From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 06:26:34 +0800
To: Jim Choate <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: **"OuR" Project press release** (fwd)
Message-ID: <199608301928.MAA02910@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>Forwarded message:
>> Subject: (Fwd) Re: **"OuR" Project press release**
>> Priority: normal
>> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23)
>> Pulled this off of the net.  The was even better than SkyeDance IV ;-)
>> ------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
>> Paul Robinson & Ken Mizoi wrote:
>> > To All Fellow Rocketeers:
[stuff deleted]
>> >         Unfortunately, the rocket failed to deploy its recovery systems and
>> > accelerated to over Mach 1 and impacted into the sand dunes several
>> > miles away.  There was a loud sonic boom heard by all that literally
>> > shook the earth.  In fact, instead of the nominal "hole and fin slits"
>> > seen in previous impacts, there was a twenty foot diameter area with
>> > large chunks of sheared earth as if a high energy charge had been
>> > detonated under the ground.  The rocket was not recovered, but several
>> > pieces of metal, fiberglass, and burnt Nomex were found indicating the
>> > ejection charges did in fact fire.
>> >         Once again, the "OuR" Project members wish to express sincere thanks
>> > to all those who listened, donated, and gave their support who were
>> > not specifically named.  This project would not have flown if were not
>> > for the "believers" and the tremendous team spirit.  Only they know
>> > the sweat and the number of hours it takes to fly such a rocket.
>> >                                                         Members of the "OuR" Team 
>> -----------------
>> Stu Barrett
>> e-mail: stu@zilker.net


Recommendation for the next one:  Rather than try to brute force  an LEO 
from about sea level, how about  lofting the rocket by balloon up to a 
starting altitude of, say, 100,000 feet, and letting'er'rip from there?  
(this is probably not a new technique...)

Using a hydrogen balloon, a cubic meter of balloon volume would loft 1.2 
kilograms at sea level, although only 1/50th of that at 100,000 feet, or 25 
grams.  A 700-pound (320 kilogram)rocket would require 12,000 cubic meters of 
envelope volume, discounting the weight of the balloon itself, equivalent to 
the volume of a cube 25 meters on a side.  

Obvious advantages:  First, you're 20 miles closer to an LEO altitude of 
about 200 miles or so, a considerable advantage.  Even more important, 
my back-of-the-envelope calculation says that at 100,000 feet, you're above 
about 98% of the atmosphere.  There'd be a minor advantage if you managed to 
find a 300 mph easterly airstream just before launch.

(Derived from the numbers included in the original note, I assume that the 
average upward speed is 1000 feet per second, and a top speed of about 2000 
feet per second reached at an altitude of about 10,000 feet (Mach 2).   This 
peak velocity occurs when the barometric pressure is not greatly different 
than sea level, which is a huge waste of energy.    I'd like to see the real 
numbers, or at least a simulation.  Could they re-run the simulation for a 
starting altitude of 100,000 feet?)

And I don't think they have a prayer of doing an LEO without substantially 
increasing the proportion of fuel in the rocket from their current 35%, and 
possibly doing a two-stage rocket. 

I'd like to hear much more about this.

 


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com