A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The 100/10/1 Rule.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old March 8th 07, 04:43 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Herb Schaltegger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 315
Default 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

Ads
  #52  
Old March 8th 07, 05:19 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default 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  
Old March 8th 07, 05:56 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Herb Schaltegger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 315
Default 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  
Old March 8th 07, 06:50 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default 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  
Old March 8th 07, 06:54 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default 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  
Old March 8th 07, 09:02 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default 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  
Old March 8th 07, 09:29 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Herb Schaltegger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 315
Default 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  
Old March 8th 07, 10:32 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default 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  
Old March 9th 07, 03:25 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Herb Schaltegger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 315
Default 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  
Old March 9th 07, 07:37 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Danny Deger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 530
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.