Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

Austin Stanley · 2005-10-31 18:50:23

The heart simply is not strong enough to pump blood up to the head against these forces, and it is impossible to provide to much assistance without injuring the body in some other way.
What if the body is tilted so the G-Forces are oriented so the person flying feels like they are laying down. That way the heart isn’t fighting gravity. Or even a mechanical secondary hart could be used. Perhaps external to the body. As for assistance I think I disagree. If the suite provides more pressure for assistance then pressurize the body to provide counter pressure. Consider the pressure deep sea divers can go down to. As for reflexes if the vehicle is unmanned there will be a larger delay in the control. Also there is no reason machine reactions can’t be mixed with human intelligence. Putting the human in the plane puts the human intelligence closer to the action. An interesting idea would be having one human manned plane control of fleet of unmanned planes.

Changing the body's orientation doesn't solve the problem, just changes when and where it occurs. A person lying prone might not have as much trouble during turns, but would have more sever problems during dives and climbs.

As for other mechanical means of assistance, there is some potential here, but not alot. An artifical heart for example, is not only complicated and extreamly dangerous (what if it were damaged/punctured, you could bleed out in secounds!) but also causes it's own complications. Increasing the blood pressure to the levels necessary to pump the blood to the brain also increase the risk of a fatal stroke. Mechanical systems can suffer from the same problem, and there is a limit to how much pressure can safely be applied to the lower extremities. Also an issue is how fast your system can react. Fighters can go into multi-g turns very rapidly, and your mechanical system may not be able to react fast enough.

-----

When I was talking about UAV, I was thinking primarily about autonomous robots. However the USAF style of air-combat is well suited to the introduction of either kind. Stealthy UAV will procced to the target directed/controled by the airborn radars on AWACS and other airborn control vessles. If the AWACS determine that it is a valid target, the UAV well be set loose to attack the target on their own. Since most modern air-combat is beyond visual range anyways, dogfighting skills wont even have to come into play. They will just launch their missles and burn off. Similar mission profiles can be used for boming/ground attack runs as well.

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-31 19:02:00

You can't make the pilots' chair lay far enough down for the pilot to beat G-forces... you also can't use too much pressure, or else the pilots' appendages would be badly brused or worse. The comparison with deep sea divers (not ones with hard suits) is irrelivent, because their bodies operate under the same pressure inside and out. The whole point of a G-suit is to squeeze parts of the body unevenly unlike a diver to intentionally force the blood to the head.

Running up the blood pressure with a pump to the point needed to resist continuous prolonged 10G forces would be fatal quite quickly, even with only momentary use.

UAVs have come a long way, but they are still some distance from being really reliable weapons, particularly because of their reliance on remote control and so on. Manned fighters will continue to be the standard for some time.

John Creighton · 2005-10-31 19:23:47

The comparison with deep sea divers (not ones with hard suits) is irrelivent, because their bodies operate under the same pressure inside and out. The whole point of a G-suit is to squeeze parts of the body unevenly unlike a diver to intentionally force the blood to the head.

I’m suggesting that raising the internal pressure of the body will make it stronger. Kind of like foam. If you increase the pressure of the air inside the foam, the foam can support a greater compressive load. I am suggesting the body may behave similarly. Have there been studies that experiment how well G suits work at different internal pressures for the body.

John Creighton · 2005-10-31 19:38:06

Running up the blood pressure with a pump to the point needed to resist continuous prolonged 10G forces would be fatal quite quickly, even with only momentary use.

After some more thought, veins and arteries burst if the blood pressure gets too high. I’m wondering about the biomechanics here. If you increase the pressure inside the body in should be stiffer. So the biomechanical question here is, “are the blood vessels supported primarily by the tensile strength of the vessels or the stiffness and compressive strength of the surrounding tissue?” If it is the later then increasing the internal pressure of the body should better support vessels. Another alterative would be having pumps in different places thought the body so the all the pressure doesn’t need to be concentrated in one spot. Another question is where do blood vessels break. If they tend to break in the brain then the danger shouldn’t be as high as the brain should be at the lowest pressure at least during a banking maneuver. Could we also increase the oxygen concentration in the blood so that the hart doesn’t have to work as hard?

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-31 21:02:58

Whoa whoa whoa here... cyborg modified jet jocks don't make any sense, it would be FAR FAR easier just to move the pilot out of the plane entirely!

And you can't jack up the pressure inside the body like that, it doesn't work that way. If you were to try, the uneven pressure would badly damage the pilot, and if it wern't uneven, you would move any blood.

And you can't simply move it for any length of time, or else the pilots limbs will die.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-02 10:29:03

So now what happens when the big merger does go though and we have this same event of Boeing machinists strike, possibly delaying NASA

This is not good to have all the eggs in one basket.

In fact the CEV DaStick combo needs to be buildable by multiple factories not just one. This would drive cost down by forcing them to be competative to produce each rockets for seperate sales and to put them on time for each unit without cost overruns.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-03 07:00:42

No, NASA doesn't have the money to build two seperate CEV componet factories. If its going to be possible at all with the current budget, thats just a risk NASA has to take.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-03 07:29:35

On the Alliance formation it appears stalled again.

[url=http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2005/11/02/Navigation/177/202537/Launch+Alliance+postponed+again.html#Scene_1]Launch Alliance postponed again
Boeing, Lockheed must wait for antitrust review[/url] the Federal Trade Commission issued a second request for information.

News article reference it as being only a "proposal to create a joint satellite launch business", I do not remember it as only that facet of the business that they were in the action of consolidating.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-04 09:40:50

In a move due to the damage to the booster for the New horizon replacement workers are being utilized. I wonder what the cost saving will amount to...

[url=http://www.flatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051104/NEWS02/511040351/1007/news02]Non-union crew to finish booster rocket
Striking workers question use of replacements[/url]

SpaceNut · 2005-11-14 09:48:26

This article covers the items that space x contents are unfair to them and what is and has occured in the rocket industry.
Spaceflight needs a reality check

With SpaceX suing Boeing and Lockheed Martin and with Kistler Aerospace laying off some of their workforce, I’ve started wondering just how realistic are the plans of all the companies trying to get into the launch business. Do any of them really have a chance?

publiusr · 2005-11-23 15:57:36

If you can't launch, sue.

Boeings troubles continue:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums … 87&start=1

I never got along with Mott--but still sad.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18361

http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuoteCo … 464_newsml

SpaceNut · 2005-12-05 06:43:05

There is news out that the "Striking Boeing workers returning: Rocket machinists crossing picket lines" all because of health benifits...

SpaceNut · 2005-12-20 06:12:35

While the FTC wants more data about the merger it appears that even the Pentagon has started to ask questions.

Pentagon wants to know more about Boeing, Lockheed deal

SpaceNut · 2006-02-18 21:25:04

SpaceX vs. Boeing and Lockheed Lawsuit Dismissed

The court concluded that SpaceX "is not yet ready to compete with the Defendants in the EELV market. Because it lacks such readiness, its speculative claims regarding future harm are not ripe."

Seems that the missed flight has had a very negative impact....

GCNRevenger · 2006-02-18 22:50:00

Although it would be swell (and the "yay underdog!" thing), SpaceX is still a paper company. Even if they did get their rocket to fly, the Falcon-I has about 4% (thats right, four percent) of the capacity of the maximal Delta-IV HLV and 5% of the Atlas-V 551.

Thats not "competition"

Elon can advertise the Falcon-V and IX all he pleases, but those are still rightfully considerd just vaporware and are years away, if ever. The USAF needs cheaper rockets, and consolodating the two lines as much as possible cuts many millions off the cost, then why not.

cIclops · 2006-02-19 11:53:32

consolodating the two lines as much as possible cuts many millions off the cost, then why not.

In a word: monopoly

GCNRevenger · 2006-02-19 12:53:03

Competition? As opposed to what we have now? The USAF funded two seperate, independant rocket lines, to the cost of billions of dollars, so that there would be total redundancy in the event one line is out of comission for whatever reason. For either line to be profitable, they have to actually be flying rockets, so there really isn't much in the way of competition. The USAF would be paying Lockheed and Boeing to build rockets reguardless which one can out-compete the other anyway. This deal reduces the managerial and some logistical overhead that is redundant between the two operations, plus could ease the pressure on the USAF to prop up two seperate operations, since the money is now going to the same pot reguardless which rocket they fly.

Commodore · 2006-02-19 18:03:57

Yeah but its still only a matter of time untill some pretext is used to jack up the price because they are the only game in town.

GCNRevenger · 2006-02-19 18:22:34

I'm saying that is irrelivent if one company or two is in the market, because the USAF demands that at least two rocket shops must be in business. Whether they are one company or two makes no different if they wanted to "jack up the price" through some pretext or another.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2006-02-20 07:53:26

My question is what is the ULA going to do hardware wise? Are they going to build a hybrid Atlas V/Delta IV? Keep things as is?...

GCNRevenger · 2006-02-20 09:34:29

No way, the two rockets are pretty much incompatible.

What will happen is that Boeing/LockMart will throttle back production as much as they can on both lines to keep both of them viable.

publiusr · 2006-02-24 16:52:00

SpaceX vs. Boeing and Lockheed Lawsuit Dismissed
The court concluded that SpaceX "is not yet ready to compete with the Defendants in the EELV market. Because it lacks such readiness, its speculative claims regarding future harm are not ripe."
Seems that the missed flight has had a very negative impact....

And people wonder why folks doubt the Alt.Spacers.

cIclops · 2006-03-18 03:15:05

Reuters report

WASHINGTON, March 17 (Reuters) - A plan by Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Boeing Co. (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research) to merge their rocket-launch work for the U.S. government has received the Defense Department's conditional backing, defense consultant Loren Thompson said on Friday

publiusr · 2006-03-23 14:57:21

The Pentagon backs it.

great..just great...

SpaceNut · 2006-04-27 20:25:40

It would seem that Lockheed is having second thoughts with this merger.
[url=http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/27/news/companies/boeing_lockheed.reut/]Lockheed to discuss rocket deal delay
The proposed venture with Boeing has been stalled by an antitrust review.[/url]

I never did see the benefits to saving such a small amount with this merger.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2005-10-31 18:50:23

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#77 2005-10-31 19:02:00

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#78 2005-10-31 19:23:47

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#79 2005-10-31 19:38:06

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#80 2005-10-31 21:02:58

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#81 2005-11-02 10:29:03

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#82 2005-11-03 07:00:42

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#83 2005-11-03 07:29:35

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#84 2005-11-04 09:40:50

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#85 2005-11-14 09:48:26

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#86 2005-11-23 15:57:36

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#87 2005-12-05 06:43:05

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#88 2005-12-20 06:12:35

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#89 2006-02-18 21:25:04

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#90 2006-02-18 22:50:00

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#91 2006-02-19 11:53:32

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#92 2006-02-19 12:53:03

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#93 2006-02-19 18:03:57

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#94 2006-02-19 18:22:34

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#95 2006-02-20 07:53:26

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#96 2006-02-20 09:34:29

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#97 2006-02-24 16:52:00

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#98 2006-03-18 03:15:05

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#99 2006-03-23 14:57:21

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

#100 2006-04-27 20:25:40

Re: Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance

Board footer