| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"hi@anony habshi" |
| Date: |
19 Sep 2006 12:32:56 AM |
| Object: |
Getting into space for less than $2000 |
Makes Physics sense.
Why blast your way through dense air at 20,000kmh , turning the air
into like solid rock , when you can rise gently to the edge and then
accelerate away in the super thin air ?
Soon humans will go in these balloons and then get into small
capsules to go on to the moon.
excerpt guardian.co.uk
To the edge of space for £1,000
Ian Sample, science correspondent
Tuesday September 19, 2006
The Guardian
From the edge of space a tiny camera captures the dramatic curvature
of the Earth, during a test flight that is one small step for
Cambridge University students aiming to launch a rocket into space for
under £1,000.
Engineers Carl Morland, Henry Hallam and Robert Fryers attached the
camera to a helium balloon and released it from Churchill College on
its flight to 32km. As it rose and the air got thinner, the balloon
expanded until two hours later it popped, releasing the camera which
plummeted at 100mph before being slowed by a parachute. Throughout the
flight, the camera captured more than 800 images.
The launch, part of Project Nova, will pave the way for balloon
flights to carry scientific experiments designed by local schools and
ultimately a rocket capable of delivering payloads into space for a
tiny fraction of the present cost.
"The balloon will carry the rocket to 30,000m, at which point we can
fire it into space either to one side of the balloon, or by going
right through it," said Mr Morland. The students have insurance to
launch the balloon every month for the next nine months. The first
rocket launch from the balloon is scheduled for next summer.
.
|
|
| User: "hi@anony habshi" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting into space for less than $2000 |
22 Sep 2006 03:52:50 AM |
|
|
The point is that if the rocket goes too fast initially then
it loses most of the fuel in friction . So a slow ascent over a month
at 1000 miles a day might need much less energy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting into space for less than $2000 |
22 Sep 2006 08:10:51 PM |
|
|
The point is that if the rocket goes too fast initially then
it loses most of the fuel in friction . So a slow ascent over a month
Huh?
at 1000 miles a day might need much less energy.
OK, so tell us how you do it.
Is it the curry that kills off all the E. Coli or WHAT?
I'm willing to give it a try.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting into space for less than $2000 |
22 Sep 2006 08:45:02 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics habshi <hi@anony> wrote:
The point is that if the rocket goes too fast initially then
it loses most of the fuel in friction .
Maybe that's one of the reasons real life rockets don't go that fast
initially, well that and much faster than they do tends to make the
crew unhappy because of the G force involved.
So a slow ascent over a month
at 1000 miles a day might need much less energy.
Since 1000 miles is well beyond the atmosphere, your statement shows
what a fucking idiot you are.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting into space for less than $2000 |
22 Sep 2006 09:40:51 PM |
|
|
The point is that if the rocket goes too fast initially then
it loses most of the fuel in friction .
Maybe that's one of the reasons real life rockets don't go that fast
initially,
The primary reason they go slow initially is because of all the weight
because of all the fuel wasted going slow initially.
Rockets should be launched toward earth.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting into space for less than $2000 |
22 Sep 2006 08:50:39 PM |
|
|
habshi wrote:
The point is that if the rocket goes too fast initially then
it loses most of the fuel in friction . So a slow ascent over a month
at 1000 miles a day might need much less energy.
Habshi,
* The atmosphere is, at most, 150 mi. deep.
Thats why the balloon/rocket package was used in the first place.
(It was first used in the late '40s`).
* Reaching orbit is different from reaching space.
Any concievable velocity generated by a balloon for this purpose
is so small as to be meaningless.
You obviously misunderstood the origional article that you cited.
Go back to school, (and listen this time), or just go away!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting into space for less than $2000 |
21 Sep 2006 07:37:24 AM |
|
|
Balloons could reduce the cost to test or launch scram jets.
Attach the scram to a long weight and drop it from 100,000 feet.
After half a minute you're going Mach 1 but are still above 65,000
feet.
You'll still need a rocket to get the scram up to Mach 5 but it should
be much smaller and you've eliminated the B-52 altogether.
The Australians did something like this but used a rocket instead of a
balloon. They should have used a balloon.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting into space for less than $2000 |
21 Sep 2006 08:56:35 AM |
|
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1158842243.894989.61240@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| Balloons could reduce the cost to test or launch scram jets.
|
| Attach the scram to a long weight and drop it from 100,000 feet.
|
| After half a minute you're going Mach 1 but are still above 65,000
| feet.
|
| You'll still need a rocket to get the scram up to Mach 5 but it should
| be much smaller and you've eliminated the B-52 altogether.
|
| The Australians did something like this but used a rocket instead of a
| balloon. They should have used a balloon.
|
|
| Bret Cahill
Balloon altitude record is...
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/CassandraEng.shtml
You are going to build a monster capable of lifting not just a
couple of 200 lb men in pressure suits and on oxygen
but a rocket plus fuel for $2000, are you?
Hot air or helium?
Go for it, good luck.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alex Terrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting into space for less than $2000 |
22 Sep 2006 08:05:47 AM |
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1158842243.894989.61240@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| Balloons could reduce the cost to test or launch scram jets.
|
| Attach the scram to a long weight and drop it from 100,000 feet.
|
| After half a minute you're going Mach 1 but are still above 65,000
| feet.
|
| You'll still need a rocket to get the scram up to Mach 5 but it should
| be much smaller and you've eliminated the B-52 altogether.
|
| The Australians did something like this but used a rocket instead of a
| balloon. They should have used a balloon.
|
|
| Bret Cahill
Balloon altitude record is...
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/CassandraEng.shtml
You are going to build a monster capable of lifting not just a
couple of 200 lb men in pressure suits and on oxygen
but a rocket plus fuel for $2000, are you?
Hot air or helium?
Go for it, good luck.
Androcles
He actually suggested lifting a scram, which is a bit heavier than a
rocket. If you just went for the rocket, then to put one person in
orbit, you'd need something of the order of 20 tons of fuel and rocket.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting into space for less than $2000 |
22 Sep 2006 09:24:44 AM |
|
|
"Alex Terrell" <alexterrell@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158930347.042339.41890@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
| > news:1158842243.894989.61240@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > | Balloons could reduce the cost to test or launch scram jets.
| > |
| > | Attach the scram to a long weight and drop it from 100,000 feet.
| > |
| > | After half a minute you're going Mach 1 but are still above 65,000
| > | feet.
| > |
| > | You'll still need a rocket to get the scram up to Mach 5 but it should
| > | be much smaller and you've eliminated the B-52 altogether.
| > |
| > | The Australians did something like this but used a rocket instead of a
| > | balloon. They should have used a balloon.
| > |
| > |
| > | Bret Cahill
| >
| > Balloon altitude record is...
| > http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/CassandraEng.shtml
| > You are going to build a monster capable of lifting not just a
| > couple of 200 lb men in pressure suits and on oxygen
| > but a rocket plus fuel for $2000, are you?
| > Hot air or helium?
| > Go for it, good luck.
| > Androcles
|
| He actually suggested lifting a scram, which is a bit heavier than a
| rocket. If you just went for the rocket, then to put one person in
| orbit, you'd need something of the order of 20 tons of fuel and rocket.
Let's see... rough figures...
Air weighs 15 lb per square inch at sea level, the top of the atmosphere
was defined by the X-Prize to be 62 miles, and he wants to lift 20
tons 100,000 feet.
5280 feet to the mile, that's 19 miles, so he still has 41 miles to go
straight up.
If we assume the density of air is linear with height, then air is roughly
10 lbs per square inch at 100,000 feet.
2240 lbs to the imperial ton, (2000lb to the American ton), 20 * 2000 =
40,000 lbs of air to displace. So at 10 lbs per square inch, the
base area of the balloon has to be 4000 sq inches. A cube has 6 sides,
surface area = 6 * 4000 square inches, volume 64,000,000,000 cubic
inches per cubic balloon.
Skin of cubic balloon =~ 100,000,000 square inches.
= 700, 000 sq feet.
At one penny per sq ft for black plastic trash bags (ideal
for making balloons), $7,000, but then there's the seamstresses
wages.. or masking tape, which I how I built my first (and only)
hot air balloon.
But.... that's with nothing inside, we now have the cost and
mass of helium to consider... too hard for me..
Obviously a vacuum filled balloon will cost a lot less, so
I suggest filling 64,000,000,000 cubic inches with nothing.
It should go up like a rocket.
It is clear that NASA has no idea what they are doing and Bret
Cahill should be appointed the new director.
I'll just guess the way he does: the skin of his balloon will cover
West Virginia and will go over budget, but then that's par
for course, he'll do as well as any other NASA director.
Building castles in the air doesn't even come close to Bret's
imagination.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alex Terrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting into space for less than $2000 |
22 Sep 2006 11:48:27 AM |
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
"Alex Terrell" <alexterrell@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158930347.042339.41890@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
| > news:1158842243.894989.61240@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > | Balloons could reduce the cost to test or launch scram jets.
| > |
| > | Attach the scram to a long weight and drop it from 100,000 feet.
| > |
| > | After half a minute you're going Mach 1 but are still above 65,000
| > | feet.
| > |
| > | You'll still need a rocket to get the scram up to Mach 5 but it should
| > | be much smaller and you've eliminated the B-52 altogether.
| > |
| > | The Australians did something like this but used a rocket instead of a
| > | balloon. They should have used a balloon.
| > |
| > |
| > | Bret Cahill
| >
| > Balloon altitude record is...
| > http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/CassandraEng.shtml
| > You are going to build a monster capable of lifting not just a
| > couple of 200 lb men in pressure suits and on oxygen
| > but a rocket plus fuel for $2000, are you?
| > Hot air or helium?
| > Go for it, good luck.
| > Androcles
|
| He actually suggested lifting a scram, which is a bit heavier than a
| rocket. If you just went for the rocket, then to put one person in
| orbit, you'd need something of the order of 20 tons of fuel and rocket.
Let's see... rough figures...
Air weighs 15 lb per square inch at sea level, the top of the atmosphere
was defined by the X-Prize to be 62 miles, and he wants to lift 20
tons 100,000 feet.
5280 feet to the mile, that's 19 miles, so he still has 41 miles to go
straight up.
If we assume the density of air is linear with height, then air is roughly
10 lbs per square inch at 100,000 feet.
2240 lbs to the imperial ton, (2000lb to the American ton), 20 * 2000 =
40,000 lbs of air to displace. So at 10 lbs per square inch, the
base area of the balloon has to be 4000 sq inches. A cube has 6 sides,
surface area = 6 * 4000 square inches, volume 64,000,000,000 cubic
inches per cubic balloon.
Skin of cubic balloon =~ 100,000,000 square inches.
= 700, 000 sq feet.
At one penny per sq ft for black plastic trash bags (ideal
for making balloons), $7,000, but then there's the seamstresses
wages.. or masking tape, which I how I built my first (and only)
hot air balloon.
But.... that's with nothing inside, we now have the cost and
mass of helium to consider... too hard for me..
Obviously a vacuum filled balloon will cost a lot less, so
I suggest filling 64,000,000,000 cubic inches with nothing.
It should go up like a rocket.
Sorry - have to do it in metric.
Try here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure
According to the table, at 30,000m, atmospheric pressure is 1%. Air
weighs 1kg per m3 at ground, therefore 10g per m3 at 30,000m. Factor in
its cold, and air might weigh 15g per m3.
Helium is too expensive, so lets use hydrogen at 1/15th the weight of
air, so the bouyancy is 14g/m3.
Assuming the skin weighs 20 tons, we have 40 tons to support, which
needs 2.8 million m3. (I make that 182 bn cubic inches). Roughly,
that's a sphere 180m in diameter. That has a surface area of 100,000m2.
At 20 tons, this is 200g per m2. This is heavier than bin liner, but
thing needs to support quite a lot.
It is clear that NASA has no idea what they are doing and Bret
Cahill should be appointed the new director.
I'll just guess the way he does: the skin of his balloon will cover
West Virginia and will go over budget, but then that's par
for course, he'll do as well as any other NASA director.
Building castles in the air doesn't even come close to Bret's
imagination.
Absolutely. More seriously though there are one or two groups that have
discussed launching very small rockets from balloons. The only benefit
of this is that a rocket engine performs better at lower pressures.
Generally, more serious proposals talk about launching from planes,
which also provides good launch flexibility.
An excellent proposal is by tSpace:
http://www.transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=projects.library&workid=CCD3097A-96B6-175C-97F15F270F2B83AA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting into space for less than $2000 |
22 Sep 2006 02:23:24 PM |
|
|
"Alex Terrell" <alexterrell@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158943707.401219.39730@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "Alex Terrell" <alexterrell@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:1158930347.042339.41890@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > "Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:1158842243.894989.61240@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > | > | Balloons could reduce the cost to test or launch scram jets.
| > | > |
| > | > | Attach the scram to a long weight and drop it from 100,000 feet.
| > | > |
| > | > | After half a minute you're going Mach 1 but are still above 65,000
| > | > | feet.
| > | > |
| > | > | You'll still need a rocket to get the scram up to Mach 5 but it
should
| > | > | be much smaller and you've eliminated the B-52 altogether.
| > | > |
| > | > | The Australians did something like this but used a rocket instead
of a
| > | > | balloon. They should have used a balloon.
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > | Bret Cahill
| > | >
| > | > Balloon altitude record is...
| > | > http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/CassandraEng.shtml
| > | > You are going to build a monster capable of lifting not just a
| > | > couple of 200 lb men in pressure suits and on oxygen
| > | > but a rocket plus fuel for $2000, are you?
| > | > Hot air or helium?
| > | > Go for it, good luck.
| > | > Androcles
| > |
| > | He actually suggested lifting a scram, which is a bit heavier than a
| > | rocket. If you just went for the rocket, then to put one person in
| > | orbit, you'd need something of the order of 20 tons of fuel and
rocket.
| >
| > Let's see... rough figures...
| > Air weighs 15 lb per square inch at sea level, the top of the atmosphere
| > was defined by the X-Prize to be 62 miles, and he wants to lift 20
| > tons 100,000 feet.
| > 5280 feet to the mile, that's 19 miles, so he still has 41 miles to go
| > straight up.
| > If we assume the density of air is linear with height, then air is
roughly
| > 10 lbs per square inch at 100,000 feet.
| > 2240 lbs to the imperial ton, (2000lb to the American ton), 20 * 2000 =
| > 40,000 lbs of air to displace. So at 10 lbs per square inch, the
| > base area of the balloon has to be 4000 sq inches. A cube has 6 sides,
| > surface area = 6 * 4000 square inches, volume 64,000,000,000 cubic
| > inches per cubic balloon.
| > Skin of cubic balloon =~ 100,000,000 square inches.
| > = 700, 000 sq feet.
| > At one penny per sq ft for black plastic trash bags (ideal
| > for making balloons), $7,000, but then there's the seamstresses
| > wages.. or masking tape, which I how I built my first (and only)
| > hot air balloon.
| >
| > But.... that's with nothing inside, we now have the cost and
| > mass of helium to consider... too hard for me..
| >
| > Obviously a vacuum filled balloon will cost a lot less, so
| > I suggest filling 64,000,000,000 cubic inches with nothing.
| > It should go up like a rocket.
|
| Sorry - have to do it in metric.
What, and spoil the fun?
|
| Try here
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure
|
| According to the table, at 30,000m, atmospheric pressure is 1%. Air
| weighs 1kg per m3 at ground, therefore 10g per m3 at 30,000m. Factor in
| its cold, and air might weigh 15g per m3.
Hmmm..
28.35g to the oz, 2.54 cm to the inch.
|
| Helium is too expensive, so lets use hydrogen at 1/15th the weight of
| air, so the bouyancy is 14g/m3.
I dunno... you said it's cold, wouldn't hot air work better if we had
a double layer of black trash bags for heat insulation?
|
| Assuming the skin weighs 20 tons, we have 40 tons to support, which
| needs 2.8 million m3. (I make that 182 bn cubic inches). Roughly,
| that's a sphere 180m in diameter. That has a surface area of 100,000m2.
|
|
| At 20 tons, this is 200g per m2. This is heavier than bin liner, but
| thing needs to support quite a lot.
I have the solution to that...
"We can also make film/bags to your exact specification - get a free no
obligation quotation"
http://www.polybags.co.uk/index.htm?main=ind_main.htm
| >
| > It is clear that NASA has no idea what they are doing and Bret
| > Cahill should be appointed the new director.
| >
| > I'll just guess the way he does: the skin of his balloon will cover
| > West Virginia and will go over budget, but then that's par
| > for course, he'll do as well as any other NASA director.
| >
| > Building castles in the air doesn't even come close to Bret's
| > imagination.
|
| Absolutely. More seriously though there are one or two groups that have
| discussed launching very small rockets from balloons. The only benefit
| of this is that a rocket engine performs better at lower pressures.
Oh really? I didn't know Newton's Third Law had been improved on.
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/axioms.htm
|
| Generally, more serious proposals talk about launching from planes,
| which also provides good launch flexibility.
|
| An excellent proposal is by tSpace:
|
http://www.transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=projects.library&workid=CCD3097A-96B6-175C-97F15F270F2B83AA
Written on 1st April, I trust?
It is certainly interesting how the carrier plane doesn't move against
the cloud background... I have some telegraph poles like that.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alex Terrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting into space for less than $2000 |
22 Sep 2006 05:48:16 PM |
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
| At 20 tons, this is 200g per m2. This is heavier than bin liner, but
| thing needs to support quite a lot.
I have the solution to that...
"We can also make film/bags to your exact specification - get a free no
obligation quotation"
I'm sorry - its just too embarrassing to ask for a bag 300m by 300m.
Where would I get it delivered to? Do you have Mr Cahill's address?
http://www.polybags.co.uk/index.htm?main=ind_main.htm
| >
| > It is clear that NASA has no idea what they are doing and Bret
| > Cahill should be appointed the new director.
| >
| > I'll just guess the way he does: the skin of his balloon will cover
| > West Virginia and will go over budget, but then that's par
| > for course, he'll do as well as any other NASA director.
| >
| > Building castles in the air doesn't even come close to Bret's
| > imagination.
|
| Absolutely. More seriously though there are one or two groups that have
| discussed launching very small rockets from balloons. The only benefit
| of this is that a rocket engine performs better at lower pressures.
Oh really? I didn't know Newton's Third Law had been improved on.
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/axioms.htm
The atmospheric pressure inhibits the expansion of the rocket
propellant in the chamber. For example the space Shuttle Main Engin'es
Isp is 363 seconds at sea level and 453 seconds in a vacuum.
|
| Generally, more serious proposals talk about launching from planes,
| which also provides good launch flexibility.
|
| An excellent proposal is by tSpace:
|
http://www.transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=projects.library&workid=CCD3097A-96B6-175C-97F15F270F2B83AA
Written on 1st April, I trust?
It is certainly interesting how the carrier plane doesn't move against
the cloud background... I have some telegraph poles like that.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
NASA thought so. They decided instead to sink a few 10s of billions on
Apollo on steroids.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting into space for less than $2000 |
22 Sep 2006 09:13:35 PM |
|
|
"Alex Terrell" <alexterrell@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158965296.266267.253020@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
|
| > | At 20 tons, this is 200g per m2. This is heavier than bin liner, but
| > | thing needs to support quite a lot.
| >
| > I have the solution to that...
| > "We can also make film/bags to your exact specification - get a
free no
| > obligation quotation"
| >
| I'm sorry - its just too embarrassing to ask for a bag 300m by 300m.
| Where would I get it delivered to? Do you have Mr Cahill's address?
|
Hmm... I have to admit I was a tad too embarrassed myself
to fill out the requirement, I'd feel foolish if someone thought I had
that much trash to dispose of. However, Mr Cahill doesn't seem
be embarrassed by it, so perhaps he'll read about it here.
| >
| >
| > http://www.polybags.co.uk/index.htm?main=ind_main.htm
| >
| >
| > | >
| > | > It is clear that NASA has no idea what they are doing and Bret
| > | > Cahill should be appointed the new director.
| > | >
| > | > I'll just guess the way he does: the skin of his balloon will cover
| > | > West Virginia and will go over budget, but then that's par
| > | > for course, he'll do as well as any other NASA director.
| > | >
| > | > Building castles in the air doesn't even come close to Bret's
| > | > imagination.
| > |
| > | Absolutely. More seriously though there are one or two groups that
have
| > | discussed launching very small rockets from balloons. The only benefit
| > | of this is that a rocket engine performs better at lower pressures.
| >
| > Oh really? I didn't know Newton's Third Law had been improved on.
| > http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/axioms.htm
| >
| The atmospheric pressure inhibits the expansion of the rocket
| propellant in the chamber. For example the space Shuttle Main Engin'es
| Isp is 363 seconds at sea level and 453 seconds in a vacuum.
|
| >
| > |
| > | Generally, more serious proposals talk about launching from planes,
| > | which also provides good launch flexibility.
| > |
| > | An excellent proposal is by tSpace:
| > |
| >
http://www.transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=projects.library&workid=CCD3097A-96B6-175C-97F15F270F2B83AA
| >
| > Written on 1st April, I trust?
| > It is certainly interesting how the carrier plane doesn't move against
| > the cloud background... I have some telegraph poles like that.
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
| >
| NASA thought so. They decided instead to sink a few 10s of billions on
| Apollo on steroids.
Yes... quite. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. I'm really surprised
that Mr. Cahill hasn't thought of a sky hook, though.
Many years ago the mail train could pick up a mailbag without
stopping, and it seems to me that the ISS need only trail
out a long cable behind it, drag a hook in the ocean and scoop up
anything needed, maybe a tuna or two as well. If NASA
developed it think of the spin-off in new materials for fishing
lines, far better than superglue or teflon. But maybe 17,000
mph would be a tad fast, so why not use the moon instead?
It seems to be overhead for quite a few hours, a high speed
winch could move tons of stuff up and down. We'd save on
balloons, too.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting into space for less than $2000 |
22 Sep 2006 05:59:11 PM |
|
|
You guys need to face reality: Some Brits screwed up and spilled the
beans on a low cost method to get stuff into space.
Take away all their books on Newton so this won't happen again.
I'm sorry - its just too embarrassing to ask for a bag 300m by 300m.
Where would I get it delivered to? Do you have Mr Cahill's address?
AwOL
1600 Penn. Ave.
Washington, DC 20500
COD orders will be accepted.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting into space for less than $2000 |
19 Sep 2006 05:55:03 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics habshi <hi@anony> wrote:
Makes Physics sense.
Why blast your way through dense air at 20,000kmh , turning the air
into like solid rock , when you can rise gently to the edge and then
accelerate away in the super thin air ?
And don't have a rocket big enough to make it on it's own...
Exactly the thinking about 70 years ago when this was first tried.
Soon humans will go in these balloons and then get into small
capsules to go on to the moon.
If you had the slightest bit of intelligence, you would know why this
is never going to happen.
<snip smaltzy press release about students rediscovering the past>
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "hi@anony habshi" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting into space for less than $2000 |
20 Sep 2006 12:24:57 PM |
|
|
The friction forces rise as the cube of velocity
So at say a balloon rising at 10kmph it is 1000 , but blasting a
rocket at 20,000km ph it becomes 20 cubed higher ie 8000 times more ,
in other words Jim to raise a tonne you need 8000 times less power
with a hot air balloon than with a rocket. Or in fuel costs 8000 times
less cost , $2000 instead of $16m !!
Note that the power needed to push an object through a fluid
increases as the cube of the velocity. A car cruising on a highway at
50 mph (80 km/h) may require only 10 horsepower (7.5 kW) to overcome
air drag, but that same car at 100 mph (160 km/h) requires 80 hp (60
kW). With a doubling of speed the drag (force) quadruples per the
formula
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting into space for less than $2000 |
21 Sep 2006 11:15:02 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics habshi <hi@anony> wrote:
The friction forces rise as the cube of velocity
So at say a balloon rising at 10kmph it is 1000 , but blasting a
rocket at 20,000km ph it becomes 20 cubed higher ie 8000 times more ,
in other words Jim to raise a tonne you need 8000 times less power
with a hot air balloon than with a rocket. Or in fuel costs 8000 times
less cost , $2000 instead of $16m !!
Note that the power needed to push an object through a fluid
increases as the cube of the velocity. A car cruising on a highway at
50 mph (80 km/h) may require only 10 horsepower (7.5 kW) to overcome
air drag, but that same car at 100 mph (160 km/h) requires 80 hp (60
kW). With a doubling of speed the drag (force) quadruples per the
formula
Except for:
Velocity is nowhere near 20,000 kph in the lower atmosphere, so
your figures are meaningless.
Hot air balloons don't work at the altitudes you would need to
achieve to be of any value so you are left with helium which
is expensive.
The cost of the enormous balloon and support equipment required to
lift a man carrying vehicle can easily equal the cost of a simple
by comparison rocket.
You can only launch something of that size when there is absolutely no
wind or the whole affair winds up dragging through the dirt.
If you get the thing into the air, you have no control over where you
will be once you are at altitude.
Go back to your comic books.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "hi@anony habshi" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting into space for less than $2000 |
21 Sep 2006 02:22:25 AM |
|
|
You forget the satellite that is ultinately delivered into
space is 1-4 tonnes . How heavy a balloon do you need to lift that
mass above 99% of the earth's atmosphere ? Ghost ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting into space for less than $2000 |
21 Sep 2006 07:03:23 PM |
|
|
You forget the satellite that is ultinately delivered into
space is 1-4 tonnes . How heavy a balloon do you need to lift that
mass above 99% of the earth's atmosphere ?
1 thousand kg/ 0.01 kg/m^3 = 100,000 m^3 or 100 meter/side cube to
displace one ton of air.
When you factor in the weight of the He and balloon the balloon might
need to be five times as big -- thousands of m^3 of He at STP -- to get
one ton up there.
It's still cheaper than a rocket.
Anyway they aren't planning to haul gravel into space. They will only
send up a 2 lb transmitter.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting into space for less than $2000 |
21 Sep 2006 09:22:06 PM |
|
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1158883403.018207.102390@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|> You forget the satellite that is ultinately delivered into
| > space is 1-4 tonnes . How heavy a balloon do you need to lift that
| > mass above 99% of the earth's atmosphere ?
|
| 1 thousand kg/ 0.01 kg/m^3 = 100,000 m^3 or 100 meter/side cube to
| displace one ton of air.
Oh yeah? For an altitude of 100,000 feet, what is the volume of air
that you are going to displace a ton of?
|
| When you factor in the weight of the He and balloon the balloon might
| need to be five times as big -- thousands of m^3 of He at STP -- to get
| one ton up there.
|
| It's still cheaper than a rocket.
And bigger than the Isle of Wight.
| Anyway they aren't planning to haul gravel into space. They will only
| send up a 2 lb transmitter.
A $2000 firecracker can manage that a whole lot cheaper than your
$2,000,000 balloon.
You are an IDIOT.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting into space for less than $2000 |
22 Sep 2006 05:50:38 PM |
|
|
And bigger than the Isle of Wight.
Is that where they breed those cute terriers?
.. . .
| Anyway they aren't planning to haul gravel into space. They will only
| send up a 2 lb transmitter.
A $2000 firecracker can manage that
Be real. No one is going to pay $2,000 for fireworks.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting into space for less than $2000 |
22 Sep 2006 09:20:56 PM |
|
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1158965438.626146.180490@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
|> And bigger than the Isle of Wight.
|
| Is that where they breed those cute terriers?
AND train them to bark at balloons to scare them away.
|
| . . .
|
| > | Anyway they aren't planning to haul gravel into space. They will only
| > | send up a 2 lb transmitter.
|
| > A $2000 firecracker can manage that
|
| Be real. No one is going to pay $2,000 for fireworks.
|
|
| Bret Cahill
Not for just one... It would have to be a reusable firecracker,
like the shuttle or a balloon.
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting into space for less than $2000 |
21 Sep 2006 07:55:02 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics habshi <hi@anony> wrote:
You forget the satellite that is ultinately delivered into
space is 1-4 tonnes . How heavy a balloon do you need to lift that
mass above 99% of the earth's atmosphere ? Ghost ?
Balloons are good for a bit more than 100,000 feet. I believe the
record is about 130,000.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting into space for less than $2000 |
21 Sep 2006 06:51:03 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In sci.physics habshi <hi@anony> wrote:
The friction forces rise as the cube of velocity
So at say a balloon rising at 10kmph it is 1000 , but blasting a
rocket at 20,000km ph it becomes 20 cubed higher ie 8000 times more ,
in other words Jim to raise a tonne you need 8000 times less power
with a hot air balloon than with a rocket. Or in fuel costs 8000 times
less cost , $2000 instead of $16m !!
Note that the power needed to push an object through a fluid
increases as the cube of the velocity. A car cruising on a highway at
50 mph (80 km/h) may require only 10 horsepower (7.5 kW) to overcome
air drag, but that same car at 100 mph (160 km/h) requires 80 hp (60
kW). With a doubling of speed the drag (force) quadruples per the
formula
Except for:
Velocity is nowhere near 20,000 kph in the lower atmosphere,
Then propulsion efficiency is nowhere near maximum in the lower
atmosphere and the most of the energy in the fuel in any rocket
launched from earth will be wasted as turbulence.
.. . .
Hot air balloons don't work at the altitudes you would need to
achieve to be of any value so you are left with helium which
is expensive.
Pre Galileo engineering ain't gittin' it. We need numbers.
Integrate drag ((velocity as a function of altitude) squared X density
as a function of altitude) from zero to 100,000 feet. Remember the
drag coefficient has a discontinuity at sonic; it doubles.
Then calculate the potential energy, weight X 100,000 ft. Then add
the two.
That's how much energy you'll need launching a rocket from Earth to get
to 100,000 feet.
Now check the size and cost of a rocket that can get up to 100,000
feet.
Is it more than a few hundred cubic yards of He?
Anyway they can always use H2 if they have proper supervision. Maybe
they could figure out a way to use it for fuel for the first stage of
the rocket.
The cost of the enormous balloon and support equipment required to
lift a man carrying vehicle
No one said anything about taking dogs, monkeys or humans up into space
for $2,000. That's already been done.
can easily equal the cost of a simple
by comparison rocket.
No numbers?
Bret Cahill
..
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "hi@anony habshi" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting into space for less than $2000 |
20 Sep 2006 12:40:47 PM |
|
|
correction
The friction forces rise as the cube of velocity
So at say a balloon rising at 10kmph it is 1000 , but blasting a
rocket at 20,000km ph it becomes 2000 cubed higher ie 8b times more ,
in other words Jim to raise a tonne you need 8btimes less power
with a hot air balloon than with a rocket. Or in fuel costs 8000 times
less cost , $2000 instead of $16m !!
excerpt
Note that the power needed to push an object through a fluid
increases as the cube of the velocity. A car cruising on a highway at
50 mph (80 km/h) may require only 10 horsepower (7.5 kW) to overcome
air drag, but that same car at 100 mph (160 km/h) requires 80 hp (60
kW). With a doubling of speed the drag (force) quadruples per the
formula
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting into space for less than $2000 |
21 Sep 2006 07:18:41 AM |
|
|
A balloon is going to be much larger per payload than a rocket but that
should be a small factor compared to the energy wasted in high speed
drag.
Also $2,000 might be enough for some controls to launch the rocket back
to earth to get some speed for better propulsion efficiency and then
turning back to space before the air gets too dense.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting into space for less than $2000 |
20 Sep 2006 01:38:42 AM |
|
|
Is this where the rocket is launched toward earth for better propulsion
efficiency and then turned back out to space?
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting into space for less than $2000 |
22 Sep 2006 09:07:53 PM |
|
|
habshi wrote:
Makes Physics sense.
Why blast your way through dense air at 20,000kmh , turning the air
into like solid rock , when you can rise gently to the edge and then
accelerate away in the super thin air ?
Soon humans will go in these balloons and then get into small
capsules to go on to the moon.
excerpt guardian.co.uk
Been there.. and done that.
A University of Pennsylvannia class did that back in the late 70s..
Then lofted a 15 ft rocket by helium balloon to max height and then
launched it up through the balloon into orbit.
It's payload was a small satellite that beep-beeped for a few orbits.
Anyone want to start a satellite company on the cheap?
It's been done before.
.
|
|
|
| User: "hi@anony habshi" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting into space for less than $2000 |
22 Sep 2006 05:26:43 PM |
|
|
What was the cost ? And can that be used to say relay tv
signals. BTW for Jim India is building a structure twice as tall as
the wtc.
WTC buildings were 1368 ft high . There must be some mistake .
I cant imagine they would build 2300 ft high in India within two
years! It will also be a magnet for all the mad Islamic Jihadis who
want to kill infidels and destroy their buildings.
no.6 on the slideshow
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/09/wow_india/slideshow.htm
Been there.. and done that.
A University of Pennsylvannia class did that back in the late 70s..
Then lofted a 15 ft rocket by helium balloon to max height and then
launched it up through the balloon into orbit.
It's payload was a small satellite that beep-beeped for a few orbits.
Anyone want to start a satellite company on the cheap?
It's been done before.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting into space for less than $2000 |
23 Sep 2006 01:24:13 PM |
|
|
WTC buildings were 1368 ft high . There must be some mistake .
I cant imagine they would build 2300 ft high in India within two
years! It will also be a magnet for all the mad Islamic Jihadis who
want to kill infidels and destroy their buildings.
If India and Pakistan decide to nuke each other, could you agree to do
it on a still day? The rest of the world doesn't want fallout blowing
all over the place.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
