A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

SpaceX DragonLab



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 27th 16, 06:14 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default SpaceX DragonLab

http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/f...bFactSheet.pdf

4200 kg dry mass -
6000 kg up mass -
3000 kg down mass -

The extended trunk can carry four high pressure tanks each one 1.2 meters in diameter and 3.1 meters long with spherical end caps and a spherical bulkhead at the 1791.4 mm mark. A 5.34 cubic meter section carrying 6,118 kg of LOX and a 4.11 cubic meter section carrying 1,882 kg of LNG. A total of 8,000 kg per tank. Forming a LOX/LNG kick stage built within the disposable bus.

The bus itself is 4.1 meters long and there is a 1 meter space at the base that contain 7 rocket belts - the are folded away.

https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/w...er-660x453.jpg

Each with a pair of Draco derivative engines that burn LOX/LNG. A total of 14 engines - that can be fired from within the cabin.

5600 (14 x 400 N)
571.0 kg (14 x 40.7 kgf)
1260 lbf (14 x 90.0 lbf)

And can be flow down from LLO to Lunar Surface.

To send 10,200 kg from LEO to LFR (Lunar Free Return) trajectory takes 2.95 km/sec and to enter lunar orbit and return from lunar orbit takes an added 1.55 km/sec. A total 4.5 km/sec. A LOX/LNG engine running at 30 bar using pressurised tanks, in a ZBO system, with high expansion for vacuum operation, achieves 3.6 km/sec.

Four tanks carry a total of 32,000 kg of propellant and 25,400 kg is required to take the vehicle from LEO to Lunar Orbit and back. This leaves 4,600 kg of spare propellant on lunar orbit.

A total of 42,200 kg - well within the capacity of a Falcon Heavy to put into LEO.

Seven people - one crew and six passengers - are projected on a LFR orbit by the Falcon Heavy upper stage, which is carried on with the kick stage. The DragonLab enters LLO and uses a small LOX/LNG rocket belt to land on the moon and return to the capsule. Dropping down losing 1.63 km/sec and boosting back to orbit gaining 1.63 km/sec.

This takes 185 kg of propellant 141.5 kg of LOX and 43.5 kg of LNG - is sufficient to land an astronaut in a biosuit on the moon from LLO and return to the capsule - in about 2.5 hours each way. Visitors can stay up to 16 hours on the surface - 21 hours in all and 3 hours emergency - for a 24 hour duration in the suit.

All seven can land and take off on the moon using their own personal rocket belts, three times. Either alone or in groups as desired. A spare three flights of propellant again is reserved for emergencies - and sold off at the end of the flight.

The seven return to Earth after 7 days in lunar orbit each visiting the moon three times over that period visiting a lunar site for 16 hours out of every 48 hours -

The price? $60 million each client - with another $20 million for each of the three extra flights. $420 million per trip.

With four capsules, one flight per week is sustained. 52x6 = 312 people generating 52x$0.42 billion/flight = $21.84 billion per year in potential revenues.

http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities

Each launch is $90 million - 52 launches per year - $4.68 billion. Each capsule costs $60 million and each bus extension $32 million. Reflying the capsule is $6 million.

So, five Dragon capsules is $300 million and and 52 flights is $2.03 billion. A total of $6.71 billion per year. That's $21.5 million per person.

So, with a $60 million ticket price, that's 40% down ($24 million) 40% due upon training completion. 20% due two weeks prior to launch. Spending 6% on contracting advertising and marketing - $402.6 million. about 1/2 what Amex spends in one quarter - which is the spend rate you'd have once things were organised.

According to SpaceX it will take five months to get a Dragon capsule ready. There are builders that are MTO - including SpaceX - that can build test and make ready products in less than six months.

http://www.tecaeromex.com/ingles/RB-i.htm

http://bit.ly/2cgULvK

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY

http://www.rethinkrobotics.com/baxter/

http://www.harperengineering.com/composites

http://www.space.com/27210-biosuit-s...pt-images.html

You would build and fly four capsules, 12 rocket belts, first with 6 Atlas advanced robots - and capture video - and use the captured video to promote the flights generally. Reusing the hardware and capsules to carry out four robotic flights, one for each capsule - to test all details of the missions.

Then, carry out four more flights with 28 crew chiefs for future missions - where each fly a mission once every 7 weeks - and spend the rest of their time on the ground at mission control, as well as training and qualifying to command a mission.

170 kg is brought one way to the moon with these rocket belts whilst returning the belt. The rocket belts also operate autonomously. So, propellant for 24 flights to the lunar surface allows 20 of these flights deliver 3400 kg to the lunar surface - and then deliver 4 Atlas robots to the surface and leave them to tend the base.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/4...lunar-habitat/

850 kg each allow four bases to be built - which are really just lunar cabins for two day stays. These are $20 million extra as well.

1,092 visits to the moon each year - collect a lot of data about the moon!

Small mobile cameras fly along with the explorers documenting their efforts, and are professionally crafted into finished videos for the guests.

https://hexoplus.com

Using rockets instead of rotors obviously.




  #2  
Old August 27th 16, 03:10 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default SpaceX DragonLab

William Mook wrote:


Each with a pair of Draco derivative engines that burn LOX/LNG. A total of 14 engines - that can be fired from within the cabin.


I don't know what engines those are or what they're derived from, but
they are not "Draco derivative engines". Draco is designed for
hypergolic fuels. You can't just magically change the entire system
to use LOX/LNG and claim it's a 'derivative' to make it sound 'easy'.

The least you can do is get the basics right before you spool off into
some numerical fantasy.

snip Magic Mookie Math and MookLunacy


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #3  
Old August 27th 16, 08:54 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default SpaceX DragonLab

William Mook wrote:

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 2:11:00 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:


Each with a pair of Draco derivative engines that burn LOX/LNG. A total of 14 engines - that can be fired from within the cabin.


I don't know what engines those are or what they're derived from, but
they are not "Draco derivative engines". Draco is designed for
hypergolic fuels. You can't just magically change the entire system
to use LOX/LNG and claim it's a 'derivative' to make it sound 'easy'.

The least you can do is get the basics right before you spool off into
some numerical fantasy.

snip Magic Mookie Math and MookLunacy


I see your knowledge of the pintle fed engine is on par with your aerospace knowledge generally - which is to say - NONEXISTENT! lol.


I see your knowledge of the hypergolic fueled engine is on a part with
your aerospace knowledge generally - which is to say - NONEXISTENT!
lol.


Tom Mueller is SpaceX propulsioin 'king'.


How nice for him, but irrelevant.

elide that famous 5 star restaurant dish, Mookie Strokin' Off


Mueller developed

(1) Merlin 1A
(2) Kestrel
(3) Merlin 1C,
(4) Merlin 1D and
(5) MVac

engines for SpaceX.


Not Draco or Super Draco.


Mueller is perfectly capable of building a LOX/LNG version of the Draco to meet the needs of the programme I've outlined, and can do it in 6 months for less than $0.5 million.


Except it wouldn't be a "version of the Draco". Your remarks are
rather like claiming that you're going to build a wood-fueled steam
powered version of the BMW L6.


You don't know that. I DO


You 'know' all sorts of silly ****, but you're a stark raving nutter.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
  #4  
Old August 27th 16, 09:40 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default SpaceX DragonLab

In article ,
says...


Mueller is perfectly capable of building a LOX/LNG version of the Draco to meet the needs of the programme I've outlined, and can do it in 6 months for less than $0.5 million.


Except it wouldn't be a "version of the Draco". Your remarks are
rather like claiming that you're going to build a wood-fueled steam
powered version of the BMW L6.

You don't know that. I DO


You 'know' all sorts of silly ****, but you're a stark raving nutter.


Mook has really gone of the deep end again.

Pressure fed hypergolic engines like Draco are *nothing* like a possible
cryogenic LOX/LNG engine. With cryogenic liquids, you'd likely want a
turbopump instead of going pressure fed. That would make the engine
cycles completely different, so there would be very few similarities
between them.

Besides, my guess is that the SpaceX MCT is more likely to use Raptor
engines than anything Draco sized. Hopefully, we'll know more in the
fall, which is when Musk plans to announce some details.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #5  
Old August 27th 16, 11:55 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default SpaceX DragonLab

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 7:54:48 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 2:11:00 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:


Each with a pair of Draco derivative engines that burn LOX/LNG. A total of 14 engines - that can be fired from within the cabin.


I don't know what engines those are or what they're derived from, but
they are not "Draco derivative engines". Draco is designed for
hypergolic fuels. You can't just magically change the entire system
to use LOX/LNG and claim it's a 'derivative' to make it sound 'easy'.

The least you can do is get the basics right before you spool off into
some numerical fantasy.

snip Magic Mookie Math and MookLunacy


I see your knowledge of the pintle fed engine is on par with your aerospace knowledge generally - which is to say - NONEXISTENT! lol.


I see your knowledge of the hypergolic fueled engine is on a part with
your aerospace knowledge generally - which is to say - NONEXISTENT!
lol.


You have no idea what you're talking about.

TRW's patents, which are the basis of TRW's lunar module descent engine, and variants of that engine work with ANY propellant combination. They are self adjusting, very reliable, and deeply throttlable - allowing them to maintain constant pressure under a wide range of conditions with ANY KNOWN PROPELLANT COMBINATION!

A pintle injector is a type of propellant injection device for a rocket engine that was first used on a flight vehicle during the Apollo Program in the Lunar Excursion Module's Descent Propulsion System. Pintle injectors are currently used in SpaceX's engines (all types) and was used in the TR-201 LOX/LH2 engine (650,000 lbf thrust).

The origins of the pintle injector were early laboratory experimental apparatus, used by Caltech and JPL in the mid-1950s, to study propellant mixing and combustion reaction times of hypergolic liquid propellants. At that time thousands of combinations of propellants have been used and tested with the pintle fed design the most practical are;.

Cryogenic
Liquid oxygen (LOX, O2) and liquid hydrogen (LH2, H2) –

Semi-cryogenic
Liquid oxygen (LOX) and kerosene or RP-1
Liquid oxygen (LOX) and alcohol (ethanol, C2H5OH)
Liquid oxygen (LOX) and gasoline
Liquid oxygen (LOX) and liquid methane (CH4)
Liquid oxygen (LOX) and carbon monoxide (CO) –

Hypergolic

T-Stoff (80% hydrogen peroxide, H2O2 as the oxidizer) and C-Stoff (methanol, CH3OH, and hydrazine hydrate, N2H4•n(H2O) as the fuel)

Nitric acid (HNO3) and kerosene –

Inhibited red fuming nitric acid (IRFNA, HNO3 + N2O4) and unsymmetric dimethyl hydrazine (UDMH, (CH3)2N2H2) –

Nitric acid 73% with dinitrogen tetroxide 27% (AK27) and kerosene/gasoline mixture (TM-185)
High-test peroxide (H2O2) and kerosene –
Hydrazine (N2H4) and red fuming nitric acid –
Unsymmetric dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) and dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) –
Aerozine 50 (50% UDMH, 50% hydrazine) and dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4)
Monomethylhydrazine (MMH, (CH3)HN2H2) and dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) –

The pintle injector was reduced to practice and developed by Space Technology Laboratories (STL), then a division of Ramo-Wooldridge Corp., later TRW starting in 1960; however, it was not until October 1972 that U.S. Patent 3,699,772 for invention of the pintle injector was granted to Gerry Elverum, of TRW and made public.


https://www.google.com/patents/US3699772
https://www.google.com/patents/US3722219
https://www.google.com/patents/US3344605
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3391533.html

A pintle injector is a coaxial injector. Propellant stream A (fuel or oxidizer) flows through an outer tube, coming out as a cylindrical stream, while propellant stream B (complement of A) flows in an inner tube and impinges on a pintle shaped similarly to a car-engine poppet valve, which causes B to spray outward in a broad cone or flat sheet that intersects the cylindrical stream of propellant A. In some variants the pintle has grooves cut into it to produce radial jets in the flow of propellant B.

If propellant B is the fuel and A the oxidizer, the pintle arrangement can be set up to get fuel-film cooling of the inside of the combustion chamber automatically; also, pintle injectors allow deep throttling without large losses in combustion efficiency. Pintle injectors also avoid acoustic combustion instability, and therefore have an excellent safety record. Many people have experienced throttleable pintle sprayers in the form of standard garden hose-end sprayers.


Tom Mueller is SpaceX propulsioin 'king'.


How nice for him, but irrelevant. Obviously you do not know Tom Mueller or his background and his relation to the pintle engine.

elide that famous 5 star restaurant dish, Mookie Strokin' Off


You sir are an ignorant ass.


Mueller developed

(1) Merlin 1A
(2) Kestrel
(3) Merlin 1C,
(4) Merlin 1D and
(5) MVac

engines for SpaceX.


Not Draco or Super Draco.


Those too - that was obvious from the thread.


Mueller is perfectly capable of building a LOX/LNG version of the Draco to meet the needs of the programme I've outlined, and can do it in 6 months for less than $0.5 million.


Except it wouldn't be a "version of the Draco".


Yes it would be.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/thomas-mueller-2094513b

Your remarks are
rather like claiming that you're going to build a wood-fueled steam
powered version of the BMW L6.


Nonsense. You make **** up and believe just because your gut tells you that its right, it must be true.

You are delusional.

For example, just now you deluded yourself into believing that Mueller had nothing at all to do with Draco and Super Draco. You ignore the patents I outlined above which are the core IP upon which SpaceX launch and recovery capabilities are built.

How important are they?

In 2002, Northrop Grumman acquired TRW Inc., which had acquired Braddock Dunn & McDonald (BDM) in 1997, and became the Space Technology sector based in Redondo Beach, CA, and the Mission Systems sector based in Reston, VA, with sole interest in their space systems and laser systems manufacturing. The Aeronautical division was sold to Goodrich, and the automotive divisions were spun off and retained the TRW name.

Kent Kresa was the CEO of the company, who led the serial-acquisition strategy that caused Grumman to acquire TRW. There was a total of 15 acquisitions from 1994-2003. Targets included Litton, Logicon, Westinghouse's defense electronics business, Ryan Aeronautical and Newport News Shipbuilding, in addtion to TRW. Kresa retired in 2003 at age 65.

In 2003 Ronald Sugar, the former chief operating officer, took over as CEO. Effective Oct. 1, 2003, Sugar also served as the company chairman of the board. The TRW space division was an important part in building deeply throttlable engines important to MIRV and other advanced weapons systems. Sugar was not pleased after paying $7.3 billion for TRW to gain its aerospace division that its chief engineer and all the top scientists and engineers at the division left the company and went over to work for SpaceX - at a cost of $0.1 billion to Elon Musk.

So, Northrop alleged in California state court that SpaceX and its chief engineer, Tom Mueller, who had worked at TRW prior to it being acquired by Northrop, and was promoted to top spot by Simon Ramo the legendary rocket scientist behind TRW's role in the development of the ICBM in the 1950s, stole trade secrets now owned by Northrup Grumman for the obscure rocket-engine part - the pintle.

SpaceX countered by accusing Northrop in federal court of abusing its government-advisory role to obtain proprietary information and gain an illegal competitive advantage. This is a bold strategy! Basically Musk was saying that the US taxpayers paid for the development of the part and he had every right to use it on that basis in his business. Mueller and his team were free men and women, not slaves of Northrup or TRW. They had been frustrated for years seeing their technology sidelined on one pretext or another, and they had every right to join an innovative company that would actually build flying hardware with the part. Further, and this was the genius part of the counter-claim, Northrup by taking on an advisory role to the USAF regarding technology, had an inherent conflict of interest in making their claim.

After the Air Force asked Grumman for their mitigation plan, both companies had to deny any wrongdoing.

Now, because of the wording of SpaceX's counter-claim, the USAF had to act. So, during the dispute, the Air Force's Space & Missile Systems Center said it had no evidence that Northrop did anything improper, but it asked Northrop to submit a "conflict-of-interest mitigation plan." after the SpaceX counter-claim.

Candrea Thomas, spokeswoman for the space center, told reporters early February 2005 following a press release by the Air Force, that "the mitigation plan [from Grumman] has been approved by the government," though she couldn't comment on the details.

After the USAF request for a plan from Grumman, Northrop Grumman Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp. settled their legal battle over the rocket engine part ending a dispute that highlighted potential conflicts of interest when defense contractors oversee work by rival companies. This was early February 2005.

Northrop and SpaceX agreed to drop tit-for-tat lawsuits and walk away without admitting any wrongdoing or paying legal fees and damages. Northrop and SpaceX confirmed they had withdrawn their lawsuits, but they said the settlement terms are confidential.

The agreement allowed SpaceX move toward the first launch of its Falcon rocket this spring of 2002 without the distraction and cost of litigation.

During this time, SpaceX acquired a disused 510,000 sq ft aircraft plant in Hawthorne from Grumman and leased it back to a group of New Jersey investors for cash after the lawsuit was settled for $47 million much of that cash which was paid to Grumman as part of the deal - the rest was put into SpaceX coffers to expand the programme to develop the TRW part into a wide array of engines needed for the SpaceX programme.

For Northrop, the deal removes allegations of ethical lapses that ultimately required the attention of Chairman and Chief Executive Ronald Sugar and Air Force oversight.

In January 2010, Wes Bush succeeded Sugar as CEO and became company president.
  #6  
Old August 28th 16, 12:11 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default SpaceX DragonLab

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 8:40:59 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...


Mueller is perfectly capable of building a LOX/LNG version of the Draco to meet the needs of the programme I've outlined, and can do it in 6 months for less than $0.5 million.


Except it wouldn't be a "version of the Draco". Your remarks are
rather like claiming that you're going to build a wood-fueled steam
powered version of the BMW L6.

You don't know that. I DO


You 'know' all sorts of silly ****, but you're a stark raving nutter.


Mook has really gone of the deep end again.


No I haven't. You have.

Pressure fed hypergolic engines like Draco are *nothing* like a possible
cryogenic LOX/LNG engine.


You don't know what you're talking about. You're focusing on a small detail that you know about, enlarging it to fill that vast gut of feeling you have about rockets - coming to precisely the wrong conclusion.

Tom Mueller built the TR-106 which used the same pintle fed engine and ablative jacket as the Lunar Module Descent Engine. Mueller used the same design in the Merlin Engine and the same design in the Draco engine. The TR-106 was a LOX/LH2 engine. The LMDE and Draco engines are hypergolic. The Merlin is hydrocarbon/LOX.

TRW TR-106 Pintle Injector Engine

Propellants: LOX/LH2
Thrust (sl): 650,000~ lbf

Notes: Starting in the late 1990s, TRW undertook, using company funds, to design and build a large engine that could operate on either LOx/LH2 or LOx/RP-1. The engine was expected to replace solid propellant booster strap-ons with liquid propellant stages having on-command throttling shutdown and restart. Liquid propellants were considered safer and more environmentally friendly than solids or hypergolics. The engine also was envisioned for powering the first stage of expendable, or fly-back, boosters developed by others.

The engine designed and demonstrated in this effort was designated the TR-106. It had a sea-level thrust of 650,000 lb and was either pressure fed or operated with gas-generator-driven turbopumps in the propellant lines.

The center pintle injector incorporated in the TR-106 engine operated equally well using LOx with RP-1, ethanol, propane, methane, or LH2. This basic injector technology has a 40-year history of producing high-performance and totally stable combustion without baffles or quarter-wave acoustic chambers in engines with thrust ranging from 100 lb to 650,000 lb.

The concept was originally developed at Space Technology Laboratories (STL) in 1960 as a 20:1 throttling injector for a 500-lb-thrust space-maneuvering thruster using dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) with monopropellant hydrazine (N2H4). That throttling design was scaled up to 10,000 lb thrust with 10:1 throttling using N2O4 with N2H4 50-UDMH 50 (Aerozine-50) and was used in the lunar module descent engine (LMDE) for the Apollo program. A fixed-thrust version of the engine was used on the second stage of Thor-Delta in the 1980s, where it accomplished more than 65 completely successful launches.

The same basic pintle injector geometry has been tested at thrusts of 40,000 and 250,000 lb operating with N2O4/A-50; at 50,000 lb with LOx/RP-1; and at 40,000 and 650,000 lb with LOx/LH2.

With cryogenic liquids, you'd likely want a
turbopump instead of going pressure fed.


That comment is totally clueless and comes out of the dark recesses of your gut.

That would make the engine
cycles completely different, so there would be very few similarities
between them.


Now that you've committed an egregious logical error based on nothing more than your uninformed prejudice, you confabulate and enlarge your mistake - building up into a frothy rant having no basis whatever in reality - but very real to you and your delusions.

Besides, my guess is that the SpaceX MCT is more likely to use Raptor
engines than anything Draco sized.


To build a rocket belt? I don't think so. The Raptor is a derivative of the TR-106 - and is really big - all you have to do is look at the prints of each side by side.

Hopefully, we'll know more in the
fall, which is when Musk plans to announce some details.


Of course if you know a thing or two about rocketry and know some of the parties involved, you already know what's going on in that regard. However, I was talking about taking off-the-shelf parts for the Draco and build basically a rocket powered quad copter arrangement - with the engines replacing rotors - and inertia wheels attached to the motors to maintain rotational control. The details are all worked out and are even available on an integrated system on chip.

https://www.ted.com/talks/raffaello_...rs?language=en


Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.


Jeff and Fred are both clueless asses that make **** up and then sell it as truth.

  #7  
Old August 28th 16, 07:16 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default SpaceX DragonLab

William Mook wrote:

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 7:54:48 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 2:11:00 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:


Each with a pair of Draco derivative engines that burn LOX/LNG. A total of 14 engines - that can be fired from within the cabin.


I don't know what engines those are or what they're derived from, but
they are not "Draco derivative engines". Draco is designed for
hypergolic fuels. You can't just magically change the entire system
to use LOX/LNG and claim it's a 'derivative' to make it sound 'easy'.

The least you can do is get the basics right before you spool off into
some numerical fantasy.

snip Magic Mookie Math and MookLunacy


I see your knowledge of the pintle fed engine is on par with your aerospace knowledge generally - which is to say - NONEXISTENT! lol.


I see your knowledge of the hypergolic fueled engine is on a part with
your aerospace knowledge generally - which is to say - NONEXISTENT!
lol.


You have no idea what you're talking about.


Of course I do and so does everyone else. I'm talking about you being
a nitwit, Mookie.

snip irrelevant MookSpew



Tom Mueller is SpaceX propulsioin 'king'.


How nice for him, but irrelevant. Obviously you do not know Tom Mueller or his background and his relation to the pintle engine.

elide that famous 5 star restaurant dish, Mookie Strokin' Off


You sir are an ignorant ass.


You, sir, are a bloviating ****.

[Note correct punctuation.]


Mueller developed

(1) Merlin 1A
(2) Kestrel
(3) Merlin 1C,
(4) Merlin 1D and
(5) MVac

engines for SpaceX.


Not Draco or Super Draco.


Those too - that was obvious from the thread.


No, Mookie. NOTHING is 'obvious' when you start spewing irrelevant
bull****. Just as the reason for listing all the unrelated engines is
not 'obvious' to anyone who is sane.


Mueller is perfectly capable of building a LOX/LNG version of the Draco to meet the needs of the programme I've outlined, and can do it in 6 months for less than $0.5 million.


Except it wouldn't be a "version of the Draco".


Yes it would be.


No, it wouldn't be.


https://www.linkedin.com/in/thomas-mueller-2094513b


Why would I care about someone's LinkedIn page?

Your remarks are
rather like claiming that you're going to build a wood-fueled steam
powered version of the BMW L6.


Nonsense. You make **** up and believe just because your gut tells you that its right, it must be true.

You are delusional.


You're a schizophrenic huckster.


For example, just now you deluded yourself into believing that Mueller had nothing at all to do with Draco and Super Draco. You ignore the patents I outlined above which are the core IP upon which SpaceX launch and recovery capabilities are built.


And here we go with the usual repetitious MookSpew. Mookie, you
repeating the same claims over and over doesn't change them.

snip repeated MookSpew



You don't know that. I DO


You 'know' all sorts of silly ****, but you're a stark raving nutter.


You are an ass who can't stand it when someone posts here who knows more than you.


No, I'm fine when people know more than I do. You're just not one of
those people and you can't stand that.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
  #8  
Old August 28th 16, 07:34 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default SpaceX DragonLab

William Mook wrote:


Jeff and Fred are both clueless asses that make **** up and then sell it as truth.


No, Mookie. Being a huckster has always been your schtick, regardless
of what you're trying to sell at any given time.


--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
 




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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SpaceX and NASA Host Teleconference Today on SpaceX 2 Mission to Space Station Jeff Findley[_2_] Policy 5 March 4th 13 10:40 PM
DragonLab To Fly In 2010 [email protected] Policy 5 November 7th 08 04:25 PM
SpaceX Alan Erskine[_2_] History 0 August 3rd 08 04:51 AM
SpaceX Craig Fink Policy 13 April 1st 07 12:53 PM
SpaceX tries again. [email protected] Policy 26 January 22nd 07 06:53 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:49 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.