Select to expand quotelandyacht said..Emeboy said..
Now now kids.... Play nice
I think Macro likes to throw out the random ideas a little bit like science fiction or the movies making up a seemingly preposterous idea... Think 'Get Smart' way back in the day.... A shoe phone?? Preposterous!! Nowdays (nowadays?), we could put a phone in a shoe but prefer to carry them around in our pockets (actually Star Trek already had cellphones didn't they... Beam me up Scotty). A weird idea might just jog someone's thoughts to develop something better... or new.... maybe.... Trouble is, there are a million random preposterous thoughts to every feasible development.
Now for a spiral laid tunnel....
1. The size of the segment pieces required to create a single spiral helix would be way too big and heavy to handle. The Westgate Tunnel in Melbourne is 15m in diameter and each segment ring of 2.4m length requires 10 individual pieces. These pieces are approx. 13-15 ton each.
2. If you are considering a spiral laid tunnel in the similar fashion to a spiral wound pipe, the helix length required for even a small diameter (spiral) tunnel would be quite long, resulting in a significant portion of the freshly dug tunnel to remain unsupported while the helix was being constructed..... if you are going to make the helix a tight pitch and have multiple helixis (helixies, helixi???) which would allow smaller segment pieces..... then why not just make rings?
3. Even with concentric rings, the moulds for these segments are very precisely machined. If you now want to create a spiral helix and break that into manageable segments, the mould complexity would be significantly greater and therefore much more difficult and expensive to manufacture.
For a spiral welded fuel tank (presumably under significant pressure)
1. Hoop Stress..... (you might be better off wondering why they do not extrude the cylinders in one piece..... No welds seams at all)
Sorry Macro, these ones might just end up being filed under R....
This announcement was bought to you by the letters P for Preposterous and H for Helix.....
correct me If Ive got this wrong, but surely the sheets they are using are at some point in a huge roll that is rolled out and cut to size so that it can be welded back together . therefor deliver in a roll and feed into the robotic welder as a spiral then cut the end to finish that cut end is now ready to make next spiral. I would bet that the technology is already around and in common use but on a smaller scale, or even on a much bigger scale , like oil refinery tanks. just like when making a modern high pressure steel water pipe. EG the goldfields water pipe which they still make in steel because plastic isn't they strong enough. to me spiral make so much sense.
good thinking Landyacht.Now imagine what we could do with this technology implemented into small diameter tunneling.We need billions of km of tunel for infrastructure across the country and under cities. Any sort of cabling, piping , surage .But so far nobody invented machines that could continuously lay 1 meter diameter tunel encased in the concrete or plastic. Suppose that we want to make this High Voltage Direct Current power line to happen here in Australia.
From Perth to the Brisbane , by Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney on the way. At first traditional power posts/ mast made of steels comes to mind. We have plenty of iron ore , we could make even steel of those one day.But once you start negotiation, land rights, view distortion, ecological damage etc the cost of research , litigation will dwarf actual build costs labour + materials.Go underground 50 meters or so, thatn paralel to the surface few km long, and all those problems are avoided.We need machined the could drill , remove material and make casting onsite at few km spans at least. Automatic , with minimal human intervention, without the need to go underground into those small tunel. I don't even mind to be transported by on of those underground pipes 1 meter diameter across the globe with 2 - 5 Mach speeds. Unlike elons Hyper loop 1 diameter pipe is so much easier to make and end effect is the same.
I could imagine such machine already. Long like erth worm ,chewing the sand and rocks in the front, piping matters back, then another pipes provide constant feed of reinforcing steel and concrete or plastic of molding , casting. Due to small diameter crushing this material at front is much easier and doesn't required tunel gigantic crowler. Even water jet laser could do the job efficiently on this small scale.
Yep, there is time to improve over Elon inventions again.
His latest Spaceship belly flopping Stainless Steel Starship has already followers. China and Russia are building exact copies of wingled rocket body.
So lest see if they could follow Macro one day and build even better.
So what is the difference?
Space X tilt their rockets to maximize air resistance and lower terminal velocity.
My proposal is to spin (rotate) slowly this horizontal cylinder in order to equalize thermal performance and radiate most of the heat back ( to equalize Heat distribution , lesser material stress, avoid need ceramic thermal protection, radiate heat in infrared spectrum) .
arstechnica.com/science/2021/04/chinas-state-rocket-company-unveils-rendering-of-a-starship-look-alike
Now lets seat and wait , how long it takes to implement Macro improvements into space rocketry
BTW our last suggestion here on SB , to utilize fuel detonation for rocket engines slowly but steadily progress into reality.
newatlas.com/aircraft/oblique-wave-detonation-engine-hypersonic-ucf/
They have gone beyond circular explosions now & have a working prototype of continuous fixed explosion engine
Select to expand quoteactiomax said..
They have gone beyond circular explosions now & have a working prototype of continuous fixed explosion engine
I know, I think that is their mistake tooo.
Mine is spiral detonation like vinyl LP idea,
We also still waiting for first spirally welded rocket, either US, Chinese or Russian made...I don't understand what is the problem? We told them here exactly how to do this long time ago and still waiting .. even posted some photos from our members of machinery and process.
They are wasting our time ! Time that could could spend productively sailing/surfing instead of building rocket plans for them all 
SpaceX with the latest gigantic rocket gets into the same problem as Space Shuttle.
Fixing thermal protection tiles.
So I propose to their engineer to us rather ribbons of thermal protection,
tapes that surround the whole cylinder.
Narrow or wider circular tape rings under their own tension that doesn't need any fixing to a surface.
Additional requirements are to spin, rotate the rocket on re-entry to the atmosphere. to allow the whole surface to disperse heat, not just one frontal surface.
So let's wait now few years and see which concept wins.Mine or SpaceShuttle/SpaceX .
Mine socket-like or tiles?
www.inverse.com/innovation/starship-spacex-test-jack-dorsey
Why not stop telling other people what to do, build your own incredible inventions which will change the whole world since you know how to do everything better than anyone else, and then with your incredible profits build your own and better rockets?
In other words, why not do it instead of talking about it, or put up or shut up?
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..
Space X tilt their rockets to maximize air resistance and lower terminal velocity.
My proposal is to spin (rotate) slowly this horizontal cylinder in order to equalize thermal performance and radiate most of the heat back ( to equalize Heat distribution , lesser material stress, avoid need ceramic thermal protection, radiate heat in infrared spectrum)
You'd think that'd be the way to go? Spread out the re-entry heat as much as possible. Maybe rocket scientists shy away from trying to spin things on the long axis. Check out Veritasium at 12.47 he recalls Rocket Science's bad experience with this. We'll need to come up with a reliable long-axis stabilisation system. Not beyond us here at Seabreeze surely? Plenty of forward/backward loopers out there! how hard can it be?
Select to expand quoteIan K said..Macroscien said..
Space X tilt their rockets to maximize air resistance and lower terminal velocity.
My proposal is to spin (rotate) slowly this horizontal cylinder in order to equalize thermal performance and radiate most of the heat back ( to equalize Heat distribution , lesser material stress, avoid need ceramic thermal protection, radiate heat in infrared spectrum)
You'd think that'd be the way to go? Spread out the re-entry heat as much as possible. Maybe rocket scientists shy away from trying to spin things on the long axis. Check out Veritasium at 12.47 he recalls Rocket Science's bad experience with this. We'll need to come up with a reliable long-axis stabilisation system. Not beyond us here at Seabreeze surely? Plenty of forward/backward loopers out there! how hard can it be?
Fascinating video.
two conclusions:
a) most likely mine propose here dissipation is already utilized in top-secret military missiles on re-entry, but did not sink into civilian technology as yet
b) remember the SpaceX is driven by AI chipset - so stabilization of spinning rockets will depend on this artificial intelligence, not mechanics itself.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
Why not stop telling other people what to do, build your own incredible inventions which will change the whole world since you know how to do everything better than anyone else, and then with your incredible profits build your own and better rockets?
In other words, why not do it instead of talking about it, or put up or shut up?
You may need to listen to Elon itself.
He is willing to listen to all not just certified engineers hired to resolve the problem.
The problem is that you could not pay and buy ingenious ideas on order.
this may apply to any manufacturing companies:
-some may hire top paid advisors to make better cars by pure design at the dest
- other will listen to all feedback from users and workers on the assembling lines.
The same may apply to our small water world. What sense is makes to have board and sails designers that never do sail be themselves and never ask for feedback from the end user. They obviously know the best how to design things.
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..Mid air rocket capture.
I invented system for SpaceX to capture returning booster high in mid air, instead landing on the land. System consist of two parts in short:
1) Booster release two steel lines , with flyers ( airfoils ) at the end. Those lines serve dual purpose:
a) aerobraking
b) capture line
Those airfloils flyers will rotate lines in circle during landing
2) Second part consist of airship, blimp with long vertical line hanging.( could be anchored to the ship below)
During landing rocket will use engines as usual but also release those pair of spinning lines.
Those line could catch vertical line for blimp and turn around.
Now whole booster is recovered safely high in mid air few hundred or km above the ground/ sea and can be transported hanging quickly to base.
What do you think ? Will idea of mid air capture works better then landing on platform?
Mid air rocket capture.
I invented system for SpaceX to capture returning booster high in mid air, instead landing on the land. System consist of two parts in short: 1) Booster release two steel lines , with flyers ( airfoils ) at the end. Those lines serve dual purpose: a) aerobraking b) capture line Those airfloils flyers will rotate lines in circle during landing 2) Second part consist of airship, blimp with long vertical line hanging.( could be anchored to the ship below)
During landing rocket will use engines as usual but also release those pair of spinning lines. Those line could catch vertical line for blimp and turn around.
Now whole booster is recovered safely high in mid air few hundred or km above the ground/ sea and can be transported hanging quickly to base.
What do you think ? Will idea of mid air capture works better then landing on platform?
