Comments on: Hard to Do http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/04/29/hard-to-do/ The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy! Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:07:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: unkawill http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/04/29/hard-to-do/comment-page-1/#comment-428310 unkawill Thu, 01 May 2008 13:08:54 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/?p=4039#comment-428310 A hell of an interesting concept. With the advances of technology these days, in micro-miniaturization and the resulting power savings inherent in such technology and the advent of stealthy-ness in all things aviation related as of late I don't think survivability will be an issue. Power, however, will be an issue that possibly could be addressed with laser or microwave input, theoretically. As for the buritto /Nascar-Helo comments. LOL! A hell of an interesting concept. With the advances of technology these days, in micro-miniaturization and the resulting power savings inherent in such technology and the advent of stealthy-ness in all things aviation related as of late I don’t think survivability will be an issue.
Power, however, will be an issue that possibly could be addressed with laser or microwave input, theoretically.

As for the buritto /Nascar-Helo comments. LOL!

]]> By: Jim Collins http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/04/29/hard-to-do/comment-page-1/#comment-428309 Jim Collins Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:47:23 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/?p=4039#comment-428309 They could always hire a few ex-NASCAR drivers or Navy helo pilots John. The NASCAR guys for when the racetrack goes counter-clockwise ad the helo pilots for when it is clockwise. They could always hire a few ex-NASCAR drivers or Navy helo pilots John. The NASCAR guys for when the racetrack goes counter-clockwise ad the helo pilots for when it is clockwise.

]]> By: John http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/04/29/hard-to-do/comment-page-1/#comment-428308 John Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:00:39 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/?p=4039#comment-428308 Pity the poor Air Force jock who has to remotely fly the same racetrack for five years. Pity the poor Air Force jock who has to remotely fly the same racetrack for five years.

]]> By: Ray http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/04/29/hard-to-do/comment-page-1/#comment-428307 Ray Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:41:08 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/?p=4039#comment-428307 5 years. Cool :) And truly revolutionary. And, what's more, if it can stay up there for 5 years, that really puts a damper on maintenance costs. 5 years. Cool :) And truly revolutionary. And, what’s more, if it can stay up there for 5 years, that really puts a damper on maintenance costs.

]]> By: midwatchcowboy http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/04/29/hard-to-do/comment-page-1/#comment-428306 midwatchcowboy Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:25:59 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/?p=4039#comment-428306 Just don't make it a nuke, like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Nuclear_Propulsion" rel="nofollow">AF tried to do with their b0mbers.</a> Just don’t make it a nuke, like the AF tried to do with their b0mbers.

]]> By: Max Damage http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/04/29/hard-to-do/comment-page-1/#comment-428305 Max Damage Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:33:28 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/?p=4039#comment-428305 Actually, this isn't that difficult a problem to define. Five years on station? No sweat -- we can do that with solar as the energy source. Just gotta make it light. Angels 60? No sweat again -- solar loves those altitudes and I'm so light I'm a butterfly in the wind. Oh, want to go against the headwinds? Yeah, slight problem with that boss -- no mo power. It basically boils down to physics regarding energy. If you put a sattelite into orbit you get loads of altitude (potential energy) but you spent the better part of a Shuttle and two boosters to get it there. That geosynch orbit came from expending energy, and once you've spent it you can only trade it for another of equal or lesser value, like bleeding off speed to stay on-station or adding energy to get into a higher orbit. We can make a solar-powered recon bird. The RC folks have battery and solar-powered planes in the air now. The question is can you make it carry payload, which adds weight, and can you make it have enough power to move upwind? I speculate the answer is no, they cannot. Solar isn't particularly dense energy. Over a large area it does some truly awe-inspiring things like warm the Earth on a daily basis and dry our clothes on the line, as well as cause our winds and do that whole El Nino/El Nina thing, but 200 square foot of solar panel is to solar output as zip is divided by squat. Ya got zero. So the next step is the hybrid model. Solar for cruise on-station, some type of other power to move about against the wind. I don't pretend to know the winds at 60K feet, but the hybrid model might be doable. Loiter on solar, added thrust from on-board fuel to get into position. And if this thing is cheap enough I can just launch another upwind to take over and let the current cost with the winds around the world to land and refuel. Kind of like turning turbojets into ramjets to make a Mach 3+ recon bird, all it takes is a good problem definition and then the constraints can be overcome. The SR-71 couldn't hit Mach 3 on turbojets, can't take off or land with ramjets, but between the two it was able to do the mission. - Max Actually, this isn’t that difficult a problem to define. Five years on station? No sweat — we can do that with solar as the energy source. Just gotta make it light. Angels 60? No sweat again — solar loves those altitudes and I’m so light I’m a butterfly in the wind.

Oh, want to go against the headwinds? Yeah, slight problem with that boss — no mo power.

It basically boils down to physics regarding energy. If you put a sattelite into orbit you get loads of altitude (potential energy) but you spent the better part of a Shuttle and two boosters to get it there. That geosynch orbit came from expending energy, and once you’ve spent it you can only trade it for another of equal or lesser value, like bleeding off speed to stay on-station or adding energy to get into a higher orbit.

We can make a solar-powered recon bird. The RC folks have battery and solar-powered planes in the air now. The question is can you make it carry payload, which adds weight, and can you make it have enough power to move upwind?

I speculate the answer is no, they cannot. Solar isn’t particularly dense energy. Over a large area it does some truly awe-inspiring things like warm the Earth on a daily basis and dry our clothes on the line, as well as cause our winds and do that whole El Nino/El Nina thing, but 200 square foot of solar panel is to solar output as zip is divided by squat. Ya got zero.

So the next step is the hybrid model. Solar for cruise on-station, some type of other power to move about against the wind.

I don’t pretend to know the winds at 60K feet, but the hybrid model might be doable. Loiter on solar, added thrust from on-board fuel to get into position. And if this thing is cheap enough I can just launch another upwind to take over and let the current cost with the winds around the world to land and refuel.

Kind of like turning turbojets into ramjets to make a Mach 3+ recon bird, all it takes is a good problem definition and then the constraints can be overcome. The SR-71 couldn’t hit Mach 3 on turbojets, can’t take off or land with ramjets, but between the two it was able to do the mission.

– Max

]]>