|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#11
July 16th 11, 05:06 AM
posted to sci.space.policy,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.history
|
|||
|
|||
A kerosene-fueled X-33 as a single stage to orbit vehicle.
On 7/15/2011 9:07 AM, Rick Jones wrote:
In sci.space.history Jeff wrote: Stage separation is an existing technology that's been in place on the very first orbital launch vehicle. It's at least a fairly well known quantity, especially if you do your stage separation above the bulk of the atmosphere. I'll simply toss some shells from the peanut gallery not meant to suggest favoring one side of the other... And yet even in 2010 (or was it 2009) SpaceX still had their stages bump  If you have the reusable first stage replace a booster first stage and separate in the upper atmosphere at around Mach 3-6, you run into that trouble Lockheed had with their D-21 drones coming off of the back of the M-2i carrier aircraft (it cut it in half on one flight) due to shockwave interference between the two components Have it separate outside the atmosphere at Mach 12-17 like a booster second stage (That was how the Faget intended the flyback booster on his shuttle concept to work) and now it needs a pretty involved TPS and strong airframe structure in its own right, as it's going to get pretty severe heating and g loads because of its steep descent trajectory during reentry. You also run into the problem that it will be going at such a high velocity away from the launch site at separation that it's going be hard to get it to return to there, so you may have to transport it back from its landing site via air or sea. The Faget concept would have worked better if launched from the west, not east, coast. At least then you could have the flyback booster come down as well as lift off in the continental US. Almost forgotten now are the post X-33 studies NASA had various aerospace firms do under the Space Launch Initiative regarding fully reusable launch systems using two or three components, and just how small the payload looked in comparison to the thing that was going to launch it: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=6504.0 That program came and went so fast that if you blinked you would have missed it. Pat 
|
|
#12
July 16th 11, 06:50 AM
posted to sci.space.policy,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.history
|
|||
|
|||
|
A kerosene-fueled X-33 as a single stage to orbit vehicle.
On Jul 15, 12:23*pm, "hanson" wrote:
"Pat Flannery" wrote: *-- Jeff Findley wrote: Jeff wrote: No, it's mostly the acknowledgment that SABRE is a bleeding edge technology in much the same way as a hypersonic air breathing engine (e.g. NASP and more recent technology demonstrators). *We've been down this road more than once, and it's burned us each and every time. Pat wrote: In the case of the NASP/Copper Canyon, the scramjet technology may have been at least partially a chimera, to mislead the Soviets and drive them to the bargaining table. hanson wrote: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-experimental-scramjet-aircraft-fl... There is this X-51 thing that superceded the Aurora stuff SR-91 (Not 71), http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/aurora.htm which back in July 1998 stirred up controversy when it went over LA to land at Edwards, producing 2 sonicbooms and showing a pearl-chain-like exhaust vapor trail. These are all apparently descendants and supersonic versions of the 1944 Nazi version of the Buzz bomb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb Price tag for $/Speed though, is not exactly linear... ahahaha... Also, whether that did or not intermesh with Soviet technology or their intents is another story, but it certainly creates great lore and lure... ahahahaha... I learned propulsion from Von Eschen, who worked on the V-1. Intermittent combustion with valved operation has its own limitations which give it limited speeds as well. Slowing the air imposes a huge drag. Injecting hydrogen into the air stream and creating a structure wave to ride, does not.
|
|
#13
July 16th 11, 11:15 AM
posted to sci.space.policy,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.history
|
|||
|
|||
|
A kerosene-fueled X-33 as a single stage to orbit vehicle.
..... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha....
"William Mook" wrote: -- "hanson" wrote: --- "Pat Flannery" wrote: ----- Jeff Findley wrote: Jeff wrote: No, it's mostly the acknowledgment that SABRE is a bleeding edge technology in much the same way as a hypersonic air breathing engine (e.g. NASP and more recent technology demonstrators). We've been down this road more than once, and it's burned us each and every time. Pat wrote: In the case of the NASP/Copper Canyon, the scramjet technology may have been at least partially a chimera, to mislead the Soviets and drive them to the bargaining table. hanson wrote: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-experimental-scramjet-aircraft-fl... There is this X-51 thing that superceded the Aurora stuff SR-91 (Not 71), http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/aurora.htm which back in July 1998 stirred up controversy when it went over LA to land at Edwards, producing 2 sonicbooms and showing a pearl-chain-like exhaust vapor trail. These are all apparently descendants and supersonic versions of the 1944 Nazi version of the Buzz bomb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb Price tag for $/Speed though, is not exactly linear... ahahaha... Also, whether that did or not intermesh with Soviet technology or their intents is another story, but it certainly creates great lore and lure... ahahahaha... Mookie wrote: I learned propulsion from Von Eschen, who worked on the V-1. Mookie, you also said: "Von Braun, Krafft Ehricke, Professor Von Eschen were all former NAZIs picked up in Operation Paperclip. I had the great pleasure to meet at a colloqium at Ohio State back in the 70s von Eschen was a professor at OSU and taught me propulsion theory. [2] hanson wrote: ahahahaha... Now you sound like the folks at social functions, who brag that they do personally know the "rich guy", in their firm belief that there is true value in "fame by association"... a phenomenon that is seen in s.p. by all those Einstein Dingleberries, Jews and Goys, who believe & proselytize that Jewish **** don't stink. http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT Thanks for originating that link, Mookie... ahahaha.... Mookie, if that [2] happened in the 70s', then YOU must be in the 70's by now, and NOT in your 40s like you wanna give the impression on your YouTube gigs... ahahahaha... Adjust your story and learn how to lie better. It's important. There is that old Kike belief: "It's not a lie, as long as you believe that what you say is the truth". Do like them, Mook!.... .... another item on which you need improvment, is to show that what matters, is what you DO with, or how you translate, what you have learned and know... into practice & MONEY. Else you are simply a tech-minnesinger like Guth or Gisse. Mookie wrote: the V-1's Intermittent combustion with valved operation has its own limitations which give it limited speeds as well. Slowing the air imposes a huge drag. Injecting hydrogen into the air stream and creating a structure wave to ride, does not. [1] hanson wrote: I duno about that [1]. But there are other ways the intermittent valve less pulse propulsion mechanism was made to work. For instance, the shockwave of the explosion INTO to incoming airstream creates a zone of "momentary stationary compression" which is long enough stable to inject & ignite fuel (CH or H2) to cause the next explosion. The trick was how to find and measure that exact location... The hype of "lighting a cigar in a hurricane" is plain bull****. From a political conflict resolution pov, the era of large & heavy combat utility stuff has passed anyways. Until cyber warfare strategies and -tactics are fully operational, the heuristics focal point focuses on command decapitation, by deploying Dragon-fly sized vectors that do neutralize high value targets with a stinger that's loaded with the appropriate neuro toxin etc., & create as little as possible notice amongst the public. -- I personally like that MO: Let the ****ers who instigate & start the wars kill each other off, & let us peasant be -- FWIKI, that all great Powers work on that MO right now, translated as/into the "Migraine cure", "Master Haircut" or "Close Shave" are some of the cover names for it .. ahaha.. Mookie, it might surprise you to know, that it's all private enterprise which develops these gismos and when they have'em ready they sell it to the govt. from which & where all these fables and conspiracy theories are diseminated... Of course it was/is & will be always that way. But your sidekick apprentice Brad Guth, who has elected "NOT to understand" will cry: "FUD, FUD, you FUD masters... " Anyway, Mookie, I greatly enjoy your tripes, even more then the one from your enemies and detractors, like Marvin, McCall & Clittie, etc... ahahaha.. Thanks for the laughs all you guy(ette)s... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson PS: Mookie, I am baffled about your handle that says mok**medical**, cuz all that techno-political stuff which you do pontificate here and elsewhere about, is peanuts to what is accomplished by the annual visits of "influenza virii" onto you and all others. The actions of these brain- less items are what determines the future of "thinking" \humankind. You have no say-so in the virii's intents or execution, Mookie. Think about it, when you're helplessly at their mercy, the next time they demonstrate their power over you... in less then 6 months from now... AHAHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha.... ahahahahanson
|
|
#14
July 17th 11, 12:43 AM
posted to sci.space.policy,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.history
|
|||
|
|||
|
A kerosene-fueled X-33 as a single stage to orbit vehicle.
On Jul 16, 6:15*am, "hanson" wrote:
.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha.... "William Mook" wrote: -- "hanson" wrote: --- *"Pat Flannery" wrote: ----- Jeff Findley wrote: Jeff wrote: No, it's mostly the acknowledgment that SABRE is a bleeding edge technology in much the same way as a hypersonic air breathing engine (e.g. NASP and more recent technology demonstrators). We've been down this road more than once, and it's burned us each and every time. Pat wrote: In the case of the NASP/Copper Canyon, the scramjet technology may have been at least partially a chimera, to mislead the Soviets and drive them to the bargaining table. hanson wrote: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-experimental-scramjet-aircraft-fl.... There is this X-51 thing that superceded the Aurora stuff SR-91 (Not 71), http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/aurora.htm which back in July 1998 stirred up controversy when it went over LA to land at Edwards, producing 2 sonicbooms and showing a pearl-chain-like exhaust vapor trail. These are all apparently descendants and supersonic versions of the 1944 Nazi version of the Buzz bomb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb Price tag for $/Speed though, is not exactly linear... ahahaha... Also, whether that did or not intermesh with Soviet technology or their intents is another story, but it certainly creates great lore and lure... ahahahaha... Mookie wrote: I learned propulsion from Von Eschen, who worked on the V-1. Mookie, you also said: "Von Braun, Krafft Ehricke, Professor Von Eschen were all former NAZIs *picked up in Operation Paperclip. I had the great pleasure to meet at a colloqium at Ohio State back in the 70s von Eschen was a professor at OSU and taught me propulsion theory. [2] hanson wrote: ahahahaha... Now you sound like the folks at social functions, who brag that they do personally know the "rich guy", No I don't. I'm usually the 'rich guy' in their firm belief that there is true value in "fame by association"... um, for that to work requires that the person be famous. lol. Nobody knows who the hell von Eschen is! lol. a phenomenon that is seen in s.p. by all those Einstein Dingleberries, Jews and Goys, who believe & proselytize that Jewish **** don't stink. Wow, that statement says a lot more about you than anything. Look, I was responding to someone mentioning the V1 pulsejet. I mentioned my background in this area by way of explaining how I knew anything about the V1. It derived from my experience with the V1 engine in the basement of Smith Lab at OSU. haha.. which von Eschen dragged with him from Germany. http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT Thanks for originating that link, Mookie... ahahaha.... Mookie, if that [2] happened in the 70s', then YOU must be in the 70's by now, and NOT in your 40s like you wanna give the impression on your YouTube gigs... Dude, I'm approaching 60. My youngest daughter is 7 and her mom is 36. Physiologically I'm in my 40s. http://twitpic.com/photos/williammook And will remain so. Cancer was cured in the 1980s. Cells were immortalized in the 1990s. Calvin Harley and Carol Greider discovered that the telomeres of cultured normal human fibroblasts become shorter each time the cells divide When telomeres reach a specific short length, they signal the cell to stop dividing. Therefore, cellular aging, as marked by telomere shortening, is not based on the passage of time. Instead, telomere loss measures rounds of DNA replication. Immortal cancer cells escape telomere loss by switching on a gene that expresses an enzyme called telomerase. This unusual enzyme is a reverse transcriptase that has an RNA template and a catalytic portion. At each round of DNA replication, telomerase adds onto the existing telomeres the nucleotides that would otherwise have been lost, thus maintaining a constant telomere length. In other words, telomerase acts as an "immortalizing" enzyme. Telomerase is switched on in virtually all human cells at the moment of conception, but as the embryo matures the telomerase becomes repressed in all but the germ cells and stem cell populations. Further, the level of telomerase expressed in stem cells is much less than that expressed in cancer cells. Interestingly, telomerase expression has been found to occur in all the cells of animals that age slowly or not at all. These are animals, such as the American lobster and the rainbow trout, that do not stabilize at a fixed size in adulthood. On the human genome, an enzyme known as human telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT) is found on the most distal gene on chromosome 5p. The transfection of hTERT into cultured normal human fibroblasts has resulted in telomere elongation, telomerase expression, and the immortalization of these otherwise mortal cells. After several hundred population doublings, the transfected cells exhibit some drift from the diploid number of chromosomes but cancer cell properties do not occur. This experiment proves that telomerase is not a cancer enzyme but an immortalization enzyme. The ability to immortalize normal human cells via hTERT has important potential applications. Some immortalized cells cultured in the lab produce therapeutically useful molecules. Others are used directly within the body to repair tissue or replace lost or damaged cells including lost neuron cells. Those who have attempted to commercialize these findings have been demonized, marginalized, impoverished, arrested and killed. Here's the story of one researcher http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0ibsoqjPac ahahahaha... Adjust your story and learn how to lie better. That you believe others are lying when they are not, says more about you than anything else. It's important. There is that old Kike belief: "It's not a lie, as long as you believe that what you say is the truth". Do like them, Mook!.... Your comments and advice do not serve you well. ... another item on which you need improvment, Somehow I doubt you can contribute to my improvement in any way shape or form hanson. I believe your efforts in this regard are misguided. I further believe they are likely a defense mechanism you use to relieve you of the pain of being you. I cannot know this of course, but I get the sense this is near the truth for you. is to show that what matters, is what you DO with, or how you translate, what you have learned and know... into practice & MONEY. Else you are simply a tech-minnesinger like Guth or Gisse. Guth Gisse and you are human beings that are doing their best no doubt. Your worship of money is typical of the sheeple that dominate this planet. If only we had the wealth and power.. well, you do, Dorothy, Look at your silver slippers and slip from the control of your masters. lol. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm3DixfL9o0 Mookie wrote: the V-1's Intermittent combustion with valved operation has its own limitations which give it limited speeds as well. Slowing the air imposes a huge drag. Injecting hydrogen into the air stream and creating a structure wave to ride, does not. [1] hanson wrote: I duno about that [1]. Most do not. Which is why I helpfully mentioned it. But there are other ways the intermittent valve less pulse propulsion mechanism was made to work Correct, but we're talking about using an air breathing engine to fly to orbit and the limitations of various approaches. For instance, the shockwave of the explosion INTO to incoming airstream creates a zone of "momentary stationary compression" which is long enough stable to inject & ignite fuel (CH or H2) to cause the next explosion. The trick was how to find and measure that exact location... Its not much of a trick. You've got to tune your exhaust tube with your combustion tube.. and establish your combustion within a standing sound wave. This can be done with a tuned reed switch that closes a spark plug circuit in synchrony with the sounds. Anyone capable of making musical instruments can make one. The hype of "lighting a cigar in a hurricane" is plain bull****. No it isn't. From a political conflict resolution pov, the era of large & heavy combat utility stuff has passed anyways. No it hasn't. Until cyber warfare strategies and -tactics are fully operational, I guess you haven't heard of anonymous... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D6neBzTnOQ the heuristics focal point focuses on command decapitation, by deploying Dragon-fly sized vectors that do neutralize high value *targets with a stinger that's loaded with the appropriate neuro toxin *etc., & create as little as possible notice amongst the public. This is 1990s era technology. Modern approaches use 20 micron diameter vectors made with nano-technology in any suitable wafer fab. Appropriate stock molecules form a monomolecular layer across a 300 mm wafer template fabricated with nanometer quantum features in which stock molecules self assemble. The layer then folds into a functional unit and undergoes a testing procedure that causes fully functional units to self select for deployment. 32 wafers in a modified bottling operation turns out tons of these materials an hour. Wafers last a few weeks - when the machinery has to be torn down, and rebuilt with new wafers. The use of neurotoxins is not needed. That you think so is a reflection of your latent hostility. What is required is a least restrictive environment. Namely, those who perpetrate wrongs, become unlucky in achieving their goals and are ultimately ineffective. Those who are innocent, become lucky in achieving theirs. The technology operating within the invisible vectors is based upon our present understanding of what is occurring within cells when they learn and respond to the environment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXFFbxoHp3s They are solar powered and have significant computing and sensing capabilities. They operate together to carry out complex tasks. Similar to the way these macro machines do; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W18Z3UnnS_0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CR5y8qZf0Y -- I personally like that MO: Let the ****ers who instigate & start the wars kill each other off, & let us peasant be -- That you accept the role of peasant and denigrate those you do not identify as peasant says a lot about the self-imposed limitations you accept for yourself. FWIKI, that all great Powers work on that MO right now, translated as/into the "Migraine cure", "Master Haircut" or "Close Shave" are some of the cover names for it .. ahaha.. In a least restrictive environment, destructive behaviors become ineffective, constructive behaviors have enhanced effectiveness. Without an obvious actor, people feel by turns, lucky or unlucky. Mookie, it might surprise you to know, that it's all private enterprise which develops these gismos and when they have'em ready they sell it to the govt. from which & where all these fables and conspiracy theories are diseminated... You've got that wrong too hanson. Private enterprise doesn't have it all worked out. Both government and business are hanging on for dear life as confused as any while the world collapses. In the end nations and businesses will no longer exist. The present implosion was planned long ago, as a preamble to a population collapse. The 2,000 family trusts that control the world, will be the oligarchs and the survivors the serfs - if they're lucky. This would be a terrible outcome for humanity and the failure of the promise of science and technology. I am working to avoid that outcome with every means at my disposal and established a large robust population of high performing human beings across the solar system within the next few years. Of course it was/is & will be always that way. Nonsense. The oligarchs have always tried to control everyone else. They have not always succeeded. They will not succeed here either. http://tarpley.net/online-books/against-oligarchy/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgcdRCWEt4Q But your sidekick apprentice Brad Guth, Not true. who has elected "NOT to understand" will cry: "FUD, FUD, you FUD masters... " I am not responsible for the behavior of others. Anyway, Mookie, I greatly enjoy your tripes, even more then the one from your enemies and detractors, like Marvin, McCall & Clittie, etc... ahahaha.. Thanks for the laughs all you guy(ette)s... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson I guess someone like you must grasp for all the joy they can given the limitations you operate under. PS: Mookie, I am baffled about your handle that says mok**medical**, Hmm.. well, I have a number of ideas in the medical sector - and prior to setting up the network of trusts that I now work with, I had an idea I would personally develop these ideas. I have since handed them over others to develop on my behalf, and contribute the proceeds to designated trusts. Here's one of the ideas http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVxduLsx4ZU cuz all that techno-political stuff which you do pontificate here and elsewhere about, is peanuts to what is accomplished by the annual visits of "influenza virii" onto you and all others. * Again, please understand, I do not suffer from the latent hostility toward others that you suffer from. So, it might be difficult for you to understand that the most effective means of change is to you a least restrictive approach. This involves very minor inputs and an openess to the ideas and feelings of others. The actions of these brain- less items are what determines the future of "thinking" \humankind. You have no say-so in the virii's intents or execution, Mookie. Think about it, when you're helplessly at their mercy, the next time they demonstrate their power over you... in less then 6 months from now... AHAHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha.... *ahahahahanson I'm expecting something major in less time, and have taken all the reasonable precautions I can think of here in New Zealand. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z1Z42bc3hI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NDUyr0LpO8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y877R9xH5E
|
|
#15
July 17th 11, 05:05 AM
posted to sci.space.policy,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.history
|
|||
|
|||
|
A kerosene-fueled X-33 as a single stage to orbit vehicle.
AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA
..... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha.... "William Mook" wrote: -- "hanson" wrote: hanson wrote: Mookie, adjust your story and learn how to lie better. Mookie wrote: 371 lines.... snip hanson wrote: .... in which Mookie so did, obediently and with conviction. Mookie lied and lied and lied thru' the entire 371 lines of his post... in full accord with that old Kike belief: "It's not a lie, as long as you believe that what you say is the truth". Mookie, I enjoyed your fabulations. Thanks for the laughs... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahahahanson --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---
|
|
#16
July 17th 11, 08:28 AM
posted to sci.space.policy,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.history
|
|||
|
|||
|
A kerosene-fueled X-33 as a single stage to orbit vehicle.
On Jul 17, 12:05*am, "hanson" wrote:
AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA .... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha.... "William Mook" wrote: -- "hanson" wrote: hanson wrote: Mookie, adjust your story and learn how to lie better. That you think others lie when they do not, says a lot about how you approach the truth. Mookie wrote: 371 lines.... snip hanson *wrote: ... in which Mookie so did, obediently and with conviction. Mookie lied and lied and lied thru' the entire 371 lines of his post... No I didn't. *in full accord with that old Kike belief: "It's not a lie, as long as you believe that what you say is the truth". Your choice of words and subject matter indict you more than anything I can say in response. Mookie, I enjoyed your fabulations. Thanks for the laughs... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahahahanson --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to --- haha - interesting how hanson interprets things. It says a lot about the limitations he operates under. Parasailing at Taylor's Mistake 04/07/11 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z1Z42bc3hI Photos http://twitpic.com/photos/williammook Improved ablation technique http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVxduLsx4ZU Cancer Cure http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0ibsoqjPac Aging Control http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iYpxRXlboQ
|
|
#17
July 17th 11, 09:57 AM
posted to sci.space.policy,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.history
|
|||
|
|||
|
A kerosene-fueled X-33 as a single stage to orbit vehicle.
..... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha....
AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA "William Mook" wrote: -- "hanson" wrote: hanson wrote: Mookie, adjust your story and learn how to lie better. Mookie wrote: That you think others lie when they do not, says a lot about how you approach the truth. hanson wrote: .... ahahahaha... that only seems to you to be this way because you believe in your own fabulations, Mookie, which says everthing about you, as was seen in your pack of lies of/in... Mookie wrote: 371 lines.... snip hanson wrote: .... in which Mookie so did, obediently and with conviction. Mookie lied and lied and lied thru' the entire 371 lines of his post... Mookie wrote: No I didn't. hanson wrote: .... Save some face with this one, Mookie: You only lied thru 370 lines, & on the 371th you only practically lied. Earlier hanson wrote: Mookie lied and lied and lied thru' the entire 371 lines of his post in full accord with that old Kike belief: "It's not a lie, as long as you believe that what you say is the truth". Mookie wrote: Your choice of words and subject matter indict you more than anything I can say in response. hanson wrote: Why?... Cat got your tongue, Mookie?... ahahahaha.... Mookie wrote: haha - interesting how hanson interprets things. It says a lot about the limitations he operates under. hanson wrote: Mookie, I enjoyed your fabulations, the past, present and the future lies. I am looking forward to ROTFL over the materialization of your predication about your Big deal that will happen to you less than 6 months from now... (Flu, Influenza? See prior post) Can you divulge what that Big deal is, or do you lie in advance?... ahahahaha... ahahahanson Thanks for the laughs, Mookie... ahahahahahanson --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---
|
|
#18
July 18th 11, 02:25 PM
posted to sci.space.policy,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.history
|
|||
|
|||
|
A kerosene-fueled X-33 as a single stage to orbit vehicle.
|
|
#20
July 18th 11, 02:58 PM
posted to sci.space.policy,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.history
|
|||
|
|||
|
A kerosene-fueled X-33 as a single stage to orbit vehicle.
In article , lid
says... On 16/07/2011 12:23 AM, Jeff Findley wrote: In , lid says... On 15/07/2011 12:30 AM, Jeff Findley wrote: In , lid says... sigh It's not a rocket in airbreathing mode. It's some ******* engine that does nothing well. It's not as efficient as a turbofan (likely even a turbojet) aircraft engine when in air- breathing mode and it's not as efficient as a liquid fueled rocket engine when operating in pure rocket mode (LOX from internal tanks). I fail to see how an engine which operates worse than the state of the art in either mode is better than having two separate stages with two separate types of engines on each. All of this silliness is in pursuit of SSTO. Fully reusable TSTO would be far easier to implement than this because it would require no new technologies (i.e. fundamentally new engine) to be developed. It's all about cost per kg payload in orbit. An SSTO, particularly one that takes off and lands horizontally presents considerable operational advantages. Please enumerate the advantages of HTHL over VTVL as they apply to SSTO. At this point in time, I'm simply not convinced that the advantages are worth the cost, especially for intact abort scenarios. With VTVL you have to carry fuel for landing. Of course, you don't have to carry wings, so there's an element of swings and roundabouts. Wings are just as much "dead weight" during launch as landing fuel would be. With vertical takeoff you have a period during which the rocket exhaust is impacting a launch pad, which thus has to be protected both from the temperature thereof and the shockwaves therein. In a horizontal takeoff the direction of the exhaust is different, and the time of exposure for any given section of runway is much reduced. The cost of maintaining the launch pad is not a very large part of overall launch costs. Such maintenance is performed by workers which are much cheaper than typical aerospace worker wages. You're picking at nits here. A horizontally landing vehicle necessarily has wheels, so after it stops, it can be towed away from the landing area without further complication. A vertically landing vehicle either has to carry wheels as dead-weight, or additional ground equipment is required to allow the landed vehicle to be moved from the landing site. Carrying wheels to orbit and back is more expensive than bolting them on once the vehicle reaches the ground. Skylon also uses its own wheels for takeoff, so it can be towed to the takeoff point. Compare with the equipment and time required to get a vertically launched vehicle like the shuttle to the launch site. We're not talking about a vehicle like the shuttle. The shuttle's huge, heavy SRB's are a p.i.t.a. and a sane engineer would never include large solids on a sane reusable TSTO design. Both systems would need the ability to abort intact at any point, but I don't see any particular benefit to a VTVL system in that regard. VTVL can land on virtually unprepared relatively flat surfaces. HTHL needs a runway, typically such vehicles would need a particularly long runway. Furthermore, ditching a VTVL vehicle in water is going to be far easier and safer than ditching a HTHL vehicle. VTVL wins big on abort scenarios. While the SABRE engine is more complex than a standard rocket, complexity is removed in other areas - there's no stage separation, for example. Stage separation is an existing technology that's been in place on the very first orbital launch vehicle. It's at least a fairly well known quantity, especially if you do your stage separation above the bulk of the atmosphere. Stage separation is an existing technology as regards disposable rockets, and for some reusable components of the shuttle. Impact by separation debry is a not-insignificant hazard for the shuttle. Avoiding explosive bolts would perhaps reduce the debry hazard, but would increase the chance of an incomplete separation, which would likely cause loss of vehicle. You're hand-waving here. Separation systems need not use explosive ordinance. And even if they do, they're a proven technology. Note that such systems have been used on every single shuttle flight. Stage separation above most of the atmosphere, but with the first stage then returning to the launch site seems a questionable proposition. If the first stage lands somewhere else, then provision has to be made for returning it to the launch site, which increases the operating cost. Why would landing the first stage at the launch site be "a questionable proposition"? It appears to me to be the most obvious way to recover the first stage of a VTVL vehicle. Note that Spaceship One's flight path resembles this approach. This approach minimizes the TPS needed for the first stage, making it a simpler, cheaper, stage. It also eliminates a whole class of risks associated with separation, such as collisions between the two parts of the vehicle, partial separation, etc. A VTVL SSTO would have the same advantages without the high cost of SABRE development. Perhaps, but who has a VTVL SSTO? As many people as have an operational SABRE engine. My point is you don't need "fancy new tech" to build a sane reusable TSTO. In any case, it's far from clear that a fully reusable TSTO is so easy to achieve. Possibly, but so far, no one has tried to build and fly such a vehicle. That's not entirely true. The shuttle was orignally meant to be a fully reusable TSTO. The tank and SRBs were substituted for the first stage due to cost. Now, that was NASA, with intereference being run by the USAF for good measure, so I'll concede that perhaps it could be done for substantially less in the hands of private industry. Irrelevant. Shuttle changed to a partially reusable design the moment the final design was picked. Large SRB's and a drop tank aren't reusable in my book. This design choice made many things harder for the orbiter (including TPS). My point is that no one has tried to build a fully reusable TSTO. It's at least on firmer technological ground than SABRE and Skylon, so I'd say the chance of success would be much higher for the reusable TSTO. Getting Skylon to work in practice may prove more difficult than RE think. It may prove impossible. But I don't understand the sheer antagonism towards it evidenced by some in this group. Unless it's a manifestation of a fear that RE will achieve a disruptive technology. No, it's mostly the acknowledgment that SABRE is a bleeding edge technology in much the same way as a hypersonic air breathing engine (e.g. NASP and more recent technology demonstrators). We've been down this road more than once, and it's burned us each and every time. Hypersonic air breathing engines are horribly expensive to test, typically requiring a rocket launch. By contrast, and awful lot of SABRE's development can be done on the ground. But not all. Full up tests will not only require a full engine, but may also require a full vehicle as well. By contrast, liquid fueled rocket engines are an "off the shelf" item. Don't get me wrong, I'd really *like* to see Reaction Engines succeed and produce a working, economically viable, launch vehicle. I'm just extremely skeptical due to the inclusion of an engine design which has never been fully tested *and* has not been successfully integrated into an actual vehicle. Aerodynamics is a p.i.t.a. and it will rear its ugly head during the design phase where the engine is integrated into a *real* vehicle. So far, I find the "artist's concept" type drawings of Skylon to be lacking in sufficient aerodynamic detail. In order to provide enough air for the engines at flight conditions, the engine will need to be *much* more integrated into the vehicle aerodynamics than current drawings and renderings suggest. I can't see any reason for thinking that integration is required for there to be enough air. The intakes have a particular size. The airflow speed is known. The design deliberately does NOT integrate the engines with the airframe, because that hugely simplifies development. Given my aerospace engineering background, I'm skeptical of this, to say the least. This should come as no surprise since Reaction Engines is focusing on building a working engine first. The problem is still that of the chicken and egg. Without an engine fully integrated into an actual vehicle, it's awfully hard to test either the engine or the vehicle. Due to the nature of the engine (and the aerodynamics needed for the inlet), the two designs are almost inseparable. The inlets are behind the nose shock. I have to wonder a bit about the shock from the canard, but otherwise I can't see that there'll will be any interaction between the airframe and the intakes when the vehicle is supersonic. The subsonic regime will persumably require some attention, but it's one that's well understood. This appears to be similar to the SR-71's inlet design, but note that the SR-71's engines didn't have to operate at the much higher speeds required of an orbital launch vehicle. In fact, SR-71 only had to cruise at Mach 3+, not accelerate like a launch vehicle. Acceleration at Mach 3+ would require much more incoming air than cruise. This is why I'm skeptical that Skylon's design can provide enough airflow to make SABRE useful at speeds above Mach 3. If it can't, LOX will need to be used, negating the "savings" of the air-breathing aspect of the engine. Jeff -- " Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/2011
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
