[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: I have an idea. More questions/thoughts





Keith Randino wrote:

> Sorry it takes me so long to respond to some of the questions/comments.
>
> I really do appreciate them.
>
> I have a couple of questions about this "wind". Given the density of the air
> at 60000 - 80000 feet, how much actual force would be generated on a
> surface? (retorical, if the speeds are correct I can calculate the force. I
> suspect that the force is not a lot).  Are these wind speeds correct at
> these altitudes? I am actually asking this question. I don't know the answer
> to this question (and others).

A very interesting question.  Folklore has it that the U2 -at altitude, 500
knots or so and fully loaded- had all of 4 knots between flying and stalling.
Granted the gross weight of a U2 is a trifle more than your proposed aircraft.
More to the point the NASA "flying wing" drone has or had some 6 electric
motors to keep it aloft as I recall.  This propulsion system was fuled by solar
cells on the wings and I don't know what else...

Anyway sounds feasable to me...

>
>
> As far a Bob asking about flying through the real jet stream it really isn't
> important. No matter how far off course this device is blown as it traverses
> through the jet stream it will make corrections when it is able. This will
> be a semi-autonomous device. Able to keep itself on station with very little
> intervention from a ground crew. About the only thing the ground crew would
> do is to tell it to come down, go  up, and tell it where its station is
> located. The rest the on-board computer would take care of. This device (or
> two) , would be able to be stationed over the atlantic and we would be able
> to have QSO's with europe, all the time. Obviously, other stations and other
> links, QSO's with other areas.
>
> Now, a little more gas for the fire. If the device is lighter than air
> (weightless). And it has little to no air resistance to overcome (this
> hasn't been proven yet but it should certainly be very little air
> resistance). What mode of propulsion would be appropriate? Propellers, some
> type of puffer jets. Lots of room for thought here. What kind of electrical
> drives would be needed to overcome the inertia and the little amount of air
> resistance that would be encountered to keep this device on station?
>
> 73,
> Keith
> N1XTK
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: H. N. Vordenbaum <k5hv@hilconet.com>
> To: Andrew Reynolds <calliban@sinnfree.sinnfree.org>; Bob Bruninga
> <bruninga@nadn.navy.mil>
> Cc: John Hansen <john@hansen.net>; amsat-bb@AMSAT.Org <amsat-bb@AMSAT.Org>
> Date: Monday, June 12, 2000 11:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] I have an idea. Please read
>
> >    You people are forgetting about or ignoring the high altitude winds
> >which blow 50 to >100 mph. and reverse two times a year.  In the Summer it
> >blows from East to West and in the winter it reverses.  There are two short
> >calm "turn-around" periods in Spring and Fall lasting only a few days to a
> >week.  So keeping a balloon or dirigible on station would not be a trivial
> >low power consumption task.
> >    Also at say 100,000 ft. you only get about a 300 mile radius of radio
> >horizon.
> >73, Harv
> >K5HV
> >
> >
> >----
> >Via the amsat-bb mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
> >To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org
> >
>
> ----
> Via the amsat-bb mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
> To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org

--
/***************************************
Bronson Crothers
17 Charles St.
Orono  ME  04473

Phone: 207 866 0405
Fax:.....207 866 0405

Radio Call: N1ZAQ

--... ...--

Email: bronson@eece.maine.edu
**************************************/


----
Via the amsat-bb mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org



AMSAT Top AMSAT Home