Time to Think ‘Horizontal’ for Future Space Launches

In article d60a8882-a357-43aa-b1fb-
, says...

On Nov 29, 6:43*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article f9331f52-7a9e-4626-9508-859304c4d60e@
35g2000prt.googlegroups.com, says...
On Nov 22, 10:52 am, Jeff Findley
wrote:
given the unproven
technologies in your design.

There are no unproven technologies in my design.

You keep saying that, but it's clearly false. *Several of the
technologies are not ready for application on the scale and in the
environment you propose. *I'm not going to enumerate them here because
you've done nothing to show that these technologies really are ready.

What Mook has proposed isn't entirely unproven, although you still
can't buy most of the stuff at Sears. What's technically possible to
accomplish is simply what Mook is suggesting can be accomplished.

Failure in reasoning noted. Mook has to prove what's "technically
possible", he can't just assume everything he wants to do is possible.

The fact of the matter is that he has several unproven technologies in
his design. Those technologies have not flown on a reusable launch
vehicle the size of which he proposes.

Jeff
--
42

On Nov 29, 8:34*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Poor Guthball has gone into 'echo spew' mode again...

Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 29, 2:46 am, William Mook wrote:
On Nov 27, 10:30 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:

William Mook wrote:
On Nov 27, 6:55 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Nov 27, 1:01 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Nov 23, 7:06 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
Fred, removing rude comments is not removing context. Bottom line I
say I can take elements of the RS-68 engine, along with the External
Tank and produce a multi-element 3-stage highly reusable flight system
for about $10 billion. You say that's not possible.

For what you claim to be building.

That the number is ridiculously low.

For what you claim to be building.

This despite the fact that the entire
development program for the shuttle was $6.5 billion including
development of the ET.

I don't see ANYONE sane buying your numbers, Mookie. Give it up.

Hint: "The data show that over the entire lifetime of the space
shuttle program the cost has been $145 billion, and about $112 billion
since the program became operational."

http://www.space.com/news/shuttle_cost_050211.html

Hint: Subtract $112 billion from $145 billion and you get $33 billion
to get the Space Shuttle to operational status, not $6.5 billion.

Hint: Just BUILDING an Orbiter (only part of the system) for which we
already had full designs and working vehicles cost something like $1.5
billion.

Anyone who troubles themselves to look at what things actually cost
will see my numbers are conservative and the returns support the
investment.

Anyone who troubles themselves to look at what things actually cost
will see your numbers and laugh themselves sick.

That's not true. Those numbers were prepared by qualified experts I
am merely addressing your continuing and pernicious attempts to
characterize them wrongly.

Of course they were, Mookie. Those experts you cannot name. I can
see why they'd want to keep their names secret...

I did name them. Lockheed and Boeing. sheez.

But we don't believe your bare assertions, having seen how you twist
reality at every opportunity.

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

Interesting how Fred sees his actions in the innocent actions of
others. Its called projection Fred. Look it up.

Exactly, so we simply have to pick and choose those we reply to, which
means we each have to cut our losses and focus on the goal at hand.
Obviously hired agents like Fred J. McCall are a total waste of time
(because that's their job), not that some of their information isn't
interesting and worth taking into account, because there are many
other hired agents that we have to deal with.

At least individuals like yourself and myself have been using our
deductive interpretations for putting new and improved ideas on the
table, and otherwise trying to improve the quality of life for others
as well as offering methods for salvaging our environment that isn't
going to last forever, whereas Fred is continually doing absolutely
nothing positive or constructive (other than mainstream status-quo
damage control).

Fred had been an agent for hire, so he's simply doing his job of
screwing with others like yourself and me. *He has no intentions of
ever constructively helping another soul on Earth, other than his
temporary boss that hired him.

What Fred J. McCall does here as of yesterday, today and in the future
is pretty much next to meaningless, other than wasting your time and
causing delays that are costing you and others precious time and loot.

His using "The author of this message requested that it not be
archived. This message will be removed from Groups in 5 days" means
that he wants as little if any record of his past.

~ BG

Apparently your hired expertise has met its match. Tell us again how
your public funded team of fly-by-rocket wizards approves of your
actions?

~ BG

On Nov 29, 7:46*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article d60a8882-a357-43aa-b1fb-
, says...





On Nov 29, 6:43*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article f9331f52-7a9e-4626-9508-859304c4d60e@
35g2000prt.googlegroups.com, says...
On Nov 22, 10:52 am, Jeff Findley
wrote:
given the unproven
technologies in your design.

There are no unproven technologies in my design.

You keep saying that, but it's clearly false. *Several of the
technologies are not ready for application on the scale and in the
environment you propose. *I'm not going to enumerate them here because
you've done nothing to show that these technologies really are ready.

What Mook has proposed isn't entirely unproven, although you still
can't buy most of the stuff at Sears. *What's technically possible to
accomplish is simply what Mook is suggesting can be accomplished.

Failure in reasoning noted. *Mook has to prove what's "technically
possible", he can't just assume everything he wants to do is possible.

You need to start someplace. Assuming purely negative or naysay
thoughts isn't exactly a good method of moving anything along.
*

The fact of the matter is that he has several unproven technologies in
his design. *Those technologies have not flown on a reusable launch
vehicle the size of which he proposes.

Jeff
--
42

As I said, most of Mook's stuff is too advanced and thereby can't be
bought at Sears, or even WalMart, which doesn't mean that it can't be
created as based upon proven research (mostly public funded none the
less) and even of existing examples or surplus (also public funded)
that simply needs to get re-utilized with only minor if any
modifications.

Your reasoning is to pretty much do nothing, so obviously that's about
as cheap and failsafe as we can get.

~ BG

On Nov 29, 7:33*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 677586a2-2be4-437e-956b-a80df36f5b41
@u25g2000pra.googlegroups.com, says...





On Nov 22, 7:57*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 9dee8736-8370-49f5-a202-d64400445e11
@z19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, says...

Google Groups version of Usenet/newsgroups makes it possible to
excluded as much as you like, because the original context is usually
still in plain sight for all to read.

Not everyone uses Google Groups. *Some of us prefer to use real
newsreaders instead of a web based interface. *I'm currently using
MicroPlanet Gravity and am liking it very much.

Good for you, not that it matters to outsiders or whomever is looking
for ideas, honest news or a public place to vent. *It seems the "web
based interface" works just fine an dandy, as long as you don't let
whatever everyone else has to say get you down.

With your "MicroPlanet Gravity" method, I'm certain you can filter out
everything that's the least bit unpleasant or not to your liking.

I have relatively few filters, aside from spam. *I can see your
postings, which is argument enough that I'm not filtering much.

What I was talking about was quoting, an entirely different topic.

Jeff
--
42

I agree that keeping topics constructively focused would be nice, and
otherwise almost as nice if the mainstream cesspool likes of Fred J.
McCall, rabbi Saul Levy and other ZNR approved rednecks never showed
up.

~ BG

On Nov 29, 7:29*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article c9248c43-42ba-40c2-a7dc-
, says...



At least those Mook drawing are more complete than we have of those
Apollo drawings that cost us rather dearly.

This is utter b.s. *The Saturn V drawings were never lost. *

http://www.space.com/news/spacehisto...ve_000313.html

Jeff
--
42

Might as well be lost, because they are no longer understood and most
of the spendy inventory plus tooling has been tossed. Therefore we
get to restart entirely from scratch, and thus far we haven't
accomplished half as good of method for getting really big and massive
stuff into and beyond LEO.

China or even Russia of that past era could have been mass producing
those Saturn Vs for at most ten cents on the dollar as of decades ago,
but instead our bogus perpetrated cold-war(s) that has cost everyone
trillions per decade and got us into all sorts of global trouble,
including nearly WW3, 911 plus a few too many other near-death and
actual death situations. Are you still a happy camper about all of
that? Would you do it all over again, without changing a damn thing?

Just because we took the better Jews away from Hitler's fly-by-rocket
team, doesn't mean that we always did the right thing from that point
on.

~ BG

On Nov 30, 12:58*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:

I agree that keeping topics constructively focused would be nice, and
otherwise almost as nice if the mainstream cesspool likes of Fred J.
McCall, rabbi Saul Levy and other ZNR approved rednecks never showed
up.

Can't we get the Guthball recommitted someplace? *He's obviously
getting worse...

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

Nice try, but no gold star for you.

~ BG

On Nov 30, 12:57*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:

Apparently your hired expertise has met its match. *Tell us again how
your public funded team of fly-by-rocket wizards approves of your
actions?

Apparently you've been off your meds longer than usual, as the
preceding is pretty nuts even for a man like you, known for being
nuts.

Whatever you do, don't go to sleep, Guthball. *The aliens will come
and anal probe you...

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

Again, no gold star for Fred. Your boss and coworkers are going to be
very disappointed (again).

~ BG

In article d072d2a8-afde-4cd7-b469-
, says...

On Nov 29, 7:46*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article d60a8882-a357-43aa-b1fb-
, says...
On Nov 29, 6:43*am, Jeff Findley
wrote:
In article f9331f52-7a9e-4626-9508-859304c4d60e@
35g2000prt.googlegroups.com, says...
On Nov 22, 10:52 am, Jeff Findley
wrote:
given the unproven
technologies in your design.

There are no unproven technologies in my design.

You keep saying that, but it's clearly false. *Several of the
technologies are not ready for application on the scale and in the
environment you propose. *I'm not going to enumerate them here because
you've done nothing to show that these technologies really are ready.

What Mook has proposed isn't entirely unproven, although you still
can't buy most of the stuff at Sears. *What's technically possible to
accomplish is simply what Mook is suggesting can be accomplished.

Failure in reasoning noted. *Mook has to prove what's "technically
possible", he can't just assume everything he wants to do is possible.

You need to start someplace. Assuming purely negative or naysay
thoughts isn't exactly a good method of moving anything along.

Hope is not a sound engineering practice.

The fact of the matter is that he has several unproven technologies
in
his design. *Those technologies have not flown on a reusable launch
vehicle the size of which he proposes.

As I said, most of Mook's stuff is too advanced and thereby can't be
bought at Sears, or even WalMart, which doesn't mean that it can't be
created as based upon proven research (mostly public funded none the
less) and even of existing examples or surplus (also public funded)
that simply needs to get re-utilized with only minor if any
modifications.

Your reasoning is to pretty much do nothing, so obviously that's about
as cheap and failsafe as we can get.

You can't buy Mook's stuff anywhere, except, perhaps, an unmodified ET
or an unmodified RS-68 pump set, and those aren't suitable for his
purposes without a crap load of R&D on the rest of the system.

You can't buy Mook's inflatable heat shield anywhere. It's a research
topic.

You can't buy Mook's aerospike engine anywhere. He proposes building a
new engine starting with the RS-68 pumps. Aside from very small scale
sounding rockets, aerospike engines simply have not flown before.

You can't buy Mook's inflatable, deployable, ET sized wings anywhere.
It's a research topic.

You can't buy Mook's movable landing pad anywhere. That one is a real
nightmare waiting to happen. DC-X tests showed some very unusual and
unexpected engine/airframe/ground interactions depending on the landing
surface (e.g. metal grate was "interesting"). It's a research topic.

His whole design is a research topic, yet his supposed R&D budget is not
sized appropriately.

Jeff
--
42

On Nov 30, 9:57*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article d072d2a8-afde-4cd7-b469-
, says...





On Nov 29, 7:46 am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article d60a8882-a357-43aa-b1fb-
, says....
On Nov 29, 6:43 am, Jeff Findley
wrote:
In article f9331f52-7a9e-4626-9508-859304c4d60e@
35g2000prt.googlegroups.com, says...
On Nov 22, 10:52 am, Jeff Findley
wrote:
given the unproven
technologies in your design.

There are no unproven technologies in my design.

You keep saying that, but it's clearly false. Several of the
technologies are not ready for application on the scale and in the
environment you propose. I'm not going to enumerate them here because
you've done nothing to show that these technologies really are ready.

What Mook has proposed isn't entirely unproven, although you still
can't buy most of the stuff at Sears. What's technically possible to
accomplish is simply what Mook is suggesting can be accomplished.

Failure in reasoning noted. Mook has to prove what's "technically
possible", he can't just assume everything he wants to do is possible..

You need to start someplace. *Assuming purely negative or naysay
thoughts isn't exactly a good method of moving anything along.

Hope is not a sound engineering practice.



The fact of the matter is that he has several unproven technologies
in
his design. Those technologies have not flown on a reusable launch
vehicle the size of which he proposes.

As I said, most of Mook's stuff is too advanced and thereby can't be
bought at Sears, or even WalMart, which doesn't mean that it can't be
created as based upon proven research (mostly public funded none the
less) and even of existing examples or surplus (also public funded)
that simply needs to get re-utilized with only minor if any
modifications.

Your reasoning is to pretty much do nothing, so obviously that's about
as cheap and failsafe as we can get.

You can't buy Mook's stuff anywhere, except, perhaps, an unmodified ET
or an unmodified RS-68 pump set, and those aren't suitable for his
purposes without a crap load of R&D on the rest of the system.

You can't buy Mook's inflatable heat shield anywhere. *It's a research
topic. *

You can't buy Mook's aerospike engine anywhere. *He proposes building a
new engine starting with the RS-68 pumps. *Aside from very small scale
sounding rockets, aerospike engines simply have not flown before.

You can't buy Mook's inflatable, deployable, ET sized wings anywhere. *
It's a research topic.

You can't buy Mook's movable landing pad anywhere. *That one is a real
nightmare waiting to happen. *DC-X tests showed some very unusual and
unexpected engine/airframe/ground interactions depending on the landing
surface (e.g. metal grate was "interesting"). *It's a research topic.

His whole design is a research topic, yet his supposed R&D budget is not
sized appropriately.

Jeff
--
42

I've offered a 50/50 deal, whereas up to 50% could be public funded,
but apparently that's still not good enough. It seems rich folks like
our Mook are seldom capable of spending any of their own loot, so
there really nothing new about any of that.

Who would you put in charge of agencies like our DARPA and NASA, and
how would you keep them funded so that there were few if any R&D
restrictions?

Personally I feel that our public-funded special interest groups like
our NIF that are way spendy and going nowhere constructively with our
loot, should be put on eBay and sold to the highest bidder. In other
words, it's way past due that we need to get off the pot.

Hopefully President BHO will take a 50% cut is his federal salary
(starting as of January 01, 2011), thus setting up a good standard for
others to follow, by suggesting that all federal agencies and their
contracted services take at least a 25% cut across the board
(including all medical, retirement and other benefits).

I have posted other methods of paying for spendy stuff, but I'm sure
that you and of course Mook wouldn't like any of them, even if they
didn't cost either of you a dime.

~ BG

On Nov 30, 8:01*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:

Again, no gold star for Fred. *Your boss and coworkers are going to be
very disappointed (again).

My boss and coworkers could care less, Guthball. *My time, my
equipment, my money. *I doubt anyone even looks at the frothing loon
spew that sci.space.policy has become. *

And you think it's important enough for governments to care about?
That's really QUITE funny...

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

Spoken like a public funded agent, spook, mole, rusemaster or
whatever. Good for you and those other ZNRs that you hang with.

~ BG