#51
|
|||
|
|||
The 100/10/1 Rule.
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 10:37:27 -0600, kT wrote
(in article ): Herb Schaltegger wrote: On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 09:40:58 -0600, kT wrote (in article ): And we are all so grateful for the astronomical increase in costs associated with staging. All those engines, so little time. The "astronomical costs" of hardware are insignificant. No wonder space has been so thoroughly colonized already then. You act as if colonization is a self-evident goal of spaceflight. Bwahahahahahahahahaa! Good job people, kudos all around. Get your head out of your ass and realize that money makes the world go round. And satellites around the world, for that matter. -- You can run on for a long time, Sooner or later, God'll cut you down. ~Johnny Cash |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
The 100/10/1 Rule.
Herb Schaltegger wrote:
Bwahahahahahahahahaa! Get your head out of your ass and realize that money makes the world go round. And apparently you've got it to burn. Don't worry, you can print more. Gosh, and I thought we were dealing with mathematics and physics here. And satellites around the world, for that matter. The crackpots are out tonight. -- Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator : http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
The 100/10/1 Rule.
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 11:19:55 -0600, kT wrote
(in article ): Herb Schaltegger wrote: Bwahahahahahahahahaa! Get your head out of your ass and realize that money makes the world go round. And apparently you've got it to burn. Don't worry, you can print more. How does a notional tiny-payload expendable SSTO make any kind of economic sense? Gosh, and I thought we were dealing with mathematics and physics here. Gosh, see above. And satellites around the world, for that matter. The crackpots are out tonight. Well I'd agree, since it's still morning in most of the U.S. when I post this (and early afternoon for the rest of the western hemisphere). Not even remotely close to "tonight", crackpot. -- You can run on for a long time, Sooner or later, God'll cut you down. ~Johnny Cash |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
The 100/10/1 Rule.
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message ... Jeff Findley wrote: False, especailly for an expendable SSTO. An expendable SSTO isn't all that hard to do, it's just that no one has tried. The "performance uber alles" philosophy of your typical aerospace engineer makes them *really* want to drop some of the heavy bits on the way up, even if it adds complexity and cost to the design because they always think that the performance gained is worth the added cost. You can see the germ of Atlas in North Amercian Aviation's HATV design from 1946: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4202/p1-10.jpg You can just see an engineer looking at that, and thinking: "Now , if we could jettison the eight small motors once a lot of the fuel was burnt..." Kind of, sort of, if you moved as much as possible into the part you drop. As Henry pointed out, Atlas dropped the tank pressurization system with the booster engines. In the HATV design, that system isn't very close to the eight small motors. Jeff -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919) |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
The 100/10/1 Rule.
"Danny Deger" wrote in message ... I stand corrected on this. An expendable SSTO is very feasible. The X-33 had problems in large part because it also was attempting to do an atmospheric entry. The entry requirement added a lot of mass to the system. No, X-33 had problems because it was the most technologically challenging design out of the three proposals (all three proposals had to deal with re-entry) *and* there was no real incentive for NASA or the contractor, to actually make it fly. Note that both the contractor *and* NASA already had operational launch vehicle programs. NASA "learned" the wrong lessons from X-33. Jeff -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919) |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
The 100/10/1 Rule.
Herb Schaltegger wrote:
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 11:19:55 -0600, kT wrote (in article ): Herb Schaltegger wrote: Bwahahahahahahahahaa! Get your head out of your ass and realize that money makes the world go round. And apparently you've got it to burn. Don't worry, you can print more. How does a notional tiny-payload expendable SSTO make any kind of economic sense? I thought I just explained to you that useful payload is increased by an order of magnitude, by designing the booster stage itself to be payload? Plus, I've designed a nosecone engine carrier that can return a 100 million dollar engine to a soft landing anywhere on Earth, so you get the engine back too. Gosh, and I thought we were dealing with mathematics and physics here. Gosh, see above. Yes, try eating money in space. About the only thing I can think to do with it in space, is to wipe my ass with it. And satellites around the world, for that matter. The crackpots are out tonight. Well I'd agree, since it's still morning in most of the U.S. when I post this (and early afternoon for the rest of the western hemisphere). Not even remotely close to "tonight", crackpot. You're a universally coordinated crackpot. -- Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator : http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
The 100/10/1 Rule.
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 15:02:44 -0600, kT wrote
(in article ): Herb Schaltegger wrote: On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 11:19:55 -0600, kT wrote (in article ): Herb Schaltegger wrote: Bwahahahahahahahahaa! Get your head out of your ass and realize that money makes the world go round. And apparently you've got it to burn. Don't worry, you can print more. How does a notional tiny-payload expendable SSTO make any kind of economic sense? I thought I just explained to you that useful payload is increased by an order of magnitude, by designing the booster stage itself to be payload? You explained nothing. A booster itself is not a useful payload in any meaningful sense. Plus, I've designed a nosecone engine carrier that can return a 100 million dollar engine to a soft landing anywhere on Earth, so you get the engine back too. Sure you have. Detailed design drawings, please. Including materials and processing specs, interface controls, and cost estimates (don't forget development, qualification and acceptance test plans and funding schedules while you're at it). All hail the next internet non-engineer genius who has somehow managed to outsmart and out-think everyone who came before him. :-/ -- You can run on for a long time, Sooner or later, God'll cut you down. ~Johnny Cash |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
The 100/10/1 Rule.
Herb Schaltegger wrote:
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 15:02:44 -0600, kT wrote (in article ): Herb Schaltegger wrote: On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 11:19:55 -0600, kT wrote (in article ): Herb Schaltegger wrote: Bwahahahahahahahahaa! Get your head out of your ass and realize that money makes the world go round. And apparently you've got it to burn. Don't worry, you can print more. How does a notional tiny-payload expendable SSTO make any kind of economic sense? I thought I just explained to you that useful payload is increased by an order of magnitude, by designing the booster stage itself to be payload? You explained nothing. A booster itself is not a useful payload in any meaningful sense. Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound with the bwahaha crap and the unqualified claims? Really, it's a conservatives attempt at humor again? You sound worse than Rand, and I mean that in the most unexemplary way. I already qualified the booster, it contains an oxygen tank with residual oxygen, I suppose you can get by without that in space. It contains 10% of the empty weight in residual fuel, convertible to energy and water, I suppose you can get along quite fine in space without that. It contains a large empty hydrogen tank complete with pressurization system, a complete attitude and reaction control system, all are space qualified, and all at the very top of the pyramid of space survival. The benefits of boosters as spaceships, as the benefits of upper stages as spaceships, is abundantly clear for the rationally inclined to see. Plus, I've designed a nosecone engine carrier that can return a 100 million dollar engine to a soft landing anywhere on Earth, so you get the engine back too. Sure you have. Detailed design drawings, please. Including materials and processing specs, interface controls, and cost estimates (don't forget development, qualification and acceptance test plans and funding schedules while you're at it). So you claim this is not possible? All hail the next internet non-engineer genius who has somehow managed to outsmart and out-think everyone who came before him. By pointing out the obvious solutions to obvious problems. All hail the bwahaahaha internet kook, Herb. -- Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator : http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
The 100/10/1 Rule.
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 16:32:38 -0600, kT wrote
(in article ): Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound with the bwahaha crap and the unqualified claims? Really, it's a conservatives attempt at humor again? You think I'm a conservative? You're an even bigger idiotic than I thought, Elifritz. LOL! Back into the killfile with you, poseur. P.S. Your engineering is as lacking as your powers of observation and deduction. PLONK -- You can run on for a long time, Sooner or later, God'll cut you down. ~Johnny Cash |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
The 100/10/1 Rule.
"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in message .com... On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 09:18:31 -0600, Danny Deger wrote (in article ): I stand corrected on this. An expendable SSTO is very feasible. But doesn't really serve much purpose - staging is a very mature technology and allows huge improvements in upmass. I agree it doesn't have much purpose on an expendable. What difference does it make if you drop it in the ocean or take it to orbit. For a reusable that does an entry, it would make sense. I am gathering that SSTO and reuse are the problem when you try and do them together. Danny Deger -- You can run on for a long time, Sooner or later, God'll cut you down. ~Johnny Cash |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The 100/10/1 Rule. | kT | Space Shuttle | 156 | March 28th 07 03:25 AM |
Going Forth to Rule the World | Warhol | Misc | 0 | May 22nd 06 05:19 PM |
Is this like some kind of rule? | Rich | Amateur Astronomy | 7 | January 16th 06 12:59 PM |
Republicans Rule | Mark | Misc | 5 | May 28th 04 12:56 PM |
Does Religion Rule ? | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 2 | March 4th 04 11:34 AM |