Patent Awarded - Comgratulaions to an Old Friend

U.S. Patent #7,614,586 B2

Date: November 10, 2009


Title: "Method of Traveling to Earth's Orbit Using Lighter Than Air Vehicles"

Text of the Patent Here:

patft.uspto.gov.../



Congratulations to an old friend and collegue!

It took a number of years of effort, and enduring lots of derision, but he finally succeded. Hats off!


And now, those that complain that "We need need a New Way to get to orbit" can content themselves with this: An "old" way, made New!


Way to go! My sig just took on greater "sig"-nifigance

Here is company website:
jpaerospace

Kind of neat, but every time we start messing with airships it does not end well.
That is why we do not see them in common use today other then blimps as an advertising novelty. Either way though, good luck to your friend.

reply to post by defcon5



There is nothing inherently "wrong" with airships.

Afterall, there have been far more, and far more spectacular, airplane disaters than ther have been airship disasters.


The Real reason we haven' t seen or heard very much about airships (which have been flying longer than other types of aircraft, BTW) is that we have always focused on Speed, not simplicity as our guiding flight principle.


Everyone roots for the Rabbit, while the Tortoise wins the race.




(Edit: Apologies to Aesop!)

[edit on 16-11-2009 by Bhadhidar]

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
reply to post by defcon5

 

The Real reason we haven' t seen or heard very much about airships (which have been flying longer than other types of aircraft, BTW) is that we have always focused on Speed, not simplicity as our guiding flight principle.


Everyone roots for the Rabbit, while the Turtle wins the race.

First, kudos to your friend for all of his hard work.

Second, this is probably a stupid question, but don't we have to focus on speed? I saw the website, and if the purpose of this project is to bring ads to the edge of the atmosphere, then of course speed would not be too much of an issue.

However, if using this method for space travel, or even travel from one country to another, I would think speed becomes vital. One can certainly not have it take a month or so (i didn't do the calculations -- just using general numbers) to get to the moon. The amount of food, water, and oxygen needed for said journey would prove to be troublesome the longer the trip takes.

Further, the longer the flight, the greater chance of running into adverse weather patterns not able to be seen at the time of launch. For example, it takes about 22 hours to get from the US to South Africa on a jet. Doing the same in an airship would add days to the trip, no? Wouldn't there be a greater chance of problems the longer each flight would take?

reply to post by lpowell0627



We're not talking about intercontinental travel here. We are looking at a new way to reach orbit.

Intercontinental travel is still more effective using conventional, heavier than air craft (except in those instances wherein extremely heavy payloads are to considered).

But there is little to be gained by excess speed where routine transfers to Earth orbit are concerned; especially when cost out-weighing urgency is considered.

And lets face it, one of the major impediments to the development of orbital commerce has always been the high cost of putting people and objects into Earth orbit.


Furthermore, the inherent lower mass of an airship-based vehicle means that interplanetary propulsion systems would be more efficient. But the airship designs being discussed here are strictly meant for trans-Earth orbit use only.

Inspiring,thanks for sharing.It made my day a little brighter.Congratulations to your friend.Were you integral?

This is going to get interesting. He essentially patented what the Stealth Blimp does. Are there any precedences of gov recon platforms being outside the domain of the patent system?

reply to post by Bhadhidar


airships for use as Sub spotters. They all crashed in a relatively short period of time due to weather that other aircraft would have avoided or survived. Of course we all know what happened to the German attempt at working with rigid airships.

A couple to questions though...
how are they going to prevent accidents resulting from micrometeorite collisions? How are they going to deorbit without going through reentry?

I see that they are going to use ion engines to get up enough speed at high altitude to archive orbit, taking up to five days. I would be sweating bullets on that thing for five days for fear of being hit by a micro meteor, meteor, or sprite while flying over a thunderstorm.

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by Bhadhidar

 

airships for use as Sub spotters. They all crashed in a relatively short period of time due to weather that other aircraft would have avoided or survived. Of course we all know what happened to the German attempt at working with rigid airships.

A couple to questions though...
how are they going to prevent accidents resulting from micrometeorite collisions? How are they going to deorbit without going through reentry?

I see that they are going to use ion engines to get up enough speed at high altitude to archive orbit, taking up to five days. I would be sweating bullets on that thing for five days for fear of being hit by a micro meteor, meteor, or sprite while flying over a thunderstorm.

Except this INFLATABLE space station has been orbiting for years. Its on its 10,000 orbit now....
www.bigelowaerospace.com...

And nobody has shot down a stealth blimp yet....

Originally posted by alexander_delta
Except this INFLATABLE space station has been orbiting for years. Its on its 10,000 orbit now....

If you read your own link, you will see they are testing it for exactly one of the things I mentioned:

Our external inspection cameras have allowed us to inspect the outer layers of our protective blankets. We have found no visible evidence of micrometeoroid impacts to the outer surface of the spacecraft. We will continue to survey and evaluate the exterior of the spacecraft to evaluate its exposure to the space environment.

Additionally they flew that up there inside a rocket, then inflated it. They did not inflate it then try and fly it through the upper atmosphere into orbit.

[edit on 11/16/2009 by defcon5]

LOL one thing about a Patent is you do not have to prove it will work.

i will believe this is a usable system only after the first one makes orbit.

LOL one thing about a Patent is you do not have to prove it will work.

i will believe this is a usable system only after the first one makes orbit.

reply to post by defcon5


Actually, you are more likely to encounter damage from micrometeor strikes while in orbit, rather than while transiting through the upper atmosphere, to orbit.

And remember, it is the atmosphere which causes most meteroids to burn up.

Additionally, the shear volume of the planned vehicles just about insure that a few strikes would be well within the safety margin.


We're not talking about your standard blimp here folks. This guy has spent years on this project, and has just about re-written the book on airship design.

Originally posted by ANNED
LOL one thing about a Patent is you do not have to prove it will work.

i will believe this is a usable system only after the first one makes orbit.

Actually, Physics and History prove "it will work".


There is a lot of proprietary information I can't go into, but ponder this:


-The ancient Greeks (I believe) proved the concept of the Turbine.

-The first Jet Engines, based on the Turbine, flew not much nore than sixty years ago.

-Today, we fly jet aircraft like buses to virtually every corner of the world.