A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Santa Susana Rocketdyne is still a mess



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 1st 13, 11:43 PM posted to sci.space.history
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Santa Susana Rocketdyne is still a mess

On Dec 31 2012, 9:35*am, bob haller wrote:
On Dec 29, 11:46*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:

bob haller wrote:


theres plenty of ground water under nevada, all contaminated by
radiation from nuclear bomb testing


Cite? *Anything showing that ANY ground water that is not under
Federal land that is contaminated will do. *There is tritium
contamination in water under the test range (and surrounding Nellis
AFB), but no sign it will ever spread off that area and reach civilian
populated areas.


--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
*soul with evil."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Socrates


this from a news reort about the drought, it showed a great resivior
under nevada but stated it was contaminated, from bomb testing.

honestly do you trust government, over the years they have covered up
lots of problems


Fred would trust any ZNR oligarch run government, regardless of the
consequences, because he believe there's no such thing as too big a
lie or too big of any government.
  #22  
Old January 8th 13, 01:52 AM posted to sci.space.history
OM[_19_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default Santa Susana Rocketdyne is still a mess

On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 7:22:54 PM UTC-6, Fred J. McCall wrote:

More insane claims from The Guthball. Colour me unsurprised. He's
about due to accuse me of being Jewish and working at some National
Lab or other....


....What? You mean we're no longer Jim Oberg clones?


OM
  #23  
Old January 8th 13, 01:56 AM posted to sci.space.history
OM[_19_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default Santa Susana Rocketdyne is still a mess

On Thursday, December 20, 2012 11:48:31 PM UTC-6, Peter Stickney wrote:
There was also the nation's largest Hot Lab and a fuel reprocessing facility
there that operated into the 1880s.

^^^^^
|||||

O, for the days when a tyop like this would have generated two new threads with a hundred posts each...

OM
  #24  
Old January 8th 13, 04:47 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Santa Susana Rocketdyne is still a mess


On Thursday, December 20, 2012 11:48:31 PM UTC-6, Peter Stickney wrote:
There was also the nation's largest Hot Lab and a fuel reprocessing facility
there that operated into the 1880s.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *^^^^^
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *|||||


O, for the days when a tyop like this would have generated two new threads with a hundred posts each...


Oh, that can still happen, but these days all 100 posts in both
threads will be the result of The Guthball answering himself.


no it will be fred spamming the boards with a lot of offensive
inaccurate posts


  #26  
Old January 9th 13, 12:20 AM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Santa Susana Rocketdyne is still a mess

On Jan 8, 1:31*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 28ea1b13-e187-41ee-aa20-ddd4351deac9@
10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com, says...

Oh, that can still happen, but these days all 100 posts in both
threads will be the result of The Guthball answering himself.


no it will be fred spamming the boards with a lot of offensive
inaccurate posts


If Fred ever "spams the boards with a lot of offensive inaccurate
posts" it will no doubt be on a very cold day in hell.

You, on the other hand, seem to excel at posting inaccuracies, no matter
who tries to correct you.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer


you dont like my posts because i have been accurate on some major
issues....

and stratolauncher will be another one shortly
  #27  
Old January 9th 13, 02:40 PM posted to sci.space.history
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default Santa Susana Rocketdyne is still a mess

In article c0f7ffb3-d0eb-4303-85b2-ffb02e872389
@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com, says...

On Jan 8, 1:31*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 28ea1b13-e187-41ee-aa20-ddd4351deac9@
10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com, says...

Oh, that can still happen, but these days all 100 posts in both
threads will be the result of The Guthball answering himself.


no it will be fred spamming the boards with a lot of offensive
inaccurate posts


If Fred ever "spams the boards with a lot of offensive inaccurate
posts" it will no doubt be on a very cold day in hell.

You, on the other hand, seem to excel at posting inaccuracies, no matter
who tries to correct you.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer


you dont like my posts because i have been accurate on some major
issues....


No, you really have not. Your half-a$$ed attempts at "being right"
don't count. You make vague, b.s. predictions. Anyone can do that. If
you actually believe that what you're doing is somehow special, you're
more delusional than I thought.

and stratolauncher will be another one shortly


You're quite simply wrong on the key point you're pushing, which is that
it will somehow be much cheaper than the competition. Even
Stratolauncher isn't pushing that aspect of their approach. They're
pushing the flexibility of not having a fixed launch site.

Stratolauncher has a long, uphill, battle to build the world's largest
carrier aircraft. That's not going to be cheap to build, store,
maintain, fly, and etc. Plus, others have pointed out that since it's
so large, there are very few runways that it can operate from, which
negates some of the flexibility gained.

Sorry, but I don't see it being cheaper than, say, SpaceX. The pads
that SpaceX has at the Cape and at Vandenberg are already in place and
cover the sorts of orbits that its customers seek. Plus SpaceX is
pursuing resuability of its first stage. If successful, I don't see how
a huge carrier aircraft is going to compete on cost with a fully
reusable VTVL first stage. You need those rocket engines on the first
stage just to make orbit. Having them do double duty for landing costs
very little, and enables them to be cheaply reused.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
 




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
An alternative to this mess Martin[_5_] Amateur Astronomy 21 January 29th 08 04:47 AM
Last Rocket Test at Santa Susana Ed Kyle Policy 8 October 3rd 05 11:58 PM
Boeing Sells Rocketdyne Ed Kyle Policy 10 February 28th 05 04:46 PM
United Technologies to Buy Rocketdyne from Boeing ? Iain Young Policy 17 February 26th 05 03:51 AM
Boeing Said Shopping Rocketdyne ed kyle Policy 5 June 11th 04 04:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.