Rockets Can Do It!

nightbat wrote

tomcat wrote:

ROCKET SCIENTISTS claim that a true single stage to orbit
vehicle(SSTO)is too difficult -- or impossible -- to build. They give
reasons for this. But they are wrong.

THEY SAY: Rockets gobble too much fuel. The amount needed to reach
orbit or escape velocity is beyond our technology.

These engineers/scientists believe that a rocket must have a continuous
burn lasting the length of the trip -- wrong. 4 minutes of fuel is all
a 2:1 thrust to weight spaceplane would need. One burn to clear the
atmosphere at orbital speed. Another burn to retrofire. And, about 20
seconds of fuel to abort a landing and reach another landing strip.

THEY SAY: Wings are dead weight. They aren't needed to rise above the
atmosphere, and they aren't needed in space.
A cargo plane can travel thousands of miles at 30,000 feet on thrust
that is 1/10th (.1:1 thrust to weight) the weight of the plane. This
incredible feat is accomplished by the aircraft's wings. A tube
rocket's thrust would have to be greater than 1:1 just to get off the
pad. A rocket is dead weight . . . without wings.

THEY SAY: The size of a rocket makes no difference to it's range
capability.

They actually believe that a 1 inch perfect replica of a Saturn V
rocket could fly to the Moon! They make this claim to support their
belief that scaling up the size of the Space Shuttle would result
exactly the same performance as the current Shuttle. I suppose, then,
that a 1 inch perfect replica of the Space Shuttle could achieve orbit?
Enough said.

THEY SAY: That parachutes are better for landing because wings are
wasted weight, and parachutes would be better than a heat shield.

Well, a heat shield is needed to deorbit regardless of whether or not
you use parachutes or wings. So, that problem remains. Wings give you
a smooth landing, not a bump you can't control.

THEY SAY: Capsules are better because they are more efficient and
wings aren't needed once you leave the Earth.

Without wings I doubt if the cargo capacity of a simple 'capsule' would
justify the mission in the first place. We have to go beyond just
pictures and rock hunting or outer space isn't worth the money and
effort. Also, unless I am misinformed, all of the planets in our solar
system have atmospheres. Mars has very little, but wings would help
some. Other planets, such as Venus, have dense atmospheres in which
wings would be a tremendous help.

THESE ROCKET SCIENTISTS base much of their expertise on the
Tsiolokovsky Rocket Equations. Those equations along with the
mathematics of orbital mechanics are used to determine what NASA can
and cannot accomplish.

Konstantin Tsiolkovsky lived in the very early 19th Century. The
rockets he wrote the equations for went, perhaps, a thousand feet into
the air. Therefore, they were calculated for ballistic trajectory.
His equations do not explain that a 1 inch perfect replica cannot keep
up with it's full scale cousin. And, his equations, written about
1910, relate to tube rockets -- no wings. Later, about 1930,
Tsiolkovsky himself advocated rockets with wings. Enough said.

tomcat

nightbat

Don't tell our Officer Bert all this.

ponder on,
the nightbat

Hi nightbat I'm laughing for you have read my many posts that say "You
don't put wings on rockets" Planes need wings Planes need
airfields Someday parachutes will not be needed when we perfect
retro-rockets.We do have jet planes that come down vertically.
Best to keep in mind the Soyuz spacecraft is the longest-serving
spacecraft in the world. It goes back to the early 1960s The Russian
space program having little money still had the brains to revolve this
spacecraft to Soyuz TM,and used this new version to ferry cosmonauts to
and from the Russian space station Mir and Mir lasted 13 years. NASA
never made the shuttles any better. They were a piece of crap from day
one. Discovery proved its no safer than Columbia even though NASA got
1,48 billion dollars to make if safer.(Griffin said nothing was done in
2.5 years) This begs the question that I dare to ask "What happened to
the money? How much money are the families suing NASA for the death of
their love ones? Like the Challenger suits it will be settled out of
court (a pay off) Bert

nightbat wrote

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:

Hi nightbat I'm laughing for you have read my many posts that say "You
don't put wings on rockets" Planes need wings Planes need
airfields Someday parachutes will not be needed when we perfect
retro-rockets.We do have jet planes that come down vertically.
Best to keep in mind the Soyuz spacecraft is the longest-serving
spacecraft in the world. It goes back to the early 1960s The Russian
space program having little money still had the brains to revolve this
spacecraft to Soyuz TM,and used this new version to ferry cosmonauts to
and from the Russian space station Mir and Mir lasted 13 years. NASA
never made the shuttles any better. They were a piece of crap from day
one. Discovery proved its no safer than Columbia even though NASA got
1,48 billion dollars to make if safer.(Griffin said nothing was done in
2.5 years) This begs the question that I dare to ask "What happened to
the money? How much money are the families suing NASA for the death of
their love ones? Like the Challenger suits it will be settled out of
court (a pay off) Bert

nightbat

Approximately one and a half billion US dollars is a lot of
budget money for Nasa admittedly having received and not fixed the same
problem that doomed the Columbia. Where did the money go then is a good
question and manned craft should always get the bulk of the
appropriations for safety design concerns rather then unmanned project
missions. But in this case did they blow most of it trying to fix and
maintain the Hubble and leave the shuttle upgrades on the rear burner?
How many launches and reentry's did they expect the shuttle to
realistically take before all the tiles and form start to fall off?
Could be the original tiled clue integrity expectations were way too
optimistic, and the external fuel tanks may also have to be entirely
foam reclued or some other way foam permanently bonded, laminated, or
design covered, before, during, and after each launch. Frankly Officer
Bert a new space vehicle design would be better, but can present
administration Nasa be trusted to deliver since they admittedly receive
money without fixing what's wrong?

carry on,
the nightbat