RC Rocketry - Ready to Fly to Orbit

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 5:56:55 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 1:54:52 AM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:
On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 11:22:07 PM UTC-5, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
The next logical step is reuse of the first stage because it also
requires little to no new technology. It's been a long time coming
since DC-X first proved VTVL was a quite viable mode of operation for a
rocket powered vehicle.

I miss DC-X. It was the last exciting thing to happen in space launch
technology.

Agreed. Unfortunately, in the excitement which followed DC-X, Lockheed
Martin with X-33 and Orbital Sciences with X-34 did a fine job of
convincing (soome within) NASA that reusable launch vehicles were beyond
(then) current tech:

Art Stephenson, director of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center said (of
canceling X-33 and X-34), "We have gained a tremendous amount of
knowledge from these X-programs, but one of the things we have learned
is that our technology has not yet advanced to the point that we can
successfully develop a new reusable launch vehicle that substantially
improves safety, reliability and affordability," he said.

So, it's back to the past for NASA with Orion/SLS, repeating the
mistakes of Apollo/Saturn half a century later. :-P

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

nasa is a jobs program, science etc has nothing to do with nasas mission. reusable vehicles for and by nasa would cut into the jobs they want to create. like everything government releated, efficency, saving money, etc etc is not a goal, the only goal is dispensing cash to the politically connected

Debt held by the public was approximately $11.901 trillion in 2013.

Intragovernmental holdings stood at $4.837 trillion.

This gives a combined total public debt of $16.738 trillion.


Uh, no. The phrases 'debt held by the public' and 'public debt' mean
the same thing. 'Intergovernmental holdings' are something else
(primarily what is owed to the Social Security Trust Fund, where the
government has 'borrowed' from itself) and not 'public debt'.

When I find errors that early, I wind up doing this...

snip remainder unread

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

The man thinks there's errors in what the Federal Reserve writes because HE doesn't understand it and stops reading factual data from the Federal Reserve as a result. This is an illustration how confused people can remain ignorant even though they may exhibit high intelligence in other ways.

Such people can become emotionally unstable because they fail to see how they limit themselves - and so get into a habit of projecting on to others all sorts of negative emotions they should properly feel toward themselves.

Sad really.

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 5:57:54 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Still waiting for an answer from Mookie other than "I know it exists
but it's all secret, so you just have to take my word for it".

I didn't say that and anyone who suffered through your mendacities knows it..

I call bull****.

So? Who died and made you arbiter of reality? lol.


William Mook wrote:

On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 11:01:23 PM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Bull****, mook.

Not at all.


And I'm still waiting for ANY straight answers

You're the one twisting in the wind, not me.

from you that don't
amount to "it's secret, so I know it's real".

You're confusing and confabulating what I've written. Perhaps you should stop drinking for a few days before replying with such idiotic emotion.

William Mook wrote:

On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 2:42:49 AM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 9:23:27 PM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 11:16:27 AM UTC-5, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

William Mook wrote:


A careful review of capabilities and publications indicate that aerospace vendors since about the 1970s have had the ability to achieve 2% structure fraction with LOX/LH2 propellant combination and have also had the ability to create advanced aerospike engines that seamlessly operate as a rocket at subsonic speeds and as an external combustion ramjet and scramjet at higher speeds.


Cite? You truly don't understand the point of an aerospike engine, do
you?

snip remaining Mookspew unread

He's not only missed the point entirely, he's confused the very basic
operation of a rocket engine with those of air breathing engines. :-(

The aerospike is an altitude compensating engine that changes its expansion ratio with altitude as air pressure changes.


Ah, he finally looked it up! Must have been my hint. He's pasting
word for word from Wikipedia! With no understanding, of course....


The aerospike engine changes its expansion ratio with altitude at air pressure changes.


Yes, it does indeed do that. So do other variable expansion nozzles.
You can look up a definition, paste it, but that hardly means you
understand it.


Anyone who thinks the aerospike operates totally and completely independently of the
atmosphere has failed to understand the advantages of the aerospike operation.


Since I haven't seen anyone assert any such thing, Mookie is
apparently either failing to read (again) or stuffing strawmen
(again).

Since the aerospike responds to the atmosphere by changing its expansion ratio
it obviously is not operating independently of the atmosphere, so is easily adapted
to the other designs.


Wrong.


You are wrong. The aerospike engine in a sort of 'inside-out' version of a bell nozzle. As such, it easily interacts with the surrounding air. So, its easy to put a duct around it, change the location of the duct, and run the engine at various Oxygen/Fuel mix ratio to obtain a flexible combined cycle engine. One that operates as an aerospike, as an air augmented rocket, or as a supersonic combustion ram jet. Depending on the the engine settings.

For example, you can't turn it into a ducted rocket because
then you've lost what makes it an aerospike engine (and the nice
adjustment to expansion ratio you used to get).

You are dead wrong. All combined cycle engines start with an aerospike since that's the easiest to work with since the exhaust interacts with the air while it is still interacting with the thrust structure. Your 'analysis' is naive and based on a fundamental misapprehension of what is going on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzXcTFfV3Ls

The DC-XA used a composite hydrogen tank along with a Lithium oxygen tank - very similar to the X-33 arrangement of a composite hydrogen tank and a lightweight metal oxygen tank.

Debt held by the public was approximately $11.901 trillion in 2013.

Intragovernmental holdings stood at $4.837 trillion.

This gives a combined total public debt of $16.738 trillion.

Now the credit market debt outstanding of United States businesses and households total $57.981 trillion. This is used by businesses and households in the US to support the real US economy.

However, the financial debt, debts carried by the banks against their financial operations, something that was illegal before 1999, and after 1933, rose from $0.0 to $1.2 Quadrillion by 2010!

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/06/...es-market-gdp/


$ 16.8 trillion - USG/Local/State Govt.
$ 58.0 trillion - Business & Household Debt.
$1,200.0 trillion - Bogus Speculative Debt (since 1999)

The way to resolve the coming crisis is to separate the Speculative debt from the real debts, put them in two different entities, and let the Bogus Speculative Debt go.

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 12:50:22 AM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

Debt held by the public was approximately $11.901 trillion in 2013.

Intragovernmental holdings stood at $4.837 trillion.

This gives a combined total public debt of $16.738 trillion.


Wrong. I've explained this to you before. Go look up the Treasury
Department definition of 'public debt'. It does not include
intergovernmental holdings.

snip irrelevant material

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

I don't know what references you have misread and are misapplying here, but its obviously clear to anyone that debts held in government accounts are government debts by anyone's definition.

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 12:44:06 AM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzXcTFfV3Ls

The DC-XA used a composite hydrogen tank along with a Lithium oxygen tank - very
similar to the X-33 arrangement of a composite hydrogen tank and a lightweight
metal oxygen tank.


No, not really similar at all. DC-XA was a development system. The
flight regime of the two was almost as different as it was possible to
be. In three test flights, DC-XA suffered two accidents. The
accident on the third flight was enough to cause the vehicle to be
scrapped.

DC-XA's only really successful flight reached a whopping 10,000 feet
of altitude and last a whole 142 seconds.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

You need to get it through your thick skull that

1) I'm not responsible for your misapprehensions and
2) your mistaken views of reality or
3) your misapplication to subjects I write about.

Furthermore, its hard for any rational person to understand

1) what the hell you're going on about half the time,
2) let alone figure out just why you're so damned wrong, and then
3) attempt to engage you in the thankless task of educating you.

Since you are such a mentally deficient person to start out with.

The only advice I can give you at this juncture, is to consider the notion that you might be wrong. That's the beginning of true education.

Good luck!

On Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 3:42:53 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 12:50:22 AM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

Debt held by the public was approximately $11.901 trillion in 2013.

Intragovernmental holdings stood at $4.837 trillion.

This gives a combined total public debt of $16.738 trillion.


Wrong. I've explained this to you before. Go look up the Treasury
Department definition of 'public debt'. It does not include
intergovernmental holdings.

snip irrelevant material


I don't know what references you have misread and are misapplying here, but its obviously clear to anyone that debts held in government accounts are government debts by anyone's definition.


Gee, I stupidly read the actual definition of 'public debt'. I know
you can't be bothered with trivialities like actually using words and
phrases to mean what they actually mean.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

You would have us believe that debts held in public accounts are not public debt because of your supposed misreading of an online reference.

On Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 3:48:57 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 12:44:06 AM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzXcTFfV3Ls

The DC-XA used a composite hydrogen tank along with a Lithium oxygen tank - very
similar to the X-33 arrangement of a composite hydrogen tank and a lightweight
metal oxygen tank.


No, not really similar at all. DC-XA was a development system. The
flight regime of the two was almost as different as it was possible to
be. In three test flights, DC-XA suffered two accidents. The
accident on the third flight was enough to cause the vehicle to be
scrapped.

DC-XA's only really successful flight reached a whopping 10,000 feet
of altitude and last a whole 142 seconds.


You need to get it through your thick skull that

1) I'm not responsible for your misapprehensions and
2) your mistaken views of reality or
3) your misapplication to subjects I write about.


And I'm not responsible for your stupidity, your paranoia, your
schizophrenia, or your 'cut and paste' spews with no misunderstanding.

You're the one spewing nonsense. You're the one angry at those who don't accept your foolishness and see it for the tripe it is.


Furthermore, its hard for any rational person to understand

1) what the hell you're going on about half the time,
2) let alone figure out just why you're so damned wrong, and then
3) attempt to engage you in the thankless task of educating you.


How would you know what a rational person might understand?

You're the one with the problem, not me.

Are you
the only 'rational person' here,

You're changing the subject. You're the one with the problem not me.

because it seems like you're the only
one who can't understand what's said to him and requires constant
correction of his misstatements.

You're the one who's angry and calling names. Not me.



Since you are such a mentally deficient person to start out with.

The only advice I can give you at this juncture, is to consider the notion that you might be wrong. That's the beginning of true education.

Good luck!


Mookie, seek treatment.

Listen to yourself!

NOW you're an expert on psychological disorders!? lol. Making diagnoses and giving advice.

Why such ego inflating BS from you?

Because no one accepts the pseudo scientific BS you trot out to **** on people's dreams? Because no one explains your errors to you to your satisfaction?

Its not my problem, its not my job. Or anyone else's. Its yours.

So, get over yourself.

You'll be happier.

Good luck!

And you should take your own advice. You
should consider that you might be wrong, particularly since you so
frequently are.

Its not my job to figure out why you're so consistently wrong.
Its not my fault you look like an ass.
Its not my job to educate you.

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

Consider Nella Fantasia ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFusdEM8PeM

2040
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0e2FJmXujA

Italian

Nella fantasia io vedo un mondo giusto,
Lì tutti vivono in pace e in onestà.
Io sogno d'anime che sono sempre libere,
Come le nuvole che volano,
Pien' d'umanità in fondo all'anima.

Nella fantasia io vedo un mondo chiaro
Lì anche la notte è meno oscura.
Io sogno d'anime che sono sempre libere,
Come le nuvole che volano.
Pien' d'umanità.

Nella fantasia esiste un vento caldo,

Che soffia sulle città, come amico.
Io sogno d'anime che sono sempre libere,
Come le nuvole che volano,
Pien' d'umanità in fondo all'anima.

English Translation

In my fantasy I see a just world

Where all live in peace and honesty
I dream of souls that are always free
Like clouds that soar
Full of humanity in the depths of the soul

In my fantasy I see a bright world

Where every night there is less darkness
I dream of souls that are always free
Like clouds that soar
Full of humanity

In my fantasy exists a warming wind

That breathes into the city, like a friend
I dream of souls that are always free
Like clouds that soar
Full of humanity in the depths of the soul

On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 11:55:22 PM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 3:42:53 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 12:50:22 AM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

Debt held by the public was approximately $11.901 trillion in 2013.

Intragovernmental holdings stood at $4.837 trillion.

This gives a combined total public debt of $16.738 trillion.


Wrong. I've explained this to you before. Go look up the Treasury
Department definition of 'public debt'. It does not include
intergovernmental holdings.

snip irrelevant material


I don't know what references you have misread and are misapplying here, but its obviously clear to anyone that debts held in government accounts are government debts by anyone's definition.


Gee, I stupidly read the actual definition of 'public debt'. I know
you can't be bothered with trivialities like actually using words and
phrases to mean what they actually mean.


You would have us believe that debts held in public accounts are not public debt because of your supposed misreading of an online reference.


No, I don't give a warm bucket of spit what you and the mouse in your
pocket believe. I would have you use words and phrases to mean what
they actually mean.

You, meanwhile, continue to wriggle and squirm any time someone points
out that you are NOT doing that.

You're the one wriggling! lol. You would have us believe that debts held in public accounts are not public debt.

This all based on a misunderstanding of something you've read on line that makes it impossible for you to see that debts held in public accounts are indeed public debts.



--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

On Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 12:09:59 AM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 3:48:57 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 12:44:06 AM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzXcTFfV3Ls

The DC-XA used a composite hydrogen tank along with a Lithium oxygen tank - very
similar to the X-33 arrangement of a composite hydrogen tank and a lightweight
metal oxygen tank.


No, not really similar at all. DC-XA was a development system. The
flight regime of the two was almost as different as it was possible to
be. In three test flights, DC-XA suffered two accidents. The
accident on the third flight was enough to cause the vehicle to be
scrapped.

DC-XA's only really successful flight reached a whopping 10,000 feet
of altitude and last a whole 142 seconds.


You need to get it through your thick skull that

1) I'm not responsible for your misapprehensions and
2) your mistaken views of reality or
3) your misapplication to subjects I write about.


And I'm not responsible for your stupidity, your paranoia, your
schizophrenia, or your 'cut and paste' spews with no misunderstanding.

You're the one spewing nonsense. You're the one angry at those who don't accept your foolishness and see it for the tripe it is.


Stupid Usenet Tricks 101 tactic - Accuse the other guy of being angry.

I don't get 'angry' over you, Mookie. You simply don't matter enough
for that. You, meanwhile, seem to be the 'odd man out' on all these
things. Everyone who knows **** about the subject agrees while you
disagree. That ought to tell you something. Unfortunately, given
your mental illness, it apparently just convinces you that we're all
part of some vast conspiracy against you.


Furthermore, its hard for any rational person to understand

1) what the hell you're going on about half the time,
2) let alone figure out just why you're so damned wrong, and then
3) attempt to engage you in the thankless task of educating you.


How would you know what a rational person might understand?

You're the one with the problem, not me.


Jesus, Mookie, why not just go "nyaa nyaa nyaa"? The maturity level
is about the same as what you're doing and it would actually make you
look smarter.

Are you
the only 'rational person' here,

You're changing the subject. You're the one with the problem not me.


You made the claim about "any rational person". You're the one who
seems to not be one. But you keep wriggling, Mookie. Just what
'subject' am I changing?

because it seems like you're the only
one who can't understand what's said to him and requires constant
correction of his misstatements.

You're the one who's angry and calling names. Not me.


snork Even YOU don't read the ****e you write, do you?

Irony. It's not at all like silvery or bronzey...



Since you are such a mentally deficient person to start out with.

The only advice I can give you at this juncture, is to consider the notion that you might be wrong. That's the beginning of true education.

Good luck!


Mookie, seek treatment.

Listen to yourself!

NOW you're an expert on psychological disorders!? lol. Making diagnoses and giving advice.


One needn't be an 'expert' to recognize the obvious. I don't need to
be a surgeon to recognize that someone with a spear in their chest has
a problem. And so it is with you. YOU make it obvious with the
constant ****e you spew.


Why such ego inflating BS from you?


"Ego inflating"? That's YOUR game, Mookie.

You're projecting again.

It doesn't fluff my ego
at all to be right

C'mon admit it! You are ALWAYS right aren't you? lol. You *love* showing lesser people like me, to be idiots and fools and worse. Don't you?

*thats* ego inflation right there bub. So, you're lying to us and you're lying to yourself.


when you're on the other side.

What side is that? The side of goodness glory and light? Is that how you see it? and the flip side is what? evil, madness and darkness? Is that how you see it?

*thats* ego inflation right there too! SO, you're the ignorant **** you love denigrating so much. Projecting your own ignorance on to others - whenever you fail to understand what others say.

It's like
outwitting an idiot;

It makes you feel good about yourself calling others an idiot doesn't it?

nothing in doing it enhances one's ego.

Oh no, nothing at all! lol. You freak!


Because no one accepts the pseudo scientific BS you trot out to **** on people's dreams?
Because no one explains your errors to you to your satisfaction?


Gee, Mookie thinks physics is a "pseudo science"

No I don't.

and doesn't
understand

I understand everything I talk about. That you DON'T understand is obvious.. That you project the anger, frustration and shame on to me, is also obvious. That you NEEED to be right ALWAYS, that you NEEED to see others as wrong or worse, to inflate your ego, is OBVIOUS! Every time you open you mouth and say the things you do, its clear to anyone reading what a vicious, evil, ******* you are, and why.

that the reason "no one explains my errors" is because HE
is the one in error.

Look, I made many clear compelling statements about a number of times, and you've gone out of you way to see them as wrong and trotted a whole host of bull**** and then opined very angry and nasty things about me my sanity and mental capacity because I didn't address your ignorant misreading to your satisfaction. You're the one with the problem dude. Not me. Deal with it.