Calling our technical experts - Any chance this thing works?

publiusr · 2006-05-19 11:09:51

It all comes down to money, again. To steal a quote from James Fallows, author of FREE FLIGHT:

(From pages 154-156)

"All entrepreneurs have a class grudge against all financiers...I once thought Klapmeier (from Cirrus) was going to kill me...when I told him about a friend of mine who received tens of millions in venture capital for an Internet-based company with no obvious 'revenue model.' ...The niche occupied by Dell Computers--a huge-volume, commodity producer--is not immediately available to Cirrus...Venture Capitalists keep offering them deals, but in return they want a large equity share in the company...The Klapmeiers faced the classic dilemma of entrepreneurs. Their stiffness, self-reliance, and refusal to listen to conventional opinions had allowed them to survive...(but)..there is a point when original virtues become liabilities..."

And that was for a small but otherwise conventional type of light aircraft.
The only thing for it would be to pass laws and "assign" worthy products to venture capitalists. For every hundred dollars of EXXON stock, an investor must place 10 dollars (per share) into some aviation/technology start up.

The carrot won't work. I think its time for some nice union-wielded baseball-bat style negotiations with the venture vultures--and make them fork it over.

It worked for Korolev.

aldiffer · 2006-05-19 23:51:10

I don't need that kind of help. Heaven forbid.
Keep your ideas away from my potential financiers, please.
We are doing fine, thank you.

Jack Chandley · 2006-05-24 10:21:58

The ATO seems like a good idea on paper. However, has the risk of damage from collision with orbital junk been considered? The size of this craft is well into the kilometer range. With that kind of size, doesn't the likelihood of a collision increase significantly?

aldiffer · 2006-05-24 22:05:08

How fast does a bathtub empty if you punch a small hole in it?
How about a pool sized tub?

First of all, these things don't go POP like a latex balloon. They aren't all that elastic.
Second, the gas volume is pretty large AND segmented. It would take a while to notice the pressurization change.
Third, the vehicle design has to have a way to cope with small leaks anyway like with do with ocean going ships. Assume leaks from the start and plan for them.

Lastly, not all the orbiting vehicle designs are that large. The design I'm playing with right now is about 600 meters long with lox/kerosene rockets on it.

Jack Chandley · 2006-05-25 07:26:52

How fast does a bathtub empty if you punch a small hole in it?
How about a pool sized tub?
First of all, these things don't go POP like a latex balloon. They aren't all that elastic.
Second, the gas volume is pretty large AND segmented. It would take a while to notice the pressurization change.
Third, the vehicle design has to have a way to cope with small leaks anyway like with do with ocean going ships. Assume leaks from the start and plan for them.
Lastly, not all the orbiting vehicle designs are that large. The design I'm playing with right now is about 600 meters long with lox/kerosene rockets on it.

How adversely will leak mitigation effect the cargo capacity?

One thing I am not clear on: is this intended for reuse or not. I'm guessing not, but am not entirely sure.

aldiffer · 2006-05-25 10:38:32

Everything you fly impacts your payload mass. You just have to plan for it and scale the systems appropriately. If you have the ability to replace lift cells or patch them you have one way to do it.

They are meant to be re-used a lot.
It wouldn't make any sense to build these things for only one use.

C M Edwards · 2006-05-29 17:27:43

I am now the CTO at General Orbital. I've carried my interests in inflatables over to our new company where we are putting our own stamp on things.

Hello Al.

Thank you for your responses on this topic, and congratulations. Inflatables have great promise for manned space exploration. I hope General Orbital takes off.

After your comments here and a clarifying comment you posted earlier in the New Mars wiki, I would like to ask you something else: Does General Orbital plan to pursue any competing designs for airship-derived spacecraft?

aldiffer · 2006-05-29 22:58:47

Yes. I have not given up on the approach and have a new team that likes it. I think my designs have diverged over time, so I don't know that I would call them competing. We will all be out there slugging away at the real, shared goal to put people in space.

Admiral_Ritt · 2006-05-31 13:22:45

I know 1080mb is alot of pressure but I wonder.

A light bulb is in a near or total vacuum.

Is there a solid material light enough such that if it were
molded into a sphere in a vacuum, It would
have sufficent buoyancy to rise to, say where
the atmopshere is 100 mb. AFAIK carbon based
latittces are not imperpeable to the gases in our atmosphere so
the answer does not lie there.

It would not have to be large. Even if it were
small in size, you could dump a bunch of the little
hollow spheres into a rigid holding envelope to get lift.

aldiffer · 2006-05-31 20:47:04

If you did find a substance that worked to float one sphere up, grouping them together inside one load envelope probably wouldn't work better. Once you group them near each other they would be subjected to other compressive forces besides atmopsheric pressure.

Think about the environments for the sphere at the top of the pack and the one at the bottom and you'll see that they are different.

C M Edwards · 2006-06-01 10:11:45

Yes. I have not given up on the approach and have a new team that likes it. I think my designs have diverged over time, so I don't know that I would call them competing.

That's logical. After all, a Scout IV can't compete with the Space Shuttle any more than the other way around, despite the fact that they both employ similar technology. So, "alternative" would be a better choice of words. It does seem that prior art must still be an important consideration for you, though. The technology is so new, it's difficult to say where the USPTO would draw the line.

You've got a much better understanding of that situation than a randomly selected blogger like myself, so I'll leave that to your good offices, and proceed to the next important question:

Do you think this thing could carry a manned Mars mission? There and back?

aldiffer · 2006-06-01 14:45:45

Regarding the USPTO and other nation's equivalent agencies, we will find out. Our paperwork is filed, so I can use the patent pending term where I need it. Some ideas are old and some are new, so it will be interesting to see.

Regarding a Mars flight I would say I suppose so. Big airships give you options for Mars landings you might not have otherwise. They also give you a lot more volume during the transit flight so your people don't go batty locked in a tin can. I don't know that the advantages warrant their development, though, if you only focus on Mars. These big airships are meant to provide us with a way to work with the thick atmosphere of Earth instead of fighting with it.

I will admit that I'm a little more focused on getting to LEO than I am getting to Mars. You all are welcome to look that far ahead, but I'm going to have to satisfy an investor or three along the way. I haven't found anyone who is willing to let me play with their millions of $'s, so I'm keeping a short focus for deliverables and a wide focus for designs.

Rxke · 2006-06-02 00:43:54

Mr. Differ,

You know, I presume, about the 'giggle-factor' with all new ideas...

How does your idea fare on that accord, do you recon?
Does the fact that the military took interest in it help you with that, or are you considered to be a mad scientist? (no offence meant here, just want to know)

aldiffer · 2006-06-02 01:15:04

I'm familiar with it. 8)

I was with JPA LLC during the NSMV contract. If you look at any of the pictures and see the keel trusses underneath, they are the labor of my sweat. 35 lbs/100 feet on the keels and we could have done better by 25% I think. We spent many late nights in that cold hangar finishing the vehicle we intended to fly. I still dislike pigeons to this day for crapping on my stuff all the time.

What isn't visible in the pictures, though, is the analysis we did. I was the team physicist responsible for making sure we didn't do things like violate the conservation of energy law and for not being scared off by any math. I wrote up software and ran some of the simulations, so I have a pretty good idea of what to expect up there.

I also ran mission control for a short while and had to know the big picture for what was flying on a particular test flight. I got to know the equipment involved in ground support and what we typically flew back then. They have changed a few things to newer, spiffier stuff since I left (from what I've heard) so what I'm saying is that I got to do some of the hands on and a lot of the pure thinking stuff.

Nowadays I'm with a new team at General Orbital that brings a different set of experiences to the effort. I have some new friends with backgrounds covering investor funded start-up companies, communications and networking, and some excellent talent in the embedded software arena. We intend to raise money and hire the engineering talent we need to flesh out the team.

Am I a mad scientist? Maybe. That's all right though. The only folks I need to convince I am sane right now are my new partners and our potential investors. After that I focus on the engineers who work for the regulators. After that I might get around to everyone else.

Where we fly blue is below while above is black.
We set course for the other side of the sky.

C M Edwards · 2006-06-02 16:29:13

I will admit that I'm a little more focused on getting to LEO than I am getting to Mars. You all are welcome to look that far ahead...

That's half the fun of New Mars, Al. 8)

I agree that use of big airships could offer lots of options, especially if we could get something to Mars that was capable of descent and ascent just like the vehicle your team is working on. I don't see how extra volume during the transit is an advantage - useful living space in a space craft is more a function of vehicle dry mass than of vehicle size. And I think the advantages might warrant their development, too. An orbital airship should have an easier time getting in and out of the Martian atmosphere than Earth's (steeper density curve, lower orbital velocity, same angular velocity, etc.), so that even if a smaller vehicle arrives than ascended from Earth, the slight boost in efficiency should still keep it functional at Mars.

Simply being able to deliver a working airship would be a tremendous help to a manned Mars expedition. Mobility is a major issue for such plans, and any aircraft with large crew quarters or even reasonable cargo capacity would be a gift from the heavens. Having one capable of serving as an Earth Return Vehicle would be a bonus on top of a bonus.

The minimum payload masses necessary to mount such an expedition are on the order of 10 to 20 tons, though, with 10 T being only possible if multiple separate modules are sent simultaneously to take up the slack. An orbital airship would need to be capable of getting at least that much to Earth orbit in order to support the entire mission infrastructure of a manned expedition to Mars.

aldiffer · 2006-06-03 21:49:36

I'll make you all a deal then.

If you want one of these space-capable airships to be useful on Mars help put some work into the engineering effort. If you do and the design is good I'll fold it in to the plans and give credit where it is due. If the design is exceptionally good, we'll talk business.

There are a few constraints to consider though.

1. Assume from the start the use of chemical propulsion for ascent and very little fuel being available for descent. I'm not inclined to wait around for exotic engines. Just because someone has proved them in the lab doesn't make them ready for industrial use.

2. Assume from the start that you can't use exotic materials for the load envelope. That means you need to descend from orbital altitudes and speeds without burning up your typically available fabric used for the outer envelope. That means you have to keep the decelleration g-loads small and the change of velocity spread out over as much time as is reasonable.

3. Consider the usefulness of your design for other bodies with atmospheres. If your idea can operate at the top of Venus' and Earth's atmosphere and all through Mars' atmosphere, you have a potential winner.

4. Assume from the start that we will never raise government money either from projects or contracts. You are welcome to go that way if you like, but I have a moral problem with that path. I'm also getting too old to wait any longer.

I appreciate an attractive dream of the future, but I have far more respect when it is turned into a plan that can be made real through fundable actions of the faithful.

C M Edwards · 2006-06-05 09:40:02

New Mars is not a design forum, and even those of us who understand the physical concepts involved only have an answer to whether or not the thing is physically possible. That leaves us somewhere far below where JP Aerospace was four years ago.

So, it seems to be a safe enough offer for you.

Stranger projects have been proposed here, though, and a decade of Mars Society conventions clearly shows that there is no shortage of people willing to try. With the recent addition of a wiki that could allow for the public posting of original research, we could even put it together and make it look like a group. So, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that someone would try to produce a design.

However, that would bring us back to questions about prior art and trade secrets. I stated earlier that I was content to leave that to your good offices under the circumstances, but we don’t have any. The most efficient way for a group from New Mars to pursue a project like that would be very public, making as complete a summary as possible of previous work freely available to each new participant.

I’d love it, but I don’t know if JP Aerospace and General Orbital Corporation would appreciate it as fully. I suspect it would run counter to their interests.

Do you have a suggestion for resolving that conflict?

aldiffer · 2006-06-05 23:02:34

I can't speak for anyone else, but I can put my General Orbital hat on and say that we would benefit to some degree from an open project. I've done open source software in the past (GPL'd to boot) so I understand the arguments for and against. While I'm not sure a complete document of the past art is necessary, I would be willing to go as far as my partners are willing to tolerate and maybe a little beyond.

(My weak java code for high altitude balloon flights I developed while at JPA is available under the High Flyer project at SourceForge.net.)

I'm not trying to rope anyone in here. If there is interest in making a design Mars-capable then it might be worth putting stuff up on the wiki. I say all this on the off chance a group would form with a bit of support from a motivated user of the designs. Our company can't be the center of the team because our corporate interests would dictate team actions. Down that path lies trouble. What we can do is sit at the table and see if a team forms up. I'm willing to share some of what I know if I see value returned for it.

C M Edwards · 2006-06-06 15:22:15

How did General Orbital's proposal for that old airship hangar in California ultimately turn out?

aldiffer · 2006-06-06 18:18:55

We were considered unresponsive.

Tustin really wanted to tear the places down and produce something to add to their tax base. Cities have to think about budgets like that, so it is understandable.

John Creighton · 2006-06-06 22:10:17

I can't speak for anyone else, but I can put my General Orbital hat on and say that we would benefit to some degree from an open project. I've done open source software in the past (GPL'd to boot) so I understand the arguments for and against. While I'm not sure a complete document of the past art is necessary, I would be willing to go as far as my partners are willing to tolerate and maybe a little beyond.
(My weak java code for high altitude balloon flights I developed while at JPA is available under the High Flyer project at SourceForge.net.)
I'm not trying to rope anyone in here. If there is interest in making a design Mars-capable then it might be worth putting stuff up on the wiki. I say all this on the off chance a group would form with a bit of support from a motivated user of the designs. Our company can't be the center of the team because our corporate interests would dictate team actions. Down that path lies trouble. What we can do is sit at the table and see if a team forms up. I'm willing to share some of what I know if I see value returned for it.

That sounds really cool B). What work needs to be done?

Rxke · 2006-06-07 07:51:03

Yes it does sounds cool.
And an open project could help in several ways, I could see graphic wizards contribute some nice promotional CGI along the for free, for example.

publiusr · 2006-06-09 11:43:39

It is only as good as the investors. That is the problem with space libertarian philosophy--in that you defend the capability of investors to say 'no.' Better to swallo some pride and cal for some tax money. Most investors would rather invest in Exxon than in space advocates.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

aldiffer · 2006-06-11 02:26:14

pft!

Open arrangements are enforced through licenses of copyrights. A new set of investors might choose not to participate anymore by withholding their newest material, but a good license defends participants access to older material.

aldiffer · 2006-06-11 02:56:27

As for what can be done I think it might be wise to start with a training-wheels exercise to see if others have the same idea and if there is real interest in this.

Consider the following problem to see if there is a solution and what the constraints upon it would be. I'll call it GO challenge #1.

A fabric (rip-stop nylon like ski jackets) sphere pressurized with N2 moves outbound along a minimal energy transfer orbit between Earth and Mars. It will intersect Mars in a manner that produces the smallest arrival speed. We want to know the following.

1. What is the arrival speed at Mars assuming the sphere just grazes the Martian surface under the assumption of no Martian atmosphere?

2. How much kinetic energy/kilogram must be dissipated by atmospheric drag for the sphere to land upon the surface at a zero speed?

3. How much energy/kilogram can the sphere hold without any part of it rising above a temperature of 400K? What percentage of that energy is in the N2 compared to the fabric?

4. How large would the sphere have to be to absorb the kinetic energy in such a manner as to never have its surface temperature rise above 400K? What is the resulting average density?

5. What percentage of the kinetic energy would the sphere actually absorb upon arrival compared to the energy absorbed by the atmosphere while creating the sonic shock? From this, how would you change your answer to 4 to account only for the absorbed energy?

6. At what pressure must the N2 be maintained to ensure the sphere retains its shape during the entire entry into the Martian atmosphere? Is the pressure physically sensible for the fabric described?

These questions get progressively harder as you work through them, so don't jump ahead unless you are ready to ride without training wheels. Also realize that there might not be unique answers to them. The best answers might be functions describing allowed ranges and the constraints that make them sensible.

I haven't run these numbers for Mars, so I don't know what the results would be. I do know that dust particles striking the Martian atmosphere can slow to a 'stop' before hitting the ground, so the concept of a soft landing isn't too far fetched. Dust has a low density, so I expect the density for the sphere would have to be very low too. You need to know something about the structure of the Martian atmosphere to get very far, though, and I haven't bothered to look up what we know.

What I have done is run calculations like these for more interesting shapes involving Earth's atmosphere. We have a lot more air, so it's less surprising that you can slow to a stop before hitting the ground. What wasn't so obvious, though, is that you could do it without burning up. Look up at the sky at night and watch all those zips and flashes and you'll see what I mean. Of course, they aren't arriving on minimal energy transfer orbits. 8)

If there are good answers to these questions, it begins to make sense to consider other shapes that might be more flyable after arriving. If so, I would conder the numbers and see if our Earth vehicle designs can't accomodate Martian interests.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2006-05-19 11:09:51

Re: Calling our technical experts - Any chance this thing works?

#77 2006-05-19 23:51:10

Re: Calling our technical experts - Any chance this thing works?

#78 2006-05-24 10:21:58

Re: Calling our technical experts - Any chance this thing works?

#79 2006-05-24 22:05:08

Re: Calling our technical experts - Any chance this thing works?

#80 2006-05-25 07:26:52

Re: Calling our technical experts - Any chance this thing works?

#81 2006-05-25 10:38:32

Re: Calling our technical experts - Any chance this thing works?

#82 2006-05-29 17:27:43

Re: Calling our technical experts - Any chance this thing works?

#83 2006-05-29 22:58:47

Re: Calling our technical experts - Any chance this thing works?

#84 2006-05-31 13:22:45

Re: Calling our technical experts - Any chance this thing works?

#85 2006-05-31 20:47:04

Re: Calling our technical experts - Any chance this thing works?

#86 2006-06-01 10:11:45

Re: Calling our technical experts - Any chance this thing works?

#87 2006-06-01 14:45:45

Re: Calling our technical experts - Any chance this thing works?

#88 2006-06-02 00:43:54

Re: Calling our technical experts - Any chance this thing works?

#89 2006-06-02 01:15:04

Re: Calling our technical experts - Any chance this thing works?

#90 2006-06-02 16:29:13

Re: Calling our technical experts - Any chance this thing works?

#91 2006-06-03 21:49:36

Re: Calling our technical experts - Any chance this thing works?

#92 2006-06-05 09:40:02

Re: Calling our technical experts - Any chance this thing works?

#93 2006-06-05 23:02:34

Re: Calling our technical experts - Any chance this thing works?

#94 2006-06-06 15:22:15

Re: Calling our technical experts - Any chance this thing works?

#95 2006-06-06 18:18:55

Re: Calling our technical experts - Any chance this thing works?

#96 2006-06-06 22:10:17

Re: Calling our technical experts - Any chance this thing works?

#97 2006-06-07 07:51:03

Re: Calling our technical experts - Any chance this thing works?

#98 2006-06-09 11:43:39

Re: Calling our technical experts - Any chance this thing works?

#99 2006-06-11 02:26:14

Re: Calling our technical experts - Any chance this thing works?

#100 2006-06-11 02:56:27

Re: Calling our technical experts - Any chance this thing works?

Board footer