"Flight proven" is the new "Certified Pre-Owned"

In article ,
says...
So your math error will be preserved in perpetuity.

Oh well, so will the correction and your stupid observations. lol.

There you go projecting again...

Not really.

Several people here know the basics of how Usenet News cancellations
work.

Which isn't the point. You don't get that.

It is the point. You *choose* to post to Usenet News yet *refuse* to
follow the accepted conventions for posting.

You refuse to listen to us.

That is what bothers you isn't it? lol. Your self importance is paramount.

You're the one breaking convention. You act like you can do whatever
you want without consequence. This behavior is quite child like.

Please learn the basics of how
Usenet News works

That's not the point. The point is I didn't post the correction by itself because of the seething hatred you and Greg spew no matter what is said.

That has nothing to do with accepted conventions on Usenet News.

before you go shooting off your mouth yet again.

You're the one calling names and making things up and ranting about nothing at all.
You're the one who needs lessons on the finer arts of etiquette you blowhard.

I call them like I see them. Don't break convention if you can't handle
being called out for it.

lack of willingness to learn the basics makes *you* look like you fit
the textbook definition of stupid.

Your lack of willingness to be a decent human being makes you look like a toxic personality.

Again, if you don't like the consequences, don't break convention. It's
been a long standing practice on Usenet News to correct noobs when they
break convention.

stupid
adjective
Simple Definition of stupid : not intelligent : having or showing
a lack of ability to learn and understand things

You are a blowhard. Making things up and ranting about it just to feel a little bit better about yourself.

Seek professional help.


LOL.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 7:44:26 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 2:19:19 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Rick Jones wrote:

Jeff Findley wrote:
The "violence" of a launch is largely a myth for liquid fueled
launch vehicles.

Myth or "history"? eg pogo/whatnot.


Pogo means the rocket has a problem. It's not a 'normal' liquid
rocket effect. The vibe environment from a solid is much, MUCH worse
than from a liquid.


Pogo oscillation is a self-excited vibration in liquid propellant rocket engines caused by combustion instability. The unstable combustion results in variations of engine thrust, causing variations of acceleration on the vehicle's flexible structure, which in turn cause variations in propellant pressure and flow rate, closing the self-excitation cycle. The name is a metaphor comparing the longitudinal vibration to the bouncing of a pogo stick.. Pogo oscillation places stress on the frame of the vehicle which, in severe cases can be potentially dangerous.


We all know what it is, Mookie. We don't need you plagiarizing Wiki
so you can try to sound like you know what you're talking about.

How I sound to others is of overweening importance to you emotionally isn't it? lol. What I reproduced here is accurate appropriate and informative. That is what you're saying, even though you constitutionally cannot bring yourself to say it in a way that isn't denigrating to me personally. Which says far more about you than it does about me.




The nature of the pintle fed engine is such that Pogo oscillation does not occur.


Nobody anywhere promises that but you.

Promise? That's an interestingly inappropriate word choice. Facts are not promises. You obviously have not read and understood the pintle engine patents Grumman sued SpaceX over did you? I urge anyone to go and look at those, or this one;

https://www.google.ch/patents/US7827781

This invention relates to the field of aerospace propulsion systems; more particularly, the invention relates to a liquid propellant rocket propulsion system design incorporating a pintle injector, radial injector plate and an ablative insert oriented to dampen resonant harmonic frequencies within the combustion chamber.

The longitudinal resonance is often multiplied by the effect of the variable backpressure created at the injector, and thus causes a varying flow rate through the injector. This leads to varying thrust from the engine known as the “pogo� effect. These problems decrease the efficiency of the engine while increasing the likelihood of engine failure, and can also cause other performance related problems.

Do you understand why?

Its you who don't understand that people quote valid and appropriate sources to educate others effectively, and that pintle designs have been patented that reduce the acoustic drivers that lead to pogo.

I understand why you don't know these facts. You do not comprehend or have read none of the references I provide in abundance, and when I copy the reference (as above) you gripe about plagiarism as if I submitted it for peer reviewed publication! lol.

The primary reason pintle injectors have been used by SpaceX is because they eliminate acoustic instabilities in the engine (the same instabilities that destroyed the F1 engine during testing) by reducing feedback. TRW was a leader in their development, particularly an engineer there named Tom Mueller who just now happens to be SpaceX's VP of Propulsion (and was SpaceX employee #6).


https://www.google.com/patents/US7827781


Even the patent says "reduced", not 'eliminated'.

CFD is not your strong suit is it?


In general, pogo oscillation occurs when a surge in engine pressure increases back pressure against the fuel coming into the engine, reducing engine pressure, causing more fuel to come in and increasing engine pressure again. Flexing of fuel pipes can also induce fluctuations in fuel pressure as well. If the cycle happens to match a resonance frequency of the rocket then dangerous oscillations occur through positive feedback, which, in extreme cases, tear the vehicle apart.

Another situation in which pogo oscillation occurs is when the engine is moving longitudinally with fluctuating speed. Owing to inertia, if the speed of the vehicle suddenly increases, the fuel inside the fuel tank tends to 'fall behind' and is forced into the turbopump, a situation somewhat similar to the slosh of liquid inside a tanker. This creates excess pressure to the turbopump and causes unintended excessive fuel to be delivered. This in turn creates excessive thrust and causes the vehicle to accelerate which leads to further increase in turbopump pressure and an unintended increase in fuel delivery. This can set up a vicious circle, and can result in structural failure in the vehicle.

The most famous pogo oscillation was in the Saturn V first stage, S-IC, caused by the cruciform thrust structure. This structure was an "X" of two I-beams, with an engine on the end of each beam and the center engine at the intersection of the beams. The center of the cruciform was unsupported, so the central F-1 engine caused the structure to bend upwards. The pogo oscillation occurred when this structure sprang back, lengthening the center engine's fuel line bellows (which was mounted down the center of the cruciform), temporarily reducing the fuel flow and thus reducing thrust. At the other end of the oscillation, the fuel line was compressed, increasing fuel flow. This caused a sinusoidal thrust oscillation during the first stage ascent.

If the oscillation is left unchecked, failures can result. One case occurred in the middle J-2 engine of the second stage, S-II, of the Apollo 13 lunar mission in 1970. In this case, the engine shut down before the oscillations could cause damage to the vehicle. Later events in this mission overshadowed the pogo problem. Pogo also had been experienced in the S-IC first stage of the unmanned Apollo 6 test flight in 1968. One of the Soviet Union's N1-L3 rocket test flights suffered pogo oscillations in the first stage on February 21, 1969. The launch vehicle reached initial engine cutoff, but exploded 107 seconds after liftoff and disintegrated. There are other cases during unmanned launches in the 50s and 60s where the pogo effect caused catastrophic launch failures.

Modern vibration analysis methods accounts for the pogo oscillation during design to ensure that it is far away from the vehicle's resonant frequencies. Suppression methods include damping mechanisms or bellows in propellant lines. The Space Shuttle Main Engines each had a damper in the LOX line, but not in the hydrogen fuel line. In a pintle fed engine, pogo oscillations are detected in the engine and pintle geometry adjusted to instantly damp excursions in acceleration.


More Wiki plagiarism.

You are essentially saying what was reproduced above is accurate, correct and appropriate and since that leaves you feeling incomplete to think that about me, or have anyone think that of me, you are reduced to griping about the reference source.


Do you actually understand ANYTHING,

I understand more than you, that's obvious.

or do you
just spew other peoples' words

When appropriate, of course. Don't you?

with no understanding?

Look, you're the one who doesn't understand. You cannot accept that about yourself. So, you attack those who confuse you. It must be them you think within the deepest recesses of your being. You cannot admit YOU ARE WRONG.. So, you attack those who continually talk beyond your capacity to understand, especially in a venue you believe wrong is yours. A venue you care a lot about. You CANNOT be wrong HERE can you? Of course not.

These are problems YOU must deal with. They're not my problems. They are yours.

It seems like
it's the latter...

You get off telling people who confuse you that THEY have no understanding. That lets you project your embarrassment of being wrong on to them.


--
You are
What you do
When it counts.

You are blowhard. That's what you do when it counts.

On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 8:15:03 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 7:49:40 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

perhaps the solution to make many flights with a reusable booster is simple and affordable.

as easy as launching all payloads with a launch boost escape system.

that way if a booster has a bad day, the payload will be safe and can be retrieved and reused.

launch boost escape will add some costs but save money when a booster fails


If this was an economically reasonable practice everyone would already
be doing it.


Nonsense.


Yes, because as everyone knows, businesses avoid economically
reasonable practices because they have no interest in, you know,
MAKING MONEY.

You're missing the point.

In a capitalist system, an enterprise is judged to be successful and efficient if it is profitable. To obtain maximum profits, producers may be restricting production rather than ensuring the maximum utilisation of resources. This strategy of restricting production by firms in order to obtain profits in a capitalist system or mixed economy is known as creating artificial scarcity.

Artificial scarcity essentially describes situations where the producers or owners of a good restrict its availability to others beyond what is strictly necessary. Ideas and information are prime examples of unnecessarily scarce products given artificial scarcity.

Now, from this definition we can see that providers of space launch by ignoring reuse, or wrongly portraying reuse as overly difficult, have created profits through artificial scarcity. We can see this is the case if airlines suddenly made ticket prices a million times more expensive and pointed to the fact that they had to throw away the airplanes after each use. Airplane production would collapse as would airplane use, however, those who still made planes and sold tickets on them afterward, would make huge money on each 'campaign'.

Now this approach arose naturally in aerospace for many valid reasons, the most important being;

(1) it started at zero, so artificial scarcity is hard to distinguish from actual scarcity during growth,
(2) space vehicles can be converted to ICBMs, we seek to limit ICBM availability, high price helps

which has led to an entrenched bureaucracy that might even be able to call on elements of the intelligence community to maintain artificial scarcity for 'national security' reasons.




There are two problems with the idea:

1) Just 'escaping' isn't enough.


If you have a recoverable upper stage it is.


No, it isn't,

Yes it is.

because if a booster has a bad day that sucker is dead.

The payload you mean. The payload is dead if it stays at the site of an explosion. Its not dead if it jets away. If you have the payload housed in a capsule designed to be recovered, the payload can jet away and be recovered.

Do you know what a launch boost escape system is? It gets the PAYLOAD
clear of the stack during boost.

Yes, and the payloads for the last successful SpaceX launch totalled $170 million whilst the booster cost $65 million. It makes sense to give some thought, especially in a reusable rocket, to recover the payload.

Big rockets have a failure rate of about 4% on average. If recovery of a rocket has the same failure rate, a reusable rocket will destroy its payload 4% of the time like the others, and destroy itself 7.84% of the time. So, if we use published figures from SpaceX, and say the recurring cost of a launch is 1% of the total bill price, we have

$65 * (8.84%) = $5.746 million - cost associated with a rocket,
$170 * (4.00%) = $6.800 million - cost associated with payload

A total cost per launch of $12.546 million most of it going into the kitty to pay to replace both payload and rocket.

Now if we can recover the payload 96% of the time (with the recovery rocket having its own 4% failure rate) we reduce the cost associated with the payload from $6.800 million to $0.272 million - cutting costs more than half!

Which is a compelling argument for launch escape - if you are self-insuring..


It doesn't have **** to do with
staging, etc.

You obviously never read this reference, which describes how the launch escape system operates at various altitudes and integrates with the staging of the Saturn V.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/CSM15_L..._pp137-146.pdf





You now need to give up a bunch of
cargo space to hold parachutes or some other way to get the payload
down 'soft'.


You dolt, a reusable upper stage, like the Dragon capsule, that already executes a powered touchdown,


You stupid ****, a capsule is 'payload', not "a reusable upper stage".

snip Mook**** based on his not knowing stage from payload

You maintain ironclad your profound ignorance by not reading those things you cannot understand and instead spend inordinate amounts of energy making specious arguments to project your own ignorance on to others.

snip MookieMath Spew


--
"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


Avoidable human misery is more often caused not so much by stupidity as by ignorance, particularly our ignorance about ourselves. -- Carl Sagan.

On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 9:01:37 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 12:33:26 AM UTC+12, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"William Mook" wrote in message
...

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 7:46:51 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 6:42:40 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
You appear to be repeating yourself (yet again), MookBot.

William Mook wrote:

snip echo


I deleted one post with a mathematical error and reposted the same
post with the error corrected. Blowhard.


You can't delete posts from Usenet News you dolt. You've been told
repeatedly why this is the case. You can try to cancel a post, but many
(most?) newservers will already have propagated the post to other
servers by then. And many (most?) servers simply ignore the cancel
request anyway.

So your math error will be preserved in perpetuity.


And this is precisely why normal Usenet NEWS practice is to just
follow up your original article with ONLY the correction.

That's true, its the USUAL practice, but you've made this group an
especially toxic environment in which to post, so exceptions are made on
that basis.

Even if that were true, this behavior makes no sense.

As the central toxic personality on this group, I would expect you to say something like that.


GREG is "the central toxic personality on this group"? Man, I'm
****ing wounded, here.

That says much about you.


As others have pointed out, cancels rarely work. That has nothing to do with
whether or not this is a toxic group.

You make no sense. I make a statement in reply to an observation that only the correction should have been posted and you talk as if we're discussing why cancels rarely work.

I felt if I had posted only the correction without the context it would become of the focus of your toxic personality.


You don't post it totally without context, you dip****.

I do what the hell I want without reference to your idiot advice.

That's why
you use a FOLLOW-UP.

You may not have modern editing tools available to your 1980s computer on a modem in your mom's basement, but I can in a few clicks copy what I wrote previously, correct the relevant typo, and paste a new entry and erase the old entry far easier.

You leave enough context around the error for
people to see what it is,

I left the entire article with the error corrected so people can see precisely what I mean.

snip the rest, and then insert the
correction as new text right after your ****up.

Like I said, what people did in 1980 have no bearing what they can do in 2016.

snip Mookie demonstrating what an adamantly ignorant **** he is

Interesting, that when you are confused, you blame others for the confusion.



--
"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

Avoidable human misery is more often caused not so much by stupidity as by ignorance, particularly our ignorance about ourselves -- Carl Sagan

William Mook wrote:

On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 7:44:26 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 2:19:19 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Rick Jones wrote:

Jeff Findley wrote:
The "violence" of a launch is largely a myth for liquid fueled
launch vehicles.

Myth or "history"? eg pogo/whatnot.


Pogo means the rocket has a problem. It's not a 'normal' liquid
rocket effect. The vibe environment from a solid is much, MUCH worse
than from a liquid.


Pogo oscillation is a self-excited vibration in liquid propellant rocket engines caused by combustion instability. The unstable combustion results in variations of engine thrust, causing variations of acceleration on the vehicle's flexible structure, which in turn cause variations in propellant pressure and flow rate, closing the self-excitation cycle. The name is a metaphor comparing the longitudinal vibration to the bouncing of a pogo stick. Pogo oscillation places stress on the frame of the vehicle which, in severe cases can be potentially dangerous.


We all know what it is, Mookie. We don't need you plagiarizing Wiki
so you can try to sound like you know what you're talking about.

How I sound to others is of overweening importance to you emotionally isn't it? lol. What I reproduced here is accurate appropriate and informative. That is what you're saying, even though you constitutionally cannot bring yourself to say it in a way that isn't denigrating to me personally. Which says far more about you than it does about me.


No. The fact that you plagiarize sources fairly disgusting.




The nature of the pintle fed engine is such that Pogo oscillation does not occur.


Nobody anywhere promises that but you.

Promise? That's an interestingly inappropriate word choice. Facts are not promises. You obviously have not read and understood the pintle engine patents Grumman sued SpaceX over did you? I urge anyone to go and look at those, or this one;


You've made a statement you cannot support.


https://www.google.ch/patents/US7827781


Note the use of the word "reduce" and not the word "eliminate".

snip MookMuck


--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

William Mook wrote:

On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 8:15:03 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 7:49:40 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

perhaps the solution to make many flights with a reusable booster is simple and affordable.

as easy as launching all payloads with a launch boost escape system.

that way if a booster has a bad day, the payload will be safe and can be retrieved and reused.

launch boost escape will add some costs but save money when a booster fails


If this was an economically reasonable practice everyone would already
be doing it.


Nonsense.


Yes, because as everyone knows, businesses avoid economically
reasonable practices because they have no interest in, you know,
MAKING MONEY.


You're missing the point.


No, you are missing the point, which is why they are running
successful businesses and you are, well, what you are.

snip MookSpew





There are two problems with the idea:

1) Just 'escaping' isn't enough.


If you have a recoverable upper stage it is.


No, it isn't,

Yes it is.


No it isn't.

because if a booster has a bad day that sucker is dead.

The payload you mean.


No, I mean your reusable upper stage.

Snip MookMisunderstanding

snip MookJacking


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

William Mook wrote:

On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 9:01:37 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 12:33:26 AM UTC+12, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"William Mook" wrote in message
...

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 7:46:51 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 6:42:40 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
You appear to be repeating yourself (yet again), MookBot.

William Mook wrote:

snip echo


I deleted one post with a mathematical error and reposted the same
post with the error corrected. Blowhard.


You can't delete posts from Usenet News you dolt. You've been told
repeatedly why this is the case. You can try to cancel a post, but many
(most?) newservers will already have propagated the post to other
servers by then. And many (most?) servers simply ignore the cancel
request anyway.

So your math error will be preserved in perpetuity.


And this is precisely why normal Usenet NEWS practice is to just
follow up your original article with ONLY the correction.

That's true, its the USUAL practice, but you've made this group an
especially toxic environment in which to post, so exceptions are made on
that basis.

Even if that were true, this behavior makes no sense.

As the central toxic personality on this group, I would expect you to say something like that.


GREG is "the central toxic personality on this group"? Man, I'm
****ing wounded, here.

That says much about you.


Sarcasm - look it up, Mookie.



As others have pointed out, cancels rarely work. That has nothing to do with
whether or not this is a toxic group.

You make no sense. I make a statement in reply to an observation that only the correction should have been posted and you talk as if we're discussing why cancels rarely work.

I felt if I had posted only the correction without the context it would become of the focus of your toxic personality.


You don't post it totally without context, you dip****.

I do what the hell I want without reference to your idiot advice.


Yes, I know you do. That's why you're pretty much viewed as an
adamantly stupid little ****.

snip Mookie Self-Justification


--
You are
What you do
When it counts.

William Mook wrote:

On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 12:24:11 PM UTC+12, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...


And presumably the used stages just magically teleport back from the
landing barge to be instantaneously fueled and fully stacked on the
launch pad, because that's the only way you're going to get a launch a
day out of 8 rockets.

A launch every other day.


Whatever. You're not going to get it. Have you looked at the SpaceX
launch timeline? From start of integration to completion of testing
and launch of the vehicle is over a month. And that's ignoring the
time it takes to get the first stage from the barge where it landed
back to the processing facility and inspect it. And ignoring the fact
that one of your launch sites (and two of your rockets) can only
launch to polar orbits.


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

"JF Mezei" wrote in message
eb.com...

On 2016-09-06 15:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:

back to the processing facility and inspect it. And ignoring the fact
that one of your launch sites (and two of your rockets) can only
launch to polar orbits.


I can understand that they don't want rockets flying over populated
areas in case they blow up.

However, at what altitude does this restriction end ?

If you launched from Vandenburg going SSE to hug the Baja peninsula
coast, could you at one point "turn" more east to get to say a 51° orbit
and fly "legally" over mexico because you are high enough ?

I realise this would have performance penalty, but would still allow
cargo to be shipped to the ISS if the other pads are unavailable.


Basically... at the point if your payload and rocket becomes purely
ballistic it won't crash on someone.


(Note: one SpaceX statement indicated November as date when they expect
39A to become operational).

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-09-06 15:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:

back to the processing facility and inspect it. And ignoring the fact
that one of your launch sites (and two of your rockets) can only
launch to polar orbits.


I can understand that they don't want rockets flying over populated
areas in case they blow up.

However, at what altitude does this restriction end ?


Let me try this again. What Range Safety does is watch the VELOCITY
VECTOR of the vehicle. So there is no specific 'altitude'.


If you launched from Vandenburg going SSE to hug the Baja peninsula
coast, could you at one point "turn" more east to get to say a 51° orbit
and fly "legally" over mexico because you are high enough ?


You mean fast enough, not high enough.


I realise this would have performance penalty, but would still allow
cargo to be shipped to the ISS if the other pads are unavailable.


The performance penalty would be HUGE. Remember, it is the velocity
vector parallel to the surface of the Earth that you care about.
'Bending' that velocity vector after it has some appreciable size
(which is what you're suggesting) is stupidly expensive with regards
to fuel.


--
"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