The IIS Express

[bushuser]

It seems a magnetic rail or sled is very reasonable in the thin atmosphere of Mars, or the moon, but would never do more on earth than perhaps replace the first boost stage of a vehicle.

 

[najab]

Fields are not the same thing as waves (or particles for that matter).

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"First off, you would be levitating into space, not orbit. Turn off the magnetic field and the frog would drop 100 miles, straight down "</font><br /><br />Actually the problem is more and less than that. The frog's angular momentum is that of the surface of the Earth where he begins levitating from. Assuming a magnetic field strong enough -- once the frog got high enough, the earth would rotate out from underneath it. Any such magnetic levitation would have to supply both vertical *and* lateral motion to get to orbital altitudes.<br /><br />Also -- from 100 miles up -- the frog would burn up on reentry. Nothing would be left by ground level -- but if there was -- it'd be a "crunch" rather than a "splat". Perhaps if we superglued one of the shuttle tiles to the frog's ass -- it would not only be watertight but also re-entry capable. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[marcel_leonard]

Isn't there a large on going experiment using these exact same principles at the JPL? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Isn't there a large on going experiment using these exact same principles at the JPL? "</font><br /><br />Well -- I Googled for 'JPL frog magnetic'. While I got a few hits -- none seemed to be discussing an attempt to send a frog to orbit via a magnetic field. So... maybe but none that I could find. If you locate the link -- be sure to post it.

 

[najab]

><i>Isn't there a large on going experiment using these exact same principles at the JPL?</i><p>JPL is gluing TPS tiles to frogs?!?!!</p>

 

[marcel_leonard]

Hey it's alot cheaper than crash test dummies... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Hey it's alot cheaper than crash test dummies... "</font><br /><br />Nope. The lawsuits from PETA and the SPCA would run to the millions. Perhaps they could develop an artificial frog to glue the tiles to.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"frogs...are we talking about frenchmen here? "</font><br /><br />While that would resolve any difficulties with PETA or the SPCA -- the increased mass and surface area requirements would be cost-prohibitive. The number of TPS tiles required would be significantly increased. In addition, the french in general are less aerodynamically shaped than amphibians.

 

[nacnud]

I think a newt would be more aerodynamic as it has a higher aspect ratio than a frog, perhaps you could get away with a carbon-carbon nose shield instead of a whole tile. I suppose you would have to find the paramagnetic properties of a newt first though, I'll get started on the grant proposal form right away…

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"I think a newt would be more aerodynamic..."</font><br /><br />Presumably you don't mean Gingrich. While he has a decidedly teardrop shape -- there'd have to be a signifcant number of thermal tiles glued to his fundament for proper re-entry.

 

[najab]

Well, last I saw of him, he was packing on a few pounds - perhaps it would be better to let him ablate.

 

[scottb50]

Maybe dip Newt in Fire Paste. The only problem is he wouldn't abate and then we would probably have to hear from him again. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[fatjoe]

I think marcel was talking about a slower approach into orbit as opposed to 25000 mph OV that has everyone so excited.<br /><br />As I recalled there was an old 70s or 80s TV show the had the lawyer from Matt Lock, and the detective guy from Rockford Files. As I recall they started a private space salvage company and made an orbiter out of spare parts from their junkyard.<br /><br />The main point being they had found away to launch/re-enter the atmosphere slowly...

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">No matter whether you choose to call the speed escape velocity, or orbital velocity; the question remains how do we feasibly achieve such speeds economically and safely?</font><br /><br />Sorry CraigMac, didn't see your question from 4 days ago. Far be it from me to not take advantage of an opportunity to preach . . . <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Answer:<br />MCD BDB HLLV<br />Minimum Cost Design<br />Big Dumb Booster<br />Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle<br /><br />To take care of building the space infrastructure we need, and . . . <br /><br />Orbital Tourism Operations to get people up and down.<br /><br /><br />When I get back to my home pc I'll see if I've got the post where I offered my definitions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"The main point being they had found away to launch/re-enter the atmosphere slowly... "</font><br /><br />If we're going to be picking our designs from T.V. shows -- let's use Dr. Who. A Tardis would not only eliminate pesky problems with launching from the earth's surface, but would also give us the ability to travel through time.<br /><br />The main point being that while 'Reality TV' is a big hit these days, TV isn't really reality.

 

[marcel_leonard]

I was thinking more along the lines of; how blimps work. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"I was thinking more along the lines of; how blimps work. "</font><br /><br />OK -- I see how we went from rail-launched systems to magnetically levitated frogs. They at least has magnetism in common. I'm a little vague on where the connection between magnetically levitated frogs got morphed into blimps. My best connection paradigm goes:<br /><br />Spaceships launched via mag-lev - /><br />Frogs levitated via magnetism - /><br />Newts levitated via magnetism - /><br />Newt Gingrich levitated via magnetism - /><br />Blimps rising due to atmospheric displacement.<br /><br />Ideally I think there should have been an additional link between NG and blimps. The introduction of balloons would have made the chain considerably smoother, i.e.:<br /><br />Newt Gingrich levitated via magnetism - /><br />Balloons rising due to atmospheric displacement generated via quantities of hot air - /><br />Blimps rising due to atmospheric displacement generated via Hydrogen/Helium.<br />

 

[craigmac]

<font color="yellow">Spaceships launched via mag-lev -> <br />Frogs levitated via magnetism - /> <br />Newts levitated via magnetism - /> <br />Newt Gingrich levitated via magnetism - /> <br />Blimps rising due to atmospheric displacement. <br /></font><br /><br />I think he is talking about alternatives to heavy lift boosters. I think a balloon or blimp lift to higher altitudes makes alot of sense in for first stage boost for launching into orbit.<br /><br />And it's every cost effective... <br /><br />The same way inflatable space habitats make more sense than current ISS designs

 

[marcel_leonard]

Thanks for the link; the Bigelows group has got the right idea if only NASA could cut through all the old guard magic contractors and use some of the habitates to speed up the construction process.<br /><br />Which makes me wonder who is the lucky guy who has the job of being the chief project manager of ISS construction? I could probably live off of he/she's weekly salary for a decade...<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...balloon or blimp lift to higher altitudes ... <br />...inflatable space habitats..."</font><br /><br />Cool. Now if we can just get some inflatable astronauts, maybe we could get Macy's to sponser a flight every year on Thanksgiving day. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[marcel_leonard]

<font color="yellow">Cool. Now if we can just get some inflatable astronauts, maybe we could get Macy's to sponser a flight every year on Thanksgiving day.</font><br /><br />Actually Macy's would be a very good sponsor for this project. The only reason we haven't made any progress in the passed 35 years of space flight is the people at the head of NASA think just like you. In the words of a once prosperous blacksmith; "Who would pay good money for a Horseless Carriage?" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"The only reason we haven't made any progress in the passed 35 years of space flight is the people at the head of NASA think just like you."</font><br /><br />In point of fact -- I think Bigelow has a very good idea and I applaud his efforts. I'm considerably less enthused about the possible benefits of a balloon launch -- it gains altitude, but no velocity, and the altitude is a small fraction of anything but a suborbital trajectory.<br /><br />Most of my postings in this thread are targeted at the 'imaginary engineering' that you continue to propose. You've proposed rail-launches with escape-velocity results, magnetic levitation to orbital altitudes, and balloon launches. Each of these is completely unrelated and all have significant engineering problems. <br /><br />You haven't actually done any of the research to locate the engineering requirements or problems before you posted. For both the railgun and the levitation, I did a good bit of Googling to learn more about the subjects before I posted replies. One of the reasons I'm on this board is because I like knowing things. For any thread which interests me, I research the topic to learn more or refresh my memory, then post to the thread if I think that I can add something to the discussion. When I think there's nothing to be added to the discussion except humor -- I'll add that.<br /><br />I don't have anything against speculation about what *might* be possible. If you look under the 'Business and Tech' forum in the 'Lunar Trebuchet' thread, you'll see several posts I made about an <b>extremely</b> improbable concept. Speculation about what is known to be possible, but improbable is one thing. It's another thing entirely to ignore what is known to be impossible and speculate anyway (with the assurance that "we'll find some way around that").

 

[marcel_leonard]

Hindenburg would carry a gas volume of 7,062,000 cubic feet. This volume, when filled with hydrogen, would produce an astounding 242.2 tons=[219.720144 metric tons] of gross lift. The useful lift (the lift left after you subtract the weight of the structure from the gross lift) was still 112.1 tons=[101.6954093 mt]. An astounding weight even by today's standards but mind-blowing in the 1930's. <br /><br />Columbia is commonly refered to as OV-102, for Orbiter Vehicle-102. Empty Weight was 158,289 lbs=[71.7986826 mt] at rollout and 178,000 lbs=[80.7394418 mt] with main engines installed.<br /><br />You don't have to be a math wiz to see the benefits of a higher altitude launch when weight is a factor... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"We always rollout for flight with the engines installed"</font><br /><br />I think Marcel was referring to the times when you rollout the shuttle for a breath of fresh air -- not those 'flight' rollouts.