The statement of "I disagree that the pilotless conversion is simple." makes my point that you seem to lack working knowledge of modern aviation.
M On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Andrew Lockley <and...@andrewlockley.com>wrote: > I disagree that the pilotless conversion is simple. > The trajectory comment was comparing shells with shells, not shells with > aircraft > > A > On Mar 20, 2012 8:36 PM, "Michael Hayes" <voglerl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> The statement of *"there are no unmanned transport >> aircraft at present"* is misleading. Virtually all modern aircraft can >> be quickly modified for automation. >> >> The statement of *"The closer to vertical it's sent, and >> the less vehicle which is sent up to transport it, the lower the >> energy."* is also misleading in that a slow climb rate is the most >> efficient rate of climb. >> A shallow climb rate, weather on a straight or circular coarse is the >> most efficient for a mass effort if fixed wing craft are used. >> >> If Andrew wishes to devalue all other forms of aviation in support of >> ballistics, I would advise reading up..on..aviation. >> >> Michael >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Andrew Lockley <and...@andrewlockley.com >> > wrote: >> >>> Thanks for that, Roger. I'm aware of the issue with frictional losses >>> - but the only way to send the payload up with little 'dead metal' is >>> to propel it from the ground. The closer to vertical it's sent, and >>> the less vehicle which is sent up to transport it, the lower the >>> energy. >>> >>> Labour costs are also a big deal - there are no unmanned transport >>> aircraft at present, other than research planes. (AFAIK). >>> >>> This seems to make sense to me. Am I missing something? >>> >>> A >>> >>> On 15 March 2012 01:09, John Latham <john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk> >>> wrote: >>> > Hello All, >>> > Please see below message from Roger Angel >>> > All Best John (Latham) >>> > >>> > ************************************ >>> > >>> > Hello Roger, >>> > I've sent on yr message (below), as requested, to: >>> > [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] >>> > Good to hear from you, John. >>> > >>> > ************************************** >>> > John Latham >>> > Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000 >>> > Email: lat...@ucar.edu or john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk >>> > Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429 >>> > or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002 >>> > http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham >>> > ________________________________________ >>> > >>> > >>> > From: Roger Angel [ang...@email.arizona.edu] >>> > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 11:59 PM >>> > To: John Latham >>> > Subject: Re: [geo] Ballistics - failure to distinguish >>> > >>> > Hi John, >>> > >>> > I sent the following reply to the geo group, but I don't think it went >>> > through. I have not sent anything for a long while, though I get it >>> > all. You may want to circulate it. >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > >>> > Roger Angel >>> > >>> > >>> > Re: Ballistics - failure to distinguish >>> > >>> > Another reason to distinguish carefully - the lowest energy solution to >>> > get sulphur to the stratosphere will get there with zero velocity. >>> > Technology for orbiting will in general be mismatched because of the >>> > premium on very high velocities. >>> > >>> > - Roger Angel >>> > >>> > On 3/14/2012 12:46 PM, John Latham wrote: >>> >> Hello Andrew., >>> >> >>> >> You say "Ballistic delivery of materials for the purpose of Solar >>> Radiation Management", >>> >> but unless I'm misunderstanding you, you mean Stratospheric Sulphur >>> Seeding, not SRM. >>> >> >>> >> Stratospheric Sulphur Seeding is certainly the SRM scheme that has >>> attracted most >>> >> attention, and I wish it well, but it is only one of several. Others >>> include sunshades in >>> >> space, Russell Seitz's micro-bubbles, painting roofs white& cloud >>> brightening. >>> >> >>> >> It is good to distinguish clearly between the all-embracing term SRM, >>> and individual >>> >> techniques in that category. I wouldnt have written at this point, >>> but this lack of distinction >>> >> has been made recently by others, too. >>> >> >>> >> Good luck with yr poster. >>> >> >>> >> All Best, John. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> John Latham >>> >> Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000 >>> >> Email: lat...@ucar.edu or john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk >>> >> Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429 >>> >> or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002 >>> >> http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham >>> >> ________________________________________ >>> >> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [ >>> geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Andrew Lockley [ >>> andrew.lock...@gmail.com] >>> >> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 11:55 PM >>> >> To: geoengineering >>> >> Subject: [geo] Ballistics >>> >> >>> >> The below will form the basis of my poster at PUP, and the subsequent >>> >> paper. It's at a relatively early stage, and references haven't yet >>> >> been added. Comments on or off list would be appreciated. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks >>> >> >>> >> A >>> >> >>> >> -------------------------- >>> >> >>> >> Ballistics for delivery of SRM materials - an engineering principles >>> approach >>> >> >>> >> Introduction >>> >> ------------ >>> >> >>> >> Ballistic delivery of materials for the purpose of Solar Radiation >>> >> Management has been proposed and appraised by various authors. >>> >> Evaluation of technologies has been generally limited to redeployed >>> >> military hardware, such as tank or battleship guns. Such technologies >>> >> were not designed to deliver SRM materials, and are poorly suited to >>> >> the purpose, leading to high cost estimates in previous analyses. The >>> >> design of ballistic systems is reappraised with geoengineering use in >>> >> mind, and a literature review of alternative launch technologies is >>> >> given. The intent is to inform later engineering studies and cost >>> >> analyses which may seek to design in detail, or to cost, a suitable >>> >> gunnery system. >>> >> >>> >> Design requirements >>> >> -------------------- >>> >> >>> >> Modern military weapons >>> >> *Infrequent firing >>> >> *Portable/vehicle mounted >>> >> *Operating costs relatively unimportant >>> >> *Accuracy critical >>> >> *Shells never recovered >>> >> >>> >> Geoengineering guns >>> >> *Frequent or continuous firing >>> >> *Potentially static >>> >> *Operating costs relatively important >>> >> *Accuracy relatively unimportant >>> >> *Shells may be recovered >>> >> >>> >> Engineering differences >>> >> ----------------------- >>> >> >>> >> The objectives listed above will result in geoengineering guns being >>> >> very different from military weapons. Below are detailed a range of >>> >> design principles to guide the development of appropriate guns. >>> >> >>> >> *Large calibre: Energy costs are reduced substantially by the lower >>> >> aerodynamic drag per payload kilo on larger rounds (assuming constant >>> >> shape). >>> >> *Static installation: Guns will likely be stationary, but may rotate >>> >> to disperse projectiles widely. >>> >> *Elevated, mid latitude firing position: Firing from a tall tower or >>> >> mountain top will reduce muzzle velocities significantly, both by >>> >> increasing altitude and limiting aerodynamic drag. It will therefore >>> >> reduce propellant costs and require a less robust shell. Inserting >>> >> precursors into the ascending arm of the Brewer-Dobson circulation may >>> >> also reduce insertion altitudes, as well as aiding dispersion. As an >>> >> alternative, an ocean-submerged gun could be used, which will allow >>> >> easy repositioning and reorientation, as well as a very long barrel. >>> >> However, submerged guns will necessarily require a longer trajectory >>> >> through thicker atmospheric strata to attain the same elevations. >>> >> *Barrel length unrestricted: Static guns can use long barrels. This >>> >> means lower pressures are needed, as the propellant can act for >>> >> longer. This will permit less robust shell designs. >>> >> *Barrel wear costs are significant: Conventional barrels need >>> >> relining or replacing regularly due to the friction between the >>> >> projectile and the barrel. System design which minimises barrel wear >>> >> is important. (See projectile design, below) >>> >> *Propellant costs are significant: Hydrocarbon fuel/air mixtures are >>> >> alternatives for evaluation. >>> >> *Accuracy is unimportant: Minor trajectory changes resulting from >>> >> barrel distortions and sub-calibre projectile designs are largely >>> >> irrelevant. This allows a lighter barrel with a lower-friction fit. >>> >> *Shell costs are significant: Within the limits of a given >>> >> manufacturing technique, costs generally fall with a larger shell, as >>> >> the ratio of volume/surface area changes with size. Further, lower >>> >> pressures resulting from a longer barrel allow the use of less robust >>> >> shells than would otherwise be the case. >>> >> *Externally stabilised barrel: Military barrels are typically >>> >> self-supporting, whereas a scaffolding can be built to stabilise a >>> >> geoengineering gun. Where available, the gun may be built against >>> >> terrain. This additionally has the advantage of allowing easy access >>> >> to all barrel sections for maintenance. >>> >> >>> >> Projectile design >>> >> ---------------- >>> >> >>> >> *Lighter shell casings: Geoengineering projectile casings perform no >>> >> direct function, which differs from military uses where the casing is >>> >> itself a weapon. Casing contains the payload (which may be under >>> >> pressure), allows the propellant to act on it, and acts as a faring >>> >> during its travel through the atmosphere. The need to reduce casing >>> >> cost/weight suggests a more fragile casing, requiring lower propellant >>> >> pressures, and necessitating a longer barrel. >>> >> *Gradual payload release: Military guns rely on a momentary >>> >> detonation; geoengineering guns will likely benefit from a >>> >> 'slow-bleed' release of payload, to better aid dispersal. To this end, >>> >> a small dispersal aperture may be preferable to a fully frangible >>> >> casing. >>> >> *Low frontal area to volume ratio: Longer, thinner projectiles >>> >> experience less drag per unit mass. This has to be traded off against >>> >> higher casing costs from a relatively larger surface area. >>> >> *Payload dispersal: If explosive dispersal is not used, a similarly >>> >> cheap design for payload dispersal will be required. High-pressure >>> >> gases will self-disperse through any aperture. Liquids will need to >>> >> be forced through nozzles to achieve controlled particle size and >>> >> payload delivery at the desired location. Liquid-filled projectiles >>> >> will require a significant force to evacuate the payload from a large >>> >> shell on a short flight time, especially if fine droplet control is >>> >> required. Where rifling is practicable, centrifugal force may assist >>> >> dispersal. However, not all launch technologies permit rifling or >>> >> equivalent (eg railguns). Throughflow of external air in the payload >>> >> chamber could provide pressure to distribute the payload. A >>> >> propellant charge could alternatively be used. A simpler alternative >>> >> would be to dissolve gas into the propellant, allowing it to generate >>> >> its own force by effervescence. >>> >> *Shell recycling: Projectiles would ideally be recovered for recycling >>> >> or reuse. Predictable fall patterns from a static gun may make this >>> >> practical. More complex shell designs are harder to recycle, so a >>> >> simple design with few materials and components is preferable. >>> >> *Low-friction driving bands: Swaging bands are used to seal >>> >> projectiles to the barrel, maintaining a pressure differential. They >>> >> are usually metal, but plastic bands are used, such as in the GAU-8/A >>> >> Avenger fitted to the A-10. A low acceleration, long-barrel gun will >>> >> require a less demanding band design. Some guns, eg GC-45, do not >>> >> require driving bands at all. >>> >> *Base bleed: A slow-burning propellant can be added to the base of a >>> >> projectile in order to stabilise airflow over the rear of the shell. >>> >> This 'base bleed' technology improves aerodynamics to improve range at >>> >> a given muzzle energy. >>> >> >>> >> Alternative Technologies >>> >> ---------------------------------- >>> >> >>> >> A broad range of alternative technologies has previously been proposed >>> >> for gunnery, much of which has been motivated by a desire to allow >>> >> ballistic space launch. Below some technologies are considered which >>> >> superficially appear suitable for geoengineering. >>> >> >>> >> Light gas gun: This uses a tapering combustion chamber filled with >>> >> light gas (eg H2 or He) to provide potentially high muzzle velocities. >>> >> The mechanism of action is the same as that of a pellet gun (ie a >>> >> hydraulic force converter), but with a gas pressure (eg explosive) >>> >> propellant rather than a spring. This would be of interest were long >>> >> flight paths required, as the high muzzle velocity would allow low >>> >> angles of elevation to be used whilst still enabling the projectile to >>> >> reach the stratosphere. This would result in low payload ejection >>> >> rates and better dispersion. Cheap fossil fuels can be used, with >>> >> methane being deployed in experimental systems. Accelerations are >>> >> high, complicating projectile design. >>> >> >>> >> Ram accelerator: This launch system relies on a teardrop shaped, >>> >> sub-calibre projectile, which passes through a fuel/air mix. Due to >>> >> aerodynamic effects, the passage of the projectile controls the >>> >> combustion of the surrounding fuel, resulting in a zone of combustion >>> >> behind the projectile. This has two crucial advantages: very low >>> >> barrel wear (only stabilising fins contact the barrel) and very cheap >>> >> propellant (fuel-air mixture). However, the projectile has to be >>> >> launched into the ram accelerator at supersonic speeds, necessitating >>> >> a secondary launch system and increasing both complexity and cost. >>> >> >>> >> Coilgun: Electrically powered coilguns rely on electromagnets to >>> >> attract and accelerate a ferromagnetic projectile. This would require >>> >> the use of a significant mass of ferromagnetic material in the >>> >> projectile, increasing energy costs and making recovery/recycling more >>> >> important. Nevertheless, the frictionless design, and entirely >>> >> electrical power system, makes this an attractive system. Coilguns >>> >> are well researched, and various military uses are envisaged with some >>> >> space-launch projects specified. >>> >> >>> >> Ablative laser propulsion: A sulphur mass can be lifted and gasified >>> >> by the action of a ground based laser. This propulsion technology >>> >> could be combined with alternative lifting technologies, such as >>> >> gunnery. It has the advantage of potentially being made to work with >>> >> a solid sulfur projectile, thus eliminating the need to loft other >>> >> chemical species, which can instead be sourced from atmospheric air. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Other projects >>> >> ------------------- >>> >> Various supergun projects have been tested, which indicate some useful >>> >> design features and principles: >>> >> *V3: German WWII V3 gun designs used a smooth-bore barrel and an >>> >> aerodynamically-stabilised projectile. Propellant was multi-stage >>> >> solid rocket boosters, inserted into the barrel and fired against the >>> >> projectile as it passed. >>> >> *Startram: This proposed space launch project relies on MAGLEV >>> >> propulsion to accelerate craft to orbital velocities. Acceleration >>> >> takes place in a vacuum, with a plasma window protecting the open end. >>> >> *Superguns: Conventional artillery pieces, such as Big Bertha, Dora >>> >> and Project Babylon have all demonstrated heavy lift capability with >>> >> extended range. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Conclusions >>> >> ------------ >>> >> >>> >> Previous evaluation of gunnery for geoengineering use is inadequate, >>> >> as the military technology evaluated is wholly different in design >>> >> objectives from custom-build geoengineering equipment. >>> >> >>> >> The design of geoengineering guns will likely be based on alternative >>> >> design principles and may use alternative propellant technologies. >>> >> >>> >> Of the alternative gunnery technologies presented, ram accelerators >>> >> appear to have particular promise because: >>> >> *Low barrel wear >>> >> *Very cheap propellant >>> >> *Low acceleration allows a cheaper, less robust shell >>> >> >>> >> A secondary launch system would be required, and a conventional gun >>> >> could be used. A light gas gun or coilgun would be likely to reduce >>> >> costs, once developed, due to low propellant costs. >>> >> >>> >> Laser-ablation systems are worthy of consideration, but are at an >>> >> early research stage. >>> >> >>> >> A typical geoengineering gunnery system may therefore be a large >>> >> 'supergun' style design, based on a two-stage system with ram >>> >> accelerator technology providing the terminal stage. The angle of >>> >> elevation would be non-vertical, to enable bleed-dispersal of payload. >>> >> One design variant would rely on terrain support, being built >>> against >>> >> the slope of a mountain. An alternative would be a rotating turntable >>> >> on a high plateau, which would give broader dispersal but would be >>> >> more costly per gun. >>> >> >>> >> Projectiles would likely be lightweight and substantially less robust >>> >> than military designs. An effervescent liquid, or high pressure gas, >>> >> will likely be the cheapest dispersal technology, should a slow >>> >> release be preferred. It is likely that spent projectiles would be >>> >> recovered and recycled. Base bleed technology may reduce costs, >>> >> although there is a tradeoff between energy and complexity costs. >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "geoengineering" group. >>> >> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >>> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> >> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > -- >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "geoengineering" group. >>> > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> > For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> twitter @andrewjlockley >>> 07813979322 >>> andrewlockley.com >>> skype: andrewjlockley >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "geoengineering" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> *Michael Hayes* >> *360-708-4976* >> http://www.voglerlake.com >> >> >> -- *Michael Hayes* *360-708-4976* http://www.voglerlake.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
