On Sunday, February 2, 2003, at 04:23 PM, Pierce Nichols wrote:
The Chrysler SERV proposal used a system of large, bolt-on
ablative panels. Something similar would work well for a DC-X style
future vehicle.
One of the other proposals from the heyday of paper SSTOs had a
metallic wate
At 04:35 PM 2/2/2003 -0500, Andrew Case wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2003, at 04:23 PM, Pierce Nichols wrote:
The Chrysler SERV proposal used a system of large, bolt-on
ablative panels. Something similar would work well for a DC-X style
future vehicle.
One of the other proposals from
On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 13:59:11 -0800, Pierce Nichols
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>However, getting it
>spread evenly and reliably over the surface of the TPS during re-entry seem
>to me to be a tricky problem. It's a really sweet operational model, but
>the complexity and failure modes are dauntin
At 03:22 PM 2/2/2003 -0800, Randall Clague wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 13:59:11 -0800, Pierce Nichols
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>However, getting it
>spread evenly and reliably over the surface of the TPS during re-entry seem
>to me to be a tricky problem. It's a really sweet operational model, b
At 03:38 PM 2/2/2003 -0800, Pierce Nichols wrote:
Hrm... I'm inclined to take Gary's ideas with a grain of salt,
but it passes the smell test. The question in my mind is how much more
water, of course. I don't think you need (or would want) a grid of tiny,
precise holes, but instead a
Pierce Nichols wrote:
I just remembered something else that probably decreases the amount of
water required for any system. I'm sure most of you are familiar with
the Leidenfrost effect, aka film boiling. Basically, a thin film
of water will protect an underlying surface from even more heat t
Pierce Nichols wrote:
>
> Hrm... I'm inclined to take Gary's ideas with a grain of salt,
> but it passes the smell test. The question in my mind is how much more
> water, of course. I don't think you need (or would want) a grid of tiny,
> precise holes, but instead a material of a define po
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Donald Qualls wrote:
> The problem with a metal foam is that there's no reliable way to ensure
> that every pore gets adequate flow without pumping much more water than
> most of the pores need...
Worse, if (dim) memory serves, there are flow instabilities -- associated
with
On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 00:31:53 +, Ian Woollard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm unclear that you want to wet the bottom of the vehicle, because of
>issues with evenness. Instead I think you need to have the underside
>dry, but suck heat from it by heating water/steam inside the metal and
>exha
At 12:31 AM 2/3/2003 +, Ian Woollard wrote:
Pierce Nichols wrote:
I just remembered something else that probably decreases the amount of
water required for any system. I'm sure most of you are familiar with the
Leidenfrost effect, aka film boiling. Basically, a thin film of
water will pr
Randall Clague wrote:
I could be wrong, but I think of it as a flash evaporator on nuclear
steroids. Dump the water out the back. It will boil, and then
disassociate, and then blow away, taking a bunch of heat with it.
If you do that you've used the latent heat of vapourisation in cooling
th
At 05:33 AM 2/3/2003 +, Ian Woollard wrote:
Randall Clague wrote:
I could be wrong, but I think of it as a flash evaporator on nuclear
steroids. Dump the water out the back. It will boil, and then
disassociate, and then blow away, taking a bunch of heat with it.
If you do that you've used
Pierce Nichols wrote:
At 05:33 AM 2/3/2003 +, Ian Woollard wrote:
Randall Clague wrote:
I could be wrong, but I think of it as a flash evaporator on nuclear
steroids. Dump the water out the back. It will boil, and then
disassociate, and then blow away, taking a bunch of heat with it.
On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 05:33:35 +, Ian Woollard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If you do that you've used the latent heat of vapourisation in cooling
>the hot air near to the body, rather than in cooling the body; which I
>don't think is as good, since the cooled air may not be in contact with
>t
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Randall Clague wrote:
> For film cooling, I don't see the benefit of letting the incoming air
> heat the skin, and then cooling the skin. Why not just cool the
> incoming air?
Because not all the heat you are removing from the incoming air would
have gone into the skin. You'l
Randall Clague wrote:
Gary Hudson looked at this for Roton, and concluded that it isn't
nearly as bad as the learned literature suggests. You don't need
millions of 100 micron holes 15 mm apart all over the hull - which
would be completely unmanageable and would clog anyway - if you're
willing t
Henry Spencer wrote:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Donald Qualls wrote:
The problem with a metal foam is that there's no reliable way to ensure
that every pore gets adequate flow without pumping much more water than
most of the pores need...
Worse, if (dim) memory serves, there are flow instabilities
17 matches
Mail list logo
