Return To The SSME

On Jan 2, 1:00*pm, Ian Parker wrote:
On 2 Jan, 19:43, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Total removal of all context. *A clear indication that the author has
once again had to reset the Artificial Stupidity System (A.S.S.) known
as 'Ian Parker'.

Ian Parker wrote:

:
:You have created extremism. You did support OBL against the Soviets.
:

Outright lie, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

Look thwe references are all there.

:
:In a scientific discussion group views are attacked not individuals.
:

But when loony views spew from a single source, that source is
certainly open to derision.

no, that is not true. There is one very simple reason why not. Reading
through your posts it is not at all clear to me, or to anyone else for
that matter what you are attacking. Me, my views. Anyone reading you
would suppose that you supported the idea of little green men, alien
abduction and all the trappings.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...enix+UFO&meta=

Gives you all the theories of Phoenix. I saw the television program
and it was a steath aircraft - no question.

I have claimed that all your postings prove my basic point. If we are
discussing ET what are we to believe? You do not say. You seem to say
nothing. You could, as I said be construed to imply that they exist -
all trappings.

If we are going to debate this, or anything else for that matter, we
must have clear points. If we don't we cannot debate, we cannot come
to any conclusions. It seems clear to be that LGMs were used as a
cover for black flight. If you do not admit this you are wasting
everybodies time. This makes it abundantly clear that we would have
reached our conclusions quicker if it were not for the military.

I have repeatedly stated that this is a group for failed astronauts.
It is emphatically NOT a scientific group. It may be a graoup for
Pentagon shrinks, that is however another story.

* - Ian Parker

Trying to reason with a devout Zionist/Nazi is a lost cause, as no
matters what you'll lose. They'll even take their own lives before
giving an inch, although they'd much rather cause massive collateral
damage and take the lives of as many others as they can muster.

~ BG

On Jan 3, 2:42*am, Ian Parker wrote:
On 3 Jan, 02:15, Fred J. McCall wrote: I've apparently thrown the Artificial Stupidity System (A.S.S.) known
as 'Ian Parker' into conniptions, since it didn't manage to add any
new content at all.

Perhaps it will BSOD and that will be the end of it?

Any more talk of lunacy and I might well be a real lunatic.

Explanation in private mail.

* - Ian Parker

Only yourself and a few others know what a "lunatic" really is. It
seems they didn't exist prior to our getting Selene as our moon.

~ BG

"Ian Parker" wrote in message
...
On 31 Dec, 17:58, "Jeff Findley" wrote:
"Ian Parker" wrote in message

...



I feel BTW that the main problem of a hypersonic plane is materials.
The methods of propulsion are fairly well known.

False. The total duration of all hypersonic engines being run on actual
vehicles can be measured in seconds. This is still a research topic, not
a
proven technology.

To a large extent this is due to the fact that that materials are not
there. It is and it isn't. To run hypersonic engines cool is a
research topic. Yes indeed. CFD, which is now extremely accurate shows
that hypersonic engines are possible IF THE MATERIALS WERE THERE.
Engines do operate for seconds. The limiting factor for operating
longer is materials, really only materials + the fact that most
hypersonic engines have been small. Again to minimise material
stresses.

By knowing how to build a hypersionic engine if the masterials if the
materialls were there I am really refering to CFD resutls. CFD says
"Yes, hypersonic engine, but what do you build it out of?"

In a sense this is an illuminating in that it is possible to set
parameters.

I DO NOT just feel things. What I say has the backing of solid CFD.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...onic+CFD&meta=


Hypersonic CFD is itself a research topic. So, you're justifying the
viability of one research topic with another research topic.

On top of that there is the little problem that hypersonic engines tend to
be optimized for one condition. Coming up with a truly workable vehicle
design requires an engine that can operate from take off to hypersonic
speeds. This is yet another research topic.

And let us not forget the vehicle thermal problems, which extend to storage
of the fuel, which is usually assumed to be LH2 since at such high speeds,
it's hard to get anything else to burn fast enough. More research topics...

It seems your one little problem has turned into a slew of research
topics...

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson

On 5 Jan, 14:32, "Jeff Findley" wrote:
"Ian Parker" wrote in message

...





On 31 Dec, 17:58, "Jeff Findley" wrote:
"Ian Parker" wrote in message

....

I feel BTW that the main problem of a hypersonic plane is materials..
The methods of propulsion are fairly well known.

False. The total duration of all hypersonic engines being run on actual
vehicles can be measured in seconds. This is still a research topic, not
a
proven technology.

To a large extent this is due to the fact that that materials are not
there. It is and it isn't. To run hypersonic engines cool is a
research topic. Yes indeed. CFD, which is now extremely accurate shows
that hypersonic engines are possible IF THE MATERIALS WERE THERE.
Engines do operate for seconds. The limiting factor for operating
longer is materials, really only materials + the fact that most
hypersonic engines have been small. Again to minimise material
stresses.

By knowing how to build a hypersionic engine if the masterials if the
materialls were there I am really refering to CFD resutls. CFD says
"Yes, hypersonic engine, but what do you build it out of?"

In a sense this is an illuminating in that it is possible to set
parameters.

I DO NOT just feel things. What I say has the backing of solid CFD.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...onic+CFD&meta=

Hypersonic CFD is itself a research topic. *So, you're justifying the
viability of one research topic with another research topic.

I think it is fair to say that it is now giving reliable results.

On top of that there is the little problem that hypersonic engines tend to
be optimized for one condition. *Coming up with a truly workable vehicle
design requires an engine that can operate from take off to hypersonic
speeds. *This is yet another research topic.

True, although the RAM/SCRAM jet operates through a fair range.


And let us not forget the vehicle thermal problems, which extend to storage
of the fuel, which is usually assumed to be LH2 since at such high speeds,
it's hard to get anything else to burn fast enough. *More research topics...

This I submit is the main problem. I DID say this. No airframe which
could be builtt has the required thermal protection.

It seems your one little problem has turned into a slew of research
topics...

Well yes. I still say the main problem is thermal protection. An
orbiter needs less protection than an aircraft as it will always be
accelerating hard and the fuel can be allowed to evaporate. Still the
probems are indeed severe.

My original point that the problems were materials science rather than
propulsion itself is I think valid.


- Ian Parker


- Ian Parker

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 5 Jan, 14:32, "Jeff Findley" wrote:
: "Ian Parker" wrote in message
:
: Hypersonic CFD is itself a research topic. *So, you're justifying the
: viability of one research topic with another research topic.
:
:I think it is fair to say that it is now giving reliable results.
:

You think all sorts of wacky things.

: On top of that there is the little problem that hypersonic engines tend to
: be optimized for one condition. *Coming up with a truly workable vehicle
: design requires an engine that can operate from take off to hypersonic
: speeds. *This is yet another research topic.
:
:True, although the RAM/SCRAM jet operates through a fair range.
:

Oh? Which RAM/SCRAM jet would that be?

:
: And let us not forget the vehicle thermal problems, which extend to storage
: of the fuel, which is usually assumed to be LH2 since at such high speeds,
: it's hard to get anything else to burn fast enough. *More research topics...
:
:This I submit is the main problem. I DID say this. No airframe which
:could be builtt has the required thermal protection.
:

Yes, but you're wrong.

: It seems your one little problem has turned into a slew of research
: topics...
:
:Well yes. I still say the main problem is thermal protection.
:

Constant repetition does not make an incorrect statement any more
correct. It merely makes the person ignoring all the other facts and
stating it repeatedly look deranged.

:
:An
rbiter needs less protection than an aircraft as it will always be
:accelerating hard and the fuel can be allowed to evaporate. Still the
robems are indeed severe.
:

What?

:
:My original point that the problems w
:ere materials science rather than
ropulsion itself is I think valid.
:

Yes, we know what you 'think'. Several people have pointed out why
what you 'think' is incorrect. Yet you gibber on in the face of all
facts to the contrary.


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

On Jan 5, 8:59*am, Ian Parker wrote:
On 5 Jan, 14:32, "Jeff Findley" wrote:

"Ian Parker" wrote in message

....

On 31 Dec, 17:58, "Jeff Findley" wrote:
"Ian Parker" wrote in message

...

I feel BTW that the main problem of a hypersonic plane is materials.
The methods of propulsion are fairly well known.

False. The total duration of all hypersonic engines being run on actual
vehicles can be measured in seconds. This is still a research topic, not
a
proven technology.

To a large extent this is due to the fact that that materials are not
there. It is and it isn't. To run hypersonic engines cool is a
research topic. Yes indeed. CFD, which is now extremely accurate shows
that hypersonic engines are possible IF THE MATERIALS WERE THERE.
Engines do operate for seconds. The limiting factor for operating
longer is materials, really only materials + the fact that most
hypersonic engines have been small. Again to minimise material
stresses.

By knowing how to build a hypersionic engine if the masterials if the
materialls were there I am really refering to CFD resutls. CFD says
"Yes, hypersonic engine, but what do you build it out of?"

In a sense this is an illuminating in that it is possible to set
parameters.

I DO NOT just feel things. What I say has the backing of solid CFD.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...onic+CFD&meta=

Hypersonic CFD is itself a research topic. *So, you're justifying the
viability of one research topic with another research topic.

I think it is fair to say that it is now giving reliable results.

On top of that there is the little problem that hypersonic engines tend to
be optimized for one condition. *Coming up with a truly workable vehicle
design requires an engine that can operate from take off to hypersonic
speeds. *This is yet another research topic.

True, although the RAM/SCRAM jet operates through a fair range.



And let us not forget the vehicle thermal problems, which extend to storage
of the fuel, which is usually assumed to be LH2 since at such high speeds,
it's hard to get anything else to burn fast enough. *More research topics...

This I submit is the main problem. I DID say this. No airframe which
could be builtt has the required thermal protection.

It seems your one little problem has turned into a slew of research
topics...

Well yes. I still say the main problem is thermal protection. An
orbiter needs less protection than an aircraft as it will always be
accelerating hard and the fuel can be allowed to evaporate. Still the
probems are indeed severe.

My original point that the problems were materials science rather than
propulsion itself is I think valid.

* - Ian Parker

Ever notice how Fred McCall seldom if ever contributes anything that's
topic positive/constructive, and much less having shared anything the
least bit need-to-know or otherwise nondisclosure classified?

If he's not a certified Zionist/Nazi spook/mole of DARPA, by rights he
should be.

~ BG

On Dec 28 2008, 4:20*am, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:
Just observing all this makes me wonder if anyone actually looked back at
things that occurred before.

that is something i would totally love to do

mk5000

"Failing to foregather the base nutritional requirements module
finally hit a intense effect on ones fleshly and noetic capabilities.
Inadequate nutrition also increases our venture for a difference of
illnesses. All undergo organisms requirement calibre nutrition to
acquire and duty right (Beers, et al)."--http://
lifetimefitnessus.blogspot.com/2008/10/fitness-and-wellness-principles-
part-1.html