<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Interview With Jim Dunstan</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.nss.org/?feed=rss2&#038;p=347" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.nss.org/?p=347</link>
	<description>Blogging for the creation of a spacefaring civilization</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 18:41:01 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: William Mook</title>
		<link>http://blog.nss.org/?p=347&cpage=1#comment-327</link>
		<dc:creator>William Mook</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 06:46:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.nss.org/?p=347#comment-327</guid>
		<description>Comments about MEMs propulsive surfaces 

Area scales as the square of dimension, weight scales as the cube.  So, smaller engines have higher thrust to weight.  Engines on a MEMs scale achieve 1,000 to 1 thrust to weight as a result.  This is 10 to 20 times better than macroscopic engines.   

MEMs processing costs about $1 per square inch.  MEMs rockets produce 50 pounds per square inch.   So, we're talking about $0.02 per pound of thrust.  

So, a 3 million pound thrust engine - enough to loft a fully loaded ET off the pad at nearly 2 gees - would cost only $60,000 !!  and cover 60,000 sq inches - 416.7 sq ft - a disk 23 ft in diameter - 4.6 ft less than the diameter of the ET itself.

With 1,000 to 1 thrust to weight, the 3 milion pound thrust engine masses only 3,000 pounds.  Added to the 58,500 pound tank we have an empty mass of 61,500 pounds and a full-up wieght of 1,683,000 pounds.  

Adding a 7,000 pound section to the intertank region for a payload, and a 25,000 pound payload - we have a full up weight of 1,715,000 pounds at lift-off and 108,500 pound empty weight.  With an exhaust velocity of 14,650 fps this system has an ideal velocity of;

 Vf = 14650 * LN(1715000/108500)  = 40,440 fps

Which exceeds escape velocity.  

If the ET costs $50 million - this is $2,000 per pound - which is remarkable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Comments about MEMs propulsive surfaces </p>
<p>Area scales as the square of dimension, weight scales as the cube.  So, smaller engines have higher thrust to weight.  Engines on a MEMs scale achieve 1,000 to 1 thrust to weight as a result.  This is 10 to 20 times better than macroscopic engines.   </p>
<p>MEMs processing costs about $1 per square inch.  MEMs rockets produce 50 pounds per square inch.   So, we&#8217;re talking about $0.02 per pound of thrust.  </p>
<p>So, a 3 million pound thrust engine - enough to loft a fully loaded ET off the pad at nearly 2 gees - would cost only $60,000 !!  and cover 60,000 sq inches - 416.7 sq ft - a disk 23 ft in diameter - 4.6 ft less than the diameter of the ET itself.</p>
<p>With 1,000 to 1 thrust to weight, the 3 milion pound thrust engine masses only 3,000 pounds.  Added to the 58,500 pound tank we have an empty mass of 61,500 pounds and a full-up wieght of 1,683,000 pounds.  </p>
<p>Adding a 7,000 pound section to the intertank region for a payload, and a 25,000 pound payload - we have a full up weight of 1,715,000 pounds at lift-off and 108,500 pound empty weight.  With an exhaust velocity of 14,650 fps this system has an ideal velocity of;</p>
<p> Vf = 14650 * LN(1715000/108500)  = 40,440 fps</p>
<p>Which exceeds escape velocity.  </p>
<p>If the ET costs $50 million - this is $2,000 per pound - which is remarkable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: William Mook</title>
		<link>http://blog.nss.org/?p=347&cpage=1#comment-326</link>
		<dc:creator>William Mook</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 06:20:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.nss.org/?p=347#comment-326</guid>
		<description>I read an AIAA paper a few months ago about MEMs technology applied to rocketry.  They spoke of turning rockets into a usable commodity.  Microthruster arrays like those built by TRW can rival larger engines at far lower mass and far higher reliability - achieving 1000 to 1 thrust to weight ratios and astronomical reliabilities - when built on the scale of pixels on a HDTV screen - forming what I call a 'propulsive surface' of millions of thrust elements to 'paint' 'thrust effects'  across the surface - the same way real time pictures are painted by tiny spots of glowing plasma on a HDTV screen.  Micro UAVs are one application, on a larger scale though, such surfaces can become as common as wheels and as easy to use in a wide variety of aerospace applications - incuding major launcher applications.

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMJPC2005_1177/PV2005_3650.pdf</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I read an AIAA paper a few months ago about MEMs technology applied to rocketry.  They spoke of turning rockets into a usable commodity.  Microthruster arrays like those built by TRW can rival larger engines at far lower mass and far higher reliability - achieving 1000 to 1 thrust to weight ratios and astronomical reliabilities - when built on the scale of pixels on a HDTV screen - forming what I call a &#8216;propulsive surface&#8217; of millions of thrust elements to &#8216;paint&#8217; &#8216;thrust effects&#8217;  across the surface - the same way real time pictures are painted by tiny spots of glowing plasma on a HDTV screen.  Micro UAVs are one application, on a larger scale though, such surfaces can become as common as wheels and as easy to use in a wide variety of aerospace applications - incuding major launcher applications.</p>
<p><a href="http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMJPC2005_1177/PV2005_3650.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMJPC2005_1177/PV2005_3650.pdf</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
