The IIS Express

[najab]

marcel, you seem to be deliberately ignoring the fact that altitude has almost nothing to do with getting to orbit. Orbit is <b>all about speed</b> - launching the Shuttle at 20 miles (about as high as you can get with a airship) would save you about at most about 10-20% of the propellant. Hindenburg would have been able to lift Columbia dry, but her liftoff mass was about 2 <b>million</b> pounds - about ten times what Hindenburg could lift.

 

[najab]

><i>We always rollout for flight with the engines installed</i><p>Come on Dave, you're among friends here. We know the <b>real</b> reason for the first rollback on STS-35.</p>

 

[marcel_leonard]

All I'm saying is that higher altitdue launch, sea launch. equator launch, and even orbital elevator systems all should be explored. After all The Cape, and French Guyana are major launch sites for the simple fact their close proximity to the equator make them prime candidates for space delivery... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"You don't have to be a math wiz to see the benefits of a higher altitude launch when weight is a factor... "</font><br /><br />A dirigible could raise weight at that magnitude <b>maybe</b> to levels of about 60,000 feet. The ISS is in a 400 mile orbit (a particularly low one, chosen mainly because it's one the Shuttle can reach while heavily loaded). 400 miles equals ~ 2,112,000 feet. Your dirigible-assisted launch has decreased the distance to be traveled by just under 3%, and added no initial velocity. In return, it has made the launch **massively** more complicated, introduced numerous additional failure factors, made the weather conditions at launch an order of magnitude more likely to cause a delay, and made the cost of an aborted launch much higher.<br /><br />You don't have to be a math wiz to see the benefits of a higher altitude launch are minimal and come at a significant cost.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"After all The Cape, and French Guyana are major launch sites..."</font><br /><br />What in the world does building spaceports in the best <i>reasonable</i> location have to do with balloon launches and space elevators? When deciding on the location for a spaceport, obviously nearer the equator is better. However -- it's not <b>everything</b>. Why the Cape? The Keys are even closer to the equator, and have lots of open water around in the event of launch failures. Hmmm -- perhaps because location is a lot, but it's not *everything*. If location was everything, and getting the right location superceded all other concerns, we'd just have invaded Equador and built a spaceport on top of Chimborazo. That would have gotten us right on the equator *and* a starting altitude of over 20,000 feet.<br /><br />However -- there are other factors. They include altitude, logistics, weather, economics, accessibility and a host of other niggling things that you're failing to take into account.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">altitude has almost nothing to do with getting to orbit. Orbit is all about speed</font>/i><br /><br />I'm going to do something stupid (yeah, I know, "what's new about that") and jump in without know what the heck you guys are talking about. Perhaps you have already brought this up.<br /><br />One of the more interesting and strange proposals I have seen is JP Aerospace's "Airship To Orbit". The key is to get mostly out of the atmosphere (and its friction) and then slowly accelerate to orbital speeds. Because you aren't lifing heavy mass with the engine, you can use a high efficiency engine that may not have a strong thrust to weight ratio (e.g., ion propulsion). Web site and 10 PDF report (mostly pictures) can be found at:<br /><br />http://www.jpaerospace.com/<br />http://www.jpaerospace.com/atohandout.pdf<br /><br />The cool thing is that they are already building hardware (if "hard"ware is the right word). They still have a long way to go, but if it succeeds, it will be a completely new way into orbit.<br /><br />Here is some text from the PDF file:<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><font color="yellow">The first part</font>is an atmospheric airship. It will travel from the surface of the Earth to 140,000 feet. The vehicle is operated by a crew of three and can be configured for cargo or passengers. This airship is a hybrid vehicle using a combination of buoyancy and aerodynamic lift to fly. It is driven by propellers designed to operate in near vacuum.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The second part</font>of the architecture is a suborbital space station. This is a permanent, crewed facility parked at 140,000 feet. These facilities, called Dark Sky Stations (DSS), act as the way stations to space. The DSS is the destination of the atmospheric airship a</p></blockquote></i>

 

[marcel_leonard]

Now your baking the old noodle...Don't you just love that raw brain power.<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[najab]

><i>The Columbia with SRBs and a loaded ET is 4.5 million pounds.</i><p>Doh! There I am teasing you about forgetting the engines, and I go and forget to fill her up! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><p>Actually I did the "pounds are kilograms, really" thing again. It was 2,000,000kg which is about 2000 tons - or 20 times what the Hindenberg could carry.</p></p>

 

[marcel_leonard]

Thanks for flying above the Radar...Radar....I just love that raw brain power... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[najab]

><i>This is a permanent, crewed facility parked at 140,000 feet.</i><p>I assume this is basically a big airship? I <i>guess</i> this could work.<p>><i>The third part..airship...[t]he initial test vehicle is 6,000 feet (over a mile) long....As it accelerates it dynamically climbs. Over several days it reaches orbital velocity</i><p>My problem with this is that it is going to be travelling at high speeds within the atmosphere. Admittedly the air is thin at 200Kft, but it was thick enough to destroy Columbia and to burn up re-entering satellites. A mile-long balloon would likely be torn to shreds before it got anywhere near fast enough to reach orbit.</p></p></p>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...JP Aerospace's "Airship To Orbit..."</font><br /><br />I haven't tried to work any numbers, but I haven't seen anything obviously flawed with JP's plans. It's been a while since I looked over their concepts, and I don't recall what kind of payloads they're proposing. Their ideas are *so* far off the beaten path that there's little information to use in making a determination about the overall feasibility. By the same token -- there's very little existing data for them to use in developing their platforms. The devil is always in the details. They may get 90% of the way towards a working solution, only to encounter a single gotcha that makes the whole idea a wasted effort.<br /><br />As with the lunar trebuchet -- speculating on what they might be able to do is an interesting intellectual excercise. However -- basing long-range planning an tha assumption that they will succeed is lunacy (and not the <i>good</i> kind of lunacy).<br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The devil is always in the details. They may get 90% of the way towards a working solution, only to encounter a single gotcha that makes the whole idea a wasted effort.</font>/i><br /><br />I completely agree. Most of my work is performed on research contracts that typically run 2-3 years, and most people I work/interact with are in similar positions. Over the last upteen years I have watched the vast majority of people's efforts die following following the end of the contracts. [Note: On a positive note, the ones that do succeed make their researchers very rich -- at least if they are working for a small business. It is a high-risk high-reward business.]<br /><br />Tony Tether, speaking to the Moon-2-Mars commission mentioned that DARPA expects at least 50% of the efforts to fail. In many cases I would say it is closer to 90%. You also see similar numbers for people starting businesses, especially in untested markets.<br /><br />I expect most of these space efforts to fail, but I am very excited that there are so many and that they are moving beyond the concept and drawing phase.</i>

 

[craigmac]

I would like to learn more about the DARPA small buisness program. Do you have a link or contact where I could learn more?<br /><br />Also I have this final exam question that is giving me some trouble, and I would appreciate any help from some physics majors out there...<br /><br />2.) The electrical potential in a region of space is given by the function<br /><br />V = ax + by^2 - cz^3<br /><br />where a = 3 v/m, b = 2 v/m^2, and c = 1 V/m^3<br /><br />a) Compute the potential difference between the points A and B if [ A = (0,1,2,0) m], and [B = (1,2,1) m] respectively.<br /><br />b) What is the magnitude of the electrical field at point [P = (3,2,2) m]?<br /><br />c) What is the acceleration of an electron placed at point [P]? <br /><br />Given: Ex = -dV/dx; Ey = -dV/dy; Ez = -dV/dz....

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I would like to learn more about the DARPA small buisness program. Do you have a link or contact where I could learn more?</font>/i><br /><br />Information at DARPA, including general solicitiations, can be found at their home page:<br />http://www.darpa.mil/<br /><br />Information on their small business program can be found at:<br />http://www.darpa.mil/sbir/<br /><br />More general information on the SBIR program for DOD activities, as well as current solicitations for DARPA, Army, Navy, SOCOM, and OSD, can be found at<br />http://www.acq.osd.mil/sadbu/sbir/<br /><br />I have actually never submitted a proposal to a DARPA SBIR effort -- only to DARPA normal BAA process. My SBIR experience has been with Air Force and Navy.<br /><br />NASA also has an SBIR program. Information and current solicitations can be found at:<br />http://sbir.gsfc.nasa.gov/SBIR/SBIR.html<br /><br />I think the coolest NASA SBIR efforts are in the exploration systems category:<br />http://sbir.gsfc.nasa.gov/SBIR/sbirsttr2004/solicitation/Chapter_914.html</i>

 

[marcel_leonard]

I recently applied my private practice to SBIR: As a newbie it is some advance that you can share when making a proposal to the [X] projects. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[lunatic133]

Hey were going to have a SBIR meeting in like *checks clock* 10 minutes! Can't say much about it though because that makes you competition <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />

 

[craigmac]

SBIR is good program for people that are really interested in becomming vendors to NASA, and a good way to get your small buisness off the ground. Only a lunatic would think that be not sharing info about writing a good proposal would eliminate the competition. In fact sharing infomartion is how you make your buisness grow!

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">In fact sharing infomartion is how you make your buisness grow!</font>/i><br /><br />On a semi-related note, one of the primary strategies for winning an SBIR contract (especially a Phase II) in many/most cases is to successfully argue that you can make a lot of money beyond the original contract.<br /><br />A couple of years ago I had a Phase II proposal to the Air Force that made it to the final cut: it was between me and another group. In the end I lost because, I was told, I did not have a strong enough business case -- I had proposed to give away the software as part of an open source project.<br /><br />The general approach within the DOD is<br /><ul type="square"><li><font color="yellow">Phase I</font>6-9 months, roughly $100k. Propose the basic concept and conceptually how you can make additional money off the idea. When you win, spend some time fleshing out the idea (paper studies, maybe a simple proof of concept), build the business case, develop Phase II proposal.<br /><li><font color="yellow">Phase II</font>If they like your progress in Phase I, you get invited to submit a Phase II proposal. The proposal shows more detail on the concept and shows how you will build off Phase I work; it is *really* good to show matching funds from outside investors and business model (maybe including some market analysis). The contract is typically for 2 years and for $500K-$700K. The typical goal is to produce a demonstration capability.<br /><li> <font color="yellow">Phase III</font>Phase IIIs are rare and often need to pursue external funding separate from the research granting organization. For example, in the DOD you need to find an operational customer willing to shell out some money. Since operational customers typically don't have spare cash laying around, you need to start the "sell" very early in the Phase II (and maybe even the Phase I) effort. This way they can earmark some money fo</li></li></li></ul></i>

 

[lunatic133]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Only a lunatic would think that be not sharing info about writing a good proposal would eliminate the competition<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />You rang?<br />Heh sorry ... I would share what we've come up with but it's all VERY vague at the moment. We just finished with two SBIR phase ones -- the Mars Solar Baloon Lander, and MAPS which I helped work on. The phase 2's are NOPS and Lift Gas Cracker. So there! <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />

 

[marcel_leonard]

Once again thanks for flying below the Radar...<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Where can I find online a good reference format for SBIR proposals? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[fatjoe]

I would agree that conversion factors a side; there must be trillions of dollars in waste alone; when america holds on to the old british systems.<br /><br />There's your tax dollars hard at work. With the savings generated from global SI conversion we could literally have a fleet of FTL solar sails ships heading to Alpha Centuri, or at least end AIDS, and world hunger!

 

[marcel_leonard]

I predict that very soon our shuttle program is going to take a back seat to the ESA shuttle program <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"I predict that very soon our shuttle program is going to take a back seat to the ESA shuttle program "</font><br /><br />I predict that the Hermes project will be cancelled in 1992.<br /><br />HEY! It was! Dang I'm good!!

 

[marcel_leonard]

I predict that the ESA will pick up where the french left off. Once they've upgrade Adriane 5 for more load... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[nacnud]

The Hermes space plane was an ESA project it got cancelled because it was too heavy, I wouldn't hold out for any more orbital spaceships with wings for a while. Maybe a flat iron shape like the Clipper proposal or a more reusable vehicle based on the Soyuz.