CEV to be made commercially available

"JHNichols" wrote in message
...
There's a South Park episode lurking in there somewhere.
(Cut to image of Kenny impaled on a solar array.) :-D

Pat

There is an episode were the children are standing at the bus stop before
school and MIR falls on Kenny.

"Oh, my God, MIR killed Kenny! You *******s!"


Found a link to a picture.

http://images.southparkstudios.com/d...7_mirkenny.gif

wrote:
...Scott, *please* don't trim the sender headers from your quotes.

No trimming is done. As you can see, when one hits the "reply" button
while posting from Google groups, no such header is included in the
first place. I just can't be bothered to spackle in a new header.


Try "show options" and then the "reply" button that uncovers.

Works a charm.

And why build a spacefaring civilization on the Stick as opposed to
other options?

/dps

P.S.
And OM... if you don't know who I'm responding to in this message...
it's time to take a break

Depends on what rocket fuel he's tossing down. And which viewer he's
using, since some don't do as nice a job of showing the thread tree as
google does (and some, of course, do better -- showing the tree before
you open the thread, so you don't have to wonder if Brad is replying to
someone who posted some real content; Opera is fairly good, but I
haven't checked out other recently).

"OM" om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote
in message ...
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:16:47 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

NASA does appear to be at a decision point here. If we go ahead with the
CEV, stick, and SDHLV, it's insuring that NASA will continue with its
business as usual approach to manned spaceflight.

...You are, as usual, ignoring the *real* reason that we should build
our own boosters instead of depending on ones built by foreign powers
and/or corporations: what guarantee is there that they'll always be
there and/or will be cooperative when some other geopolitical fiasco
occurs?

I'm referring to Atlas V and Delta IV. If they're good enough to launch
multi billion dollar US spysats, they're good enough for the CEV.

I'm not suggesting we buy launches from Europe or the Russians. As Henry
likes to point out, NASA typically doesn't like its buget to be spent
overseas. It prefers to get everything "international" it can by barter.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Damon Hill wrote:

It's already been done; the thermal efficiency is terrible. It'd
have niche applications and should work pretty well in hot climates,
having it's own AC built-in. Wouldn't want to fool with it in a
typical North Dakota winter, though.

Having a bunch of such cars on the road would have a bit of an exhaust
problem: imagine the stream of condensed water they'd leave on a hot,
humid day. The low efficiency means the heat exchanger would have to
pull a lot of ambient air, and that moisture can't be allowed to
freeze on the heat exhanger.

It has possibilities, but the motor efficiency needs a lot
of improvement and the thermodynamics are inherantly lousy.


Okay....but other than those slight problems.... :-)
Now, when I do build my vehicle powered by this system, I intend to put
the heat exchangers inside of flapping wings that will fold up along the
sides of the vehicle's body when not in use. Since this propulsion
system is independent of outside air this vehicle will also be able to
operate underwater as a submarine, powered by propellors at the stern.
Once it flaps itself skyward like an immense bird from my secret
mountain lair, these propellors shall also drive it forward in flight.
And what shall I do with such a combination car/boat/submarine/aircraft
terror?
First, I shall revenge myself upon the members of the Weldon Club of
Philadelphia for their treacherous destruction of the "Albatross".
Then I shall challenge Supercar to an aerial/surface/underwater duel to
determine who shall be The Master Of The World, and who shall be the
mere puppets of The Master Of The World. :-D

Patrick the Conqueror

JHNichols wrote:

There is an episode were the children are standing at the bus stop before
school and MIR falls on Kenny.

"Oh, my God, MIR killed Kenny! You *******s!"




http://www.cloudbait.com/observatory/kennymir.jpg

Pat

Neil Gerace wrote:

In Dead Like Me's first episode the main character gets killed by a toilet
seat falling from Mir. Then she got herself a new career.




I still picture that mirror out of Hubble coming out of the sky like a
Frisbee from Hell.

Pat

OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote
in :

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 03:17:26 -0500, Damon Hill
wrote:

Don't anyone _dare_ mention this idea to William Mook! :-)

It's already been done; the thermal efficiency is terrible.

...What? The energy transfer, or Mook himself? :-P

Yes.

--Damon

Pat Flannery wrote in
:



Damon Hill wrote:

It's already been done; the thermal efficiency is terrible. It'd
have niche applications and should work pretty well in hot climates,
having it's own AC built-in. Wouldn't want to fool with it in a
typical North Dakota winter, though.

Having a bunch of such cars on the road would have a bit of an exhaust
problem: imagine the stream of condensed water they'd leave on a hot,
humid day. The low efficiency means the heat exchanger would have to
pull a lot of ambient air, and that moisture can't be allowed to
freeze on the heat exhanger.

It has possibilities, but the motor efficiency needs a lot
of improvement and the thermodynamics are inherantly lousy.


Okay....but other than those slight problems.... :-)
Now, when I do build my vehicle powered by this system, I intend to
put the heat exchangers inside of flapping wings that will fold up
along the sides of the vehicle's body when not in use. Since this
propulsion system is independent of outside air this vehicle will also
be able to operate underwater as a submarine, powered by propellors
at the stern. Once it flaps itself skyward like an immense bird from
my secret mountain lair, these propellors shall also drive it forward
in flight. And what shall I do with such a combination
car/boat/submarine/aircraft terror?
First, I shall revenge myself upon the members of the Weldon Club of
Philadelphia for their treacherous destruction of the "Albatross".
Then I shall challenge Supercar to an aerial/surface/underwater duel
to determine who shall be The Master Of The World, and who shall be
the mere puppets of The Master Of The World. :-D

Patrick the Conqueror


And his dreaded Cold Duck superweapon.

--Damon

In article . com,
wrote:
Returned how? The CEV isn't big enough to return an SSME.

And whoever said use the CEV for that role? Again, *think.* Try to come
up with an approach. Think about it from the standpoint of the
entepreneur.

An entrepreneur? Where is there any place for entrepreneurs in the
glorious new Vision of Socialist Exploration? NASA refused to even buy
its launches commercially -- something it is *required by law* to do
whenever possible -- so what makes you think unqualified scum like
entrepreneurs will be allowed anywhere near this precious hardware?

There are, say, a dozen SSME's on orbit...

No, there are, say, a dozen SSME's in fragments on the Pacific floor.
NASA isn't going to leave them in orbit until there is definitely
something that can be done with them. There's no justification for the
effort of cutting them loose from the stage unless salvage is going to
happen, and just storing the stages has most of the problems of storing
External Tanks -- you have to get them up to somewhere like the station
(whereas they're normally abandoned at lower altitude), you have to make
them compatible with long-term storage, you have to worry about drag
issues -- and there's no way NASA is going to make the effort without a
reason. If they couldn't be bothered doing it for the ET, they won't do
it for this hardware either.

...How would *you* go about getting 'em?

Not possible. (Technologically, yes. Politically, no.) It has to be
a billion-dollar BoeLock project or it won't happen. No reason for me to
bother even considering it.

...But here's the
difference: the Stick Stage 2 will end up in some sort of orbit.

And will then be de-orbited, probably the same way the S-IVB stages of the
Skylab crews were de-orbited -- by propellant dump through the engine.
NASA is terrified of leaving things in orbit that might fall on somebody
and result in lawsuits, or even just increase the debris problem. They
already set the precedent with the ET: no spent hardware left in orbit
unless someone has specific, credible, NASA-endorsed plans to do something
with it, including triple-redundant precautions against unintended reentry.
(I'm not kidding about the triple redundancy.)

Also, almost certainly the second stage's orbit is going to be very low,
because you want to shed its dry mass as soon as you don't need all that
thrust. NASA will quite legitimately refuse to accept the payload penalty
of putting it in a higher orbit just to facilitate hypothetical future
salvage operations.

...talk (calmly) to your
Congresscritters and get them to order NASA to either use the stages on
orbit, or have them transfer ownership to the highest bidder...

NASA's answer will be: "we have no plans to use them in orbit, and there
is no *qualified* bidder who we recognize as competent to take them over,
so we regretfully must continue to de-orbit them; we'll be delighted to
start transferring ownership as soon as there's a qualified user for them,
hee hee".

People have been through this before, Scott, and there is no reason to
expect that the results would be better this time. "Fool me once, shame
on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

Under (early) Goldin, odd though it might sound, there actually was some
small chance that such a radical proposal might get somewhere. Under
Griffin, looks like there's no way -- reform is not on his agenda.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:
...And here Dubya wants us to move to a H-cell economy!

Somebody should look into vehicles powered by compressed gas boiled off
of liquid air.

People have looked at LN2-powered vehicles. (You don't want to use liquid
air -- it turns itself into LOX as it boils, roughly speaking, and then
you've got a nasty fire hazard.) They're not competitive with gasoline
vehicles. They probably *could* be competitive with current electric
designs, and maybe even with current hydrogen designs, but they're out
of fashion politically and there is little funding to be had.

If LOX is that cheap, simple liquefied air should be dirt cheap, and the
emissions would be non-polluting.

It is (cheaper, in fact), and it is (LN2 is only slightly more expensive),
and they are.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |