Apr 142021
 

A YouTuber who has, ahem, come to my attention before has produced a video on the concept of the “Nazi Sun Gun.” In a nutshell, it’s the idea that the Nazis had plans to orbit a gigantic mirror in space; the mirror would focus sunlight to a point on the Earth and burn cities to ash. As a yarn it’s entertaining enough; as history it’s a bit dubious; as physics it’s laughable magical thinking up there with car engines that burn water.

There are two major problems with the “Sun Gun” story:

1: It is very poorly documented. There were a few news and magazine articles on the topic immediately after the war; both the New York Times and Life covered it. But none of these stories provide any documentary evidence for the claims. It *appears* that someone who didn’t know any better stumbled across Herman Oberth’s ideas for an orbiting mirror from the early 1920’s. And while his ideas were reasonable enough given the time, his ideas were to provide some illumination at night, not make cities burst into flames. In all probability, some reporter, or perhaps a military officer looking for some press, heard something they didn’t quite understand and, using the journalistic integrity that CNN has demonstrated so well, blew it far out of proportion for the 1940’s equivalent of internet clout.

2: The physics does not work *AT* *ALL.*

The difference between providing useful levels of illumination and light so intense that wood catches fire is many, many orders of magnitude. For example: on Pluto, the sunlight is about 1/1500 less intense than it is on Earth… and that’s still more than adequate to read by. The full moon, which is strong enough to do useful things in, is only 1/400,000 as intense as full sunlight. In contrast, starting a fire with light requires light *far* more intense than plain everyday daylight. Whether using a parabolic mirror or a glass lens, you have to focus a lot of sunlight into a small area to get fires going… and typically you have to hold it for a while to do that.

OK, so why is this a problem for a space mirror? Because the sun isn’t a point source of light. It is a distinct circular area, about one half of a degree in apparent diameter. This means a parabolic mirror or a lens can *not* focus the light to a point, but to a circle. This limits how intense the spot can be. To first approximation, the best you can do, given really, really good workmanship, reflectivity and aiming accuracy, is to make your mirror look as bright (from the viewpoint of the target) as the sun. If you do it right, and your mirror is as big in the sky as the sun, your target will receive the equivalent of full daylight. So if you aim this fantastic mirror at a city that’s currently in night-time – and it would be difficult to do so with a daylit city – you will provide the city with the equivalent of normal daylight. Blue sky, chirping birds, all that. But that is far, FAR from causing fires.

And even that would require a truly VAST mirror. If your mirror is orbiting at 200 miles, about ISS altitude, it would have to be 1.75 miles across to look as big as the sun. And think of the geometry: you’re trying to reflect sunlight down onto a city. But if you’re only 200 miles up, that means most of the time when you’d be in position to fry a city, there’d be a *planet* in the way. Your mirror would be in darkness. So, move it out to 5,000 miles, as the “Sun Gun” articles suggested the Nazis were planning. In order to be as big in the sky as the Sun now, since you are 25 times further away your mirror would need to be 43.75 miles in diameter. We’re getting on to about the size of the Death Star… and all you can do is turn night into a pleasant, brief day for some city or other. If you want to start fires, you need to be *hundreds* of times more powerful… which means you need to have tens the diameter. A 400+ mile diameter mirror is something that is beyond stupid.

This is not physics only discovered post-war; this has been known for centuries, ever since children discovered the psychopathic delights of frying ants with magnifying glasses. Imagine being that ant and looking up to see a magnifying glass being moved into position in order to burn you. In the moments before your compound eyes fail and your brain melts… just how much of the sky does that magnifying glass take up? A very large percentage of it. An orbiting mirror meant to burn cities would have to be equivalently huge.

This is not mysterious; this is basic. So whenever I see a discussion of the “Sun Gun” with no mention that the idea is simply unworkable fantasy that defies logic and optics, I get a little miffed.

 Posted by at 6:00 pm
Mar 312021
 

Just released, the March 2021 rewards for APR Patrons and Subscribers. Included this month:

Diagram/art: a large format scan of an artists concept of the XC-14. This was printed with a large number of signatures; they seem to be Boeing engineers.

Document 1: “Project Hummingbird.” An FAA document summarizing the characteristics of STOL and VTOL aircraft circa 1961, including bogh built and proposed types. This was scanned from a clean original!

Document 2: “The Thor Missile Story.” Old, old, incredibly old school media… a film strip propaganda piece about the statues of the Thor IRBM.

CAD diagram: the WWII era German DFS 228 rocket powered high altitude recon plane, proposed operational version.

 

 

 

If this sort of thing is of interest, sign up either for the APR Patreon or the APR Monthly Historical Documents Program.




Because I forgot to mention the January and February rewards… subscribers/patrons got these (new subscribers can order them as back issues):

January 2021: Titan IIIC/IIIM booster rockets; CAD diagram of Post-Saturn concepts; a Convair Heavy Bombardment Airplane brochure; a fractional XF-103 mockup review and technical description; a fractional Westland paper on VTOL; a General Dynamics report on a proposed turboprop transport for Saturn stages.

February, 2021: An Aerion SST brochure; a Lockheed SST diagram; Dornbergers report on a commercial rocket powered airliner (scanned from a clean vintage copy); an early Convair jet flying boat bomber brochure; a CAD diagram comparing General Atomics’ ten-meter Orions for the USAF and NASA.

 Posted by at 5:13 pm
Mar 262021
 

In the long, long ago, Lockheed tried to sell the F-22 to the US Navy. In order to accommodate the needs of Naval aviation, the aircraft would have had to have been massively modified… most obviously by giving the aircraft variable geometry wings like the F-14’s. Clearly the Navy didn’t go for it: the cost of the program would have been immense, as would have been the risks. The F-22 ended up being troubled enough with materials and maintenance nightmares; add to that the rigors of slamming into carrier decks, constant humidity and salt air, all the other bothersome details of operating from ships at sea; and add to THAT the fact that while the NATF (Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter)*looked* like the F-22, it would have shared very few structures in common with its Air Force cousin and would have been basically a new aircraft… it would undoubtedly have been massively expensive to a degree that even the F-35 would have been hard pressed to match.

 

The fullrez scan of the artwork has been made available at 300 DPI to all $4/month patrons/subscribers in the 2021-03 APR Extras folder at Dropbox. If you would like to help fund the acquisition and preservation of such things, along with getting high quality scans for yourself, please consider signing on either for the APR Patreon or the APR Monthly Historical Documents Program.




 Posted by at 2:08 pm
Mar 172021
 

Somehow or other, yet another YouTube video has been produced on the giant nuclear powered Lockheed CL-1201. Seems strange that after all this time this rather obscure design is suddenly getting traction… it’s almost as if YouTubers watch and copy each other. Wheird.

Anyway, *imagine* my surprise to find that the video has one of my copyrighted diagrams in it, without attribution, lightly modified and dumbified. Huh.

Video diagram:

My diagram, taken from Aerospace Projects Review issue V1N3 and US Transport Projects #4:

Yay, I guess? Would be nice if people made some effort to acknowledge where their stuff comes from.

 

 Posted by at 9:10 am
Mar 102021
 

This design has appeared here before… once as a piece of art from Life magazine, and once as an issue of US Transport Projects. This was a very early, very preliminary notional concept for a passenger carrying supersonic aircraft; whether it would have technically worked is debatable, but almost assuredly it would have been a financial disaster. It would have consumed large quantities of fuel and dropped sizable rocket units to fly a small number of passengers a relatively limited distance at a relatively low supersonic speed. Still: everything has to start from somewhere.

 

 Posted by at 8:57 pm
Mar 072021
 

A video (made with a few contributions from yours truly, and, yes, attributed as such within the video) describing the 1970s Boeing design for an ICBM-carrying airliner, the MC-747. This is described and illustrated in US Bomber Projects issue 21, AVAILABLE HERE.

An interesting idea to be sure, but an unsafe one. Were one of these aircraft to go down for whatever reason, the results would be No Damned Good. Almost certainly the warheads would not go nuclear, but it’s always possible that the combo of the crash, the burning jet fuel and the solid rocket propellant merrily burning away might cause the chemical explosives in the warheads to go off, potentially scattering plutonium all over hither and yon. Worse still would be if the plutonium got sprinkled with the solid propellant and the plutonium combusted, scattering not just chunks and bits of plutonium, which would be bad enough, but clouds of plutonium oxide or plutonium chloride.

Perhaps more dangerous would be the Soviet reaction. They’d be in a constant state of freaking out every time one of these took to the sky, and they probably would have difficulty telling an MC-747 from an E-4 or a civilian 747. And, of course, they’d have to have their own. the AN-124 would be the logical choice for an ICBM carrier, and chances are good they’d do as good of a job with it as they did with Chernobyl, the Kursk or the Polyus.

 Posted by at 12:58 pm
Mar 062021
 

From well before the B-58 program began, the Convair designers intended for their four-engined supersonic bomber to have a relatively gigantic pod underneath containing fuel and a nuke. The illustration below shows an early B-58 concept with the outboard engine nacelles located above the wing, together with a collection of potential bomb/fuel pods. “Freefall” contains an H-bomb; “Ferret” is electronic intelligence gathering; photo recon is obvious; and PPB is… hmmm. Note that none of these seem to have rockets in the tail, the ferret and photo recon pods doubtless were intended to return with the aircraft rather than be dropped.

 

 Posted by at 8:03 pm
Mar 052021
 

An Aerojet concept for a boost-phase ICBM interceptor.

This would be a space-based anti-missile system composed of two high thrust solid rocket motors and a kill vehicle composed of a substantial set of optics, some impressive late 1980’s computers and most likely a hydrazine monoprop divert system. The missile would be meant to physically impact an ICBM while still being lofted by the first stage; this is an bigger, slower and brighter target than the later, faster, smaller stages and warheads, but you have to be *fast* to reach out and tag a missile in the first moments of flight.

 

 Posted by at 5:36 pm
Mar 022021
 

Soon to compete with SpaceX, the Rocket Lab “Neutron.” Building on their relatively dinky Electron, the Neutron will be able to orbit 8 metric tons (including manned payloads) and will feature a reusable first stage much akin to the Falcon 9 first stage.

It looks to be substantially stubbier than Falcon 9 which should make it much more stable on the landing pad which will likely be a ship or platform out at sea.

Rocket Lab is technically an American company, but the founder is a New Zealander and many launches occur from there as well. Much of the Electron manufacturing occurs in New Zealand; the 3D-printed rocket engines are made in California.

Rocket Lab, like SpaceX before it, should cause many, MANY heads to hang in shame. Who? Well, let’s start with the likes of Boeing and Lockheed. Those titans of the aerospace world should have had this sort of capability *decades* ago. But they chose not to. And the best they’ve come up with is the as-yet unflown “Vulcan,” which is *lame* comparatively. Who else? Oh… how about the United Kingdom? They used to have a planet-spanning empire. They used to have a pretty snazzy launch vehicle of their own, the Black Arrow… which they abandoned fifty years ago. And now New Zealand has not only surpassed *all* of the British Empire with their Electron (dinky as it it, its payload still exceeds that of the Black Arrow), if the Neutron comes along – which there’s no reason to suppose it won’t, though the initial launch date of 2024 might prove optimistic – then the UK will look *even* *worse.*

If Neutron works, then there’ll be no excuses whatsoever. Every nation on the planet *should* have their own launch capability… and in a number of cases, such as the US, their should be *dozens* of new launch vehicles competing to prove who can launch the most for the least.

 

 Posted by at 2:25 pm