|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Retards Intend To 'USE UP' SSMEs
NASA Retards Intend To 'USE UP' SSMEs :
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/...for-augustine/ NSF retards agree wholeheartedly! American and British retards, you just GOTTA LOVE THEM! Jesus von Braun said so. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Cowards and Fools
Sylvia Else wrote:
kT wrote: NASA Retards Intend To 'USE UP' SSMEs : http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/...for-augustine/ NSF retards agree wholeheartedly! American and British retards, you just GOTTA LOVE THEM! Jesus von Braun said so. Absent another reusable vehicle at least on the drawing board that could use SSMEs, the decision is whether to use the remaining stock as disposable rockets, or just leave them sitting in the store room. Actually, no, that couldn't be farther from the truth. The decision is between throwing them away, and recovering them. Cowards and fools throw SSMEs away, the courageous make an effort to recover them, and use them again. So what are you, brave, or cowardly? The latter might seem a sensible option if they could be needed later, but doing that means that capital has to be expended sooner rather than later on alternative engines for the HLV. What HLV would that be, the one that will never be built? Economics can dictate that the better option is to use the exising SSMEs now. If a need for them appears in future, then new ones can be built. I have no ****ing idea what you are trying to say in that paragraph. It sounds like the rambling doublespeak of a cowardly NASA fool - Sylvia. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Retards Intend To 'USE UP' SSMEs
OM wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:38:28 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote: Absent another reusable vehicle at least on the drawing board that could use SSMEs, the decision is whether to use the remaining stock as disposable rockets, or just leave them sitting in the store room. ...Sylvia, Tommy Lee Elfritz is a self-confessed Neo-Nazi racist troll. Do us a favor and put him in your killfile, please? Your karma will be all the better for it. Robert Mosley III of Austin, Texas USA is another mother****ing American retard who thinks Ares I is a rocket worthy of American ****ing retards. Robert Mosley III of Austin, Texas USA is another mother****ing American retard who thinks throwing away reusable SSMEs is just a heckava job, worthy of America's mother****ing retardedness. Heckava job, Mosley. Just a heckava job. Thanks! OM -- ]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Mosley III of Austin, Texas USA - American Coward
Robert Mosley III of Austin, Texas USA, American Coward wrote:
Quoting Robert Mosley III of Austin, Texas USA, American Coward : Organization : Tommy Lee and Hitler, sittin' in a tree... On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:10:17 -0500, kT wrote: I have no ****ing idea what you are trying to say in that paragraph. Of course not. That's because *you* are the ****ing retard around here, Tommy. Ares I, Mosley, Ares I. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Mosley III of Austin, Texas USA - American Coward
Robert Mosley III of Austin, Texas USA - American Coward wrote:
Quoting Robert Mosley III of Austin, Texas USA - American Coward : Organization : How's Nana, Tommy? Did she bring anything home this time that won't wash off? On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:10:17 -0500, kT wrote: So what are you, brave, or cowardly? As if you've any right to ask such a question. The United States Constitution gives me that right, Mosley. You are a coward. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Retards Intend To 'USE UP' SSMEs
David Spain wrote:
Sylvia Else writes: The latter might seem a sensible option if they could be needed later, but doing that means that capital has to be expended sooner rather than later on alternative engines for the HLV. Economics can dictate that the better option is to use the exising SSMEs now. If a need for them appears in future, then new ones can be built. Up to a point. A lot of old technology is lost when the tooling for it is destroyed. This happens because someone is on the hook to pay for storing (and in some cases maintaining) the tooling. Once the tooling is gone, it's often easier to start over from scratch. I'm not taking a position on whether or not to 'use up' the SSMEs, only pointing out that it's not necessarily easy to restart manufacture an old technology. I'm just pointing out the complete idiocy of tossing perfectly good SSMEs with dozens of flights left on them, AFTER they have been delivered all the way to orbit, where resources exist (the ISS) which makes their recovery almost trivial. Furthermore, if these same SSMEs are used on reusable test flights of new generation rockets, then those designs can proceed at the greatest possible pace, since even if you prang one or two of them, it's no big deal. We have at our disposal right now, the greatest and most sophisticated suite of space assets and infrastructure ever conceived by mankind, and NASA is just taking the easy cowards way out, because George Bush and Michael Griffin, demonstrated cowards and failures, told them to do so. If you think I'm going to sit around on my ass and not say anything about this, while simultaneously writing a Commercial Crew Development paper, then think again. I tried that with COTS two years ago, and now I'm sitting here almost two years later, and ARES I is still living, and they've seriously RUN OFF THE RAILS AGAIN with Dennis Wingo's crappy Shuttle C, Not Shuttle C, sidemount, call it whatever you want : ****. Dennis Wingo and Paul Spudis have seriously retarded our space program. Way to go, assholes. U Ra. Dave |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Retards Intend To 'USE UP' SSMEs
Sylvia Else wrote:
kT wrote: David Spain wrote: Sylvia Else writes: The latter might seem a sensible option if they could be needed later, but doing that means that capital has to be expended sooner rather than later on alternative engines for the HLV. Economics can dictate that the better option is to use the exising SSMEs now. If a need for them appears in future, then new ones can be built. Up to a point. A lot of old technology is lost when the tooling for it is destroyed. This happens because someone is on the hook to pay for storing (and in some cases maintaining) the tooling. Once the tooling is gone, it's often easier to start over from scratch. I'm not taking a position on whether or not to 'use up' the SSMEs, only pointing out that it's not necessarily easy to restart manufacture an old technology. I'm just pointing out the complete idiocy of tossing perfectly good SSMEs with dozens of flights left on them, AFTER they have been delivered all the way to orbit, where resources exist (the ISS) which makes their recovery almost trivial. How do you use the ISS to get an orbiting SSME back down to Earth? I wrote it up in a COTS proposal, you know that, right? http://webpages.charter.net/tsiolkovsky/COTS.pdf You DESIGN for engine removal, first off, and then you develop the tools to do it, and then you execute the process with space suited astronauts, which simultaneously greatly advances the state of the art of orbital disassembly. Then you put the SSME into a DESIGNED nosecone aeroshield, which also happens to be a downmass reentry flight unit, and then you reenter the nose heavy aerodynamically stable nose cone aeroshield into the shallow water of the Gulf of Mexico or the Great Bahama Bank exactly the way that the Boeing Corporation has already clearly demonstrated, recovering it with a salvage ship and return it to its point of origin. After those techniques are vetted, you move on to fully detachable engine modules if that appears effective, or fully reenterable cores. Fully reusable cores defeats the purpose of on orbit assembly though, which is required if we are ever to reduce launch costs by the orders of magnitude required if we are going to return to the moon or go to Mars. The ONLY thing that needs to come back to Earth are the engines, and if you develop an engine that is vacuum startable and space rated, then it isn't even required to bring them back. We don't have dual rated vacuum and ground startable engines yet, all we have are a dozen or so SSMEs. Proposing to throw those engines away is a folly only deserved by NASA and the idiotic American citizens and retarded senators that support it. Go for it, Sylvia. I suspect I'm going to be laughing my ass off in a day or two at the Augustine Committee options and the retards that came up with them, the same retards that bent over backwards praising Ares I. Bemjuk, or whatever the **** his name is. This is a guy that prefaced every single ****ing statement he made with gratuitous self promotion. Sally Ride and the Dilbert Cartoon guy were equally incompetent. Sylvia. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Cowards and Fools
Sylvia Else wrote:
kT wrote: Sylvia Else wrote: kT wrote: Sylvia Else wrote: kT wrote: NASA Retards Intend To 'USE UP' SSMEs : http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/...for-augustine/ NSF retards agree wholeheartedly! American and British retards, you just GOTTA LOVE THEM! Jesus von Braun said so. Absent another reusable vehicle at least on the drawing board that could use SSMEs, the decision is whether to use the remaining stock as disposable rockets, or just leave them sitting in the store room. Actually, no, that couldn't be farther from the truth. The decision is between throwing them away, and recovering them. Cowards and fools throw SSMEs away, the courageous make an effort to recover them, and use them again. So what are you, brave, or cowardly? That's much more easily said than done. Recovering them is easy enough if they're attached to a vehicle that returns. Otherwise you're talking about parachuting them into the sea or onto land. The latter is a big ask if they're not to be damaged. Into the sea would mean they'd need floatation devices - which better not deploy in flight. Boeing already parachuted an SSME into water, recovered and refired it in association with the original EELV program, I guess you missed that. From low altitude. No mention of heat shield requirements from near orbital speed, nor whether the SSME could withstand reentry loading. What is preventing you from trying it, besides outright cowardice? The heat shield requirements are trivial, and the aeroshield is supposed to take the loads. Every SSME required a complete seal and bearing rebuild anyways. What I would do is hang the SSME on the ISS truss and issue a challenge to private industry and newspace to solve the problem. I guarantee the problem will get solved in short order, at a cost that beats NASA's ability to innovate by several orders of magnitude. Tell me more about Ares I, Sylvia, I need a good laugh. Sylvia. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Cowards and Fools
On Aug 11, 5:45*pm, kT wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote: kT wrote: Sylvia Else wrote: kT wrote: Sylvia Else wrote: kT wrote: NASA Retards Intend To 'USE UP' SSMEs : http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/...-project-makin... NSF retards agree wholeheartedly! American and British retards, you just GOTTA LOVE THEM! Jesus von Braun said so. Absent another reusable vehicle at least on the drawing board that could use SSMEs, the decision is whether to use the remaining stock as disposable rockets, or just leave them sitting in the store room.. Actually, no, that couldn't be farther from the truth. The decision is between throwing them away, and recovering them. Cowards and fools throw SSMEs away, the courageous make an effort to recover them, and use them again. So what are you, brave, or cowardly? That's much more easily said than done. Recovering them is easy enough if they're attached to a vehicle that returns. Otherwise you're talking about parachuting them into the sea or onto land. The latter is a big ask if they're not to be damaged. Into the sea would mean they'd need floatation devices - which better not deploy in flight. Boeing already parachuted an SSME into water, recovered and refired it in association with the original EELV program, I guess you missed that.. *From low altitude. No mention of heat shield requirements from near orbital speed, nor whether the SSME could withstand reentry loading. What is preventing you from trying it, besides outright cowardice? The heat shield requirements are trivial, and the aeroshield is supposed to take the loads. Every SSME required a complete seal and bearing rebuild anyways. What I would do is hang the SSME on the ISS truss and issue a challenge to private industry and newspace to solve the problem. I guarantee the problem will get solved in short order, at a cost that beats NASA's ability to innovate by several orders of magnitude. Tell me more about Ares I, Sylvia, I need a good laugh. Sylvia. Sylvia is just a female version of a brown-nosed clown. He's doing pretty much exactly what she's paid to do. ~ BG |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA Retards Intend To 'USE UP' SSMEs | kT | Space Shuttle | 34 | August 13th 09 04:19 AM |
NASA Retards To Test Retard Rocket | kT | Space Shuttle | 2 | July 21st 09 07:48 AM |
NASA Retards To Test Retard Rocket | kT | Space Station | 2 | July 21st 09 07:48 AM |
NASA Retards To Test Retard Rocket | kT | Policy | 2 | July 21st 09 07:48 AM |
NASA Retards To Test Retard Rocket | kT | History | 2 | July 21st 09 07:48 AM |