Bezos' Blue Origin revealed!

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
ups.com...

Terrell Miller wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

Pretty much. The scientific method was pretty much thrown out of the
door
when they designed, built, and ran that abomination.

that and no Jenny Aggutter...

...the girl from the 'Logan's Run' film?

Yes, and "American Werewolf in London".

In article ,
Jeff Findley wrote:
NASA was persistently *interested* in this as a shuttle upgrade -- the
orbiter's hydrazine APUs are headaches in various ways -- but funding
never materialized, and I'm told that the technology was always a little
bit iffy.

Which is why I think they should be looking into this as an R&D project, not
a shuttle upgrade. That and I thought on the shuttle they were looking into
electric APU's and would keep the remainder of the hydraulics. Not quite
the same thing as all electric actuators.

They were interested in both, I believe. Studies of all-electric
conversions tended to turn into studies of electric APUs -- spinning the
hydraulic pumps with electric motors instead of hydrazine turbines -- when
they reached puberty ("the stage before maturity, when the facts of life
become apparent" --Dave Parnas).

The aircraft people have also been interested in a halfway scheme in which
each actuator (or set of same) has its own little electrically-powered
hydraulic pump, essentially using hydraulics instead of gears between the
electric motor and the actuator. The idea is to combine the nice actuators
of the hydraulic approach with the nice distribution and controls of the
electric approach. The downside is that it's heavy and complicated.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

Henry Spencer wrote:
They were interested in both, I believe. Studies of all-electric
conversions tended to turn into studies of electric APUs -- spinning the
hydraulic pumps with electric motors instead of hydrazine turbines -- when
they reached puberty ("the stage before maturity, when the facts of life
become apparent" --Dave Parnas).


That seems a very strange approach, as the exhaust from the APU can be
either fed into the engine itself after exiting the turbine or used for
roll or vernier control.
If you went with the electrical drive you'd have to use separate engines
for those functions.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
Henry Spencer wrote:
They were interested in both, I believe. Studies of all-electric
conversions tended to turn into studies of electric APUs -- spinning the
hydraulic pumps with electric motors instead of hydrazine turbines -- when
they reached puberty ("the stage before maturity, when the facts of life
become apparent" --Dave Parnas).


That seems a very strange approach, as the exhaust from the APU can be
either fed into the engine itself after exiting the turbine or used for
roll or vernier control.
If you went with the electrical drive you'd have to use separate engines
for those functions.

Pat

Depending upon total energy requirements, I believe that batteries can
be competitive from the system point of view. Spent batteries can
be very useful ballast to balance the aft-cg problems typical of many
space transport designs.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com

Len wrote:
Depending upon total energy requirements, I believe that batteries can
be competitive from the system point of view. Spent batteries can
be very useful ballast to balance the aft-cg problems typical of many
space transport designs.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com



I don't know how well the "Space Van 2010" itself is going to work, but
neither the link to it or the "sponsors" on that webpage are functional.

Pat

Len wrote:
snip

Depending upon total energy requirements, I believe that batteries can
be competitive from the system point of view. Spent batteries can
be very useful ballast to balance the aft-cg problems typical of many
space transport designs.

The 'all-electric' aircraft has been studied many times and is getting
closer. Here is an article on non-hydraulic brakes for the new Boeing
787. They claim many advantages, and it is even supposed to be lighter
if you count the complete system.

http://www.le-webmag.com/article.php...le=161&lang=en

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article ,
Jeff Findley wrote:
NASA was persistently *interested* in this as a shuttle upgrade -- the
orbiter's hydrazine APUs are headaches in various ways -- but funding
never materialized, and I'm told that the technology was always a little
bit iffy.

Which is why I think they should be looking into this as an R&D project, not
a shuttle upgrade. That and I thought on the shuttle they were looking into
electric APU's and would keep the remainder of the hydraulics. Not quite
the same thing as all electric actuators.

They were interested in both, I believe. Studies of all-electric
conversions tended to turn into studies of electric APUs -- spinning the
hydraulic pumps with electric motors instead of hydrazine turbines -- when
they reached puberty ("the stage before maturity, when the facts of life
become apparent" --Dave Parnas).

The aircraft people have also been interested in a halfway scheme in which
each actuator (or set of same) has its own little electrically-powered
hydraulic pump, essentially using hydraulics instead of gears between the
electric motor and the actuator. The idea is to combine the nice actuators
of the hydraulic approach with the nice distribution and controls of the
electric approach. The downside is that it's heavy and complicated.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

The purpose for the electric auxiliary power unit EAPU shuttle safety
upgrade was to replace the hydrazine decomposition reaction which
powers a turbine connected to the hydraulic fluid pumps, with batteries
to power the electric motors to drive the hydraulic fluid pumps, which
in turn provides the pressure to move the actuators and finally move
the vehicles flight control surfaces. (see below link)

http://space-power.grc.nasa.gov/ppo/...tle/index.html
"Space Shuttle Upgrade
Overview
NASA is continually upgrading systems and components on the Space
Shuttle to increase safety and reduce costs. Glenn Research Center is
helping to implement a key upgrade of the orbiter's Auxiliary Power
Units, APUs.
The shuttle orbiter has three APUs which power three independent
hydraulic systems. The hydraulic systems power actuators that gimbal
and throttle the main engines during ascent and move the aerodynamic
surfaces during descent. The APUs are not needed during on-orbit
operations. The existing APUs are fueled by hydrazine which is
decomposed to produce a hot gas that powers a turbine that runs a
hydraulic pump.
Hydrazine is a toxic fluid which requires special handling provisions.
This results in high costs and requires long time periods during
orbiter ground servicing. NASA is currently pursuing a replacement for
the hydrazine APU called the Electric Auxiliary Power Unit, or EAPU.
The EAPU uses batteries to power a motor which runs a hydraulic pump.
The existing orbiter hydraulic system does not change. The EAPU
eliminates the hydrazine associated with the APU and is believed to be
more reliable and inherently safer.
The EAPU upgrade is managed by NASA-Johnson Space Center. The EAPU team
includes contractors Boeing Reusable Space Systems, United Space
Alliance and others as well as other NASA centers including Glenn
Research Center. The goal of the team is to develop the concept and
have hardware ready for installation in orbiters in 2003.
NASA Glenn is supporting the development and testing of power
distribution components for the EAPU. The components include high
current contactors for power isolation and high power fuses for fault
protection. This work is being done within the Power and On-Board
Propulsion Technology Division. Other current GRC tasks include
management of battery hazard and safety testing and high voltage design
guideline support."

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:
conversions tended to turn into studies of electric APUs -- spinning the
hydraulic pumps with electric motors instead of hydrazine turbines...

That seems a very strange approach, as the exhaust from the APU can be
either fed into the engine itself after exiting the turbine or used for
roll or vernier control.

Can't really go into the engine itself on the orbiter, because the engines
run at extremely high pressure. Also, the APUs have to be operational
even when the engines are shut down (hydraulics are needed for descent as
well as ascent). The APU exhaust is pretty feeble and is not very useful
for control when engine gimbaling or aero control surfaces are in use,
which are about the only times you'd want to run the APUs...
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: h (Rand Simberg) wrote:
:
: :On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 00:58:10 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
: :Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
: n my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
: :
: :We don't care about who can or has done worse. We care about those who have
: :done better which is exactly who in the past 40 years/
: :
: :Who has been given money to try?
:
: So private industry could do better, if only it wasn't private
: industry at all but was just another baby on the national teat?
:
: Sometimes you make very little sense, Rand...
:
:Yes, it takes one to know on in this case. Fred, you are more like Rand
:than you know.

Given that you don't know either one of us and have a demonstrated
inability to engage in even rudimentary reasoning, I'll your opinion
all the weight and consideration that it merits.

[Ok, all done.]

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

--
"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

"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:Should have read "NASA, contractors or both". NASA IS the customer in
:this the context.
:
:NASA has foriegn countries, such as Japan, as customers.

Uh, I thought that were partners...

Who are the CUSTOMERS. Who is paying NASA for its output?

--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer