North South East or West

In 1969 the direction (North, South, East, or West) of NASA seemed much
different that it does today.

"By the year 2000 we will undoubtedly have a sizable operation on the
Moon, we will have achieved a manned Mars landing, and it's entirely
possible we will have flown with men to the outer planets." - Wernher
von Braun, 1969

I believe, however, that the United States has moved responsibly into
Outer Space. It seems to me that today we have far more in the way of
practical and money producing satellites than would have been predicted
in 1969. Also, it is beginning to appear that American Free Enterprise
is gearing up for the conquest of Outer space, afterall.

Our knowledge of Outer Space, today, is immense. Our capabilities is
very substantial. I believe, therefore, that the self imposed limits
on what we have accomplished are the limits of practicality and
economics.

I do believe, however, that we are now capable of HTOL waverider
vehicles. I also believe that vechicles of this type may be the true
super heavy lifters of the future. Initially, the vertical tubular
rockets will be intermixed in use with the waveriders because so many
types and numbers of them exist today. Also, we have the industrial
capability to make them quickly and fairly cheaply for smaller
payloads.

Ultimately, however, I foresee huge waverider HTOL vehicles roaring
into the sky with enormous payloads actually setting up Moon Base as
well as true SSTP to the planets within the next 20 years. Current
efforts to build the CEV and 'heavy lifter' will eventually be seen as
an intermediate step helping to insure reliability and continuity of
what is now mankind's thrust into Outer Space.


tomcat

columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
The engineering and design of components for the next generation
reusable vehicle such as wave riders are still a long ways off.
Advancements in material are required to produce a next generation
civilian space vehicle, especially if the new design utilizes a sharp
leading edge. New components have not been able to provide the heat
dissipation, nor do we have a complete understanding of plasma flow
inside a structure that contains components that must be kept at low
temps to maintain structural integrity. In addition speed braking from
the vertical tail was part of the crew return vehicles design, but that
design discovered extreme heat affects to the tail which requires much
more robust materials than originally planned.



Remember, the Space Shuttle does pretty good most of the time. So, how
can you say that all these "advancements in material" are absolutely
necessary?

Also, I am not sure that knife edge leading edges are necessary.
Curves dissipate shockwaves very effectively.

Right now I envison a huge delta shaped vehicle that takes off like a
WWII bomber fully loaded. It will use SSMEs (Space Shuttle Main
Engines) and have 28 minutes of fuel. When it is over 100,000 feet at
more than mach 5 the thrust to weight should be about 2:1 giving it the
ability to shoot through hypersonic speed ranges in rarified air. It
should make orbit with fuel to spare.


tomcat

good luck with the integrated testing.

columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
good luck with the integrated testing.



When it comes to materials the following solution is what I intend to
use.

Take any metal, say titanium with a 'weakening point' at about 2500
deg. F. Add a single layer of carbon fiber using graphite epoxy as a
binder. Now your weakening point is about 3500 deg. F. and the
strength of the two has more than doubled. In short, you have a
composite of both the metal and the composite laminated on top of it.

Now take clamps and clamp tile on top of the above mix of materials.
Clamps need to be used because temperature expansion and shrinkage of
the metal can 'pop' cemented tiles off the skin. The tile should,
itself, be a composite: Corelle and Silica Tile. The Corelle has
strength with the same heat resistance of silica tile. The silica
tile, however, adds extreme thermal reflectivity and lightness to the
mix. So, once again, we have a 'composite' with the best properties of
two different materials.

With this 'composite' approach testing can be minimal. The individual
materials are well tested and proven. Their having been mixed together
should not cause deleterous alteration.


tomcat

In scientific writing the reason for citing sources is to allow the
reader to separate out what are the authors' original ideas, from the
previous existing knowledge. Understanding what exactly an author is
stating is only achieved by the author giving credit as to where the
information came from, and allowing the reader to conduct peer review.
Haphazardly providing opinions without references or citations does not
represent the original ideas in such a way that the can be cross
referenced. This is extremely important as you have demonstrated the
ability to possibly make a new space vehicle, and therefore you deserve
the credit for your hard work, if it is correct and valid. But making
assertions of material strength, design capability, or any other
specifics for that matter without references does not give your theory
any credibility, just make your statement, cite your sources, let the
science stand on its own, and if the theory is valid you'll get
you're funding.

columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
In scientific writing the reason for citing sources is to allow the
reader to separate out what are the authors' original ideas, from the
previous existing knowledge. Understanding what exactly an author is
stating is only achieved by the author giving credit as to where the
information came from, and allowing the reader to conduct peer review.
Haphazardly providing opinions without references or citations does not
represent the original ideas in such a way that the can be cross
referenced. This is extremely important as you have demonstrated the
ability to possibly make a new space vehicle, and therefore you deserve
the credit for your hard work, if it is correct and valid. But making
assertions of material strength, design capability, or any other
specifics for that matter without references does not give your theory
any credibility, just make your statement, cite your sources, let the
science stand on its own, and if the theory is valid you'll get
you're funding.


This is, perhaps, a reasonable criticism. It is difficult, however, to
get discussions going on the Usenet by being so rigorous. Imagine a
Usenet post with a Table of Contents, Footnotes, Bibliography, and
Appendix!

Please feel free to ask me about any specific facts that I have stated.
In fact, I originally expected such questions but, instead, some years
ago, received the most disgusting kinds of remarks as well as snubbing.
But this is the Usenet so I hung in there punching with the rest,
though in a somewhat more constructive way than most.

I look forward to intelligent questions.


tomcat

Burden of proof is the authors, not the readers, and therefore you have
the responsibility and ethical duty to provide your sources of
information, and citations for proper peer review of your theory and
conclusions. Also please cite your source so you can be given credit
for your unique ideas, otherwise your writing science fiction, not
science. In addition many posts here are long, and you have
demonstrated the ability to type your ideas, but the burden of proof is
yours, and citation is necessary in order for you're credibility to
be established, and your theory to be validated.

columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
Burden of proof is the authors, not the readers, and therefore you have
the responsibility and ethical duty to provide your sources of
information, and citations for proper peer review of your theory and
conclusions. Also please cite your source so you can be given credit
for your unique ideas, otherwise your writing science fiction, not
science. In addition many posts here are long, and you have
demonstrated the ability to type your ideas, but the burden of proof is
yours, and citation is necessary in order for you're credibility to
be established, and your theory to be validated.


This is the Usenet, not an Engineering Journal. I am willing to
address specific questions. For me, most of the things I mention I
regard as common knowledge, but many people do not have this. I don't
mean to be depreciating, but the various temperature relations between
materials commonly used should be, at least, roughly known. I
shouldn't even have to mention temperatures.

I know that people that have never flown planes probably don't know
that when a pilot steps on both pedals various control surfaces are
activated such that substantially increased drag is created, slowing
the airplane. This is standard technology and has been in use since
before WWII. Having flown military planes for more than 30 years it
is, for me, common knowledge. I didn't know it was 'stoning' others.

Once again, ask specific questions regarding any of my comments you do
not understand and I will help. Don't try and pretend that I am making
things up. I don't have to do that, and I don't do it. Could I be
mistaken? Of course -- but not often.


tomcat

Appealing to your own authority does not establish credibility, nor
establish your intellect. Science is not the telling of anecdotes, as
I am not sure you understand your responsibility with information to
the scientific community, which does not produce confidence in your
ability to be responsible with funding for your alleged project.
Provide your sources to provide yourself, and your ideas credibility
and validity, as you just took up several hundred characters to excuse
your lack of responsibility, and could have simply copy and pasted your
citations.

columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
Appealing to your own authority does not establish credibility, nor
establish your intellect. Science is not the telling of anecdotes, as
I am not sure you understand your responsibility with information to
the scientific community, which does not produce confidence in your
ability to be responsible with funding for your alleged project.
Provide your sources to provide yourself, and your ideas credibility
and validity, as you just took up several hundred characters to excuse
your lack of responsibility, and could have simply copy and pasted your
citations.



Once again, "you could have simply copy and pasted 'your' citations."
And, I am not sure that you understand 'your' responsibility with
information to the scientific community.

The Usenet is filled with strangers. Posts are taken at whatever value
one chooses to place on them (they are not journal articles). To
explain the obvious and commonly known and accepted facts is not
reasonably possible in this medium of information exchange.

It is commonly accepted that curves dissipate shockwave better than
sharp angles. This is why the F-22 looks as it does. The sharp angles
of the F-117 are designed for stealth, not speed. I should not have to
explain this. Anyone with an engineering background already knows it.
If things like this need to be explained . . . then ask.


tomcat