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

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

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

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

"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

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:37:27 -0600, kT wrote:

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.

Good job people, kudos all around.

If we were say, struggling to survive on Mars, and after studying
Earth, I'd be in favor of colonizing Earth. But as we are on Earth,
there is know known "space" suitable for colonization. The best we
could do is fight for a better piece of real estate on Earth.

Herb Schaltegger wrote:

P.S. Your engineering is as lacking as your powers of observation and
deduction.

What the **** is there to engineer, you have an upper stage, whether it
is a SSTO booster stage, or an EELV upper stage, it's already in orbit.

What the **** are you gonna do with it, let it drift until it explodes?

What the **** is wrong with you people?

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

kT wrote:


What the **** are you gonna do with it, let it drift until it explodes?


What are you going to do with it?
1.) Make a space station module out of it?
2.) Refuel it and use it to go somewhere?
3.) Cut it up and use the pieces?
Because that's about the limits of what it's good for.
The ET has the foam on it, and one of the things that mitigated against
its use as a space station module is that the foam is going to start to
debond after a while in space, as it wasn't designed to take the solar
radiation and atomic oxygen.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:


kT wrote:


What the **** are you gonna do with it, let it drift until it explodes?


What are you going to do with it?

Keep it with me at all times, until which time it is to reenter.

1.) Make a space station module out of it?

That immediately comes to mind. Basically Krafft Ehricke envisioned
entering into the hydrogen tank with a space suit, from the capsule
side. I'm building a freaking capsule to go onto a five meter tank, so
I'm damn well going to install my hooks on the factory floor. It's a
very clear shot into the top of the hydrogen tank, and it's right there,
I can talk to Mitsubishi directly about the interface modification.

2.) Refuel it and use it to go somewhere?

Na, I'm just going to breathe the oxygen, and enjoy the water and
electricity while it lasts. The food will eventually run out anyways.

3.) Cut it up and use the pieces?

Are you nuts, it's all going to be worked out on the factory floor.

Because that's about the limits of what it's good for.

That's all I want to do, breathe, drink, stay warm and grow plants in
little grow rooms inside of Mitsubishi hydrogen tanks. The SSME SSTO
part of it is just so I can get larger and larger hydrogen tanks. I want
to get the efficiency down to the point where I can just hang some solar
panel sunshade arrays onto them, and start ganging them together for
larger and larger spacecraft. But the visiting thing is only going to be
for the delivery of cargo (upper stages, fuel, water, electricity,
heat and tourists and enough meals to cover the trip, plus a tip for the
long duration crew, various sundries and delights, you wouldn't know
about these things unless you've done these kinds of long tours in the
bush).

The ET has the foam on it, and one of the things that mitigated against
its use as a space station module is that the foam is going to start to
debond after a while in space, as it wasn't designed to take the solar
radiation and atomic oxygen.

The foam is definitely out. I've been looking at some ideas like massive
gravity feed from high storage, and various fast fill technologies, and
I'm not particularly worried about any booster blowoff anyways. I want
bare metal and passively shielded with solar arrays. Just very basic.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

kT wrote:

That immediately comes to mind. Basically Krafft Ehricke envisioned
entering into the hydrogen tank with a space suit, from the capsule side.

On the Atlas that was the LOX tank.

I'm building a freaking capsule to go onto a five meter tank, so I'm
damn well going to install my hooks on the factory floor. It's a very
clear shot into the top of the hydrogen tank, and it's right there, I
can talk to Mitsubishi directly about the interface modification.

Unless you are going to go down a tunnel into the LH2 tank, you are
going to arrive at the LOX tank before you get to the LH2 tank, as the
LOX is on top on the ET also.
Due to it's higher mass than LH2 per volume, the LOX will end up on top
in pretty much any design you use, for balance purposes during ascent.
You want the CG as far forward as possible.

Pat