Rocket Powered Blimps?

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>*mod hat on again*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.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.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.*mod hat off* <br />Posted by CalliArcale</DIV></p><p>Point taken and&nbsp;I will respond to just about any question or observation that does not impact the IP rights.&nbsp; Again this is an open forum and I believe I have offered several times to provide all of the data I have available for the asking.&nbsp; I don't see any reason that someone could object to&nbsp;signing a&nbsp;NDNC unless they are in the process of trying to do something similar themselves or are interested in trying to circumvent the existing IP protection.&nbsp;I am not going to hand someone the bullets to shoot me in the back it is as simple as that.&nbsp; And I am trying really really hard to get along and play nice.</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'>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? <br />Posted by aphh</DIV><br /><br />aphh I have taken it as far as I can without some serious computing power.&nbsp; I think we are ready to plug into a CFDA program to begin the refinement process.&nbsp; followed by FEA to&nbsp;ensure the airframe components can handle the dynamic loading and make any tweaks necessary based on the analysis.&nbsp; Once these steps are complete we will be able to provide some empirical evidence of the more extreme performance claims. <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'>He is stating that there you have not said everything <br />Posted by CalliArcale</DIV><br /><br />CalliArcale,</p><p>&nbsp; I will respectfully disagree.&nbsp; There is a huge difference in my mind between the statements "you have not provided enough info" and "you have not been truthful" or "you have not done the work you claimed to have done"</p><p>But this is just MHO and I am trying to move past that.</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>

 

[aphh]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>aphh I have taken it as far as I can without some serious computing power.&nbsp; I think we are ready to plug into a CFDA program to begin the refinement process.&nbsp; followed by FEA to&nbsp;ensure the airframe components can handle the dynamic loading and make any tweaks necessary based on the analysis.&nbsp; Once these steps are complete we will be able to provide some empirical evidence of the more extreme performance claims. <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>Please keep us posted about the developments, if possible. Also, if you have designs smaller in scale that could be further developed, I am a space-entrepreneur, albeit very small one at this point.</p><p>Taking astrophysics classes in the University currently, but not going to get involved in rocket equations (there are people who already master those, so I need to find me a suitable field of space work). &nbsp;</p>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> 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) <br />Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>I like it :O)</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'>Please keep us posted about the developments, if possible. Also, if you have designs smaller in scale that could be further developed, I am a space-entrepreneur, albeit very small one at this point.Taking astrophysics classes in the University currently, but not going to get involved in rocket equations (there are people who already master those, so I need to find me a suitable field of space work). &nbsp; <br />Posted by aphh</DIV><br /><br />Aphh the design is scalabe to a point.&nbsp; At smaller scales the advantages begin taill off.&nbsp; Just drop me an e-mail from the link on the site and I will definitely put you on distro for news and events. <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'>Aphh the design is scalabe to a point.&nbsp; At smaller scales the advantages begin taill off.&nbsp; Just drop me an e-mail from the link on the site and I will definitely put you on distro for news and events. <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>Thanks, I'll do that.&nbsp;</p>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&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.<br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />Really,&nbsp; I guess then&nbsp;I should call the guys back at&nbsp;*Eglin* AFB CFDA lab that I have discussed this with and who told me that&nbsp;that their system was incapable of doing even the basic TSTO configuration to any level of detail and tell them to chuck all their expensive hardware, and get rid of their software engineers and replace&nbsp;it all&nbsp;with PCs.&nbsp;</p><p>How many mesh&nbsp;points does this super duper&nbsp;PC based program model?&nbsp; i.e how many polygons will it compute per iteration,&nbsp; What are the accuracies of the math models used?, Has it been validated&nbsp;for use by any organization that actually builds and fields airborne syatems?&nbsp;How much does it cost? because I am ready to get to work on modeling the inlet geometry for the supersonic version.&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>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1.&nbsp; 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>2. &nbsp; Can you provide a basis for this assesment when there is obviously clear empirical evidence that it can be easliy done.Your opinion and you are most welcome to express it</p><p>&nbsp;3..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....?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;1.&nbsp; The problem is that you are expecting the rope to handle loads other than just tensile. </p><p>2.&nbsp; The empirical evidence is that every H2 bouyancy vehicle has used bladders to contain the gas vs the outer structure.&nbsp; The outer structure has too many "joints and openings" to be sealed effectively. </p><p>3.&nbsp; no, I am saying that carrying the gas for landing to and from orbit negates any gains from the lift gas&nbsp;</p>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Really,&nbsp; I guess then&nbsp;I should call the guys back at Edwards AFB CFDA lab that I have discussed this with and who told me that&nbsp;that their system was incapable of doing even the basic TSTO configuration to any level of detail and tell them to chuck all their expensive hardware, and get rid of their software engineers and replace&nbsp;it all&nbsp;with PCs.&nbsp;How many mesh&nbsp;points does this super duper&nbsp;PC based program model?&nbsp; i.e how many polygons will it compute per iteration,&nbsp; What are the accuracies of the math models used?, Has it been validated&nbsp;for use by any organization that actually builds and fields airborne syatems?&nbsp;How much does it cost? because I am ready to get to work on modeling the inlet geometry for the supersonic version.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;Now you are doing the same thing that you accused Dr Rocket of.&nbsp; I never said anything about&nbsp; CFDA </p><p>&nbsp;1. &nbsp; Any launch vehicle performance program (which are PC based) can see if the concept is valid with some tweaking.&nbsp; Launch vehicle spend little time in the atmosphere.&nbsp; Your concept can be modeled as an airlaunch </p><p>2.&nbsp; I was talking about structural programs wrt PC's.&nbsp; This is to see if the vehicle can stay together </p><p>&nbsp;3.&nbsp; A CFDA doesn't need to be done for quite some time, actually, not at all because the concept will be found non viable by 1 and/or 2. </p><p>This concept requires the willful suspension of disbelief and ignorance of the laws of physics.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I am out of here.&nbsp; I can honestly say that this concept won't get past the "another" non viable internet scheme phase&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;1.&nbsp; The problem is that you are expecting the rope to handle loads other than just tensile.</DIV> </p><p>What leads you to this conclusion?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2.&nbsp; The empirical evidence is that every H2 bouyancy vehicle has used bladders to contain the gas vs the outer structure.&nbsp; The outer structure has too many "joints and openings" to be sealed effectively.</DIV> </p><p>I don't believe I ever stated that any of&nbsp;the gases would be contained by the external skin?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>3.&nbsp; no, I am saying that carrying the gas for landing to and from orbit negates any gains from the lift gas&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>Again what are your conclusions based on?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>This is beginning to&nbsp;sound like a personal vendetta.&nbsp; Are you Dr. Rockets girlfriend?</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'>&nbsp;1. &nbsp; Any launch vehicle performance program can see if the concept is valid with some tweaking.&nbsp; 2.&nbsp; I was talking about structural programs wrt PC's.&nbsp; This is to see if the vehicle can stay together &nbsp;3.&nbsp; A CFDA doesn't need to be done for quite some time, actually, not at all because the concept will be found non viable by 1 and/or 2 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />OK name me one that runs on a PC that&nbsp;I can go buy.&nbsp; And again who validated the models??????? <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'>&nbsp; Again what are your conclusions based on? <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>My conclusions are based on that you haven't done any calculations to prove that it is.&nbsp;</p>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;&nbsp; Are you Dr. Rockets girlfriend? <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;Do you want to get banned for ad homien attack? </p>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>OK name me one that runs on a PC that&nbsp;I can go buy.&nbsp; And again who validated the models??????? <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>there are many.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;Here is one<br /> </p><p>POST&nbsp;</p><p>http://www.sierraengineering.com/Post3d/post3d.html</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>STK</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[BrianSlee]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My conclusions are based on that you haven't done any calculations to prove that it is.&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />Then why don't you just ask me nicely to give you information that you can use to validate or invalidate the claims.&nbsp; <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'>&nbsp;Do you want to get banned for ad homien attack? <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />No but I also don't want to sit here and take a bunch of unwarranted BS either.&nbsp; <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'>&nbsp;there are many.&nbsp;&nbsp;Here is one POST&nbsp;http://www.sierraengineering.com/Post3d/post3d.htmlSTK <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />I don't see anything there for doing CFDA.&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]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Now you are doing the same thing that you accused Dr Rocket of.&nbsp; I never said anything about&nbsp; CFDA &nbsp;1. &nbsp; Any launch vehicle performance program (which are PC based) can see if the concept is valid with some tweaking.&nbsp; Launch vehicle spend little time in the atmosphere.&nbsp; Your concept can be modeled as an airlaunch 2.&nbsp; I was talking about structural programs wrt PC's.&nbsp; This is to see if the vehicle can stay together &nbsp;3.&nbsp; A CFDA doesn't need to be done for quite some time, actually, not at all because the concept will be found non viable by 1 and/or 2. This concept requires the willful suspension of disbelief and ignorance of the laws of physics.&nbsp;I am out of here.&nbsp; I can honestly say that this concept won't get past the "another" non viable internet scheme phase&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />Cygnus this is not a launch vehicle performance problem.&nbsp; The CFDA is needed to validate and refine the airframe configuration.&nbsp; The rockets and the rest of the systems contemplated are off the shelf.</p><p>*Cygnus, my apologies.&nbsp; I thought you were talking about a CFDA system.*</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'>Cygnus this is not a launch vehicle performance problem.&nbsp; The CFDA is needed to validate and refine the airframe configuration.&nbsp; The rockets and the rest of the systems contemplated are off the shelf.*Cygnus, my apologies.&nbsp; I thought you were talking about a CFDA system.* <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;It is a launch vehicle problem.&nbsp; The airframe spends little time in the real atmosphere.&nbsp; </p>

 

[BrianSlee]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;It is a launch vehicle problem.&nbsp; The airframe spends little time in the real atmosphere.&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />Cygnus if used as a first stage lifter it would actually spend all of its time in the atmosphere <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>Ok, let me try to diffuse things a bit.&nbsp; Let me state emphatically once again.</p><p>I AM HERE TO DISCUSS AN IDEA THAT I THINK HAS MERIT</p><p>I know this concept is way out there.</p><p>I expect a good bit of incredulity and skepticism</p><p>I also expect that a lot of people won't get it initially because the concept combines ideologies and principles from many disparate areas.</p><p>That said I ask very politely that if you have an opinion either way please state it&nbsp;in a professional and respectful manner, and&nbsp;I will respond in kind.</p><p>I also ask that if you have an opinion please base it on the information provided (not on speculation, assumption, or personal bias) or if you think I have not provided enough information just ask nicely and I will answer to the best of my ability.&nbsp; If I believe release of that information will jeopardize the IP rights I will ask that those conversations be taken off-line and yes I still require an NDNC to protect my interest before engaging in those conversations.&nbsp; If you are working on something similar I am more than willing to bring in an intermediary to review both sides to determine where interests converge and whether or not it is beneficial to pursue a teaming arrangement prior to signing any agreements.</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]

*mod hat on*<br /><br />Asking Cygnus if he was DrRocket's girlfriend was uncalled for.&nbsp; We do not take kindly to insinuations about people's sexuality here.<br /><br />*mod hat off*<br /><br />My two cents (obligatory note: I am a software engineer, not a rocket scientist, and I'm having network problems today so I can't read the whole thread -- forgive me if I'm repeating the bloody obvious or what has already been said several times):<br /><br />I would not be willing to sign a contract just to get details about your concept, partly because I lack the expertise to do anything with such information anyway, but also because I am wary of signing *any* contract with someone I barely know about something that I don't intend to get seriously involved with.&nbsp; I say this merely to illustrate that it's not really unreasonable for people to be wary of such contracts in an informal context like this.<br /><br />As far as a balloon-launched rocket, the idea has been bandied about before and there have been studies.&nbsp; I'm sure you're aware of that, but if you're not, I would encourage you to find out as much as you can about those.&nbsp; There's got to be useful information that. From what I've read by experts, it sounds as if the balloon or blimp launch concept suffers from one crucial problem: launching from the air only improves the energy needs for the launch by a tiny bit.&nbsp; Ultimately, the main advantage of air launch has been the same as for the ocean-launched Sea Launch and the submarine-launched Volna -- portability.&nbsp; You can literally launch from any point on Earth that the FAA or equivalent agencies won't throw a fit about, and which has adequate tracking facilities downrange of wherever you launch (so you can blow the thing up if it goes wrong). With Pegasus, for instance, the added altitude and velocity of the Lockheed Tristar carrier aircraft is negligible.&nbsp; The real advantage is that Pegasus needs so little in the way of ground support equipment.&nbsp; It's very flexible.<br /><br />So I think that would be the big selling point for your system as well -- flexibility.&nbsp; That shouldn't be discounted, either.&nbsp; It's massively expensive to build a launch pad, and once you have, you've tied yourself to those coordinates pretty tightly.&nbsp; Pegasus can fly north to get an advantage for polar orbits, or fly south to get an advantage for equatorial orbits, plus the energy boost of the Earth's angular momentum at the equator.&nbsp; Your blimp could do the same.<br /> <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]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>*mod hat on*Asking Cygnus if he was DrRocket's girlfriend was uncalled for.&nbsp; We do not take kindly to insinuations about people's sexuality here.*mod hat off*My two cents (obligatory note: I am a software engineer, not a rocket scientist, and I'm having network problems today so I can't read the whole thread -- forgive me if I'm repeating the bloody obvious or what has already been said several times):I would not be willing to sign a contract just to get details about your concept, partly because I lack the expertise to do anything with such information anyway, but also because I am wary of signing *any* contract with someone I barely know about something that I don't intend to get seriously involved with.&nbsp; I say this merely to illustrate that it's not really unreasonable for people to be wary of such contracts in an informal context like this.As far as a balloon-launched rocket, the idea has been bandied about before and there have been studies.&nbsp; I'm sure you're aware of that, but if you're not, I would encourage you to find out as much as you can about those.&nbsp; There's got to be useful information that. From what I've read by experts, it sounds as if the balloon or blimp launch concept suffers from one crucial problem: launching from the air only improves the energy needs for the launch by a tiny bit.&nbsp; Ultimately, the main advantage of air launch has been the same as for the ocean-launched Sea Launch and the submarine-launched Volna -- portability.&nbsp; You can literally launch from any point on Earth that the FAA or equivalent agencies won't throw a fit about, and which has adequate tracking facilities downrange of wherever you launch (so you can blow the thing up if it goes wrong). With Pegasus, for instance, the added altitude and velocity of the Lockheed Tristar carrier aircraft is negligible.&nbsp; The real advantage is that Pegasus needs so little in the way of ground support equipment.&nbsp; It's very flexible.So I think that would be the big selling point for your system as well -- flexibility.&nbsp; That shouldn't be discounted, either.&nbsp; It's massively expensive to build a launch pad, and once you have, you've tied yourself to those coordinates pretty tightly.&nbsp; Pegasus can fly north to get an advantage for polar orbits, or fly south to get an advantage for equatorial orbits, plus the energy boost of the Earth's angular momentum at the equator.&nbsp; Your blimp could do the same. <br />Posted by CalliArcale</DIV><br /><br />CalliArcale,</p><p>&nbsp; The NDNC is a standard tool for protection in addition to any current patent protections.&nbsp;This is especially useful for small companies looking for opportunities to collaborate.&nbsp; Again it may be necessary to work through an intermediary prior to entering into an agreement to establish whether it is in the best interest of both parties to do so.&nbsp; The big problem for small companies is that the large corporations have lots of assets to figure out how to circumvent current claims (and some of them are very good at it).&nbsp; So maintaining secrecy as long as possible, evens the odds for the little guys.&nbsp; It gives them time to develop the idea and if necessary improve their claims or add claims that result&nbsp;from the development efforts.&nbsp;&nbsp;This is due to the fact that large corporations are not going to invest large sums of money trying to develop something very similar without first hand knowledge of how they must go about it to avoid infringing on said claims.&nbsp; It is much easier in this case to sit down at the table and try to negotiate an agreement if they are truly interested in pursuing the concept.&nbsp; BTW the NDNC requirement is only applicable to individuals and businesses, any governmental organization can see&nbsp;everything&nbsp;simply for the asking.</p><p>I&nbsp;have done extensive research in the area of LTA systems and there isn't much out there that addresses the idea of of combining the&nbsp;technolgies of LTA systems and rockets and obviously nothing that combines the other two with aerodynamic lift.&nbsp;&nbsp;The&nbsp;big problems that have been associated with the idea of using the LTA based launch&nbsp;approach revolve around controllability (you cant steer a balloon *and dirigibles can be very unwieldy in high winds*), and the weight involved with anything but the smallest rockets i.e.&nbsp;given a fixed volume system, the more weight you add the lower your point of neutral buoyancy and therefore the less effective it is for the intended purpose, and scalability (large LTA systems suffer horrible drag penalties in the lower atmosphere at anything but the most modest speeds and have traditionally required large crews for ground handling).&nbsp;&nbsp;Agreed that lifting the rocket to some altitude and dropping it will only provide so much benefit, but add that to forward velocity and you save a&nbsp;little bit more&nbsp;and at app $5000.00 - $10,000.00 a kilo a little goes a long way in the savings department, especially if you can apply the methodology to the larger systems and most especially if you can apply the term sunk costs for the capital expenditures&nbsp;to do it (thats what makes re-usability so attractive).&nbsp;&nbsp; And you are&nbsp;correct some serious savings can be realised by changing our processes in the areas of launch facilities&nbsp;and logistic support operations.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;IMHO opinion that is part of the beauty of this solution, it&nbsp;provides for cost reductions&nbsp;in many areas, not just one.&nbsp; So a little here and a little there and some more in this other area and pretty soon you get some major savings.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>*whole post edited for readability*</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>

*mod hat on*Asking Cygnus if he was DrRocket's girlfriend was uncalled for.&nbsp; We do not take kindly to insinuations about people's sexuality here.*mod hat off*</p><p>That was a little over the top and I am sorry.</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>