsp; I had concluded that you did not really want a critique when you posted your last entry spedifically asking me to evaluate a particular mission.&nbsp; That critique is what you received.&nbsp; It is the last one that you will get.You have been less than forthcoming in providing clarification of your operating concepts and I have made what appear to be reasonable assumptions.&nbsp; There is no need for the secrecy that you adopt, if you have the patent coverage that you claim to have.&nbsp; Patents are published in the public domain, and for a reason.&nbsp; Since I find no relevant patent in the archives of the patent office and since you have behaved in a manner contrary to what would make sense if a patent did exist, I must conclude that it does not, and that you have occassion to be less than truthful.I must also conclude that you have not done the engineering work that you claim, or else it is not of high quality, since you seem to be using this forum to vet your ideas.&nbsp; I am not interested in contributing any more free work to this particular cause.&nbsp; We are done. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />I am sorry that you have taken that position.&nbsp; Because from the start I have declared my intentions clearly "I am here to debate the merits of a concept"&nbsp; You have now repeatedly posted mis-quoted&nbsp;information presented in the&nbsp;white paper, *and tried to distort* the concept, and my responses, either due to not thoroughly reviewing the subject matter in the paper or in a deliberate attempt to confuse the issues associated with it.&nbsp; Whichever reason is truly irrelevant in this case.&nbsp; So I will now go back and take you to task for your mis-quotes and post the correct information since you are now running away again.&nbsp; Additionally I will&nbsp;invite anyone in this community who believes that your criticisms are valid and reasonable to take up the debate in your stead and I will gladly continue.&nbsp; I truly believe that you know&nbsp;based on your experience and education that you have entered into a debate that you have no chance of winning because you are on the wrong side of it,&nbsp;so rather than lose you have decided to abdicate.&nbsp; And I invite you to call me a liar to my face and in person if you have the intestinal fortitude to do so.&nbsp; IMHO Your behavior and statements&nbsp;bring&nbsp;disgrace to your person and to your profession. <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>

 

[neuvik]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> And I invite you to call me a liar to my face and in person if you have the intestinal fortitude to do so.&nbsp; IMHO Your behavior and statements&nbsp;bring&nbsp;disgrace to your person and to your profession. <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>Bwahaha.&nbsp;&nbsp; So he is the disgrace, but you wan't him to meet you face to face and shoot down your idea in person?&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>You do realize if your serious about this thing you will be paying people like DrRocket to say basically what he just said.&nbsp; I doubt any design company will ever sign a privacy agreement with you, its not worth the hassle of potential law suits. &nbsp;&nbsp; They will ask you for the check first, then the patent number; after a few months you will get your results stating that this thing will crack in half due to vibrations.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"</font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff">SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck</font></p> </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Bwahaha.&nbsp;&nbsp; So he is the disgrace, but you wan't him to meet you face to face and shoot down your idea in person?</DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;Actually the invitation was for a repitition of his claim that I have not been truthful (equals calling me a liar) in person</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You do realize if your serious about this thing you will be paying people like DrRocket to say basically what he just said.&nbsp; I doubt any design company will ever sign a privacy agreement with you, its not worth the hassle of potential law suits. &nbsp;&nbsp; They will ask you for the check first, then the patent number; after a few months you will get your results stating that this thing will crack in half due to vibrations.&nbsp; <br />Posted by neuvik</DIV><br /><br />Actually I will be paying people with his ability.&nbsp; I have never and would never have somone of his temperment on a team I was managing.&nbsp; As far as an agreement with a company goes I will leave that to them to decide and&nbsp;if anyone thinks that I am foolish enough to publish this info without patent protection&nbsp;I invite them to go build it for me and save me a bunch of work.</p><p>Now, should&nbsp;I assume that you are taking up the torch for Dr. Rocket or are you just stiring the pot.&nbsp; As far as it cracking in half I am quite sure that Finite Element Analysis will quickly prove or disprove the airframes capabilities to withstand the dynamic forces involved.</p><p>&nbsp;</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>

 

[neuvik]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Actually the invitation was for a repitition of his claim that I have not been truthful (equals calling me a liar) in personActually I will be paying people with his ability.&nbsp; I have never and would never have somone of his temperment on a team I was managing.&nbsp; As far as an agreement with a company goes I will leave that to them to decide and&nbsp;if anyone thinks that I am foolish enough to publish this info without patent protection&nbsp;I invite them to go build it for me and save me a bunch of work.Now, should&nbsp;I assume that you are taking up the torch for Dr. Rocket or are you just stiring the pot.&nbsp; As far as it cracking in half I am quite sure that Finite Element Analysis will quickly prove or disprove the airframes capabilities to withstand the dynamic forces involved.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>I'm stirring the pot pal, I don't have any near the capabilities displayed by DrRocket on this forum. &nbsp; If I had the cad drawlings I could calculate the stresses and loads. &nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p>DrRocket was only working on the little bit of information we had to go on to see if your design was worth his merit of approval; after all, thats what you were asking. &nbsp; &nbsp; Keep in mind his previous profession has him trained to not just look a piece of paper and accept it. &nbsp; In order to get his merit of approval he wants to see the technical data supporting the capabilities of this super dirigible. &nbsp; &nbsp; You were not forthcoming, he drew a logical explanation, you said it was wrong, he said based on the data you gave (not much), that you are wrong. &nbsp; &nbsp; No lies, and merit of approval for you.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"</font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff">SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck</font></p> </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Here are a few problems that lead me to doubt you will meet your design objectives:1.&nbsp; <font color="#000000">Per your answer to my earlier question you have multiple operating concepts</font>, none of which apparently have been thought through in detail.&nbsp; This question seems to relate to the most modest of the concepts that I have been able to understand.&nbsp; But the lack of detail at the web site and in response to questions indicates that there are a lot of items that have not been considered.&nbsp; Several are discussed below. 2.&nbsp; <font color="#ff0000">The composite core for the derigible is apparently roughly 1400 ft long and 50 ft in diameter.&nbsp; That is an extraordinarily large composite structure, </font><font color="#000000"></DIV></font></p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">"The proposed airframe consists of a spine of tubular structures."&nbsp; </font><font size="2">Your statement is inaccurate the core structure is an engineered system of components. Your arguments based on this statement are invalid.</font></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and one that must carry significant structural loads -- supporting the inflated derigible, supporting the cargo that is being carried, carrying the thrust loads to carry this structure to the desired 250m/s speed, and providing rigidity for control of the vehicle in flight under aerodynamic loads.&nbsp; Facilities capable of making a structure of that size are at best rare.&nbsp; I don't know of any.&nbsp; It is probably far too big for the ATK facilities that manufacture composite parts for many current launch vehicles and aircraft.&nbsp; And those are some of the largest composite parts currently being manufactured.&nbsp;<font color="#ff0000">The central core would appear to be a tube manufactured by either filament winding or fiber placement</font>.</DIV>&nbsp; </p><p><font color="#0000ff">This is an assumption with absolutely no basis in fact.&nbsp; The construction techniques were not mentioned or discussed in the white paper or this forum.</font></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The largest such structures that have been built and of which I am aware are on the order of 10 ft. in diameter (Titan IVB rocket motor case segments).&nbsp; Manufacturing a tube 50 ft in diameter would require entirely new winding machines and likely new techniques and materials.&nbsp; I know of no autoclave or even cure oven that could handle the cure of such a part.&nbsp; So new cure equipment would have to be obtained, and likely designed from scratch.&nbsp; Or perhaps there is some work for shipbulding of which I am not fully aware that addresses parts of this size.&nbsp; In any case the scale of this structure presents some non-trivial problems.3.&nbsp; The length/diameter of the core at 28 is fairly large, so stiffness will be a prime design driver.&nbsp; That will incur some significant weight.&nbsp; <font color="#ff0000">I don't see any clear weight estimates for the vehicle</font><font color="#000000"></DIV></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">"</font><font size="2" color="#0000ff">Initial engineering estimates yield total airframe and skin weights on the order of .75 million <br />pounds when configured for TSTO operation." <font color="#000000">Inititial estimates are clearly provided in the white paper.</font></font></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>, but whatever that weight is it clearly will cut into payload.4.&nbsp; I will take your word for the displacement of 60 million cubic feet,&nbsp; If I consider the balloon as a right circular cylinder 250 ft in diameter and 1400 ft long I gete a somewhat larger number of about 68 million cubic feet (about 1.946 million cubic meters), so the 60 million including tapering of the ends is in the right ballpark.&nbsp; But with that figure, and using air densities at altitude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barometric_Law)<font color="#ff0000">I find a potential lift of only 149,563Kg at 20 Km</font> <font color="#ff0000">22,460Kg at 32 Km if I assume that the vehicle is completely weightless.&nbsp; If you merely assume that it contains Hydrogen at standard temperature and pressure (STP)&nbsp;for sea level (0.0898 Kg/m^3)&nbsp;then the buoyancy is negative, even with no additional vehicle weight.&nbsp; You will note from the table that H2 at STP has about the same density as air at 20 Km.&nbsp; But by time you get to 32 Km, the density of air is so low that even a complete vacuum in the derigible will not provide your lift requirements of 500 tons (453,592 kg).&nbsp; At sea level you displace over 2 million kg of air, so the bouyant force is adequate there, but not at the altitudes that you specify.</font><font color="#000000"></DIV></font></p><p>&nbsp;"<font color="#0000ff">If the system is used as a primary lifter Neutral buyancy should be attained at app 20,000 ft.&nbsp; Using brute power and aerodynamic lift from that point I believe for a rocket powered version using SSMEs it would carry 500 tons to just under 30 KM at a speed of 500 knots." </font><font color="#000000">Operational parameters were clearly stated in a previous post and there is no mention of trying to lift anything to a height of more than "20,000 feet" using buoyant forces.</font></p><p>&nbsp;Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#ff0000">5.&nbsp; I see no indication&nbsp;of the material or construction to be used for the skin of the derigible</font><font color="#000000"></DIV></font></p><p><font size="2">"The proposed design will incorporate a mix of carbon fiber composites for the airframe, pultruded <br />composite structural elements for reinforcements, and <font color="#0000ff">high performance composite structural fabric as an outer skin</font>."</font>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>, but to drive it at a speed of 250 m/s, or approximately&nbsp;0.75 mach, will incur some fairly&nbsp;hefty aerodymanics loads.&nbsp;&nbsp;<font color="#ff0000">It will need some rigidity and there is no indication&nbsp;how that rigidity will be provided.</font><font color="#000000"></DIV>&nbsp; </font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">&nbsp;"<font size="2">At each end pultruded profiles that make up the reinforced nosecone and tailpipe assemblies create inner and outer reinforcement tie points to attach nylon ropes which would run the length of the airframe connecting the sections under tension to stiffen the internal spine and maintain the outer shape of the airframe."</font></font></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That structure at 250 ft diameter and 1400 ft in length is colossal.&nbsp; Since it is unlikely to be gas tight, I assume that some&nbsp;sort of liner or additional compartmentalization will be provided to contain the hydrogen or helium gas.&nbsp;&nbsp;This structure will require quite a bit of engineering to design and manufacture and will not be weightless.&nbsp; If it is to be&nbsp;composite, then one is again challenged by the size of the parts required to build it.&nbsp; They will be expensive.&nbsp;It is hard to see how this structure would be much less dense than the fuselage of a conventional aircraft.6.&nbsp; This is a huge vehicle, and must be able to navigate to pre-determined launch point despite wind conditions aloft.&nbsp; Given the low density and large frontal and side areas, controllability of the vehicle will require considerable design and analysis effort.&nbsp; I see nothing addressing these issues in your white paper or in your various postings.&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Mistatements and inaccurate quotes are highlighted in red actual quotes from the material sources are hilighted in blue.</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>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm stirring the pot pal, I don't have any near the capabilities displayed by DrRocket on this forum. &nbsp; If I had the cad drawlings I could calculate the stresses and loads. &nbsp; &nbsp;DrRocket was only working on the little bit of information we had to go on to see if your design was worth his merit of approval; after all, thats what you were asking. &nbsp; &nbsp; Keep in mind his previous profession has him trained to not just look a piece of paper and accept it. &nbsp; In order to get his merit of approval he wants to see the technical data supporting the capabilities of this super dirigible. &nbsp; &nbsp; You were not forthcoming, he drew a logical explanation, you said it was wrong, he said based on the data you gave (not much), that you are wrong. &nbsp; &nbsp; No lies, and merit of approval for you.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by neuvik</DIV><br /><br />Ok I can handle a litlle stirring of the stew ;O)</p><p>So are you saying you would like to collaborate?&nbsp; </p><p>I only have one requirement for access to all the data and the models and the patents.</p><p>And as far as Dr. Rocket goes, how on earth can he render a professional assesment if he can't even get the most basic facts straight.</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>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Actually the invitation was for a repitition of his claim that I have not been truthful (equals calling me a liar) in person&nbsp; <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>*mod hat on* </p><p>I'd rather not see this forum used to launch outside grievances.&nbsp; That said, I don't think he called you a liar.&nbsp; He simply said he didn't think you'd disclosed enough to adequately evaluate your concept.&nbsp; I know that must sting a bit, but you have to understand that if you post something for discussion here, people have the right to truthfully say what they think of your concept, whether that's positive or not. </p><p>*mod hat off* </p><p>Speaking as a software engineer, I must admit that some of what you're saying sounds like trying to get free engineering advice.&nbsp; I don't think that's a very good idea, at least in a business sense, partly because of intellectual property issues but mostly because when it comes to advice, you often get what you pay for. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>*mod hat on* I'd rather not see this forum used to launch outside grievances.&nbsp; That said, I don't think he called you a liar.&nbsp; He simply said he didn't think you'd disclosed enough to adequately evaluate your concept.&nbsp; I know that must sting a bit, but you have to understand that if you post something for discussion here, people have the right to truthfully say what they think of your concept, whether that's positive or not. *mod hat off* Speaking as a software engineer, I must admit that some of what you're saying sounds like trying to get free engineering advice.&nbsp; I don't think that's a very good idea, at least in a business sense, partly because of intellectual property issues but mostly because when it comes to advice, you often get what you pay for. <br />Posted by CalliArcale</DIV><br /><br />Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Since I find no relevant patent in the archives of the patent office and since you have behaved in a manner contrary to what would make sense if a patent did exist, I must conclude that it does not, and that you have occassion to be less than truthful. <p>I must also conclude that you have not done the engineering work that you claim</DIV></p><p>CallieArcale,</p><p>The quote above clearly states that I have not been truthful in everything I have said and have not performed the work as I stated.&nbsp; If I follow that via logical progression --- you have not been truthful and you have not done the work you claim = you are lying = you are a liar.</p><p>I have made my living for the last 30 years based on my&nbsp;education, my abilities, and most of all my integrity and I take those kinds of comments very very seriously (especially in an open forum).&nbsp;&nbsp;I have no&nbsp;problem with someone who provides a professional opinion as long as that opinion is based on the "facts".&nbsp; I think I have clearly demonstrated that Dr. Rockets assessment is not based on the facts presented.&nbsp; So it is not a matter of sting for me.&nbsp; I still invite anyone who wants to, to present an argument&nbsp;or reason why this won't work or take up the torch for Dr. Rockets arguments.&nbsp; And if they can demonstrate their point from a physical, functional, or financial&nbsp;perspective, I will gladly say thank you and not be the least bit upset at them for&nbsp;pointing out an obvious or not so obvious point that was missed.&nbsp;&nbsp;Especially if it is done in a professional and respectful manner.&nbsp; I think at this point that I will just ignore him henceforth, and discuss the concept with people who are more diligent in their review of the material and careful&nbsp;about publishing&nbsp;inaccurate&nbsp;information (and drawing inaccurate conclusions based on that inaccurate information) and assigning&nbsp;those innacuracies&nbsp;and conclusions to my body of&nbsp;work.&nbsp; But I think I&nbsp;have a right to be upset in this case.</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>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>" the core structure is an engineered system of components.<br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>That is an BS statement and has no valid meaning, most of the other discription.. &nbsp;&nbsp; It could mean you intend to use concrete sewer pipes. These wishy washy statements just cover the holes in this concept. &nbsp; </p><p>There are too many holes in this concept (figuratively and real) to be viable.&nbsp; The hull won't be able to contain the hydrogen. &nbsp; </p><p>Also using "nylon ropes" to brace the skin is non viable for the velocity and accelerations involved.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;You don't need a supercomputer to do structural analysis, there a pc based programs.&nbsp; But also, you can ignore the structure aspects of this concept and just do a performance analysis (which also doesn't need a supercomputer). &nbsp; Doing this and you will find that this concept has no merit.&nbsp; </p><p>There is no advantage of using the bouyancy&nbsp; and then burning the initial lift gas for propulsion and then still carry compressed gas for bouyancy after entry. &nbsp; </p>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Speaking as a software engineer, I must admit that some of what you're saying sounds like trying to get free engineering advice.&nbsp; I don't think that's a very good idea, at least in a business sense, partly because of intellectual property issues but mostly because when it comes to advice, you often get what you pay for. <br />Posted by CalliArcale</DIV></p><p>CalliArcale,</p><p>&nbsp; I agree with you when you say you get what you pay for.&nbsp; But to my knowledge I have not asked anyone for advice on how to make this work.</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>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p>*mod hat on again*</p><p>He is stating that there you have not said everything -- he is suggesting that you have left out pertinent details.&nbsp; Now, you can elect to get indignant and accuse him of misbehavior, or you can prove that there was no intentional dishonesty by filling in the pertinent details.&nbsp; It's your choice; I won't force you to do anything.&nbsp; But the latter will earn you a lot more credibility among the community.</p><p>Just as you have the right to withhold whatever information you like, other members have the right to point out that you hvae omitted some critical information.&nbsp; Now, I don't know whether you've left it out for intellectual property reasons, or because it is less complete than you wish us to realize.&nbsp; As a moderator, that is not my concern.&nbsp; But you have to understand that this is a discussion forum, and that means that people are going to occasionally point out deficiencies that they perceive in what you've said.&nbsp; How you react to that is up to you.&nbsp; You can take it as constructive criticism, you can ignore it, or you can escalate it into a personal conflict.&nbsp; The latter will inevitably bring moderator attention on you, so I do suggest you avoid doing so.</p><p>People here are generally friendly, and there is some very good expertise here.&nbsp; It's a great place for bandying ideas around.&nbsp; I hope you'll be willing to relax a bit and enjoy the atmosphere here.</p><p>*mod hat off* </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[aphh]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> There is no advantage of using the bouyancy&nbsp; and then burning the initial lift gas for propulsion&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>Actually, this part is the one that sounds most intriquing. Dual purpose fuel. I don't think this has been thought or tried before. &nbsp;</p><p>Edit: hey, I think I came up with a useful acronym, DPF meaning Dual Purpose Fuel? (I actually checked, only one reference to Dual Purpose Fuel came up)</p>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>CalliArcale,&nbsp; I agree with you when you say you get what you pay for.&nbsp; But to my knowledge I have not asked anyone for advice on how to make this work. <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>In your very first post, you did ask for feedback.&nbsp; While this may not be a direct request for advice, feedback is usually used as a tool for evaluation in order to find what works and what doesn't in order to improve something.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[aphh]

How much of the design could be modelled and verified by calculations? Do you need to build it to see whether it could perform as expected or could computer analysis give enough information to allow building it?

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How much of the design could be modelled and verified by calculations? <br /> Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>All of it, and that should be done before even publishing it. &nbsp; </p>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;That is an BS statement and has no valid meaning, most of the other discription..</DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>It is nothing more than a statement that refutes an invalid asumption.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It could mean you intend to use concrete sewer pipes.</DIV></p><p>Yes It could mean a lot of things.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Also using "nylon ropes" to brace the skin is non viable for the velocity and accelerations involved.</DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Really,&nbsp; So please tell me what those forces are and why you think nylon rope would be incapable of sustaining the tensile loads involved especially before you have even asked what the diameter is, and what that diameter is rated at, in terms of tensile strength and how you figured out where they are&nbsp;and how&nbsp;they&nbsp;are configured to&nbsp;sustain the loads.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There are too many holes in this concept (figuratively and real) to be viable.&nbsp;</DIV> </p><p>Too general a statement to respond to...please be more specific.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The hull won't be able to contain the hydrogen. </DIV>&nbsp; </p><p>Can you provide a basis for this assesment when there is obviously clear empirical evidence that it can be easliy done.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>this idea has no merit.&nbsp;&nbsp;</DIV></p><p>Your opinion and you are most welcome to express it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is no advantage of using the bouyancy&nbsp; and then burning the initial lift gas for propulsion and then still carry compressed gas for bouyancy after entry.&nbsp;&nbsp; Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>So are you saying that it would be better to land in a heavier than air configuration which would necessitate additional facilities and GSE and people etc....?</p><p>&nbsp;</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>

 

[BrianSlee]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In your very first post, you did ask for feedback.&nbsp; While this may not be a direct request for advice, feedback is usually used as a tool for evaluation in order to find what works and what doesn't in order to improve something.&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /><br />point taken <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>

 

[aphh]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;All of it, and that should be done before even publishing it. &nbsp; <br /> Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>Well, one design could always lead to another, so I don't think it's a bad idea to discuss a design. I wouldn't mind seeing a 400 metre blimp lifting up rockets or something equally wild in the future.&nbsp;</p>