Need a physics/math guru for help with ISP research

[EndeavourCmdr]

Good day everyone.

Some of you may remember me from a few years ago. I was the developer of the Orbiter Atmospheric Enhancement pack.

I've been away for a bit, but some recent "discoveries" have brought me back to this forum to seek the assistance of those more versed in the technical aspects of space flight than myself.

I have been working on some space flight related issues in my head for a while now, and recently I made some extreme progress which I hope will change the future of space flight. Now, this is not a trolling post. I honestly do believe that I have found something groundbreaking which will benefit us all within our lifetimes (hopefully). The problem is I need data, and I need someone who can help interpret the data.

Most of the data requirements are ISP related. I need to get some various data on different propulsion systems and their thrust and rate of consumption. Additionally, some idea of the mass of the vehicles they are implemented in and the maximum acceleration in g's would be helpful.

If there is anyone who is willing to help gather some data and then possibly convert it in to an easy to understand (not highly mathematical) format, then I would be willing to discuss SOME of the concept.

I am concerned about Intellectual Property rights on this idea. Depending on how far it goes, I may request an NDA or equivelant, however, if my thought process is correct, this idea may have a serious impact on the space program.

Is anyone interested in helping gather and sort data with me?

 

[statickid]

[SNIP]...If there is anyone who is willing to help gather some data and then possibly convert it in to an easy to understand (not highly mathematical) format, then I would be willing to discuss SOME of the concept... [/SNIP]

:blink:

What exactly do you mean by this?? Are you referring to graphs? It seems like the goal of data interpretation would have to be known or it can't be clarified in any way. Also if the idea is that sensitive then maybe you should try to understand your own idea better by learning some math and physics. :thumbup:

 

[EndeavourCmdr]

I suppose a graph would be useful. Basically I want to see the consumption rate, thrust, and basically just the performance of a large range of engine types with different fuels, both solid,liquid and other to be able to compare them and make some estimates about the performance of engines which have not yet been created by researching the fuels and mechanics of the engines to determine the performance of hypothetical propulsion systems.

 

[MeDiCS]

If there is anyone who is willing to help gather some data and then possibly convert it in to an easy to understand (not highly mathematical) format, then I would be willing to discuss SOME of the concept.

But you do know TCP and UDP, right? That is, if the damn compiler does not get in the way...

 

[EndeavourCmdr]

Im confused as to why TCP and UDP would matter??? That has nothing really to do with gathering performance data. Unless I'm missing something...??

 

[Wishbone]

The only way to enlist a guru is to become an even brighter guru... OMMMMMMMM

 

[jedidia]

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/enginelist.php#table

you might be interested in this:

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/enginelist.php#table

contains a large range of currently existing as well as hypothetical drives with reasonable specs (i.e. if the concept turns out to work, the performanse will be somewhere along those lines).

Additionally, some idea of the mass of the vehicles they are implemented in and the maximum acceleration in g's would be helpful.

These are all pretty irrelevant, as you can mount any drive on any kind of ship. The only question is if it makes sense. I hope you know how to calculate total delta-v, acceleration and mass-ratio for a given ship with a given drive with given ISP and thrust values, because those are the basics of spaceflight. You don't need to be a Guru of any sort, just look up some equations. If you can't handle that, the probability that your concept is a pipe dream is converging towards 100%. In that case I would suggest to reveal it to someone on the board via P.M. for scrutiny, before investing a lot of money in a patent (they don't come for free, you know).

 

[Urwumpe]

I think, if you are good at something, you shouldn't do it for free...especially if it would be changing spaceflight and thus, have likely a huge sum of profits waiting. The open standard concept happens somewhere else.

 

[MeDiCS]

Im confused as to why TCP and UDP would matter??? That has nothing really to do with gathering performance data. Unless I'm missing something...??

Sorry, that may have been too subtle. Refer to this thread (page 4 and 5, I think) for some explanation.

Now, those kind of 'revolutionary ideas' come and go (see Perpetual Motion for an example), and chances are, you're tripping on a basic physics law (or engineering, chemistry or whatever) and not even noticing.

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see a revolution in space flight, or even be part of one, but the fact that you're asking for help on public forum, and you're asking for a number cruncher to provide you with 'dumbed down' (A.K.A. not highly mathematical) concepts does not make me have any faith on your idea. Additionally, as jedidia posted, "If you can't handle that [rocket equations], the probability that your concept is a pipe dream is converging towards 100%".

Truly, best of luck.

 

[Sky Captain]

Chemical rocket engines they already have reached their performance limits governed by energy content of chemical fuels. Any engine that could recolutionaize space flight (especially access to LEO) would have to be nuclear powered or some sort of highly efficient airbreather or both.

 

[Urwumpe]

Chemical rocket engines they already have reached their performance limits governed by energy content of chemical fuels. Any engine that could recolutionaize space flight (especially access to LEO) would have to be nuclear powered or some sort of highly efficient airbreather or both.

Not really, there is still a tiny bit of improvement left...and such small improvements could have strong effects on the performance of rockets.

But it is really more likely that other forms of propulsion will be necessary.

 

[Sky Captain]

Did you mean altitude compensating nozzles?

 

[Wishbone]

Chemical propulsion underwent AFAIR three major leaps: before WWII when all major fuel/oxidizer pairs were found and tested (most of them by the Germans), in the late 1950s with the advent of cryo tech, and almost simultaneously with reliable solid propellants. Gel fuel is in a narrow niche, fluor-based oxidizers came to nought, and we don't yet have metallic hydrogen. Yes, Urwumpe is right, we've reached tech maturity here...

 

[Notebook]

Reaction Engines are involved with the STERN project:

http://www.projectstern.co.uk/

Looks like it could be promising wrt engine improvements.

N.

 

[Urwumpe]

Also, full-flow staged combustion and other "mostly" Russian inventions are reaching western drawing boards now. Again some improvements, especially in simplicity and endurance.

 

[Wishbone]

These are kind of borderland inventions, and not directly related to propellants. I'd guess there are also some scraps of efficiency (very important as you say, due to the rocket multiplier) to be picked up by fully modelling the flows within the chamber. But this is a wild guess on my part