Meet the SR-72

In article ,
says...
yet all we see are hints
at research projects that must prove successful before any real
engineering starts.

Define your terms. As per usual, you confuse and confabulate programmatic issues with underlying physical scientific and technical issues. Fact is, with 3D printing of parts and quick turn around for construction, flight, review spins, quite a bit can be done with quite modest investments.

Torres & Mueller of Notre Dame wrote a paper about this in the 1980s!! MICRO AERIAL VEHICLE DEVELOPMENT: DESIGN, COMPONENTS, FABRICATION, AND FLIGHT-TESTING

Another research paper you can use and abuse far beyond its original
purpose.

If you were a real legitimate engineer, with half the ability you claim, you'd have read it and understood its implications then, and been ready to seize the opportunities 3D printing provided.

http://3dprinting.com/materials/metal/

I'll believe your claims when you successfully fly a reusable ballistic
vehicle from California to Oklahoma and back six times in one day,
spending less than an hour on the ground between each flight. In other
words, demonstrate the extremely high flight that you claim is possible
in order for such a vehicle to displace turbofan driven subsonic
aircraft.

I'm not making the outlandish claims. Few people can actually build and
fly full scale hardware to prove such outlandish claims. I won't hold
my breath while waiting for your borderline delusions to become reality.

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

In article ,
says...

On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 6:24:42 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

Research on top of research does not necessarily produce a well
engineered aircraft.


I wanted to address this incredibly stupid statement by pointing out how evolution and artificial life works.

Here comes more b.s. claims because Mook is now an expert in artificial
life.

Artificial life an art form which examine systems related to life.
This includes

life processes, and
life evolution,

using simulations. Simulations can be

computer models,
robots, and
Chemistry.

Christopher Langton originated the idea in 1986.

There are three main kinds of alife,

soft,using software;
hard,using hardware; and
wet, using chemistry.

Artificial life imitates traditional biology by recreating biology.


Soft uses cellular automata where ease of scalability and parallelization is required. Soft neural networks are used to evolve intelligence and complex behavior.

Soft program based simulations contain organisms in a virtual environment. Programs self replicate with mutations. Mutations are introduced as random changes to the program's functions.

Soft modules are added to a virtual creature. These modules modify the creature's behaviors and characteristics either directly, by hard coding into the simulation, or indirectly, through the emergent interactions between a creature's modules.

Soft Parameters pre-define fixed behaviors. These are set by parameters that mutate. In this way a collection of numbers define each organism.

Hard artificial life consist of robots that do tasks on their own.

Wet artificial life uses synthetic biology. The creation of synthetic DNA.


All that crap is more of your unsupported b.s. because no one has yet to
produce "wet artificial life" using "synthetic biology"; "the creation
of synthetic DNA".

Now, since 2011, I have had a super computer and an EOS M290 laser
sintering system an Arcam Q20 e-beam sintering system, along with
a traditional machine shop and electronics lab. I also have a
Nanoscribe Photonic Professional GT and a Keysight 5500 AFM/SPM.

Congrats on the garage full of toys. Doesn't mean you know how to use
them to build the sort of vehicle you claim is possible. To quote a
Nike ad, "Just do it!".

There are several development arcs, depending on whether we're looking at behavior, process, product and so forth.

For simplicity let's look at a product that works in a specific way in a specific environment.


And if we're going to take that approach towards aerospace engineering,
we'd need a million Mooks each working with unlimited funding on a Mook
design for 20 years in order to produce one viable sub orbital rapid
turnaround transport.

Resources are finite. You can't go traipsing down every technological
dead end because you'll be dead and buried before you build and fly
anything big enough to carry a person on half a dozen or more suborbital
jaunts half way across the country in a single day.

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

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 5:57:55 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
yet all we see are hints
at research projects that must prove successful before any real
engineering starts.

Define your terms. As per usual, you confuse and confabulate programmatic issues with underlying physical scientific and technical issues. Fact is, with 3D printing of parts and quick turn around for construction, flight, review spins, quite a bit can be done with quite modest investments.

Torres & Mueller of Notre Dame wrote a paper about this in the 1980s!! MICRO AERIAL VEHICLE DEVELOPMENT: DESIGN, COMPONENTS, FABRICATION, AND FLIGHT-TESTING

Another research paper you can use and abuse far beyond its original
purpose.

The fact you cannot see its relevance is your problem, no one else's.


If you were a real legitimate engineer, with half the ability you claim, you'd have read it and understood its implications then, and been ready to seize the opportunities 3D printing provided.

http://3dprinting.com/materials/metal/

I'll believe your claims

I'm addressing issues you raise. My original post is quite straightforward..

when you successfully fly a reusable ballistic
vehicle from California to Oklahoma and back six times in one day,
spending less than an hour on the ground between each flight.

Aboslutely! The proof is always in the putting. You're the one continually twisting things to make it seem different from that.

In other
words, demonstrate the extremely high flight that you claim is possible
in order for such a vehicle to displace turbofan driven subsonic
aircraft.

Agreed.

I'm not making the outlandish claims.

No, you're asking stupid questions and foolishly interpreting my attempts to answer you in ways that are outlandish.

Few people can actually build and
fly full scale hardware to prove such outlandish claims.

That is correct. Hence the importance of micro vehicles.

I won't hold
my breath

No one's asking you to.

while waiting for your borderline delusions to become reality.

?? You're the one with delusions.

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

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 6:06:57 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 6:24:42 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

Research on top of research does not necessarily produce a well
engineered aircraft.


I wanted to address this incredibly stupid statement by pointing out how evolution and artificial life works.

Here comes more b.s. claims because Mook is now an expert in artificial
life.

I didn't say I was expert in anything. I said I have an interest, and I'm having fun doing these things.



Artificial life an art form which examine systems related to life.
This includes

life processes, and
life evolution,

using simulations. Simulations can be

computer models,
robots, and
Chemistry.

Christopher Langton originated the idea in 1986.

There are three main kinds of alife,

soft,using software;
hard,using hardware; and
wet, using chemistry.

Artificial life imitates traditional biology by recreating biology.


Soft uses cellular automata where ease of scalability and parallelization is required. Soft neural networks are used to evolve intelligence and complex behavior.

Soft program based simulations contain organisms in a virtual environment. Programs self replicate with mutations. Mutations are introduced as random changes to the program's functions.

Soft modules are added to a virtual creature. These modules modify the creature's behaviors and characteristics either directly, by hard coding into the simulation, or indirectly, through the emergent interactions between a creature's modules.

Soft Parameters pre-define fixed behaviors. These are set by parameters that mutate. In this way a collection of numbers define each organism.

Hard artificial life consist of robots that do tasks on their own.

Wet artificial life uses synthetic biology. The creation of synthetic DNA.


All that crap is more of your unsupported b.s. because no one has yet to
produce "wet artificial life" using "synthetic biology"; "the creation
of synthetic DNA".

You haven't heard of XNA then or understood how PCR works.


Now, since 2011, I have had a super computer and an EOS M290 laser
sintering system an Arcam Q20 e-beam sintering system, along with
a traditional machine shop and electronics lab. I also have a
Nanoscribe Photonic Professional GT and a Keysight 5500 AFM/SPM.

Congrats on the garage full of toys.

Yes, very awesome and a lot of fun.

Doesn't mean you know how to use
them to build the sort of vehicle you claim is possible.

Having them and a team of workers and vendors excited to work with them helps along with the vision of what I want of course.

To quote a
Nike ad, "Just do it!".

Absolutely.

There are several development arcs, depending on whether we're looking at behavior, process, product and so forth.

For simplicity let's look at a product that works in a specific way in a specific environment.


And if we're going to take that approach towards aerospace engineering,
we'd need a million Mooks each working with unlimited funding on a Mook
design for 20 years in order to produce one viable sub orbital rapid
turnaround transport.

Yeah, sort of like monkeys typing Shakespeare. Some people have described artificial evolution that way. But, since we're following directed process, we don't need nearly so many as you might imagine.

Resources are finite.

True. The resources I have are rather modest, but they do get results. I reckon I'm far more efficient than much larger teams. This article explains how that comes to be;

http://spin.atomicobject.com/2012/01...n-large-teams/


You can't go traipsing down every technological
dead end because you'll be dead and buried before you build and fly
anything big enough to carry a person on half a dozen or more suborbital
jaunts half way across the country in a single day.

You're right, but that you think this is how evolutionary processes work means that you haven't grokked the essential benefit of artificial evolution.

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