From (by) (email me there please)… This is a sub-site to main site at

This web page last updated 10 March 2023


Aerostat Maneuvering Techniques and Hiding Rockets from Zombie Radar




This sub-page to ( ) is duplicated at also (at ).  Here, we briefly add comments and additions to what was described and discussed at , with the full title being “Propulsion Designs Using Novel Nested COPVs and the Astron Omega 1 Engine” (1st paper on associated topics), and then also at (2nd paper).  This new paper (here) then briefly discusses how aerostats (gas-bags, blimps, and dirigibles) can be maneuvered (this is mostly internet research, but includes new technologies which some readers may not be aware of).  Finally, the bulk of this paper discusses how one would hide rockets (missiles) from radar detection.  Radar absorptive materials are barely discussed.  More-so, the focus here is mostly on non-metallic (harder for radar to “see”) structural materials (including, especially, for pressure vessels), fuels, and oxidizers.  Much attention is paid to the “dielectric constants” of candidate materials.




1st COPVs Document 2

2nd COPVs Document 2

Preamble, and Bits of Boilerplate. 3

Additions to 2nd COPVs Document 3

Links and Facts About Aerostats. 8

Maneuvering Aerostats. 11

Healing the Zombies. 12

Radar, Materials, and Dielectric Constants. 13

Radar Absorptive Materials (RAM) 16

Non-Metallic Pressure Vessels. 17

Minimal-Metal Rocket Throat and Nozzle. 25

Solid-State Rockets and Fuels. 26



1st COPVs Document


The first preceding document in this series is at and at (Same document, 2 locations)…  So now, for the remainder of this document, I can just hyper-link to 1st COPVs Document when needed, and cut clutter.


2nd COPVs Document


The second preceding document in this series is at and at (Same document, 2 locations)…  So now, for the remainder of this document, I can just hyper-link to 2nd COPVs Document when needed, and cut clutter.  Hopefully, I will completely document all of my associated new ideas (and newly-found sources) on this third go-around, but who knows, I may need to write more later


Preamble, and Bits of Boilerplate


As before, as with other sub-pages of, the intent here is to “defensively publish” propulsion-related (and “misc.”) ideas, to make them available to everyone “for free” (sometimes called “throwing it into the public domain”), and to prevent “patent trolling” of (mostly) simple, basic ideas.  Accordingly, currently-highly-implausible design ideas (usually marked as such) are sometimes included, just in case they ever become plausible, through radical new technology developments (often in materials sciences).

            Dear Reader, excuse me as I will often slip out of stilted formal modes of writing here.  I have no boss or bosses to please with these “hobby” writings of mine, so I’ll do it my way!  I’ll often use a more informal style from here on in, using “I”, “we”, “you”, etc.  “We” is you and me.  “You” are an engineer, manager, or other party interested in what’s described here.  Let’s thwart the patent trolls, and get ON with it!


Additions to 2nd COPVs Document


First, before presenting the list, let me say that the list heavily focuses on the Omega 1 engine from Astron.  No, I don’t own any stock in Aston, nor do any of my friends or relatives!  I just happen to be very impressed by this engine, and believe that it should find many excellent applications.  This engine could easily be modified to create a most excellent gas compressor.  See the 1st COPVs Document for details on the simple modifications needed to turn it into a compressor.  Use a search-string (in that paper) of “I would take the existing Astron Omega 1 design”…

In descending order of importance (as ranked by Yours Truly, of course), here are the major additions or embellishments (things that I have learned most recently) that I would like to now briefly address here:

‘1)  Here is a collection of links concerning “Jetoptera”, which creates propulsion using jets of high-pressure air being released.  And of course, I believe that the Astron Omega 1 could make an EXCELLENT air compressor for such a propulsion source!  See and and and .

            (This link is repeated from above) gives us some ideas about just HOW this propulsion system works.  Imported from this source, see the following:  The fast-moving air is directed backward over the air taxi's wing-shaped surface around the ring, where it creates negative pressure — what aircraft use to lift up into the sky. But for the J-2000, this lift-capable differential pressure is canceled from equal negative pressure zones surrounding the ring — creating a net low-pressure vortex in the center of the ring, which then pulls ambient air through at a very high velocity.

The aircraft also uses a process called fluid entrainment — vortices coalescing where cylindrical bodies of accelerated air leave the ring, interacting with stationary ambient air surrounding it.  Crucially, J-2000's concept designs can suck up 15 times the volume of air pulled through the ring by the compressor.”

Added comments by Yours Truly:  A compressor (think Astron Omega 1!) combined with a COPV or array of COPVs for “smoothing out” power demands would fit in here MOST excellently!  Your COPV(s) could give you a boost at VTOL takeoffs and landings, orientation changes, and at any time when you might need a sharp boost in acceleration.  At all other times, your on-board “Omega 1”-based compressor could keep your COPV(s) “topped off”.  And these comments may roughly apply to the below item also…

‘2)  See and ...  Here, we see that compressed air bursts (with no moving surfaces) for flight control, can be effective.  I would speculate that this probably only applies to higher flight speeds, but I could be wrong.  Quoted from there, see the following…  Aurora Flight Sciences' CRANE design, which does not yet have an official X-plane designation or nickname, instead uses an active flow control (AFC) system to maneuver the aircraft using bursts of highly pressurized air.”

‘3)  See the 2nd COPVs Document and search for the following search-string:  What I would now like to plainly state is this”, and see details there.  This concerns turning bitterly cold liquid hydrogen into hydrogen gas (“gasifying” it, while also using it as a heat sink, for pulling heat out of, for example, being-compressed other gasses).  I need to now add the following comments also:  Before using the resulting hydrogen gas to fuel an Aston Omega 1 engine, one would ALSO need to pressurize said hydrogen to about 300 PSI.  I learned this through informal channels, and so, do not care to try to document the source.  Contact Astron for details if needed (assuming that you’re a “real” customer and not and idle hobbyist like me!).

Options might be obvious, but one could use a separate Omega 1 engine driven by conventional petroleum fuel, for compressing the hydrogen, which would in turn fuel an array of other engines.  The Omega 1 only weighs about 38 pounds, so the mass penalty is not large.  Or one could use a battery-backed electric compressor at startup, and switch the compressor to other power later, for the start-up power for initial hydrogen compression, similar to common gasoline-powered cars.  OR one could retain enough hydrogen gas pressure as the liquid hydrogen is gasified, to begin with!  The problem shouldn’t be all that hard, but it does need to be considered.

‘4) just for FYI...  It doesn’t really fit in with my recent focus on COPVs, but the Astron Omega 1 engine (which can run on hydrogen) would sure make a good fit into this or similar aircraft!  In such cases, the Omega 1 could be directly mechanically connected to propellers.  Pressurized air and-or COPVs might only fit as supplements here, in the style of #1 and-or #2 above…

‘5)  Again just a “general fit” here on my interests, and not COPVs specifically.  But see .  Here, propeller loops (not conventional propeller blades) generate less noise and better efficiency in air and in water.  On air drones too, then, of course.  Clearly these could be used for aerostat maneuvering (see further below).

‘6)  This one is HIGHLY relevant to the 2nd COPVs Document, where my main focus was describing how COPVs could “double up” as structural elements of an aircraft (in the walls and ceiling of a fuselage), and as storage banks for compressed air and-or oxygen.  In that document, I envisioned rather slower-speed (subsonic) aircraft using this trick.  However, now that I’ve learned something new, thus-stored compressed air might have another sensible use, in much higher-speed aircraft or flight modes.

Well then here goes; source link first.  See  “Here’s why Soviets never developed their own SR-71 and why the MiG-25 Foxbat was never as fast as the Blackbird”.  From this article, “(These days, most turbine engines have hollow turbine blades, with “cooler” air from the compressor blown through them and out tiny holes in their leading edges. The air forms a film over the blade, insulating it from the heat of the surrounding gas. Neither the SR-71 nor the MiG-25 had these blades. Neither had the ceramic coatings we use today. These changes would have enabled an operating speed increase, but probably not more than Mach 3.6 or so).”

Note the part about slightly-hollow turbine blades, with “cooler” air flowing through them.  Well, how about MUCH cooler air being used instead?  Envision this:  Compressed and cooled air from our COPVs is routed to the leading edge (tip) of the common spinning shaft through the center of the compressor blades and then through the turbine blades.  Somewhere between the banks of COPVs and the final destination (the turbine blades), the compressed air is de-compressed, and so (at that location) its temperature drops.  Decompress it SOONER is good for lighter-weight pipes or hoses carrying said pressurized air.  Decompress it LATER is good for preserving its cooling power till the last minute.  Make your engineering compromises accordingly...  Also keep in mind that yes, in this design, the cool-incoming-air pipe would have to obstruct the leading (air intake) edge of the entire engine, at least a little bit.  Unless one somehow manages to inject the cold air between the compressor and the turbines, which could be done, with some difficulty, and, again, with some engine airflow obstruction, anyway.

So this colder air now has more cooling power when it reaches the turbine blades (after travelling some distance through the central engine axis).  In this spinning axis, the cavity for the cold air may need to find a WEE tad of extra space, for heat insulation.  Maybe our rocket-launching jet aircraft (“Cosmic Girl” style) can now kick into higher speed at the highest altitudes, before finally launching the rocket.  Or maybe we could get wild and crazy, and have a slow-speed large “mother aircraft” drop a “daughter aircraft”, which the “daughter aircraft” using this cold-air-injection trick to climb higher and faster, and THEN finally the “daughter aircraft” would launch the rocket.  Or essentially, add this air-breathing jet as the first stage on a multi-stage rocket.  Other variations may be possible.

‘7)  OK, admittedly this seriously deviates from the topic areas of the previous two papers of mine, but it “flows from” #6 above, and stays with my general fascination with aerospace propulsion.  See the “ceramic coated turbine blades” aspect of #6 above (in the cited source).  See also (which is mentioned again further below).  Note that this latter source may lead to future higher-temperature turbine blades using little or no metal, which may lead to better efficiency, less mass, and faster ability to “throttle” the engines up and down.  Less mass in the engines means less spin-inertia (lower “angular momentum”), and so, of course, it leads to quicker engine-speed changes.

And now I want to briefly get REALLY crazy, and suggest another variation on ceramic jet-engine blades.  Some years ago I documented this idea at (root page; search for the heading “Ceramic Turbine Blades for High-Speed Jet Engines, Mounted on the Outer Engine Wall”.  I have now posted this (my root page slightly modified) to ResearchGate, even though the ideas there are not quite up to speed.  For reference, it is now posted to .  In summary, even today’s ceramic materials can be kept in structural compression mode, not structural tension mode, if they are mounted at the outer diameter (instead of the inner diameter as they conventionally are) of a jet engine’s turbine section.  Centrifugal forces will compress (not pull apart) the blades, in this blade-mounting mode.  This, sad to say, will increase the spin inertia (angular momentum) of the engine pretty badly.  One would ALSO face the problem of, WHAT kind of material will we use to hold these blade-bases together, at the OD (Outer Diameter)?  Such “outer rim” materials will be FORCED to resist very high tensile forces, at high heat!  Centrifugal forces will concentrate hot, compressed gasses there also.  This whole idea is highly implausible, but…  Has been mentioned!  Patent trolls are hereby thwarted!  That is, as usual, future technology advancements may make possible, that which is impossible today.


Links and Facts About Aerostats


Aerostats maneuvering comes further below.  First, let me provide some links and facts, for general background. is of general interest, especially from a most-recent military perspective.   “Canadian ‘SpaceRyde’ Files for Bankruptcy”….  From there, “The story so far: Over the last few years, SpaceRyde has been building a system that would use a stratospheric balloon to lift the vacuum-optimized Ryder rocket above 99% of the atmosphere, release the vehicle, and ignite its engines.”  Also, “The business model was simple: offer a $250,000 flat fee to launch payloads under 25 kg, then an additional $10,000 per kg up to a maximum payload mass of 150 kg and max price of $1M per launch.”  (Emphasis mine.)  So my comment:  Yes, it looks like it could be done (balloon-hoisted rocket, rocket to orbit)…  Not a new idea…  No large payloads, though is also a (seemingly mis-labelled) link that is highly relevant to high-altitude aerostats.

More “FYI” on “Rockoons” (rocket balloons): .  The biggest obstacle here is sharp limits on the mass-size to be lifted.  The problem could be summarized as “lift aggregation”.  Think of the flying-house animated movie “Up”.  Just how many balloons would it take (how much volume of lifting gas) to lift a whole house, and how long would the longest attaching strings then have to be?  How much would those long strings then weigh?  By the time the strings were all bunched together to carry all that lifting force, they’d have to be heavy chains or cables!  Or the lift-capturing walls of a giant balloon would get VERY thick or heavily reinforced, to transfer all of that lifting force, if we use one large balloon instead of many-many small ones.  Only near-miraculous future “super-materials” will solve this problem.

See “A Brief Review of Technology and Materials for Aerostat Application” for a good detailed document about modern fabrics for aerostats.

Misc: says…   Inflated with hydrogen, Hindenburg was able to carry 21,076 lbs of payload; if the ship had been inflated with helium it could not have made the flight at all.” is of general interest, but is badly cluttered with advertising. “Research of near space hybrid power airship with a novel method of energy storage” is definitely very relevant.  Regenerative fuel cells are discussed here.  See also “Ultra Long Duration Ballooning Technology Development”.

See ...  My notes form there:  The zero-pressure balloons really DO sometimes vent their lift gasses at the bottoms as they go up into thinner air!  The other kinds of lift balloons are pumpkin-shaped and are called super-pressure balloons…  Banana-shaped plastic strips called “gores” are heat-sealed together, often, to create lift balloons.

See from there:  Helium, the same gas used to fill party balloons, is used in NASA balloons. These very large balloons can carry a payload weighing as much as 3,600 kilograms (8,000 pounds), about the weight of three small cars. They can fly up to 42 kilometers (26 miles) high and stay there for up to two weeks.”  (Emphasis mine.) 

See   From there, “This means that at sea level on a 0ºC day, hydrogen provides enough buoyancy to lift 1.2031 kg per cubic meter, while helium can only lift 1.1145 kg per cubic meter of gas. Hydrogen, then, provides about 8% more gross lift than helium does.”  ….   Also….   Helium, in other words, is around 67 times more expensive than hydrogen.  (Emphasis mine.)  This article here is a most excellent summary of MANY reasons why hydrogen should be the preferred lifting gas of the future!

See which does use hydrogen…  Also see where we learn that it is zero-pressure balloon…  From there, “To descend the Spaceship releases a tiny amount of gas that turns into water, so the vehicle is technically near-zero emissions.”  ….Under “safety” it says…  “It is what is technically called a ‘zero-pressure’ balloon…”  This is intended as a passenger-rated “ride” high into the skies, and will go operational (???) soon.  Note that it has a safety release whereby the rope-dangling gondola can detach from the balloon, using unspecified means (probably explosive bolts or “pyrotechnic devices”, I would bet).  The gondola can then descend by parachute.  So those kinds of problems seem to have been already solved…

Also note the idea of a “sulfur dioxide hose into the sky” for climate manipulation (no, I’m not about to discuss that!).  See .  The 2nd picture down from the top is most interesting!  V-shaped balloons and a hose up into the sky!  SPICE (Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering) in Britain was investigating this…  See and .  Maybe the hose could bring lifting gasses up to each balloon as the gasses inevitably slowly leak, and then we could have rope-climbers (hose-climbers) deliver to-be-launched rockets to the top?  But we’d still have the mass limitations due to the above-discussed “lift aggregation” problems, so this isn’t much of a “killer app” here.  Maybe new “super-materials” will one day make this work much better!  If so, we need a cool acronym for our “Stairway to Heaven”!  Something like Aerostat-Pegged (Propelled, Powered?) Elevator (Escalator?) – Step Ladder Into Position (Incremental Positioner?) = APE-SLIP!!!!  Let’s all go APE-SLIP, up skyward!

OK, back to seriousness.  That’s probably enough links and facts about aerostats.  Let’s move on.


Maneuvering Aerostats


Aerostats maneuvering, then.  Some of these remarks will be totally obvious, and some will be less so.  For starters, see (a repeat from the “Additions” section, item #5) for the kind propellers we should use.  See the “Additions” section, item #1 for a (“Jetoptera”) alternative to propellers.  See the “Additions” section, item #2 for a (“Aurora”) possible supplement to propellers (I suspect that it is more applicable to high speeds only).

Note that we could “drink from our hydrogen lifting gas” for an energy source.  Energy (from burning the lift gas) could be provided using a fuel cell or an internal combustion engine.  If the latter is used, the Astron Omega 1 engine (only 38 pounds or so!) would be a good choice, but note that the hydrogen gas would need to be compressed first.  For more notes about that (compression needed), see the “Additions” section, item #3.

Batteries and-or compressed air (in COPVs) can be used for energy storage.  Solar collectors could also be an energy source (all rather obvious, it seems to me).  Note that compressing ambient air on-board the aerostat (plus gondola of course), inside COPVs or other tanks, would add mass to the assembly, and so, could be used for buoyancy control, as well as (the compressed air could be used for) propulsion.

Gathering the hydrogen gas (for burning for power) out of a dirigible, blimp, or super-pressure gas-bag should be trivial.  For gathering it out of the bottom of a zero-pressure balloon or “gas-bag”, it might not be totally trivial.  Protrude a stiff or semi-stiff hose (pipe) a ways up from the gondola, up into the gas-bag, since we don’t want our gas (hydrogen) intake to get clogged up with slack gas-bag fabric.  At the top of the hose, we place a large wiffle-ball-style, heavily perforated, lightweight (plastic or fiberglass, say) ball, for hydrogen gas intake.

Also inside the perforated ball, we could place electric-powered heater coils (chromium-nickel works well), to heat the lifting gas, for more lift.  Zero-pressure gas-bags tend to sink at night, in the dark, and rise up when heated by sunshine, in the day.  So heater coils could add more buoyancy control to correct for that at night, or for other uses.

That’s all that I have for that topic!


Healing the Zombies


Next, I want to move on to hiding that which an aerostat might carry, as payload, from radar.  Much of this technology will be derived from military applications, clearly.  I don’t want to anger or offend anyone with my own biased political or military advocacy, though.  I am hoping that we can all agree that zombies should be compassionately healed (immunized), whenever possible!  So no normal-human “enemies” will be discussed below!  Our payload will be clusters of zombie-seeking hypodermic needles, is all.  So I hope that you, Dear Reader, won’t put me into my moodiest, bluest funk, by coming knocking at my door, with a thousand million questions, about hate and death and war!  I seek ONLY to heal the zombies!

For our purposes, if or when the famous “zombie apocalypse” comes, the zombies will likely be nearly every bit as technologically talented and resourceful as we are, and they will NOT want to be healed!  So…  Here’s where we’re headed…  Our ultra-cheap hydrogen balloons will waft our not-warheads over zombie territory, and try to evade their radars, and we’ll vaccinate them against zombie-ism, with our… (??? Peace-heads and healing-heads sound too funky)… NOT-warheads!  They’ll be carried on steerable-guided-finned gravity not-bombs and-or not-missiles, all designed to be low-budget, and presenting low visibility to zombie radar.

That said, let’s go through a few links (concerning relevant military matters) for reference, and then move on.  As I’m writing this (as of early March 2023), Chinese spy balloons over the USA are still very topical.  They (balloons) can be assumed to be relatively cheap.  We don’t know for sure, but SOME of these balloons may have been domestic (student?) weather balloons, costing (?) what, $20 or $50 or so? says that the USA did spend an expensive $400,000 AIM-9X Sidewinder missile to take it down (plus quite non-trivial operating expenses).  “The Google” will tell you plenty more.  Briefly, tells us that “The descriptions of all three unidentified objects shot down Feb. 10-12 match the shapes, altitudes and payloads of the small pico balloons, which can usually be purchased for $12-180 each, depending on the type.”  So clearly, we might be able to bankrupt the “defensively” over-spending zombies with hydrogen balloons, especially if the balloons carry low-cost zombie-threatening zombie-healing non-warheads!  Include many decoys that appear (to vision and to radar) nearly identical to the “real McCoy”, of course!

Semi-random grab-bag of military-related links follows:   Analysis: Ukraine's new weapon will force a Russian shift”.  This concerns a so-called “glide bomb”, or Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB).  For the launcher, see .  My summary from there, it is launched from a mobile launcher, it is ballistic, guided by jam-proofed GPS and inertial navigation combined, and it does glide on wings as it comes in for “final approach”.  GLSDB cost for ammo is about $40 K to $60 K (per round) according to .  We shall hope to do MUCH better (cheaper) than that, for zombie-healing not-warheads!

From  Iranian-made drones cost as little as $20,000 to make but up to $500,000 to shoot down, a growing concern in Ukraine, report says  Also from there, “While the Shahed-136 drones being deployed by Russia cost as little as $20,000 to make, shooting one out of the sky can cost between $140,000 and $500,000, The Times reported.”

OK, now that we’ve briefly mentioned autonomous military drones; how about shifting over to healing drones, since we want to heal the zombies?  See African drones for medical supplies delivery: .

That’s probably enough points to compare with where we want to go.


Radar, Materials, and Dielectric Constants


            Now, finally we get to the “meat” of this paper.  We want to hide our healing non-warheads (and delivery vehicles) from zombies and their radars, who (zombies) actively resist healing.  In summary, the lower a dielectric constant of a material, the less visible it is to radar.  Metals have “infinite” dielectric constants, and reflect radar all too well (if you’re trying to hide).  Any materials (almost always metals) that conduct electricity well, will have very high dielectric constants.  That means that our avionics (electronics) will HAVE to contain radar-reflecting metals in circuit boards, wires, and cables…  There’s no avoiding that!  But we’ll get to that later.

Meanwhile, we’re interested in the dielectric constants of non-metallic structural materials, rocket fuels, and oxidizers.  Keeping that in mind, let me present sources (sources of tables) of dielectric constants, and associated facts.

Dielectric Constant Defined:  says “The dielectric constant of a substance or material is a measure of its ability to store electrical energy. It is an expression of the extent to which a material holds or concentrates electric flux.  Mathematically, dielectric constant is the ratio of a material's permittivity to the permittivity of free space. This is why it is also known as relative permittivity.” says “The dielectric constant - also called the relative permittivity indicates how easily a material can become polarized by imposition of an electric field on an insulator.  Relative permittivity is the ratio of "the permittivity of a substance to the permittivity of space or vacuum".  This source here has a VERY nice summary of values of this constant, for various materials!  Ceramics are not nearly as good (low) as glass, note. IS DIELECTRIC CONSTANT AND HOW IT EFFECTS RADAR  From there, “Since a higher dielectric means a higher electric flux density, the higher the dielectric constant, the easier it is for the microwave signal to reflect off the media.”  This source also has a short table of values (of some materials) for this constant. saysPermittivity of metals is very high comparable to the permittivity of free space.  So dielectric constant for metal is infinite.”


Tables of Dielectric Constants of Materials: has fairly complete table. does, too. is VERY complete!  From there, SODIUM PERCHLORATE 5.4  is very good.  A “cheat” look-ahead to a further-below topic is, I would much-so love to know what the dielectric constant is for solid rocket fuel, to include this constant for “ammonium perchlorate”, the oxidizer in such fuel, but I can’t find it (for the composite solid fuel, or for the ammonium perchlorate).  Assuming that sodium perchlorate is similar, at least here we have SOME possibly good news. has another such table, and it lists ammonium bromide at 7.1   Again assuming that this is similar to “ammonium perchlorate”, we have some more probably-good news. has a VERY complete list, AND some very good news for us!  Aluminum Powder” is listed at 1.6 to 1.8 (VERY nice and low), and this is a preferred (oxidant) ingredient in modern solid-state rocket fuel.  So we are OK there for solid-state rockets!  Epoxy Resin (Cast ) at 3.6, so OK there…   Wood, dry, at 2-6, and wood, wet, at 10-30.  Now the very low constant for Aluminum Powder” surprises me, since, of course, aluminum is an electrically-conductive metal.  Alumina (aluminum oxide) has a dielectric constant of 9 to 11 or so (or lower, depending on some variables, such as, whose table you look at!).  I would speculate wildly and suspect that the powdered metal form, here, has such a low value for some strange reason related to the utterly weird surface-layer oxidization behavior of aluminum.  See , “Atomic-Scale Insights into the Oxidation of Aluminum”. lists nitroglycerin at 19 so that’s not so good.  This is another bit of a look-ahead “cheat” to topics further below, but nitroglycerin used to be a sometimes-used ingredient of solid rocket motor fuel.  See and concerning nitroglycerin rocket fuel (and solid rocket fuel in general).

That’s enough about dielectric constants for now.  We’ll mention such things a wee tad again further below, for specific materials of interest.


Radar Absorptive Materials (RAM)


            I don’t want to focus on this very much, because it’s shrouded in secrecy.  So let me list a few links and facts, in the interests of listing some ingredients that we MIGHT want to add to our (structural or fuel) materials, to help hide them from the zombies that we so desperately want to heal!  But clearly I’m no expert here, so I’ll not go on and on.  Or on and on and on and on, either!

            OK then, assorted links and facts yet again:  (RAM = Radar Absorptive Materials)  From there,  For different platforms, RAM coatings have been developed with appropriate combination of rubber, cotton-glass, epoxy and mica. Other possibilities are graphite fibres, Kevlar and ferrites.”  See also  “Radar cross section reduction using perforated dielectric material and plasma AMC structure”  Also see  From there, Radar cross section can be measured in dBm (decibels per square meter) or more simply in square meters.”  Also “Instead, the RCS is quoted in terms of the equivalent area of a metal sphere that would reflect back the same radar energy as the aircraft, when viewed at the same altitude, from straight ahead. For example, the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor has a frontal RCS of 0.0001-0.0002m², equivalent to a marble-sized sphere, while the F-35A has an RCS of about 0.0015m² – equivalent to a golf ball-sized metal sphere.”

   mentions ferrite particles and resistive carbon added to fiberglass as RAM materials. says that RAM ingredients can include “iron balls”.  From there, “One of the most commonly known types of RAM is iron ball paint. It contains tiny spheres coated with carbonyl iron or ferrite.”  This link also mentions carbon black, carbon nanotubes, and more.

            Enough of this for now!


Non-Metallic Pressure Vessels


Non-metallic (made of low dielectric constant materials) pressure vessels will be needed to store pressurized gasses, in some rocket-engine designs (for hiding from radar, of course).  If those tanks are NOT subjected to high temperatures, as in, for example, oxygen storage, a solution is fairly obvious.  Use COPVs with plastic liners, or with liners which are themselves made of some sort of composites.  NO metallic COPV liners need apply for this job!  Once again, “The Google Knows All”, so I’ll say no more about that.

Another understanding (or definition) of “pressure vessel” would encompass “combustion chambers” (in rockets here specifically), which are tanks with holes in one or both ends.  Such “tanks” will ALWAYS have a hole at the exhaust end, leading to the rocket nozzle.  If the tanks (combustion chambers) are for a liquid-fueled or a hybrid rocket, there will also need to be an opening or two at the other end of the combustion chamber, for liquid or gas entry (for an oxidizer typically, but also possibly for an oxidant, or fuel, for a hybrid engine known as a “reverse hybrid”).  Liquid-liquid rockets MUST be summarily dismissed here, IMHO (In My Humble Opinion), simply because designing a low-radar-observable (minimal-metals-containing) such rocket engine is near impossible, if not simply flat-out impossible.

So now we’ve narrowed down the pressing needs here, down to a high-temperature, high-pressure, low-dielectric-constant pressure vessel (combustion chamber), for a solid-state or a hybrid rocket engine.  This is NOT an easy row to hoe!  Let’s move on, to describe my best guesses for what such a “pressure vessel” might look like.  Keep in mind the Space Shuttle “Challenger” failure, in which case high-temperature and high-pressure gasses blew out the O-rings in the solid-state (solid-fueled) boosters.  See for example.  The pressure will be felt at the vessel walls, whether hot gasses move, or not.  Once the hot gasses find an escape route (for the lack of a little Dutch boy putting his fingers in the dike-hole, if you will), all hell (rapid erosion) breaks free!

With regards to the above, has a relevant quote.  “Pressure vessel failures – Chamber insulation failure may allow hot combustion gases near the chamber walls leading to a ‘burn-through’ in which the vessel ruptures.”

I’ve got my own personal (but hopefully well-informed) opinions on what all materials might work best here.  Working from the center outwards, let’s first describe some materials that are good candidates here.  For now, we’ll ignore the center, where combustion occurs, and cover categories of that, separately, further below.

First off, consider rockwool and rockboard (which is compressed rockwool).  See , which says “ROCKWOOL insulation is made from non-combustible fire-resistant stone wool that can withstand temperatures above 1,000°C.”  Also see , which says the same.  Note that mineral wool and rockwool are the same thing.  For mineral wool based heat barriers, see , which says “Fire-resistant, non-combustible product with a melting point of approximately 2150°F (1177°C).”  Note that  lists compressive strength but not tensile strength for rockboard.  Tensile strength, sad to say, is NOT going to be one of the virtues of this material! page 5 of 6 shows a time-and-temperature graph; almost 6 hours at more than 2,000 F for stone wool to melt.  “Heat work” (time duration at temperature, often soaking up heat energy during the melting process) is needed to do so, and a rocket (missile) flight will not be anywhere near that long in duration.  To better understand “heat work” (not often specified in materials data sheets), see , for example, which says “Heat Work  (Heading)  “The effect of heat on glaze materials can easily be seen through the use of pyrometric cones. While a pyrometer measures air temperature within a kiln, cones measure the work done by heat energy. Not surprisingly, this is called heat work, a term denoting the combined effect of time and temperature on ceramic material. For example, prolonged heating of a ceramic body at a lower temperature may result in the same degree of vitrification as a shorter period at a higher temperature.”

I can’t find a dielectric constant for rockwool or rockboard.  However, I can get close (derive a good estimate).  See , and from there, “Alumino silicate wool (ASW)  (Heading)  Alumino silicate wool, also known as refractory ceramic fibre (RCF), consists of amorphous fibres produced by melting a combination of aluminum oxide (Al2O3) and silicon dioxide (SiO2), usually in a weight ratio 50:50 (see also VDI 3469 Parts 1 and 5, as well as TRGS 521). Products made of alumino silicate wool are generally used at application temperatures of greater than 900 °C for equipment that operates intermittently and in critical application conditions.”  Also “Kaowool is a type of high-temperature mineral wool made from the mineral kaolin.”

            Now in turn, we can find dielectric constants for the constituent parts of “rockwool” etc.  For alumino silicate wool “dielectric constant”, shows “dielectric constant” at 4.7 to 6.9.  This should be tolerable.  This roughly agrees with , which shows aluminum oxide (alumina) “dielectric constant” of 9 or so.  Silicon dioxide is the other part of rockwool (roughly half), and silicon dioxide “dielectric constant  =  3.8 or so, see .  For an alternate material, see Kaowool; , which says 5.9 to 6.4 for “dielectric constant”, which is not quite as good as Alumino silicate wool blended with silicon dioxide, apparently.

            All of the above should describe rockwool and rockboard fairly well, for our purposes here.  I select rockboard as the first layer (past the being-combusted rocket fuel) for its ability to insulate, and to absorb heat via “heat work”.  It won’t do a good job of holding back pressure (poor tensile strength can be assumed), and won’t be very gas-proof (impermeable) either, I strongly suspect.  One could “lace” this material with RAM (Radar Absorptive Material) if desired.  Note that for RAM here, ferrite would be a good choice for having a high melting point. says that “In pure iron, ferrite is stable below 910 °C (1,670 °F)”.  Also note that the outermost layers of fuel (in a solid-state or hybrid rocket motor) will provide SOME insulation, isolation, and heat-and-pressure protection to all of the other layers of the pressure-vessel walls, as well.

            Almost as an afterthought, see for heat resistant ceramics that can be drawn into fibers.  These might fit in here as well.  From there, “Ceramic fibers made of silicon, boron, nitrogen and carbon remain tough and stable even at temperatures above 1500 degrees Celsius.”  I have no idea what the dielectric constant of this material might be, but ceramics are generally tolerable here, for us, for this. (SGL Carbon) in Wiesbaden, Germany, apparently plans to start producing these fibers, and they may prove to be suitable for building high-temperature-tolerant composites, which are NOT as brittle as ceramics usually are.  Time will tell about price and availability.

            For the next layer of material moving outwards, I chose Borosilicate Glass (AKA “Pyrex”).  This type of glass is well known for being able (unlike other glasses) to withstand heat differentials from one part of the glass to another.  See , which states “Borosilicate glass melts at about 1,650 °C (3,000 °F; 1,920 K).”  Also see , which lists 5.1 as the dielectric constant here.  (That latter source has a handy lists of this constant for other materials as well).  I chose this glass for being gas-proof (impermeable).  Ceramics could work as well, but  have a higher dielectric constant.  I locate this glass OUTSIDE of the rockwool, because I fear that if the glass does shatter…  Note that high pressures inside the glass compared to low pressures outside of the glass, will put the glass into structural tension mode, which glass is NOT good for…  If the glass does shatter, large chunks of glass blown towards the rocket throat and nozzle could obstruct the nozzle.  This would NOT be good!  Blown-loose strands (fibers) of rockwool (from the rockboard) would be more tolerable for this, so I hide the glass behind the rockwool.

            Parenthetically, for the next layer of material moving outwards, I chose the near-miracle material (previously mentioned) of high-temperature ceramic fibers as described at  Many layers of this wrapped tightly around and around the glass would keep the glass tightly bound together, even if the glass cracks.  This could be a final or near-final layer.  Sad to say, these fibers aren’t off-the-shelf available yet, and may be very expensive.  So for most if not all practical purposes… You can safely… ignore this paragraph!

            For the next layer of material moving outwards, I chose an insulating layer, tightly packed.  As a look-ahead “cheat” here, note that the NEXT-outer layer will be selected as a low-dielectric-constant material which is good in structural tension mode (to hold back internal pressure).  I know of no such material which is ALSO tolerant of truly high temperatures as well, so compromises will have to be made, there.  But for this layer now being discussed, I chose compressible materials, which can be tightly packed, thereby pushing from the next-outer layer, in towards the glass.  The glass will then be “pre-stressed”, if you will, or, be put into compression mode.  Now, when the rocket engine is fired up, and internal pressures go way up, at least the pressure DIFFERENTIAL across the glass won’t be quite so bad.  We are lessening the “tensile mode” stress on the glass, that is.

            This tightly compacted compressible layer also adds insulation and an additional “heat-work barrier”, by the way.  Constituents might not need to be quite so tolerant of very high temperatures, and might include loose rockwool fibers, gypsum, graphite (or other forms of carbon), talcum, and strands of Kevlar.  Asbestos fibers would work, but are presumably too toxic.  My best guess is that some majority (predominance) of this compacted material should be the rockwool fibers.  Finally, RAM (Radar Absorptive Material) can be included as well, in this mix.

            The final (or near-final) outer layer would be there to retain pressure, in a gas-impermeable or near-impermeable manner.  We’ll need high-tensile-strength materials there.  Temperature tolerance need not be stellar.  My second choice would be fiber glass.  For a fiber glass “pressure vessel” provider, we could start with, for example, , “Fiberglass Reinforcement Pressure Tanks with a Polyethylene Core”.  We’d probably skip the polyethylene core, though, and go with solid fiberglass.

            My first choice, though (for this outermost or near-outermost layer), would be wood.  Wood will be stronger in tensile mode when it is being pulled apart lengthwise along the grain, instead of being torn apart across the grain.  So the wooden (hollow) cylinder shape should be made of some arbitrary number of long-with-the-grain-of-the-wood shapes.  I think that “4” is a good number here.  Each layer of these 4 shapes should be rotated 45 degrees (out of 360 degrees) with respect to neighboring layers (in a stacked manner similar to offset bricks, one course of bricks layered with offsets to the next), and be glued together (with wood glue) in a shape-enforcing “jig” (it scarcely may deserve to be called a “machine tool”), and pressed down with great force, using clamps or a hydraulic press.  Pressing the wood segments together towards the center, simultaneously with the vertical (through-stack) glue compression, is also highly recommended.  Cure the glued wood for 24 hours or more, and kiln dry it afterwards.  This is done to drive out moisture, since moisture raises the dielectric constant of wood.  Seal the dried wood assembly with gas-proof (waterproof, moisture-proof) paint (epoxy should work well), on inside and outside surfaces.  Test for leaks, and plug leaks with epoxy glue and-or epoxy putty.  A good source of epoxy putty is “Gapoxio”; see .  This is AKA the “A Plus B Putty” formerly known as Gapoxio!  It is simply fired-ceramics powder plus epoxy hardener and resin.

            This is about the only idea here that deserves a drawing, for clarity.



Figure #1


This wooden layer of the pressure vessel should be the final (outermost) layer, most likely.  It might be possible to over-wrap this in a manner similar to over-wrapping conventional COPVs, but this would add mass, thermal insulation (the wood would soak up more heat from the inside, and not be able to shed it to ambient air), and expense.  Some sort of final “paint job” (camouflaged?) might be in order.  And-or, field-deployed zombie-healing personnel could be permitted to write “Heal the Zombies!”, etc., slogans on the paintjobs, as a morale boosting method.  But I think that we are done with this part!

At one end of our “pressure vessel” (AKA combustion chamber) here, we’ll locate the rocket nozzle, and we’ll get to that soon.  In the meantime, we have a bit of a “build the ship in the bottle” problem here, in assembling the inner core (rocket fuel to be burned) and the various layers of the non-metallic pressure vessel.  Using the small “throat” at the leading edge of the nozzle is HIGHLY implausible for “building the ship in the bottle”.  We’ll need to leave the various layers (cylinders) wide open at the other end (the not-a-warhead, zombies-healing payload end), during assembly.  The payload end itself?  Use ANY suitable material to build this with, ignoring high temperature tolerance and the need for impermeability.

That leaves us with designing the pressure vessel wall between the nested cylinders, and the payload area.  We need to “end-cap the cylinders”, that is.  The rockboard layer (a circular “dinner plate” for an end-cap) can just be loosely placed, to be compressed into place next.  The next layer (borosilicate glass) can be male-threaded on the glass cylinder (bottle) and female-threaded on a glass cap (or vice versa).  Yes, female threads can be fashioned in glass.  See , which tells us that these (female threads) are called “Ace threads”.

If by any chance glass “Ace threads” are prohibitively expensive, female-threaded ceramic caps could be used as well.  From personal experience with pottery, I know that this would be fairly easily possible.  Cast the pottery “slip” (thick slurry of unfired ceramic material plus water) into two separate molds, for two separate halves of the ceramic cap (two molds are needed because of the “negative space” inside the cap).  Let the two halves of the cap dry out, and crack them out of their molds.  Now you have two half-caps made of un-fired “green-ware”.  Marry the two parts together (being VERY careful to preserve thread alignments!) while “glue”-mating them with “slip”.  Dry the assembly, trim it as needed, and then fire it in a kiln.

Your glass-to-glass (or glass-to-ceramic) thread-mated joint may want to (be prone to) leak.  One may wish to use a filler (between the threads) here.  Gypsum or talcum powder (or a blend of the two) might work.  Our other choice is to NOT impermeably seal any leaky threaded joint here, possibly let some (small amounts of) hot gasses through, and hope that our outermost layer (wood or fiber glass) will hold fast, and not allow runaway hot-gas-flow-erosion.

Also note that there may be some “slop” (mechanical tolerance imprecision) between the threaded glass (or ceramic) lid, and the loosely placed circle of rockboard.  Adding some compressible loose rock wool fibers here is probably a good idea.

Outside of the glass (or ceramic) end-cap we have a layer of compressible rock wool plus (most likely) some additives, which have been discussed above, and deserve no further, special comments in this (end-cap) context.  Place this (compressible) layer loosely, with a bit of extra topped-off material to be compressed in the next step, which is to glue on (or otherwise secure) a wooden (or fiber glass) end-cap.  Attaching the not-a-warhead (payload, out past the end-cap) should be trivial.  If a wood-on-wood joint is used here (and-or at the end-cap of the pressure vessel itself), then, at this stage of assembly, adding wooden dowel rods to strengthen the joint(s) might be wise.  In the case of a hybrid rocket engine (as opposed to a solid-state or “monopropellant” engine), this not-a-warhead tip compartment will also contain a COPV or COPVs containing oxygen, or other oxidant.

So now let’s go to the other end of the pressure vessel, where we have a constriction throat, and then a nozzle.  For our purposes, I think that we should just flat-out, rule OUT any ideas about using any kind of a swivel-able (gimballed) nozzle.  This is too complex, expensive, and (I would bet) impossible to build without using significant amounts of metal.  Steering will need to be done by twisting rocket fins, to be discussed later.  The throat and nozzle, I think, should be rigid, then.


Minimal-Metal Rocket Throat and Nozzle


Which then of course brings us to the throat or constriction area.  Here I am less sure of myself, so will attempt to bloviate with more humility!  My best (OK then, first) guess for the throat area would be as follows: The gasses here will be the hottest and highest-pressure of all, I’m pretty sure, and will SURELY be travelling at the highest speeds.  The rockboard layer should be omitted here, going to glass as the surface which faces high-speed (erosive-flow) hot gasses.  Rockboard, I think, wouldn’t stand up to the erosion very well.  The glass layer should probably be thickened here.  Wrapping the glass in rockwool and then either wood or fiberglass in this area makes sense to me, for the exact same reasons as were described further above, concerning the “pressure vessel” (arguably the throat is part of the same).

For the rocket nozzle area, we could do the EXACT same… Glass, rockwool, and then wood or fiberglass.  Once again, we could argue that this, too, is part of the “pressure vessel” although the pressures contained will rapidly decrease as nozzle flairs out (as the hot exhausted gasses expand).  At the outermost (expanded) nozzle area, we’d probably best retain the rock wool and wooded layers.  This might be best, if for no other reason than this: In shipment to field deployment, rough handling might happen from time to time.  We do NOT want to break the glass (especially in the breakage-prone “neck” or “constriction throat” area), so integral protection is wise.  Box and pad your “not-ammo” for safe shipment as well, of course!  Zombies await being healed!

More-conventional rocket nozzle composition?  See , which says that “The materials used included refractory metals, refractory-metal carbides, graphites, ceramics , cermets, and fiber- reinforced plastics. Three propellants with widely differing flame temperatures and oxidation characteristics were used. The flame temperatures were 4700°, 5600°, and 6400' F.  The engines were designed to provide a chamber pressure of 1000 pounds per square inch and a firing duration of 30 seconds with a nozzle throat diameter of 0.289 inch.”  I’m sure that “The Google Which Knows All Things” can tell you far more about such things.  The temperatures (and pressures!!!) do NOT sound very favorable for my idea of using glass in the throat and nozzle area!  Recall from earlier that borosilicate glass melts at 3,000 F.  Maybe the time-delay of “heat work” will save us, from the heat if not from the pressures?  I don’t know.  I suspect that the wise thing to do at the highest-stresses-parts of the throat and nozzle would be to pay the price in terms of increased radar visibility, go a more conventional route, and use some (limited as much as possible) metal.

The following is also HIGHLY relevant here!  See , and from there, “Hybrid rockets have combustion chambers that are lined with the solid propellant which shields it from the product gases. Their nozzles are often graphite or coated in ablative materials similarly to solid rocket motors.”  (Emphasis mine).  Finally, note that SpaceX Starship heat-shield tiles seem to be highly secretive, but are rumored to use “Tufroc” (or similar).  This might be of interest for use here (as well as possibly in the “pressure vessel” at large, as well).  Details are hard to come by.  See .  Dielectric constant of Tufroc?  I can’t find it (The Google doesn’t know!  SHAME on you, supposedly all-knowing Google!).  However, the following link may be useful:  “Fabrication of low-density carbon-bonded carbon fiber composites with an Hf-based coating for high temperature applications”.


Solid-State Rockets and Fuels


Assuming that I’m correct that solid-state monopropellants (most popularly today, powdered aluminum and ammonium perchlorate compounded together) have low dielectric constants (see further above here, where this assumption is backed up), such solid state rockets are (perhaps) our best choice, here.  At this point, I’ll simply import some links that I found useful or interesting, concerning such rockets and fuels.    Burning characteristics of ammonium perchlorate-based composite propellant supplemented with diatomaceous earth  From there, “Kevlar fiber is an unburnable and low-thermal-conductivity material. It is used for increasing the burning rate of propellants by addition in small amounts [9]. This is because Kevlar fibers protruding through the propellant surface and into the gas phase have a “flame-holding” effect due to the shape of Kevlar. Reports of this nature have been hardly published to date. In this study, diatomaceous earth (DE) was used as an unburnable and low-thermal-conductivity material.”

            See of course!  We can NOT forget The Wiki!  See   Studies on composite solid propellant with tri-modal ammonium perchlorate containing an ultrafine fraction”.  See .  See (about the Space Shuttle’s solid boosters).  To understand the burning-cavity-shapes-choices of a solid rocket engine (and the resulting thrust-v/s-time curves), see or similar.  In passing, let me add a remark about something that all serious rocketry fans already know: One disadvantage that solid-state monopropellant engines have over others is, you can NOT control (throttle) the thrust, let alone, turn it on or off!  Once lit, it stays lit till the fuel is consumed!  (Hybrid and liquid-fueled rockets don’t share these limitations).

…And that’s really just about all that I have for this topic!


Hybrid Rockets and Fuels


For this choice, the leading end (non-nozzle end) of our “pressure vessel” (AKA combustion chamber) will need a hole in it, for the oxidant to enter.  PLUS it will need to have a flow-control valve!  I think that the flow-control valve will be FORCED to contain some metal, in the valve itself, and-or in the control mechanism.  I seriously doubt that we have any other sensible (totally metal-free) choices here!  The liquid or gas oxidizer will oxidize a solid-state fuel which is pre-positioned around the outer rim of the “pressure vessel” here.

It is also possible for the design to be inverted (solid oxidizer, liquid or gas oxidant; known as a “reverse hybrid”).  This is generally an inferior choice, and won’t be discussed here.  Also note that hydrogen peroxide is an oxidizer choice, but has a high dielectric constant of 93.7.  See , THE DIELECTRIC CONSTANTS OF HYDROGEN PEROXIDE-ETHER AND HYDROGEN PEROXIDE-WATER-ETHER MIXTURES”.  So this would be a VERY poor choice for us!  We are left with oxygen or nitrous oxide.  I would choose oxygen; I LAUGH derisively at the nitrous oxide gas!

A rubber polymer called "Thiokol" is a conventional solid-state oxidant here.  See , where we see that Thiokol has a dielectric constant of 7.5, which is tolerable.  Other forms of (synthetic) rubber can be used.  They all seem to have low dielectric constants as well, which is swell!  All’s well with that which is swell, and doesn’t smell!

            This leads us to my list of useful or interesting links found along the way!  See (already previously cited here).  Well OK then, I am (perhaps prematurely) done with this topic!


Hybrid-Hybrid Rockets and Fuels


This (“Hybrid-Hybrid”) term is my invention.  By this I mean a hybrid part-way in between a hybrid and a solid-state monopropellant rocket engine.  Say, for example, that we strip out a lot of the ammonium perchlorate in the conventional monopropellant, so that it won’t stay lit without added oxygen (as is added in the hybrid).  Now, to also further partially tamp down the burning process (tamped down for the lack of much ammonium perchlorate, when no oxygen is incoming), we add some other (slower-burning?) only-smoldering (when lacking added oxygen) combustibles to the solid mix.  Most likely, we would retain SOME aluminum powder.  This is just me brainstorming, now, so please excuse me if the ideas are on the crazy side.  Or is this just an excuse for me to dump in some more thoughts and links that I have gathered?  Suit yourself, and believe as you will!

Now I don’t know if “flame out” is much of a problem in a conventional hybrid, when you turn it (oxygen flow for example) off, and want to turn it back on, or not.  But some tweaks to the solid-state fuel(s) might help with that, if they lead to stubbornly smoldering embers in the “flame-out” (or semi-flame-out) state, when the added (hybrid) oxygen is cut off.  And tweaking the conventional fuels here may have other benefits, such as, for examples, costs, dielectric constants, or RAM (Radar Absorptive Materials).  Or perhaps even for acting extra capacity for insulation (or generally “heat barrier” via “heat work” as well) for shielding the “pressure vessel” walls.

In any case, here is a grab-bag of thoughts and links for more “wings of bat and eyes of newts” to throw into the kettle!  (Glycerol has 46.5 for a dielectric constant, so forget that one).  Diesel fuel at 2.1 (dielectric constant of course) looks good!  Maybe “thicken up” this (or other) fuel oil with “pecan shell powder”; see .  (Or use the pecan powder raw, as a straight-up ingredient).  Now encapsulate the (stiff) mix of oil and powder, and throw it into the solid-state fuel mix!  For encapsulating technologies, see the drug industries in general.  We won’t care about “food safe” capsules, of course!  For micro-encapsulation ideas which just barely MIGHT be of help, see  and .  Micro-encapsulation is no joke!  See the origins of dynamite, with nitroglycerin being “micro-encapsulated” inside the tiny little diatom shells constituting “diatomaceous earth”, for example.  Powerful stuff, here!  You might even call it…  DINO-MIGHT!!!  I’m TNT, I’m dynamite!  TNT, & I’ll win the fight!  Whether the avionics be AC or DC, we’ll WIN this fight!  (To heal the zombies, of course.)

            In any case, ANY combustible substance MIGHT possibly be a helpful ingredient here!  Wax, wood chips, cotton, sawdust, charcoal or other carbon, powders of plastics or synthetic rubber or other synthetics, etc.  Or encapsulated or micro-encapsulated liquids or stiff liquids (pastes) might work as well.  You can “Google” as well as I can, no doubt!  Don’t forget that we want a low dielectric constant.

            Furthermore, for lack of much ammonium perchlorate (recall above that we stripped some or much of it out, here), the solid-state propellant (especially if heavy on the aluminum powder side of things) may not be of the right consistency.  It may be too crumbly, too powdery, and not solid enough.  In that case, take your diesel oil plus pecan shell powder (or other liquid plus powder), mix to the right balance, and add it straight (not encapsulated) to the fuel mix.  Picking an assortment of ingredients that “cling to” one another, even when heated, is important!  Some not-very-combustible “glue” (or binder, or solidifier) elements may need to be added as well.  Some sort of sugary (VERY sticky!) syrup might even work, as an ingredient!  Add spices, flour, and eggs, and bake at 350 F…


Avionics, Tactics, Strategy, & “Misc.”


The following will address how the zombie-healing not-warheads will be deployed by avionics, at a higher level.  Materials issues will need to be thrown into the mix, from time to time.  Avionics will be central!  I have no significant visibility to costs and options in THAT particular category, since (for obvious reasons) this is held “close to the vest” in most quarters.  So the following is sometimes highly speculative.

It WOULD be possible to deploy rather large hydrogen balloons above zombie-held territory.  In this case, the balloons could suspend “steerable” air-breathing vessels as described here (and above there) in this paper.  Such steerable balloon-plus-deployment-vessel-plus-payload assemblies could be interspersed as a fraction among decoy “dummies” designed to look highly similar to those balloons carrying the “real thing”.  Since (I think) that it is safe to assume that one can NOT design such steerable vehicles, cheaply, to be radar-near-invisible, AND it would be prohibitively expensive to give the “dummies” steer-ability in a flock of such devices… The latter ability being needed to hide from the zombies, the difference between the sheep and the goats…  AND the need to prevent the “industrial-military-complex” (or in our case more precisely and specifically, the “zombie-healing complex”) from succumbing to inevitable cost-inflating temptations… I think it is safe to say that we should DROP such ideas, and focus on MUCH simpler, less-expensive options.  But in passing, note that the “real McCoy” in such a (not-recommended-as-best, by me) case could be highly radar reflective, while the decoys are made to LOOK the same, using the equivalent of sheets of “chaff”.  That is, by using cheap plastics topped off with tinfoil, or similar radar-reflective materials.

            So then we are left with an assortment, perhaps, of lower-costs “gravity not-bombs” and rocket-assisted, speedily-delivered “healing care packages” for the zombies.  Perhaps the proper mix of hydrogen-balloon-delivered “zombie healing care packages” will be 100% gravity-driven-only not-bombs, and ZERO rocket-assisted “care packages”.  In such a case, most of this paper (here) is wasted, but that’s OK.  Also ponder upon this:  Radar-hiding (or partially hiding) missiles for aircraft-delivered “zombie healing packages” may ALSO be valuable!  See, for example, “beast mode” in F-35 aircraft.  See for a quickly selected link.  Making missiles less radar-visible in such a case should help hide the assembly of aircraft-plus-missiles.

            It all depends on complex variables, not-a-battlefield zombie-healing circumstances, and ever-changing developments.  But if the radar force is strong with the zombies, a mix of actively-thrusting rocket-delivered radar-seeking, fast-speed “care packages” for zombie-healing might be best, with the rest being simplified, steerable gravity not-bombs.  The faster radar seekers would serve as the vanguard for the slower gravity-only not-bombs.  See radar-seeking “Wild Weasels” here, for reference: and .  After the zombie radar-station attendants are healed of their zombie viruses, and are also healed of their zeal to “man” (“zombie”?) their radar stations, the slower gravity not-bombs can use their zombie-seeking powers, at their leisure, to heal other local zombies.  The mix of fast, actively powered packages, slower gravity not-bombs, and perhaps even TOTALLY harmless decoys, will vary with circumstances.  More details, I cannot see or foretell.  I have NO crystal balls here!

            Altitudes of delivered hydrogen balloons plus “care packages” (payloads)?  20,000 feet, or 40 K, or 60 K, for targeted altitude?  Again, I don’t really know for sure.  Obvious trade-offs are:  Higher altitudes are good for being harder (more expensive) to shoot down, and for more margin for steer-ability for seeking a wide variety of targets.  Lower altitudes are better for providing less time for the zombies to detect them duringdescent.  “Spy modes” would have obvious trade-offs as well (wider field of view from higher up; more detailed views from down lower).  Launch them in favorable-winds circumstances, and (probably best) at night, I would think.  GPS is an obviously affordable mechanism for payload-path guidance, as is inertia guidance also.  If secure communications links can be provided, remote manual path-control (steering) is also an obvious option.  These latter comments of mine (in my vision where we give the balloons themselves little if any steering or maneuvering abilities) apply more so to the “gondola” payloads than they do to the balloon-included assembly.

            “Networked” or “distributed” intelligence here is a good option.  Launch these zombie-healing delivery vehicles plus payloads in groups of (?) 10, 20, 30 or more, spaced out a bit from each other.  Have them communicate with each other via short-range radio.  If radio is too easily detected by the zombies, MAYBE use tight-band, highly directed, non-snoopable communications lasers instead!  It all depends, as usual!  But such “networked intelligence” can be highly useful!  A simple “polling mode” among all members, of “are you still there?” would be enough to detect that the zombies have started to KILL parts of your networked flock!  Another (complementary) choice is to have the “gondola” detect being suddenly dropped, as in, the zombies have shot the balloon.  At that point, payloads are released, and seek their targets!  This is much like a bunch of angry hornets (or other hive-based stinging insects) detecting that the hive has been violated!  What is most affordable and-or practical here?  I have no idea!

            “Hydrogen pollution” may be a concern here.  See , “Pollutionwatch, Greenhouse gas emissions, For hydrogen power to be a climate solution, leaks must be curbed”.  To guard against this, at some (probably rather small) cost, a safeguard can be implemented.  As the payload (“gondola”) detaches from the balloon, a small gun shoots an incendiary load such as white phosphorus or “tracer bullets” at the balloon.  See and .  These will burn up the balloon’s hydrogen.  Such balloon-burners can be fired by cheap 3D-printed short-lived (“one-shot”) plastic guns, with low dielectric constants for the constituent gun materials.  We do NOT care about gun durability here!  Such a gun would be triggered A) when the payload detaches from the balloon, or B) when the whole assembly strays too far from the target area.  In case “B”, the payload itself might also best be destroyed.  For an analogy, see out-of-range rocket self-destruction.  See , “What Is A Flight Termination System?”  “Strayed out of range” can be detected via GPS, and-or by other means.

            Our zombie-healing assemblies (not-missiles and-or “dumb” gravity not-bombs) will HAVE to contain SOME metal!  Wires, circuit boards, flow-control valves (in the case of hybrid or hybrid-hybrid rocket engines), steering-fin-controlling devices (actuators), and (EXTREMELY likely) the highest-stresses areas around the rocket engine “throat” and the smaller-diameter base of the rocket engine, will be FORCED to contain highly-radar-visible metals!  These areas will deserve extra precautions, in terms of being shielded by RAM, as best as is possible.  This is analogous to how “Mother Nature” (by “design” of evolution… Or by God; I am NOT itching to get into fights about THAT!) specially shields (in us humans as well as other vertebrates) our vitally essential brains and spinal nerves in solid bones, while the rest of our bodies are more-affordable “endoskeletons” instead of “exoskeletons”.

            Steering-fins control (actuators) details are beyond my scope here.  The only details I have to add are, the flight profiles of gravity not-bombs may very well best be to have the fins LEAD, closer to earth, as the assembly descends.  This allows more flight-direction and flight-duration control, as the body of the assembly serves as a bit of a controlling “lifting body”.  The falling assembly “swims” through the air, that is.  It “falls with style”!  Also note, the assembly (if instead rocket-propelled, not “falling with style” not-a-bomb) should be hung (as a “gondola”) nozzle end down, with the nozzle pointed down to avoid collecting any rain, during balloon flight.  Large fins and the right “mass balance” will force orientation-correction before the rocket motor is fired up.  This type of assembly will want to accelerate downwards, clearly, I think.

            Flight-path control MIGHT possibly be partially or wholly controlled by on-board compressed-air storage (such air being stored in COPVs NOT containing metal, with liners of plastic or composites) and “technologies” involving these things, items #1 and-or #2.

            Path control (for both the gravity not-bombs and the downward-powered-flight not-missiles) should be path-randomized, to evade zombie counter-fire, if at all possible and affordable.  The zombies will fight dirty!  We must evade!  Make their jobs of clinging desperately to their un-cured zombieness as difficult as is possible!  Also not that in the cases of hybrid or hybrid-hybrid rocket engines, the engines could also be throttled up and down, and shut off and started back up, to create more evasive maneuvers.  Periodically shutting the rocket engine down would ALSO provide cooling-off time periods, to reduce the probability of over-heating and-or total assembly failure.

            Dear Reader, I most certainly do NOT mean to insult your intelligence!  But I do also feel compelled (in the name of thoroughness) to point out what may be obvious.  Our payload-delivery assemblies will spend a long time balloon-suspended in the air, visible to zombie radar, while incorporated RAM (Radar Absorptive Materials) will be useful, whether such materials are high-temperature tolerant, or not.  It is only after a rocket motor (if applicable) is fired up, that temperature tolerance of such RAM materials will matter at all.  And the time-duration of this powered flight phase will be very brief!  So design accordingly!  Certain RAM materials NOT being high-temperature tolerant may not matter very much.

            Now I have no data or links to back me up, here, but I’m convinced that avionics (computer hardware and software, sensors, actuators, and communication links) will comprise the bulk of the costs here, especially if we insist on efficacy (and I, for one, think that we should…  We should select targets as intelligently as is at all possible).  On these things, I have little expertise, and no further comments.  Concerning zombie-sensors, I have flat-out ZERO data, and seriously doubt whether ANYONE has such knowledge!  Such matters will almost definitely await the added urgency that will arise when the (perhaps purely hypothetical) hidden zombies chose to appear to us, and-or the much-dreaded “zombie apocalypse” begins.  If or when this happens… I reserve the right to say “I told you so”!  (If it does NOT happen, then… Never mind; forget what I said!  Did I ever say THAT?).


Concluding Remarks


This is on an almost purely personal note.  I’ve actually wrestled with my conscience about writing and publishing this paper.  Few of us like war, especially those who have seen it up close and personal, or, at the very least, have studied war history and have well-functioning imaginations, plus benevolence.  None of what I have reported is secret (it’s from publically published links from the internet, known engineering facts, and maybe a tiny bit from my imagination).  If the zombies want to turn these ideas around and use them on US, the normal human beings, then they’ll be able to do so without this paper, and without my help, anyway.  So I’m OK with all of that.  If that will come to pass, I trust that the normal humans will have superior cooperation amongst themselves, a superior economy, and superior avionics.  Let’s go heal some zombies!


Back to main site at 




Stauffer, Titus. (2022). Propulsion Designs Using Novel Nested COPVs and the.


Stauffer, Titus. (2023). Using the Astron Omega 1 Engine as a Compressor and Using COPVs and Inflatables as Aircraft Structural Elements.


Stauffer, Titus. (2023). Using Vertical-Rail-Mounted Jets for Initial-Phase Launch Assistance for Rockets, and Using Outer-Wall-Mounted Ceramic Turbine Blades.


Jones, W. & Pierce, D. & Gregory, D. & Said, Magdi & Fairbrother, D. & Stuchlik, David & Reddish, J. & Thompson, L. & Estep, R. & Merritt, B. & Cathey, H.M. & Bohaboj, T. & Garde, G. & Young, L.. (2005). Ultra Long Duration Ballooning Technology Development. 3. 405.


A review of GPR for landmine detection - Scientific Figure on ResearchGate. Available from: [accessed 10 Mar, 2023]


Shabayk, N.A. & Malhat, Hend & Zainud-Deen, Saber. (2018). Radar cross section reduction using perforated dielectric material and plasma AMC structure. 47-54. 10.1109/NRSC.2018.8354358.


Agnihotri, Nitika & Mishra, Ravinesh & Goda, Chirag & Arora, Manu. (2012). Microencapsulation – A Novel Approach in Drug Delivery: A Review. Indo Global J Pharm Sci. 2. 1-20. 10.35652/IGJPS.2012.01.


Singh, Mangla & Yadav, Hemant & Ram, M & Shivakumar, H.G.. (2010). Microencapsulation: A promising technique for controlled drug delivery. Research in pharmaceutical sciences. 5. 65-77.