Global Flyer

("Mark Hickey" wrote)
Mark "the prop's gonna be a problem too" Hickey


All the money, and weight, saved on that BRS chute will just end up going
into oxidizers.

Hey, if I fall 1,000 ft at a speed of roughly 180 mph on earth, does that
mean I'll fall at 30 mph on the moon? That's like Olympic 100 meter
sprinters running into a wall - at 28 mph. Ouch.


Montblack

Jean-Paul Roy wrote:

Now how about if you guys quit that "my father is stronger than yours" game,
take a walk to the hangar and fly a litlle bit

Now how about you mind your own business...


Matt

In article ,
Richard Riley wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 12:54:11 -0000,
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:

: But, he does get credit for doing an outside loop.
:
: Colin N12HS
:
:
:
:A 1 G positive outside loop - that is a record in itself!
:
:Nope. *THAT* has been done before. Many times.
:
:B-1B crews did it in 1997.
:
:Rutan's "Voyager" did it, with a 2-person crew, in 1986.
:

He is also now the third person (after Dick and Jeanna) to go single
stage to orbit.

He *already* did that. On the books for a "1 G positive outside loop"
*in*a*hot-air*balloon*.

"orbit" is debatable.

It is also _very_ unclear that 'single-stage" prohibits in-flight acquisition
of additional fuel for the existing on-board propulsion system.

In article ,
Montblack wrote:
("Mark Hickey" wrote)
Mark "the prop's gonna be a problem too" Hickey


All the money, and weight, saved on that BRS chute will just end up going
into oxidizers.

Hey, if I fall 1,000 ft at a speed of roughly 180 mph on earth, does that
mean I'll fall at 30 mph on the moon? That's like Olympic 100 meter
sprinters running into a wall - at 28 mph. Ouch.

"Not Exactly".

Assuming a stationary vertical-component starting point, a free-fall of
1000 ft, at 1 G takes a bit over 7.9 sec, and you have a final velocity of
about 172.5 mph (disregarding air friction, etc. effects.)

Same assumptions, a free-fall of 1000 ft, at 1/6 G takes somewhat over
19.36 seconds, and you have a final velocity of just over 70.41 MPH.

Note: ratio of 'final velocity' after a fall of a constant distance is
directly proportional to the _square_root_ of the ratio of the
gravitational constants

In article ,
Rich S. wrote:
"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
Nor will he have to go through customs, unlike the Apollo moonwalkers, who
LANDED in a "foreign" country.

Foreign? Uh-uh. Soon as that footpad touched down, it was U.S. soil by
historical custom.

Well, *except* for the fact that the U.S. government was already a signatory
to an international treaty _disclaiming_ any such claims of territorial
ownership "in space".

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
...

Foreign? Uh-uh. Soon as that footpad touched down, it was U.S. soil by
historical custom.

Well, *except* for the fact that the U.S. government was already a
signatory
to an international treaty _disclaiming_ any such claims of territorial
ownership "in space".

Details, details. I got the big picture when I saw the Stars and Stripes
rippling in the Solar Wind there on the Mare. Hmm.... there's a song in that
somewhere. . .

Rich "It's up to the lawyers now" S.

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
...

Well, *except* for the fact that the U.S. government was already a
signatory
to an international treaty _disclaiming_ any such claims of territorial
ownership "in space".

But what I *really* wanted to explore was design ideas for a homebuilt
"airborne" Moon vehicle.

Here's the scene: You're living on Luna, having retired from ______ (fill in
blanks at your pleasure). It's the year ____ and low-gravity retirement has
become the "in" thing. You live longer, the old aches and pains are less,
etc. Your Social Security private trust fund has built up to the point that
you just *have* to start spending some of it! The one thing you miss since
moving out here is roaring around in your homebuilt on Saturday afternoons.
So, absent any regulation to the contrary, you decide to build a Lunar
replacement.

First thing to decide on is a name for the critter. Hmmm..... Moonraker
sounds appropriate. Wonder if anybody has used that one? Oh heck with that,
let's get on to the design parameters.

Seats - One, two???
Pressurization - (?) if not, then a big enough seat to accommodate a space
suit.
Range - There's fuel and air caches every 1,800 miles, so let's add ~10% and
say 2,000 miles.
Speed - Let's say 600 knots. (What I'm doing is multiplying typical terran
specs by 6. Why? I dunno)
Payload - (?) We can let the Mass/Weight guys duke that one out.
Visible means of support (Lift) - Wonder if NASA has an airfoil for an
airless environment? If not, we'll have to come up with something. I
wouldn't want to go ballistic - it's not as much fun as low & slow.
Thrust - Open for suggestions. . .
Primary source of power - Anybody got a design for something better than a
Chinese sparkler?

C'mon guys. There's got to be another Rutan out there. What are we going to
do when he's history?

Rich S.

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
...

Well, *except* for the fact that the U.S. government was already a
signatory
to an international treaty _disclaiming_ any such claims of territorial
ownership "in space".

But what I *really* wanted to explore was design ideas for a homebuilt
"airborne" Moon vehicle.

Here's the scene: You're living on Luna, having retired from ______ (fill in
blanks at your pleasure). It's the year ____ and low-gravity retirement has
become the "in" thing. You live longer, the old aches and pains are less,
etc. Your Social Security private trust fund has built up to the point that
you just *have* to start spending some of it! The one thing you miss since
moving out here is roaring around in your homebuilt on Saturday afternoons.
So, absent any regulation to the contrary, you decide to build a Lunar
replacement.

First thing to decide on is a name for the critter. Hmmm..... Moonraker
sounds appropriate. Wonder if anybody has used that one? Oh heck with that,
let's get on to the design parameters.

Seats - One, two???
Pressurization - (?) if not, then a big enough seat to accommodate a space
suit.
Range - There's fuel and air caches every 1,800 miles, so let's add ~10% and
say 2,000 miles.
Speed - Let's say 600 knots. (What I'm doing is multiplying typical terran
specs by 6. Why? I dunno)
Payload - (?) We can let the Mass/Weight guys duke that one out.
Visible means of support (Lift) - Wonder if NASA has an airfoil for an
airless environment? If not, we'll have to come up with something. I
wouldn't want to go ballistic - it's not as much fun as low & slow.
Thrust - Open for suggestions. . .
Primary source of power - Anybody got a design for something better than a
Chinese sparkler?

C'mon guys. There's got to be another Rutan out there. What are we going to
do when he's history?

Rich S.

"Rich S." wrote in message ...

But what I *really* wanted to explore was design ideas for a homebuilt
"airborne" Moon vehicle.

Rich S.





Big bouncy spring thing hopping between the craters...

"Rich S." wrote

But what I *really* wanted to explore was design ideas for a homebuilt
"airborne" Moon vehicle.

First, with all that extra disposable income from Social Security (Yea, who
said you couldn't dream big) you have to think terraforming first, and
create an atmosphere.

I know! Get Zoom and Yaun up there! They are both full of hot air, and we
can worry about cooling it off, later!

Let's see, if we get it up to 1/5th density, then we could fly at the same
speeds we see here on Earth, right?
--
Jim in NC