You can make a symmetrical airfoil. Stick your hand out a car window and tip it upwards. The cross section of your hand is more or less symmetrical, but you can still generate lift, by increasing the angle of attack.
A teardrop shaped airfoil gives a better lift to drag ratio than one with fore and aft symmetry, but that one wouldn't work too good during the fixed-wing flight evolution. : )
Don't worry. The B variant will be equipped with hug-o-trons and kissing beams, so it will be ready to deploy in your FANTASYLAND where there aren't bad guys who sometimes need to get shot at.
How many pacifist societies exist on Earth? (not very many) How many of them have neighbors who compete with them for resources? (zero)
The Royal Navy is also buying a bunch. 500, if I remember correctly.
I know a lot about building airplanes, and a lot about design principles. I'm telling you that there's no reason that you can't have a good design that is capable (in one variant) of conventional takeoff, and another variant that does STOVL. (Boeing did a great job. Lockheed, not so much.) Aircraft design is far more malleable than you seem to believe.
"Leave engineering to the engineers." Part of engineering is to come up with solutions within the domain of the mission. In this case, the mission was to develop a radical multi-role aircraft. The engineers (for the most part) did a great job.
The politicians who have never blown a clutch, and chose the LMCO design, not so much. (Note: The reason LMCO got the nod is because nobody cares about the Marine Corps.)
The cost savings of developing one set of common airframe parts (particularly since many of those parts will be wacky-shaped composite formings whose tooling costs border on the surreal) will be dramatic. This is a problem we can solve with modern design tools. Our design envelope is simply much larger than it was in 1965 when the F-111 was an utter cock-up.
While we're at it, let's look for the trillions Congress misplaced. At least with the Pentagon, I'm pretty confident those monies went into technology development instead of pork belly futures price supports, or something equially ludicrous.
The Marines need close air support, because historically the Air Force and Navy haven't been willing to give it to them. One might argue that the current joint doctrine will get rid of this objection, but one also might argue that a Marine Expeditionary Unit is a very handy self-contained air and land fighting force.
The "ragged edge of stability" isn't so ragged when you have a full-authority digital flight control system. The inverted pendulum problem is trivial anymore. I can think of half a dozen combat aircraft that wouldn't know to keep the pointy end into the wind without digital flight controls, and many more whose performance and survivability are dramatically improved by same.
The clutch on the lift fan is a huge failure point. The Boeing design was far superior. Someday, I'll get a good explanation why LMCO won.
Uh huh. And you can also dust off that story about the CSAR pilot who had three helicopters shot out from under him in a single day. He was still out there rescuing people.
How do you do SAR with a fixed-wing aircraft? Search, sure. But the rescue part is tricky.
And don't even try to pretend that Fulton STARS would have worked in Vietnam.
Uh, so how many Marines can you deliver into hostile territory with an A-10?
I'm pretty sure the number is awfully close to zero.
There are NO armored airborne personnel carrying vehicles. Zero. That means, if you're flying in a C-130 or a Sea Stallion, that there is pretty well nothing between you and fiery death at the hands of bad guys.
It's a problem that is solved by tactics. The Osprey permits a larger variety of tactics (because it's faster and longer-ranged than other heavy lift helicopters).
Being in the Army is dangerous. That's what soldiers sign up for. It's up to the engineers (that's me) to provide them with the best possible hardware to complete their missions, but there is no such thing as a "safe" combat insertion vehicle.
Your credentials are far inferior to those of the scientists who are ready to go, TODAY.
Space exploration is dangerous. It also has an enormous upside. Hand-wringing about how difficult it is, and how stupid we are, is non-productive.
I'm not talking about terraforming. That's not necessary to establish a permanent, self-sufficient colony on Mars. It may, or may not, be a worthwhile long-term goal.
We will learn more in 50 years on Mars than in 200 years on Earth. Look at the dramatic impact the New World has had on the Old, and try to argue that opening that frontier didn't raise all boats.
Uh, it's that "perhaps mythical" Moon water that's problematic. There is no evidence to support the existence of water (in any form) on the Moon.
You need to educate yourself on this topic.
"Just because it's not easy doesn't mean it's not doable"
I didn't say the Moon wasn't viable because it's too hard, I said it's not USEFUL because there's nothing THERE. Your argument is called a "straw man", and it's not valid.
EXCELLENT. I knew if I trolled this discussion, I'd find somebody who knew more than I did.
My particular interest is atmospheric flight, so I'll defer to your expertise on aerobraking and aerocapture.
To me, the key feature of Zubrin's plan was the in-situ propellant production. If you can render the fuel on Mars, you cut your required throw rate by an incredible margin. Once you sign up for that as a part of your mission architecture, you get rid of a whole lot of weight problems.
Can we, as Zubrin suggests, put a crew of five on Mars for six months with two Saturn V sized rockets? Let me say that, in my not-quite-expert opinion, his plan is a whole hell of a lot better than most.
Thanks for your post. I'd love to read your thesis.
I'd rather have something useful to do with H3 before we spend a lot of money getting a cheap source of it.
The reason I'm so opposed to a Moon base is because people think it's a reasonable technology demonstrator for Mars. It's NOT. The environments are totally different. There is nothing we need to learn on the Moon to get to Mars.
And, you were right about your scheme to launch from the Moon. It is harebrained. : )
How will other parties ever get a fair shake as long as the Republicrats control the ballot box? They WILL NOT let us succeed.
Which, by the way, is the best possible argument for going to Mars and starting a new state. We need to apply what we've learned about democracy and take another crack at it.
On Mars, there is water, and nitrogen. Water+nitrogen=agriculture.
You have not educated yourself on this subject. Go read about sustainable development on Mars, and then we'll talk. Just to be clear: We could, for a modest budget, with CURRENT technology, have a self-sustaining colony on Mars within 50 years.
Slashdot Mirror
You can make a symmetrical airfoil. Stick your hand out a car window and tip it upwards. The cross section of your hand is more or less symmetrical, but you can still generate lift, by increasing the angle of attack.
A teardrop shaped airfoil gives a better lift to drag ratio than one with fore and aft symmetry, but that one wouldn't work too good during the fixed-wing flight evolution. : )
Don't worry. The B variant will be equipped with hug-o-trons and kissing beams, so it will be ready to deploy in your FANTASYLAND where there aren't bad guys who sometimes need to get shot at.
How many pacifist societies exist on Earth? (not very many) How many of them have neighbors who compete with them for resources? (zero)
The F-35C can go supersonic, and I think the Yak-141 can as well.
Just a couple data points.
Well, since it's about six times worse than the next-most-dangerous combat aircraft, I think that comparing it to automobiles is pretty silly.
The Royal Navy is also buying a bunch. 500, if I remember correctly.
I know a lot about building airplanes, and a lot about design principles. I'm telling you that there's no reason that you can't have a good design that is capable (in one variant) of conventional takeoff, and another variant that does STOVL. (Boeing did a great job. Lockheed, not so much.) Aircraft design is far more malleable than you seem to believe.
"Leave engineering to the engineers." Part of engineering is to come up with solutions within the domain of the mission. In this case, the mission was to develop a radical multi-role aircraft. The engineers (for the most part) did a great job.
The politicians who have never blown a clutch, and chose the LMCO design, not so much. (Note: The reason LMCO got the nod is because nobody cares about the Marine Corps.)
The cost savings of developing one set of common airframe parts (particularly since many of those parts will be wacky-shaped composite formings whose tooling costs border on the surreal) will be dramatic. This is a problem we can solve with modern design tools. Our design envelope is simply much larger than it was in 1965 when the F-111 was an utter cock-up.
While we're at it, let's look for the trillions Congress misplaced. At least with the Pentagon, I'm pretty confident those monies went into technology development instead of pork belly futures price supports, or something equially ludicrous.
The Marines need close air support, because historically the Air Force and Navy haven't been willing to give it to them. One might argue that the current joint doctrine will get rid of this objection, but one also might argue that a Marine Expeditionary Unit is a very handy self-contained air and land fighting force.
Different problems require different solutions.
You musta not read any of my posts, then.
The "ragged edge of stability" isn't so ragged when you have a full-authority digital flight control system. The inverted pendulum problem is trivial anymore. I can think of half a dozen combat aircraft that wouldn't know to keep the pointy end into the wind without digital flight controls, and many more whose performance and survivability are dramatically improved by same.
The clutch on the lift fan is a huge failure point. The Boeing design was far superior. Someday, I'll get a good explanation why LMCO won.
Gosh. I think the Hog drivers from Desert Storm would like to disagree with you.
Uh huh. And you can also dust off that story about the CSAR pilot who had three helicopters shot out from under him in a single day. He was still out there rescuing people.
How do you do SAR with a fixed-wing aircraft? Search, sure. But the rescue part is tricky.
And don't even try to pretend that Fulton STARS would have worked in Vietnam.
Uh, so how many Marines can you deliver into hostile territory with an A-10?
I'm pretty sure the number is awfully close to zero.
There are NO armored airborne personnel carrying vehicles. Zero. That means, if you're flying in a C-130 or a Sea Stallion, that there is pretty well nothing between you and fiery death at the hands of bad guys.
It's a problem that is solved by tactics. The Osprey permits a larger variety of tactics (because it's faster and longer-ranged than other heavy lift helicopters).
Being in the Army is dangerous. That's what soldiers sign up for. It's up to the engineers (that's me) to provide them with the best possible hardware to complete their missions, but there is no such thing as a "safe" combat insertion vehicle.
Or,
3. Move to Mars.
That's the best, most viable option I can see.
Your credentials are far inferior to those of the scientists who are ready to go, TODAY.
Space exploration is dangerous. It also has an enormous upside. Hand-wringing about how difficult it is, and how stupid we are, is non-productive.
I'm not talking about terraforming. That's not necessary to establish a permanent, self-sufficient colony on Mars. It may, or may not, be a worthwhile long-term goal.
We will learn more in 50 years on Mars than in 200 years on Earth. Look at the dramatic impact the New World has had on the Old, and try to argue that opening that frontier didn't raise all boats.
That's just it, though. The pork space programme is contrary to the only useful purpose for space: EXPLORATION.
Therefore, we need to find another funding model. What? I dunno. I'm working on it.
Oh yeah, and Shuttle/ISS are perfect examples of space policy management.
Who is contradicting who?
Building one part in each district is FISCAL INSANITY. See my posts re: lousy stewardship of my tax dollars.
Well, gosh, let's get rid of "winner take all" voting, then.
*sigh*
DUH.
OF COURSE it's the system that's broken. How are you going to fix it? The foxes are guarding the henhouse. It's NOT going to change.
That's precisely what Zubrin suggests. Building one more rocket is pretty easy (and cheap!), after you've done the R&D on the first one.
You really need to read the book. The spacecraft is bigger than you imagine.
Is it roomy? No. It's about the same amount of personal space as many Japanese people live in, though.
Uh, it's that "perhaps mythical" Moon water that's problematic. There is no evidence to support the existence of water (in any form) on the Moon.
You need to educate yourself on this topic.
"Just because it's not easy doesn't mean it's not doable"
I didn't say the Moon wasn't viable because it's too hard, I said it's not USEFUL because there's nothing THERE. Your argument is called a "straw man", and it's not valid.
EXCELLENT. I knew if I trolled this discussion, I'd find somebody who knew more than I did.
My particular interest is atmospheric flight, so I'll defer to your expertise on aerobraking and aerocapture.
To me, the key feature of Zubrin's plan was the in-situ propellant production. If you can render the fuel on Mars, you cut your required throw rate by an incredible margin. Once you sign up for that as a part of your mission architecture, you get rid of a whole lot of weight problems.
Can we, as Zubrin suggests, put a crew of five on Mars for six months with two Saturn V sized rockets? Let me say that, in my not-quite-expert opinion, his plan is a whole hell of a lot better than most.
Thanks for your post. I'd love to read your thesis.
I'd rather have something useful to do with H3 before we spend a lot of money getting a cheap source of it.
The reason I'm so opposed to a Moon base is because people think it's a reasonable technology demonstrator for Mars. It's NOT. The environments are totally different. There is nothing we need to learn on the Moon to get to Mars.
And, you were right about your scheme to launch from the Moon. It is harebrained. : )
I DON'T WANT the major parties to move. I want them to stand for what they stand for. I want a party that stands for what I stand for.
You didn't answer my objection.
How will other parties ever get a fair shake as long as the Republicrats control the ballot box? They WILL NOT let us succeed.
Which, by the way, is the best possible argument for going to Mars and starting a new state. We need to apply what we've learned about democracy and take another crack at it.
Go read the plan on the Mars Society web page.
There is exactly ZERO science fiction in this plan.
What does it mean to stiffle?
On Mars, there is water, and nitrogen. Water+nitrogen=agriculture.
You have not educated yourself on this subject. Go read about sustainable development on Mars, and then we'll talk. Just to be clear: We could, for a modest budget, with CURRENT technology, have a self-sustaining colony on Mars within 50 years.