On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:03:59 -0700 (PDT), Adrian Tymes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>ERPS doesn't presently have the financial resources
>to do xSTO, for any value of x. It is not likely
>to acquire such until it is ready to start working on
>xSTO, since ERPS has nearer-term projects to do
>first.
If you want to rent a helicopter to drop POGO, then
you could also get a 50' or so cable between the
helicopter and POGO, then drop POGO off of the end of
the cable at altitude. I think this would allow a
significant safety factor for the helicopter and
pilot. If there was a catastrophic failure
--- Randall Clague <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 14:15:22 -0700 (PDT), Adrian
> Tymes
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Personally, I'd rather not stage at all. But
> that's
> >another argument, and academic until one has at
> least
> >an X Prize class vehicle (whether or not one
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 14:15:22 -0700 (PDT), Adrian Tymes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Personally, I'd rather not stage at all. But that's
>another argument, and academic until one has at least
>an X Prize class vehicle (whether or not one actually
>goes for the X Prize) that could in theory be stage
Come to think of it...has ERPS ever had an engine problem in flight?
(Not subnominal performance like the KISS chug; we were already living
with that in the interest of project momentum.) For that matter, has
Armadillo?
-R
We have never had a flight failure attributable to engine
performance. B
--- Randall Clague <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:39:53 -0700 (PDT), Adrian
> Tymes
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >For instance, if one were
> >to suggest the possibility that a xSTO adaptation
> of
> >POGO
>
> Eh? One would not build a multistage POGO. POGO is
> a technolo
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:39:53 -0700 (PDT), Adrian Tymes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>For instance, if one were
>to suggest the possibility that a xSTO adaptation of
>POGO
Eh? One would not build a multistage POGO. POGO is a technology
demonstrator, nothing more.
I wouldn't even stage ReSOAR. PR
--- Ian Woollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just suffer from 'apparently stupid idea syndrome'
> which basically
> consists of me coming up with a somewhat cunning
> idea which sounds mind
> boggling stupid, which usually isn't quite that
> stupid, and is sometimes
> entirely correct. I don'
Pierce Nichols wrote:
At 11:59 PM 9/13/2003 +0100, Ian Woollard wrote:
Anyway, I'm bored with this whole discussion- I am not replying
anymore no matter how much Pierce implies I'm a dipstick for even
thinking about such low tech stuff :-)
I apologize if I offended you -- I did not inte
Ian Woollard wrote:
A subsonic ramjet is a almost as big a fuel hog as a rocket.
I can't parse that. I need numbers cos I'm an engineer. What does
'almost as big a fuel hog' mean?
I'd be interested if anyone has any hard numbers like ISP on subsonic
ramjets.
From http://home3.inet.tele.dk/kenn
At 11:59 PM 9/13/2003 +0100, Ian Woollard wrote:
Anyway, I'm bored with this whole discussion- I am not replying anymore no
matter how much Pierce implies I'm a dipstick for even thinking about such
low tech stuff :-)
I apologize if I offended you -- I did not intend to. I made an
unw
At 12:51 PM 9/13/2003 -0700, Randall Clague wrote:
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 09:21:51 -0700, Pierce Nichols
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From earlier contexts, I assumed that we were talking about using
>jet engines at supersonic speed. And supersonic inlets are not a stock item.
Why would we wan
Pierce Nichols wrote:
In that case, Randall is right, but not for the reasons he
thinks he is.
I don't think engineering is an area you can be right or wrong in.
Life's too complex. Randall's point of view seems sound on this.
A subsonic ramjet is a almost as big a fuel hog as a rocket.
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 12:35:06 -0700, Pierce Nichols
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In that case, Randall is right, but not for the reasons he thinks
>he is. A subsonic ramjet is a almost as big a fuel hog as a rocket.
>Therefore, I assumed if you were talking ramjets you must be talking
>s
Henry Spencer wrote:
Which is why people build the tunnels.
They don't build them much anymore. Computational windtunnels are pretty
good. Look at Rutans latest effort.
There just ain't no cheap way to *fully* test and *operationally qualify*
a ramjet. It's not enough if it sort of works; if
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 09:21:51 -0700, Pierce Nichols
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From earlier contexts, I assumed that we were talking about using
>jet engines at supersonic speed. And supersonic inlets are not a stock item.
Why would we want to spend fuel when we're supersonic? We're no
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 17:32:20 +0100, Ian Woollard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think a ramjet would win big if you wanted to cost reduce the booster.
>I don't think it's in any way a silly idea, but I suspect most sane
>developments would just drop a jet engine in (if there was a suitable
>one
At 05:44 PM 9/13/2003 +0100, Ian Woollard wrote:
Pierce Nichols wrote:
From earlier contexts, I assumed that we were talking about
using jet engines at supersonic speed. And supersonic inlets are not a
stock item.
You almost certainly wouldn't want a supersonic flyback booster whichever
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, Ian Woollard wrote:
> I don't know, why not just borrow a trashy, leaky, creaky, junked jet
> engine that just about runs, but is no longer flight worthy from
> somewhere. Point at ramjet. Do tests. It doesn't have to be a perfect
> test, just good enough that your flight te
Henry Spencer wrote:
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, Ian Woollard wrote:
You might be able to hire an aerospace engineer from somewhere and give
him the spec for the ramjet and say- go build. It would probably take a
couple of years, but it's still probably cheaper than buying a turbojet-
that's what?
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, Ian Woollard wrote:
> You might be able to hire an aerospace engineer from somewhere and give
> him the spec for the ramjet and say- go build. It would probably take a
> couple of years, but it's still probably cheaper than buying a turbojet-
> that's what? 10 man years wort
Pierce Nichols wrote:
From earlier contexts, I assumed that we were talking about
using jet engines at supersonic speed. And supersonic inlets are not a
stock item.
You almost certainly wouldn't want a supersonic flyback booster
whichever form of jet you used, too much drag, hence too m
Pierce Nichols wrote:
At 01:14 AM 9/13/2003 -0700, Randall Clague wrote:
You misunderstand: I don't care how hard the design problem is. I'm
not going to design a turbojet/turbofan engine; that would be stupid.
I'm going to buy one.
You misunderstood me -- buying one isn't enough. You h
At 12:15 PM 9/13/2003 -0400, Henry Spencer wrote:
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, Pierce Nichols wrote:
> You misunderstood me -- buying one isn't enough. You have to
> design an inlet for one, and you most certainly can't buy that.
Many turbofans for subsonic speeds come with intakes -- you buy the
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, Pierce Nichols wrote:
> You misunderstood me -- buying one isn't enough. You have to
> design an inlet for one, and you most certainly can't buy that.
Many turbofans for subsonic speeds come with intakes -- you buy the
complete engine package, not just the turbomachi
At 01:14 AM 9/13/2003 -0700, Randall Clague wrote:
You misunderstand: I don't care how hard the design problem is. I'm
not going to design a turbojet/turbofan engine; that would be stupid.
I'm going to buy one.
You misunderstood me -- buying one isn't enough. You have to
design an inl
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 11:17:55 -0700, Pierce Nichols
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Therefore, using a turbine engine doesn't
>reduce the difficulty of the overall design nearly as much as Randall
>thinks it does.
You misunderstand: I don't care how hard the design problem is. I'm
not going to desi
At 01:14 AM 9/12/2003 +0100, Ian Woollard wrote:
Hey, perhaps that's something to do with no zero-speed thrust? That, plus
they're not more efficient than turbojets at any speed below mach 1. Where
they win is the low development cost. In obscure cases, that's a win. My
claim is that this is on
Randall Clague wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 18:06:15 +0100, Ian Woollard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not saying they're theoretically as good as a turbojet; but quite a
bit of the cost of a launch vehicle is in the purchase of the said
launch vehicle and jets cost a whole lot more. Fuel is t
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Ian Woollard wrote:
> >...Nobody builds unmanned cargo aircraft, and there's a reason for that.)
>
> Yeah, aeroplanes were invented before microprocessors and GPS :-)
And the airplanes have had microprocessors and GPS for a while now, and
guess what? They're still manned.
Fa
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 18:06:15 +0100, Ian Woollard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On the other side of the coin, the thrust:weight ratio is not that bad,
>you only need enough thrust to hold an altitude for a couple of hundred
>kilometers, and you may even be able to use it on the way up too (for a
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:45:17 +1200, Newsletters
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Somewhere between the two.
>Pulse jet engine with more power (and therefore potential size and/or speed)
>than average model.
>NOT RC controlled - GPS waypointed with infra-red (?) stability control
>between GPS checks.
R
Henry Spencer wrote:
(By the way, why assume it's unmanned?
TIMTOWTO (- There Is More Than One Way To Orbit)
Making it manned is probably preferable. Nobody builds unmanned cargo aircraft, and there's a reason for that.)
Yeah, aeroplanes were invented before microprocessors and GPS :-)
I th
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Ian Woollard wrote:
> >Stir in the availability of turbofans off the shelf, and the desirability
> >of powered landings for operational transport vehicles,
> >
> Yes, but it's an unmanned flyback booster, not a transport vehicle.
An unmanned flyback booster *for what*? It's p
Henry Spencer wrote:
Unfortunately, a flyback booster almost certainly wants to cruise back at
subsonic speed.
Yes; I wasn't suggesting supersonic flight.
Ramjets work poorly below Mach 1.
They're not that bad at about mach 0.85 or so, particularly for a point
design which is all you'd need
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Ian Woollard wrote:
> Wouldn't a ramjet make for a great fly-back booster though?
> You'd already have the speed from takeoff; when you get back down to the
> right altitude you light it and head for home...
Unfortunately, a flyback booster almost certainly wants to cruise ba
Wouldn't a ramjet make for a great fly-back booster though?
You'd already have the speed from takeoff; when you get back down to the
right altitude you light it and head for home. When you get near the
airport turn it off and let it glide down for a pinpoint landing
(differential GPS would be a
>Cruise missle built from Ebay parts. :)
>
>http://www.sptimes.com/2003/09/09/Floridian/Just_over_1_000__and_.shtml
>
Bosh. R/C model airplane built from eBay parts, for $5000, not $1000.
Is it impressive? Sure. Does it have anything to do with terrorism,
except as a way for him to get attenti
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> ...plus it allows the operator to get away (people keep
> failing to internalize that "strike today, then live
> to strike again tomorrow" isn't most terrorists' MO).
Minor quibble: it isn't *some* terrorists' MO. A lot of the smarter ones
definitely wa
--- Randall Clague <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why are people who supposedly like hobby aerial
> vehicles (rockets,
> aircraft) so consistently linking them with
> terrorism?
As you said: attention getting. There's also the
memory of 9/11/2001, specifically that aircraft were
the means of delive
Randall Clague wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:18:09 -0500, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Cruise missle built from Ebay parts. :)
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/09/09/Floridian/Just_over_1_000__and_.shtml
Bosh. R/C model airplane built from eBay parts, for $5000, not $1000.
Is it
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:18:09 -0500, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Cruise missle built from Ebay parts. :)
>
>http://www.sptimes.com/2003/09/09/Floridian/Just_over_1_000__and_.shtml
Bosh. R/C model airplane built from eBay parts, for $5000, not $1000.
Is it impressive? Sure.
Cruise missle built from Ebay parts. :)
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/09/09/Floridian/Just_over_1_000__and_.shtml
___
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
43 matches
Mail list logo
