Update 4-7-2024: added 3 to rocket, below.
Update 3-6-2024: added 3 to rocket, below.
Update 2-13-2024: added 1 to ramjet and 6 to rocket, etc. below.
Update 10-1-2023: added "Basic Thermal Results for High Speeds" to 2 topics below.
Update 9-2-2023: added "Purported SR-72 Propulsion" to 3 topics below.
Update 7-18-2023: added 1 article to forensics.
Update 6-21-2023: added 2 articles to rocket ballistics and vehicle performance list.
Update 5-4-2023: added 1 article each to aerothermo and forensics lists.
Update 2-4-23: added new nozzles article to aerothermo and ballistics lists.
Update 1-1-23: added catalog topic for towed decoys, this text color.
Update 12-2-2022: two ramjet articles added to that topic list, this color.
Update 9-5-2022: some recent articles added to the lists, this text color.
Update 10-1-2022: some others added, this color.
Update 10-30-2022: a couple added, this color.
------------------------------
I was once an all-around ramjet design, development, and test engineer, among many other things, including rocket work. This was mostly at a plant in McGregor, Texas, once known as Rocketdyne or Hercules. Part of that reservation is where SpaceX tests rockets now.
I did just about everything there was to do, for this ramjet work. There are very few indeed with knowledge and experience this comprehensive, I was definitely not a narrow specialist! But my knowledge and abilities, in each of all these different specialty disciplines, was actually quite substantial and deep!
My design analyses usually took
the form of custom hand-calculations, not just sitting
there blindly running other people’s computer codes. (Although, I did use computer
codes, and even wrote some myself.) I have informally published several
articles on my blog site that describe how some of this ramjet work was done.
Ramjet & Closely-Related Articles (there are
others, but these are the best):
2-13-2024 GW's Ramjet Book Is Now Available
10-1-2023 Basic Thermal Results for High Speeds
9-1-2023 Purported SR-72 Propulsion
12-2-2022 The Unchoked Gas Generator As A Throttle For Gas Generator-Fed Ramjets
12-1-2022 How Ramjets Work
10-30-22 Plasma Sheath Effects in High Hypersonic Flight
6-1-22 About Hypersonic Vehicles
11-2-21 The “Warm Brick” Ramjet Device (nonpropulsive
application to an infrared decoy) [also the 11-2-21 update to this catalogue list]
10-1-21 Use of the Choked Pintle Valve for a Solid Propellant
Gas Generator Throttle
8-2-21 The Ramjet I Worked On the Most
7-1-21 Another Ramjet I Worked On
11-9-20 Fundamentals of Inlets
3-3-20 Ramjet Flameholding
2-16-20 Solid Rocket Analysis (applies to ramjet for
boosters)
2-4-20 One of Several Ramjets That I Worked On
1-2-20 On High-Speed Aerodynamics and Heat Transfer
11-12-18 How Propulsion Nozzles Work
7-4-17 Heat Protection Is the Key to Hypersonic Flight
6-12-17 Shock Impingement Heating Is Very Dangerous
12-10-16 Primer on Ramjets
12-21-12 Ramjet
Cycle Analyses
These are located on http://exrocketman.blogspot.com, along with many others on a wide variety of
subjects.
There is a navigation tool on the left of that page. For the article you want, you only need its publication date and its
title. Use the navigation tool: click on the year, then the month. Then click on the title if you need to. The data you need are in these lists.
If you click on one of the figures, you can see all of them enlarged. You see nothing but the figures, though.
There is an “X-out” from this view,
upper right of screen.
At the end of any given article, there is also a list of search keywords
assigned to it. If you click on
“ramjet”, you will only see the articles
bearing that keyword. The same is true
of the other keywords.
Here follows a photo of one of the ramjets I worked on: ASALM-PTV. It is hanging under the wing of an A-7 Corsair-II, an aircraft my father designed. I always considered this photo a sort of “family portrait”.
ASALM-PTV Ramjet Vehicle Underwing of A-7 Corsair-II
Some of those ramjet articles overlap with the next
list. That next list is of
aerothermodynamics and heat transfer-related articles. Some of these relate to high-speed
atmospheric flight, and others to
atmospheric entry from space. Those two
scenarios are quite different, in that
atmospheric flight is a steady-state equilibrium problem, while atmospheric entry is mostly a transient
heat-sinking problem. The search keyword
for these is “aerothermo”. Clearly, I was adept at multiple specialties.
Aerothermodynamics & Heat Transfer Articles:
1-2-2024 Airplanes on Mars?
12-9-2023 Overall Study Results: Propellant From Moon
11-22-2023 How the Suborbital "Hopper" Calculations Were Made and With What
11-21-2023 Upgraded Rocket Hopper As Orbit Taxi
11-4-2023 Surface Freight Transport On Mars (not actually rocket, but related)
11-1-2023 Rocket Hopper For Mars Planetary Transportation
10-1-2023 Basic Thermal Results for High Speeds
9-1-2023 Purported SR-72 Propulsion
5-1-23 Heat Shields
2-4-23 Rocket Nozzle Types (bells and aerospikes)
9-18-22 Plasma Sheath Effects in Hypersonic Flight
7-3-22 Early High-Speed Experimental Planes
6-1-22 About Hypersonic Vehicles
4-1-20 Entry Heating Estimates
1-2-20 On High-Speed Aerodynamics and Heat Transfer
1-9-19 Subsonic Inlet Duct Investigation
1-6-19 A Look At Nosetips (Or Leading Edges)
1-2-19 Thermal Protection Trends For High-Speed
Atmospheric Flight
11-12-18 How Propulsion Nozzles Work
7-4-17 Heat Protection Is the Key to Hypersonic Flight
6-12-17 Shock Impingement Heating Is Very Dangerous
11-17-15 Why Air Is Hot When You Fly Fast
8-4-13 Entry Issues
3-18-13 Low-Density Non-Ablative Ceramic Heat Shields
1-21-13 BOE Entry Analysis of Apollo Returning From the Moon
1-21-13 BOE Entry Model User’s Guide
8-19-12 Ballute Drag Data
8-19-12 Blunt Capsule Drag Data
7-14-12 “Back
Of the Envelope” Entry Model
I was also a rocket propulsion engineer, mostly in solid composite propellants. However,
from the chamber outlet through the nozzle, the ballistics of all rockets are the
same, including liquid propellant
rockets. If you can allow for any gas
bled off and dumped overboard for turbopump operation, then the very same ballistics apply, right down to the chamber pressure vs flow
rate calculation.
Further, the
estimation of vehicle performance from the simple rocket equation can be made
quite accurate, if you know how to apply
“jigger factors” in the appropriate places for gravity and drag losses, and if you know what values of these “jigger
factors” to apply. I have been very
successful at doing this kind of work. The following list shows that, and mostly shares the “launch” and “space
program” keywords. While still a graduate student, I spent a summer doing advanced configuration and mission work at what was then LTV Aerospace, working on its "Scout" 4-stage solid satellite launcher.
Rocket Ballistics and Rocket Vehicle Performance
articles:
4-4-2024 Ascent Compromise Design Trade Study
4-3-2024 Bounding Analyses for TSTO
4-2-2024 Bounding Calculations for SSTO Concepts
2-25-2024 Tricky Landing
3-3-2024 Launch to Low Earth Orbit: 1 or 2 Stages?
3-4-2024 Launch to Low Earth Orbit: Fixed Geometry Options
9-1-2023 Purported SR-72 Propulsion
6-20-23 TSTO Launch Fundamentals
6-6-23 Frontal Thrust Density In Rockets
2-4-23 Rocket Nozzle Types (bells and aerospikes)
10-27-22 Getting to Low Earth Orbit (vertical ballistic launch versus lifting ascent)
10-1-22 Rocket Engine Calculations (how to rough-out or reverse-engineer, ex: Raptor-2)
9-7-22 Two-Stage Reusable Spaceplane Rough-Size (VTO HL both stages)
8-4-22 Engineering Lander/Rover for Mars
5-1-22 Investigation: "Big Ship" Propellant From the Moon vs From Earth (added to list as part of Update 5-1-22)
4-2-22 Earth-Mars Orbit-to-Orbit Transport Propulsion Studies (added to list as part of Update 5-1-22)
2-1-22 A Concept for an On-Orbit Propellant Depot
8-18-21 Propellant Ullage Problem and Solutions
3-15-21 Reverse
Engineering Estimates: Starship Lunar Landings
3-9-21 Reverse-Engineering
Starship/Superheavy 2021
3-5-21 Fundamentals
of Elliptic Orbits (delta-vee requirements)
2-9-21 Rocket Vehicle Performance
Spreadsheet (rocket vehicle performance)
7-13-20 Non-Direct to the Moon
with 2020 Starship
7-5-20 How the Spreadsheet Works
(Starship to Mars)
7-5-20 2020 Starship/Superheavy
Estimates for the Moon
7-3-20 Cis-Lunar Orbits and
Requirements
6-21-20 2020 Starship/Superheavy
Estimates for Mars
5-25-20 2020 Reverse Engineering
Estimates for Starship/Superheavy
2-16-20 Solid Rocket Analysis (solid ballistics & more)
11-21-19 Interplanetary Trajectories and
Requirements
10-22-19 Reverse-Engineering the 2019
Version of The Spacex “Starship” / “Super Heavy” Design
9-26-19 Reverse-Engineered “Raptor”
Engine Performance (liquid ballistics)
9-16-19 Spacex
“Starship” as a Ferry for Colonization Ships
9-9-19 Colonization
Ship Study
11-12-18 How Propulsion Nozzles Work (rocket, ramjet, & turbine; plain & free-expansion)
9-11-18 Velocity Requirements for Mars
8-23-18 Back-of-the-Envelope Rocket
Propulsion Analysis
4-17-18 Reverse Engineering the 2017
Version of the Spacex BFR
10-23-17 Reverse-Engineering the ITS/Second
Stage Of the Spacex BFR/ITS System
3-18-17 Bounding Analysis for Lunar
Lander Designs
3-6-17 Reverse-Engineered “Dragon”
Data
8-31-13 Reusable Chemical Mars Landing
Boats Are Feasible
In 2009, I attended
an asteroid defense conference in Granada,
Spain, as a poster paper
presenter. I have since written some
articles about asteroid defense.
Unfortunately, the asteroid defense
capability picture hasn’t changed much since my 2009 attendance at that
conference. Again, the latest are the best and most up-to-date. Be aware that “NEO” (Near Earth Object) includes
comets as well as asteroids as threats. Comets may be the more difficult to defend against, because of the surprise nature of the detection and orbits. These articles all share the “asteroid defense” keyword.
Asteroid Defense Articles:
8-30-20 Asteroid Threats (current status assessment: not good)
6-3-20 On the Manned Spacex Launch
7-14-19 Just Mooning Around (asteroids plus Mars)
12-13-13 Mars Mission Study 2013 (what takes you to Mars takes you to asteroids)
4-21-09 On Asteroid Defense and a Good Reason for
Having National Space Programs
I have also applied my wide-ranging knowledge to the problems of
atmospheres to breathe while in space,
and the kinds of spacesuits that might best serve our needs. Again,
the latest is the best and most up-to-date. But I have been looking into these issues for
some time, as indicated by the dates on
these articles. These all share the
“spacesuit” keyword.
Space Suits and Atmospheres Articles:
1-2-22 Refining Proposed Suit and Habitat Atmospheres (update 1-2-22) best case and easiest-to-remember cases, plus an independent estimate of the utter min suit pressures feasible
1-1-22 Habitat Atmospheres and Long-Term Health (update 1-1-22) adds a long term hypoxia criterion for the habitat in addition to short term criteria for the min-P suit
3-16-18 Suit and Habitat Atmospheres 2018
11-23-17 A Better Version of the MCP Spacesuit?
2-15-16 Suits and Atmospheres for Space
1-15-16 Astronaut Facing
Drowning Points Out Need for Better Space Suit
11-17-14 Space Suit and Habitat Atmospheres
2-11-14 On-Orbit Repair and Assembly Facility
12-13-13 Mars Mission Study 2013
1-21-11 Fundamental Design Criteria for Alternative
Space Suit Approaches
One of my
favorites is the MCP (mechanical counter pressure) version of the
spacesuit. This was pioneered by Dr.
Webb in the 1960’s as a possible suit for the Apollo missions to the moon. It is not a full pressure suit at all, but essentially a tight garment that simply
squeezes the body. It is porous, so that you sweat right through it to
cool, just like ordinary street
clothing. But this design was tested quite
successfully in 1968 for 30 minutes in a vacuum chamber, at way above the equivalent “vacuum
deathpoint” altitude. Photo follows:
Webb’s MCP Space
Suit: Helmet, Backpack,
and Supple Garment Total 85 Lbs
The reason why I like this approach over Dava Newman's designs is that Webb's designs are essentially vacuum-protective underwear that can be easily laundered. Over them you wear whatever unpressurized clothing you need for protection from from heat, cold, and mechanical hazards. All of these are separate, easily laundered items. I think the "one garment that does everything" approach, that we have been using since about 1960, is wrong. "Mix and match" is way more flexible.
Besides vacuum
death and microgravity disease, there is
also a radiation hazard to worry about in space. But,
it is not quite what you think:
there are two completely different hazards to worry about. On Earth,
we have two kinds of protection:
the atmosphere, and the magnetic
field. In low Earth orbit, we have only the magnetic field. Outside the magnetic field, going to the moon or anywhere else, there is no protection. Yet these things can be quantified, and some of it shielded fairly effectively. What got me started on this topic were the
dangers posed by the nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan. Keyword “radiation”.
NASA has since lowered its career exposure limits below the older values I had obtained from them. That avoids the slight chance of cancer late in life due to galactic cosmic ray exposure over long times in space. But, it makes passive shielding design bulkier, heavier, and more difficult to design. It's really a trade-off. However, NASA still has not faced up to the erratic but intense floods of radiation from solar eruptions. They haven't yet killed a crew from this, although they came close to that during Apollo. But if they don't address this, they will kill a crew, once we move out beyond the Van Allen belts, and try to stay there. That includes the return to the moon.
Radiation Hazard
Articles:
10-5-18 Space Radiation
Risks: GCR vs SFE
4-11-15 Radiation
Risks for Mars Trip
5-2-12 Space Travel Radiation Risks
3-24-11 Radiation and Humans
3-17-11 Follow-Up On the Japan Nuclear
Crisis
3-15-11 On the Nuclear Crisis In Japan
On a lighter note, I have
long been interested in pulsejet engines,
especially valveless pulsejets.
While teaching math at TSTC, Waco, I
became involved with mentoring a student who was also interested in
pulsejets. I and a colleague assisted
this student in making his own valveless pulsejet engines, which attention and involvement also turned
this student into an “A” student in math!
Keyword “pulsejet”.
That student built a small engine that eventually pushed an old golf
cart around, and then a much bigger
engine which we together fired up out here on my farm homestead. Photos of the two engines follow:
Smaller Student-Built Valveless Pulsejet Engine (Later Pushed a
Golf Cart)
Larger Student-Built Valveless Pulsejet Engine
Pulsejet Articles:
5-20-12 Recommended Broad
Design Guidelines For Valveless Pulsejet Combustors
4-30-12 Big Student
Pulsejet an Even Larger Hit at TSTC
3-6-12 Student
Pulsejet a Hit at EAA Meeting
11-12-11 Student Pulsejet Project
I have been interested in ethanol fuels since my early days
in college. When I went to work for what
is now Minnesota State University, after
my 20-year career in aerospace defense work ended, I got more serious about it. My next job was at Baylor University in
Waco, Texas, and it dealt directly in alternative fuels
for aircraft. The scope of that included
ethanol (and an ether) as piston-engine fuels,
and biodiesel-jet fuel blends as turbine fuels, plus STC work with the FAA, and also experimental engineering research
work, as well as classroom
teaching.
Not too long after leaving Baylor, I began my own experimental engineering
research at home, using E-85 ethanol
fuel, and stiff ethanol blends, in a variety of vehicles. Those would include straight E-85 ethanol
fuel in an old farm tractor and in an old-time air-cooled VW beetle, plus stiff ethanol blends in a variety of
completely-unmodified cars and 4-stroke lawn and garden equipment. I basically recommend up to E-35 blend
strength, as a “drop-in” fuel, for just about any 4-stroke piston
engine.
The keywords are “ethanol” and “old cars” for most of these
articles. Once again, the latest is the best and most up-to-date.
Articles About Ethanol and Ethanol Blends in Vehicles:
9-1-21 Making Stiff Blends At the Gas Pump
11-3-13 Aviation
Alternative Fuel Compatibility Issues
11-2-13 An Update on Ethanol Fuel Use
8-9-12 Biofuels in
General and Ethanol in Particular
5-4-12 Energy Storage: Batteries vs Unpressurized
Liquid Fuels
6-12-11 Another Red-Letter Day
5-5-11 Ethanol
Does Not Hurt Engines
2-12-11 “How-To” For Ethanol and Blend Vehicles
11-17-10 Nissan Mileage Results on Blends
11-12-10 Stiff Blend Effects in Gasoline Cars
12-15-09 Red Letter
Day: Ethanol VW Experiment Complete
7-1-09 Another
Antique Comes Out of Storage
I have returned part-time out of retirement to help a friend
with his auto repair business. I was
once ASE-certified as a condition of employment while teaching at Minnesota
State in its Automotive and Manufacturing Engineering Technology
department. Before that, I did most of my own automotive maintenance
and repair work. Accordingly, I have posted some articles about basic car
care, plus one funny. These all share the “old cars” and “fun
stuff” keywords.
I have since gone back into retirement. My friend now has a real mechanic, who knows more than I do, and is much more experienced, and faster.
Automotive Care Articles:
8-22-22 Automotive Work (another "funny")
3-4-22 Understanding Your Tires (added to this list as update 5-1-22)
12-3-20 Blinker Fluid (the “funny”, and it is a sight gag)
8-20-20 Underhood Check
7-25-20 Taking
Care of Car Batteries
When I returned to the rocket plant in McGregor for my
second employment there, the family and
I acquired an old farm outside McGregor as our home. We have been there ever since. This place was largely covered in shin- to
knee-high prickly pear cactus, so thick
there were few trails through it. After
grubbing it out of the house’s back yard with hand tools, I decided there had to be a better way to do
this cactus eradication.
I tried a variety of mechanical drags behind my old farm
tractor for some 15 years without success.
The results were always the same:
it looked better for a while, but
returned worse than ever before, within
months. My neighbor was trying shredding
at 1 inch off the ground. Eventually
that worked, but required the neighbor
to be out there shredding, every single
day, the same ground over and over, for 6 (or more) years. The neighbor also tried spraying herbicides
on one patch of ground, which took 3
years to show results, but then totally
reinfested within another 2 years.
I then tried to build a “scooper-upper” out of scrap
steel. The idea was to bust the
aboveground cactus loose from its roots,
and catch it on a tarp towed behind the “scoop-upper”, for disposal in a burn pit. It completely failed to work, because when the tool hit the cactus and
busted it loose from its roots, it fell
forward in front of the tool, instead of
backward onto the deck. The tool then just
ran over the top of the cactus debris. I
gave up in disgust when this failure-to-scoop happened.
I went back up a few months later to salvage the steel, and saw something totally unexpected: the cactus was dead and gone wherever the
tool had been towed! Grass was growing in
the cow pasture where the cactus had been.
It did not take very long to understand that the aboveground cactus
foliage had been crushed and damaged passing underneath the heavy tool, such that the pads dried out and died, before they could put down new roots from the
thorn sites in contact with soil. They
had completely composted away over those months.
I “played” with this tool to get it just “right”, and started killing acres of prickly pear
quite effectively, and with very little
time and effort involved. In fact, I still have this very same experimental
prototype, and it still works today. This prototype led to me filing a patent on
the cactus tool in 2002.
I revised the design to something more producible from real
steel stocks, and built two production
prototypes that worked just as well as the original experimental prototype, but were easier to build. Then,
with the patent in hand as of 2004,
I began building and selling these tools to the public. My first customer wouldn’t wait for a real
production tool, and insisted on buying
one of the two production prototypes. I
still have the other one. I still use
it, and it now serves as an experimental
test bed for new features, too.
As time went by, it
quickly became apparent that other folks had rockier land, or land with tree stumps. I changed the design twice, to add a heavier stabilizing snout, plus a “barge front” wedging surface to get
over small rock outcrops. This was quite
successful, and is embodied in the tools
still built and sold today.
A close friend wanted to do cactus-killing for hire, and bought a “one-off” design from me. I also helped him build and modify a few more
tools, until the “commercial version”
was defined: a really tough snout, a big “barge front”, and retractable wheels to facilitate stepping
over obstacles, plus easier loading up
ramps onto trailers.
When that friend retired,
I revised his “commercial” design into something that used a common core
tool chassis with my “homeowner grade” plain tool. This common core chassis had the big barge
front, and used either a tough snout for
the “plain tool”, or a longer tough
snout for the “hydraulic tool”, that was
also fitted with retractable wheels operated hydraulically. I sell both versions to this very day. Both are towed on a chain bridle behind a
farm tractor’s drawbar.
I am working on a third version that could be an alternative
implement affixed to the hydraulic boom of a skid-steer loader. It uses an already-available “universal”
adapter plate to accomplish this, as a
quick-change item. There is nothing to
report here yet about that project, but
the “plain” and “hydraulic” tools are well-described in a series of articles on
“exrocketman” under the keyword “cactus-killing”.
These two versions are shown in the photo, with the plain tool in the foreground, and the hydraulic tool in the background.
Foreground: Plain
Tool; Background: Hydraulic (Wheeled) Tool
The new skid-steer version has been tested and revised to a form that not only works, but is more easily manufacturable. It is now patent pending.
Articles Related to Cactus Eradication:
2-9-17 Time Lapse Proof It Works
7-30-15 New Cactus Tool Website
1-8-15 Kactus Kicker Development
1-8-14 Kactus Kicker:
Recent Progress
10-12-13 Construction of the Plain Cactus Tool
5-19-13 Loading Steel Safely (Cactus Tool)
12-19-12 Using the Cactus Tool or Tools
11-1-12 About the Kactus Kicker
12-28-11 Latest Production Version of the Kactus Kicker
7-7-23 On the loss of the "Titan" Submersible (added 7-18-23)
4-25-23 Starship/Superheavy Flight Test
12-1-21 The Seal Failure in the SRB That
Doomed Challenger
12-10-20 Spacex Test Flight Results
in Explosion
9-1-20 On
the Beirut Explosion
5-4-18 Some Thoughts on the Anniversary of the West
Explosion
11-1-14 Two Commercial
Spaceflight Disasters in One Week
7-9-13 On
the Asiana 214 Crash
7-9-13 On
the Train Wreck in Quebec
4-18-13 Fertilizer
Explosion in West, Texas
9-23-11 Air Races, Air Shows,
and Risks
6-3-10 Plenty of Blame to Go Around for the Disaster
in the Gulf
5-20-10 It really was the North Koreans who sank the South Korean ship
Update 1-1-23: these are the articles related to towed decoys:
Between my tenures at the McGregor rocket shop, I worked at what was then Tracor Aerospace in
Austin, Texas, doing aircraft and ICBM countermeasures
work. The bulk of this related to towed
aircraft decoys, which are more advanced
aircraft countermeasures against missiles than the traditional chaff and
flares. I did all sorts of lab, wind tunnel,
and flight tests with these things.
To a great extent, I had to
design my own tests, test hardware, and equipment, too.
Tracor Austin became part of British Aerospace after I left
to go back to the rocket shop in McGregor,
and it closed entirely, only
somewhat later. When you combine the
typical corporate management misbehavior with the massive defense industry
contraction that happened after the fall of the Soviet Union, this plant closure outcome is entirely
unsurprising. That was as true for the
rocket shop as well as for Tracor. And
it is why I had to leave the aerospace defense industry entirely, after being laid off in late 1994 due to the rocket
plant closure in McGregor.
My work at Tracor in towed aircraft decoys related to two
distinct types of decoys: towed hard
body decoys, and towed ribbons. The hard bodies are exactly that: some sort of small airframe towed behind the
aircraft that it is intended to protect,
on some sort of towline. These
could be radar (RF) decoys to replace chaff,
or they could be infrared (IR) decoys to replace flares and
jammers. I worked on both of these towed
decoy types (RF and IR). Towed RF decoys
are now operational with the air forces of multiple nations, because they really work.
The towed ribbon decoys are quite different, being rather similar to windsocks and soft
towed gunnery targets. The technologies
supporting this concept apply only to RF,
and are restricted to only extreme-low observables aircraft. I also worked on these. One huge issue is stable tow for extended
periods of time, when the
“flapping-flag” effect wants to destroy them in mere seconds at jet aircraft
speeds.
Obviously,
deployment, especially very rapid
deployment, is another huge issue with
these ribbon decoys, as well as with the
hard body decoys. Solving it requires expertise in dynamics as well as
aerodynamics, plus knowledge of all
sorts of mechanisms.
Here is the list of my towed decoy articles available as of
this update. Future updates may add
more.
1-1-23 Towed Hardbody Decoys (could IR or RF)
11-2-21 The “Warm Brick” Ramjet Device (nonpropulsive application to an infrared decoy)
Later possible
articles on deployment and on towed ribbons
No comments:
Post a Comment