A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Science Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Minimum Number of Rocket Designs



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old July 5th 04, 09:24 AM
Paul Blay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Minimum Number of Rocket Designs

"The Ruzicka Family" wrote in message ...
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ...

Well. since none of your statements are backed up by fact or logic,
and most of them drip with intense dislike of Mr. Bush, it's hard for
any reasonable person to conclude that they can be based on anything
else, regardless of how many years you've spent in the aerospace
industry (and FWIW--almost nothing, I trump you by several in that
regard).


Oh for God's sake, here we go again. No one asked you for more of your
inane drivel. As usual, anyone who has an opinion which differs from your
has, by YOUR "never-can be wrong" opinion, no "facts" or "logic" to back up
their opinion. And also, as usual, you are wrong. But I'll try mightily to
refrain from getting drawn in once again to any kind of flame ware dealing
with your rantings.



Two more examples of the flaw in using a white-listing approach.
Goodness knows I'd _like_ to see sci.space.moderated working ...

  #42  
Old July 6th 04, 04:40 AM
The Ruzicka Family
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Minimum Number of Rocket Designs

"Paul Blay" wrote in message
...


Two more examples of the flaw in using a white-listing approach.
Goodness knows I'd _like_ to see sci.space.moderated working ...




(sigh) My apologies to the group in general. As I had stated earlier, my
intention was not to get involved in a flame war. Unfortunately, this other
fellow seems intent on it. I've seen him do it before. For whatever reason
he has, he seems intent on ridiculing and belittling anyone who dares have
an opinion different from his own. Quite sad really. However, I really
will try to ignore him from now on and keep from getting drawn into his
little power plays. Again, my apologies to the others in this group.

  #43  
Old July 6th 04, 01:42 PM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Minimum Number of Rocket Designs

On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 20:40:28 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
"The Ruzicka Family" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

(sigh) My apologies to the group in general. As I had stated earlier, my
intention was not to get involved in a flame war. Unfortunately, this other
fellow seems intent on it. I've seen him do it before. For whatever reason
he has, he seems intent on ridiculing and belittling anyone who dares have
an opinion different from his own.


lauighing

  #44  
Old July 6th 04, 02:22 PM
Graham Drabble
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Minimum Number of Rocket Designs

On 05 Jul 2004 "Paul Blay" wrote in
:

snip

Two more examples of the flaw in using a white-listing approach.
Goodness knows I'd _like_ to see sci.space.moderated working ...


If you've got suggestions as to how to make the group work better then
the mods would be gald to hear them. It's a difficult balance between
the delays inherent in hand moderating every article and the trust
required to white list someone.

For now I'd just like to remind people to be careful and keep talking
about the space issues not the personal ones.
--
Graham Drabble
Moderator - sci.space.moderated
Contact: to get in touch with
the moderators.

  #45  
Old July 6th 04, 02:37 PM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Minimum Number of Rocket Designs

On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 06:22:32 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
Graham Drabble made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

If you've got suggestions as to how to make the group work better then
the mods would be gald to hear them. It's a difficult balance between
the delays inherent in hand moderating every article and the trust
required to white list someone.

For now I'd just like to remind people to be careful and keep talking
about the space issues not the personal ones.


The problem isn't the off-topic flamage, of which there's very little
in absolute terms. The problem is that there's so little content at
all. People simply aren't posting to the group, and I have no ready
solution to that.

  #46  
Old July 11th 04, 05:39 PM
william mook
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Minimum Number of Rocket Designs

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message ...
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 06:22:32 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
Graham Drabble made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

If you've got suggestions as to how to make the group work better then
the mods would be gald to hear them. It's a difficult balance between
the delays inherent in hand moderating every article and the trust
required to white list someone.

For now I'd just like to remind people to be careful and keep talking
about the space issues not the personal ones.


The problem isn't the off-topic flamage, of which there's very little
in absolute terms. The problem is that there's so little content at
all. People simply aren't posting to the group, and I have no ready
solution to that.



I read the topic here and thought - 'hoo boy, someone is talking about
off-the-shelf rocket engines and how they could be better used' - and
I read it to see they're talking about existing vehicles, not existing
engines. Ah well, C'est la vie!

Lots of information in minutiae - not a lot of fundamental information
and serious thought about that.

There is very little content because rocket science isn't that easy
and whenever someone tries to spread a little knowledge they *are*
flamed by those who are held in high regard here.

I mean, how often does anyone talk about the rocket equation? You
know,

Vf = Ve * LN(1/(1-u)) ?

where u=propellant fraction and Ve=exhaust speed, and Vf = final speed
of stage

and how that impacts all aspects of rockets.

let alone more interesting things like Calculus of Variations and how
to use to to figure out optimal take off thrust, or Goddard
Trajectories, or - anything useful really.

I mean it would be cool to see an analysis of each rocket stage in
terms of the rocket equation - the performance of a stack related to
the calculus of variations computation - and the actual trajectory
compared to the goddard trajectory for the stack.

This would give people who read and post here some real capacity to
think usefully about rockets and give their commentary some weight.

and this is just getting to orbit stuff that has been known since the
1950s.

Don't even try having an intelligent discussion about more outre - but
still perfectly reasonable stuff like - what the cost per Nm2/sec must
be for suborbital vehicles to compete against long-range aircraft here
on Earth, or how the annual cost of a manned base on the moon relates
to these fundamental costs.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.