NASA ATK SRB Train to Nowhere!

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5090

Free perchlorate for everybody, whether you want it or like it or not.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

"kT" wrote in message
...
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5090

Free perchlorate for everybody, whether you want it or like it or not.

Yummy.

On May 2, 1:25 pm, "James" wrote:
"kT" wrote in message

...

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5090

Free perchlorate for everybody, whether you want it or like it or not.

Yummy.

James Rapier Exposed.

A Federal Court Ruled, the Tobacco Mafia was a Racketeering Operation
for over 50 years. This followed one of the longest most complex
litigations in American history. Full due process of law is
undisputable. This point is not open for debate. The court ruling
ended the debate.

The racketeers hired a great body of corrupt individuals to commit
frauds. The evidence was displayed in court. It passed due process of
law. There is no debate about the names of people hired and the acts
they committed to defraud the American Public. This point is not open
for debate. The court has ruled.

Among the persons engaged in unlawful criminal fraud, some names are
better known than others and some individuals had longer criminal
careers than others. A great body of evidence, a google of evidence
40,000,000 pages worth, was ordered to be made available online by
order of the court. This evidence passed due process of law. This
point is not debatable.

It is a mandatory duty of Americans to uphold the laws. Concealing
crimes and aiding the commission of crimes is a violation of law in
all 50 states. This point is not debatable.

When a person receives notice that a crime of fraud is in process they
have a mandatory duty to investigate the facts as anyone of ordinary
intelligence would do under similar circumstances. This is the law
over the 50 states, common law inherited from British Common Law
before there ever was a United States. This point is not debatable.

James Rapier has been previously notified and received notice that
acts of crime, acts of fraud, were in process, and has a record kept
in google.com groups archives of notification in groups he
participates in and in threads where he has been active and in
messages where he has responded, and in messages where he has partly
quoted the notification. This is not a debatable point.

Links to evidence have been presented to John Fermback upon which the
law placed a madatory duty on James Rapier that he investigate as a
reasonable person or ordinary intelligence would investigate the
facts. Google.com preserves archived copies of this presentation of
links, and many sites around the world hold temporary but long
longevity duplicates of these archives. This point is not debatable.

When a clear scientific consensus exists, as it did on tobacco
mortality links, or global warming mortality links, those with a
profit motive to benefit from confusing the consensus in the minds of
the less educated have only one choice. They must create doubt. This
strategy and the documented evidence that it was used by racketeer
employers of science fraudsters was placed in the notice of James
Rapier. There are archives that he received this notice. This point is
not debatable.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...t =0&filter=0

There is no dispute that Fred Seitz was employed by RJ Reynolds
Tobacco Company over a period of at least 16 years of record or that
he received a salary of no less than $660,000 during that time. Public
records online by court order show his employment contracts and salary
negotiations. The court has adjudicated that a criminal fraud science
deception was being practiced before, during and after the employment
of Fred Seitz as science advisor. This point is not debatable.

There is no dispute that Fred Seitz became a science advisor of The
A.S.S. Coalition created by Philip Morris Tobacco Company for the
purpose of racketeering and committing science frauds. He appears on
letterhead of the science advisory board of this corrupt oganization.
Records are online by Federal Court order. This is not a debatable
point.

There is no argument about the fact that Fred Seitz was on the
founding Board of SEPP, headed by partner Fred Singer, and he appears
continuously on the record of that board even to the latest filing of
IRS form 990 available to public inspection on the internet. This
point is not debatable.

There is no argument about the fact that Fred Singer was on the
founding Board of SEPP, which organization he founded while housed in
Moonie Office space while Singer was a member of the Board of
Directors of that same Moonie Organization, the Washington Institute
for Values in Public Policy. There are records from the racketeers
which demonstrate that Fred Singer masterminded four science fraud
operations in support of the needs of his racketeer financial
contributors in 1993 and 1994, partly while housed in those offices.
This point is not debatable.

There are records from the racketeers files linking Patrick J.
Michaels to SEPP, Singer, Seitz and The A.S.S. Coalition during this
period. This point is not debatable.

There are a plentitude of documents that the public relations firm of
APCO ASSociates was created by long-time lawyers employed by Philip
Morris Tobacco Company, and that APCO ASSociates willfully,
premeditately with full knowledge engaged in science frauds in
creating The A.S.S. Coalition, including utilizing the services of a
compliant stable of crooks with prior proven history of frauds
benefiting the racketeers. There are public records online by Federal
Court order. This point is not debatable.

APCO ASSociates and employee of APCO, Tom Harris, created a fraud
event:
Wednesday, November 13, 2002 at 9:00 AM
National Press Club Dining Room
150 Wellington Street, Ottawa
In this event Fred Singer, Fred Seitz, Patrick Michaels and APCO
ASSociates were gathered together again long after The A.S.S.
Coalition had supposedly disbanded. By 2002 the racketeering corrupt
history of these career criminals was public knowledge posted on
internet websites by Federal Court order. This point is not debatable.

Blowhard Bill Gray was a participant in this event now known to be
sponsored by coal powered utilities and mining interests in Canada.
This point is not debatable.

Blowhard Bill Gray owes the public a full and complete disclosure of
all the circumstances and events how he came to be involved in an
organized crime event involving career criminals of known disrepute.
Until such time as a complete and satisfactory explanation is
provided, Blowhard Bill Gray is himself in disrepute as a Known
ASSociate of Organized Crime Science Fraudsters. This point is not
debatable.

Since DOUBT is the product, and delay of public restrictions is the
goal, to aid anfd abet a fraud is the same as to instigate it. James
Rapier is involved in deceit and deception to deny or conceal the
career criminal ASSociates of Blowhard Bill Gray. Gray has not and
cannot produce any science which causes doubts of the accumulated
scientific knowledge we collectively call "Global Warming Theory". He
makes press releases without support data, and he has a consistant
track record of continuing ASSociation with career criminals.

Giving him coverage is to violate the law of mandatory duty to
investigate as a reasonable person with ordinary intelligence would
investigate once notice of his organized crime ASSociations if given
to you. His goal is to create a FALSE appearance of a scientific
debate without producing the peer-reviewed science required of a
debate. Until such a time as Bill Gray has produced peer-reviewed
evidence his opinions are worthless, even less than worthless if they
are fraudulant. This point is not debatable.

http://www.climatesearch.com/newsDetail.cfm?nwsId=54

Tom Harris, Associate ===== Tom Harris, Organized Crime Fraudster
APCO Worldwide (Canada) ==== Created TASSC Organized Crime Fraud
Ring
phone 613/288-0382
fax 613/565-1937
email
web http://www.apcoworldwide.com

Climate Specialists speaking at the news conference:
1 - Dr. Tim Patterson
2 - Dr. Fred Singer ==== TASSC Corrupt Scientist
3 - Dr. Tim Ball
4 - Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar
5 - Dr. Pat Michaels ==== TASSC Corrupt Scientist
6 - Professor Fred Michel

Energy Engineering Specialists:
1 - Dr. J. Terry Rogers
2 - Dr. Howard C. Hayden

Not attending news conference but available for phone & email
interviews:
Dr. Roger Pocklington
Dr. Sallie Baliunas
Dr. Willie Soon
Dr. John Christy
Dr. Chris Essex
Dr. Roger Peilke
Dr. William M. Gray ==== Known Associate of Organized Crime
Figures.
Dr. Fred Seitz ==== TASSC Corrupt Scientist
Dr. George Taylor
Dr. Sherwood Idso
Dr. David Wojick, P.E.
Art Robinson of OISM
Dr. Herb I. H. Saravanamuttoo
Dr. Robert Balling
Dr. Ross McKitrick
Dr. Philip Stott

On May 2, 12:03 pm, kT wrote:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5090

Free perchlorate for everybody, whether you want it or like it or not.

NASA's original plan was to make the SRBs at
the Cape. However, Utah's Senator Jake Garn
had other ideas. If NASA had stuck with it's
original plan, this accident would not have happened.
Also NASA's made on-site boosters would not
have had any seams. Seams in SRB's were the
cause of the Challenger disaster.

Roger Coppock wrote:
On May 2, 12:03 pm, kT wrote:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5090

Free perchlorate for everybody, whether you want it or like it or not.

NASA's original plan was to make the SRBs at
the Cape. However, Utah's Senator Jake Garn
had other ideas. If NASA had stuck with it's
original plan, this accident would not have happened.
Also NASA's made on-site boosters would not
have had any seams. Seams in SRB's were the
cause of the Challenger disaster.

Supposedly the ESA has a monocast booster for their Vega all SRB launch
vehicle. They still have to heavily stage, but it will be interesting to
see how that pans out. These small solid fuel booster end up with the
highest per mass cost to orbit, but they do have the advantage of
storability, especially if one needs rapid response, the booster can sit
out on the pad for ages. But so can liquids I suppose, unfueled. The
Delta IV is a well known pad queen, but only because they are using it
at a fraction of the launch rate it was designed for.

I'm not totally opposed to big solids, but only for very heavy lift
launch vehicles (like the Ares V) with very low launch rates. But
clearly over the long term they have to be phased out, and the only
credible alternative is hydrogen. The other major problem is the foam
insulation, which virtually prohibits the taking of the cryogenic first
stage all the way to orbit, something which is basically trivial for a
hydrogen core stage with large solid rocket booster assistance.

The *BIG* problem I have is with NASA upper management, the fraud they
have perpetrated upon the American people, by sidelining propulsion work
that is nearly finished, the RL-60 and the IPD - integrated full flow
closed cycle engine prototype, the hydrostatic bearings, and the channel
wall nozzle program, and even the SSME upgrades, the all electric nozzle
gimbles and fuel cell auxiliary power. Without those vital programs in
liquid propulsion, we have nothing. Nothing I tell you. All is lost.

ALL IS LOST! I am revolted.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

On 3 May, 00:26, kT wrote:
I'm not totally opposed to big solids, but only for very heavy lift
launch vehicles (like the Ares V) with very low launch rates. But
clearly over the long term they have to be phased out, and the only
credible alternative is hydrogen.

Why hydrogen? Kerosene seems to be more effective. I believe for
example Atlas tends to come in cheaper than Delta.


The other major problem is the foam
insulation, which virtually prohibits the taking of the cryogenic first
stage all the way to orbit, something which is basically trivial for a
hydrogen core stage with large solid rocket booster assistance.

There are many problems with cryogenics which effect costs.


The *BIG* problem I have is with NASA upper management, the fraud they
have perpetrated upon the American people, by sidelining propulsion work
that is nearly finished, the RL-60 and the IPD - integrated full flow
closed cycle engine prototype, the hydrostatic bearings, and the channel
wall nozzle program, and even the SSME upgrades, the all electric nozzle
gimbles and fuel cell auxiliary power. Without those vital programs in
liquid propulsion, we have nothing. Nothing I tell you.

Agree there

All is lost.

ALL IS LOST! I am revolted.

Perhaps things just needed to get worse before they can get better.

Alex Terrell wrote:
On 3 May, 00:26, kT wrote:
I'm not totally opposed to big solids, but only for very heavy lift
launch vehicles (like the Ares V) with very low launch rates. But
clearly over the long term they have to be phased out, and the only
credible alternative is hydrogen.

Why hydrogen? Kerosene seems to be more effective. I believe for
example Atlas tends to come in cheaper than Delta.

I do believe Atlas does use hydrogen in the upper stage, feel free to
correct me if I'm wrong.

The other major problem is the foam
insulation, which virtually prohibits the taking of the cryogenic first
stage all the way to orbit, something which is basically trivial for a
hydrogen core stage with large solid rocket booster assistance.

There are many problems with cryogenics which effect costs.

Which explains why everybody either uses it, or wants to use it.

The *BIG* problem I have is with NASA upper management, the fraud they
have perpetrated upon the American people, by sidelining propulsion work
that is nearly finished, the RL-60 and the IPD - integrated full flow
closed cycle engine prototype, the hydrostatic bearings, and the channel
wall nozzle program, and even the SSME upgrades, the all electric nozzle
gimbles and fuel cell auxiliary power. Without those vital programs in
liquid propulsion, we have nothing. Nothing I tell you.

Agree there

All is lost.

ALL IS LOST! I am revolted.

Perhaps things just needed to get worse before they can get better.

They're demonstrably not going to get any better by continuing using
hydrocarbons and solids. It's over. The Neocene era is upon us.

You people are just complete mind****s, it's going to be so much fun
watching your lives crumble these next few years. But don't worry, great
grandchildren will be able to mine and burn coal until at least 2200,
when the planet will most likely become uninhabitable.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

On 4 May, 00:09, kT wrote:
Alex Terrell wrote:
On 3 May, 00:26, kT wrote:
I'm not totally opposed to big solids, but only for very heavy lift
launch vehicles (like the Ares V) with very low launch rates. But
clearly over the long term they have to be phased out, and the only
credible alternative is hydrogen.

Why hydrogen? Kerosene seems to be more effective. I believe for
example Atlas tends to come in cheaper than Delta.

I do believe Atlas does use hydrogen in the upper stage, feel free to
correct me if I'm wrong.

That's correct. There is a case for hydrogen in the upper stages. The
Space Shuttle Main Engines are primarily upper stage engines, in that
give most of their delta V after the SRB separation.

The other major problem is the foam
insulation, which virtually prohibits the taking of the cryogenic first
stage all the way to orbit, something which is basically trivial for a
hydrogen core stage with large solid rocket booster assistance.

There are many problems with cryogenics which effect costs.

Which explains why everybody either uses it, or wants to use it.

LOx is an attractive oxidiser. Cheap, dense, and not too cryognic.
Hydrogen is expensive, non dense and a pain.

Soyuz: Lox / Kerosene,
Proton: N2O4 / UDMH
Atlas: LOx / Kerosene lower stage
Falcon: Lox / Kerosene

Ariane is the only descent launcher to use LOx / LH2. No one else
apart from NASA is rushing to use LH2.

The *BIG* problem I have is with NASA upper management, the fraud they
have perpetrated upon the American people, by sidelining propulsion work
that is nearly finished, the RL-60 and the IPD - integrated full flow
closed cycle engine prototype, the hydrostatic bearings, and the channel
wall nozzle program, and even the SSME upgrades, the all electric nozzle
gimbles and fuel cell auxiliary power. Without those vital programs in
liquid propulsion, we have nothing. Nothing I tell you.

Agree there

All is lost.

ALL IS LOST! I am revolted.

Perhaps things just needed to get worse before they can get better.

They're demonstrably not going to get any better by continuing using
hydrocarbons and solids. It's over. The Neocene era is upon us.

Try hydrocarbons and LOx. Spacex is putting its money in to this.

You people are just complete mind****s, it's going to be so much fun
watching your lives crumble these next few years. But don't worry, great
grandchildren will be able to mine and burn coal until at least 2200,
when the planet will most likely become uninhabitable.

Yeah OK.

Roger Coppock wrote in news:1178139620.873487.126930
@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:

On May 2, 12:03 pm, kT wrote:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5090

Free perchlorate for everybody, whether you want it or like it or not.

NASA's original plan was to make the SRBs at
the Cape. However, Utah's Senator Jake Garn
had other ideas. If NASA had stuck with it's
original plan, this accident would not have happened.
Also NASA's made on-site boosters would not
have had any seams. Seams in SRB's were the
cause of the Challenger disaster.

Of course, you're trading that for a whole set of *other* problems... such
as how to pour monolithic solids that large such that both have exactly the
same thrust, within tight tolerances. At the time the decision was made,
*no one* knew how to do that, though Aerojet thought they did.

There's a lot of "grass is always greener" mentality regarding this. But it
definitely was not all politics.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

There's a lot of "grass is always greener" mentality regarding this. But it
definitely was not all politics.

It doesn't matter anymore, SRBs are now firmly in the 'global warming'
category.

They need to be completely phased out.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html