Please send information and links to
Mark D. Moore in his office
Credit: NASA/Sean Smith
days are here again! RAD AWE!
Terms and issues:
- airborne wind-capturing platforms
( AWCP )
- nano-tube tethers
- graphene-involved membranes
- "mother-of-all-solution-matrices" daveS
- landmark series of experiments
- level playing field of understanding
first principles analysis
gaps in understanding
Discussion is open:
- $100,000 grant to study the AWECS Year: 2010
initiation? Details? How has that money been spent? Spending is
done. Note of Jan. 19, 2011. Furtherance is on chosen personal time
until more funding occurs.
- Methods the government can use to fairly evaluate competing ideas
- Nascent renewable energy industry that is flexing its imagination
- Systems Analysis Branch at NASA's Langley Research Center
- To research what it will
take to judge the value of any of those ideas.
- "We're trying to create a
level playing field of understanding"
- What would that level-playing-field-of-understanding (LPFoU) look
- "where all of the concepts and approaches can be compared --
what's similar about them? What's different about them, and
how can you compare them?"
- "Airspace is a commodity," How will that
airspace be traded?
- Dec. 14, 2010 Will politics trump what could be practiced?
Such has apparently
occurred too many times. ~JoeF
- Dec. 14, 2010 I hope this isn't just an
expensive way to keep offices full. Chuck Yeager says he used to wring
all the information out of a prototype aircraft in a quick series of
flights before NASA got ahold of it and pretended to make great
discoveries via minor variations in procedure, taking years.
- Dec. 14, 2010: "NASA is late to the AWE
table, but will serve as a reality-check for the weakest concepts.
Already we see "obvious" findings to upset the marketing claims of the
companies like Joby & Makani. In particular, NASA understands how
single-anchor AWECS of at-best modest power rating consume
disproportionate amounts of airspace & land footprint. This important
KiteLab finding was suppressed by Joby's staff for presentation at
AWEC2010 & had to be presented directly to NASA. Also, NASA understands
the limitations of bleeding-edge flight automation, so its a most
welcome mention that human-supervised semi-automation of utility-scale
AWE is a valid option. KiteLab consistently insists direct human
supervision must play a major early role.
We can predict a few things of NASA- They will undertake the
"mother-of-all-solution-matrices" to vet concepts. Internal funding &
staffing will grow fast. They will plan & conduct a landmark series of
experiments. NASA is on-time & well-qualified to study issues like
airspace-integration, & carbon nano-tubes as the ultimate tether
material, & graphene as the ultimate membrane.
Best of luck to Mark Moore in his study,
- Jan. 13, 2011. New AWE Era.
Related, but a bit removed:
NASA and hang gliders (parawing, paraglider,
Rogallo wing, Rogallo wing stiffened with inflatable beams, Rogallo wing
stiffened with metal booms, powered hang gliders, Rogallo-wing canopy
parachutes, kite hang gliders, towed kite hang gliders, tow-launched
hang gliders, space-vehicle deployable). Hang mass below parasol
wing; adjust position of the payload by various means; auxiliary kiting
and free-flight kiting of the hang gliders (paragliders), kite-launched
kite gliding, space-vehicle-launched kite-gliding,
powered-aircraft-tow-launched kiting, powered-aircraft-tow-launched kite
gliding). Degrees of "flexible" for flexible wing are from fully limp to very
tiny (near solid) ...
- NACA roots. Francis Melvin Rogallo at NACA and then in the renamed
- Sputnik happened. Urgency in the space race happened.
- Reentry challenge and response spectrum
- Training hang glider pilots
- Paresev program
- Gemini hang gliders (paragliders)
- Apollo hang gliders (paragliders)
- Contracts with other companies and agencies for hang gliders and
powered hang gliders. Multitude of uses.
- Technical reports
- Engineers and technicians
- Media, communications, and various audiences
- Marine relationships
- Army relationships
- Ryan Aeronautical relationships
- STG [Space Task Group]
(finer link general)
- [ ] Are the dates and text of applications available?
Author Sharon Dillon "While the Flexi-kite did not become a best-seller
the technology changed aviation. As early as 1952 Rogallo suggested that
flexible wings might someday be useful for space commuters.
In 1954 he presented
this concept to the Air Force Research and Development Command. Shortly
thereafter he unsuccessfully submitted
proposals to NACA to
include parawing research in the budget and to the Institute of
Aeronautical Sciences (IAS). Both rejected the idea. After the Russians
(then called the United Soviet Socialist Republic) launched Sputnik I in
1957 NACA gave Rogallo
approval to do some wind-tunnel and model testing in the 7 x
10-foot wind tunnel." Interesting would be the text of his
proposals and the notes of rejection; precise dates and memos too. Are
such documents available in NASA? [ ]
Bobby Rogallo, Carol Rogallo, Bunny Rogallo, and Fran Rogallo were early
test pilots for the flexible-wing. They were part of the Rogallo-family
invention-confirmation team. They tested the wings in captive kiting
format at Merrimac Shores, Buckroe Beach and Plum Tree Island, all in
Virginia, USA. (Ref: Sharon Dillon in her
Rogallo Had a Dream paper.) Since NACA at first did not let FMR
test at the Langley professional workplace, the work done by the Rogallo
family at home belonged by rights to them and not NACA.
NASA Personal Air Transportation Technologies
Mark D. Moore was the Personal Air Vehicle Sector
manager in the NASA Vehicle Systems Program until
the recent redirection of NASA Aeronautics into the
Fundamental Aeronautics Program. Most research
activities relating to both SATS and the PAV sector
have been concluded and no new research into these
topic areas is currently planned by NASA. After the
conclusion of the final contracts next year, NASA will
continue to encourage small aircraft related research
through the NASA PAV Centennial Challenge yearly
competitions. This research effort has in many ways
mirrored the research path of other disruptive
technologies as discussed in ‘The
by Clayton Christensen and has once again shown that
“disruptive projects stalled when it came to allocating
scarce resources among competing product and
technology development proposals”. While large
institutions such as IBM and Bell Labs often initiate
disruptive research that has major societal impact, it
appears that “firms
that lead the industry in every
instance of adopting disruptive technologies are entrants
to the industry, not its incumbent leaders”. The author
remains committed to NASA’s important role in
disruptive technology development and continues to
work on independent research in this topic area through
his current PhD studies and may be contacted ...