RC Rocketry - Ready to Fly to Orbit

On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 11:16:52 PM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

Clueless people ranting ...

Clueless person ranting elided


(The space shuttle costs about $10,000 per pound of payload,


BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The Space Shuttle never got anywhere near $1,000
per pound of payload! This is the sort of absolute boner (along with
the nutty things) that leaves people laughing at you, Mookie.


A typo!

That's right, I meant to say $10,000 per pound - and that more advanced systems wanted to reduce that to $1,000 per pound - thanks for the pointer.


Despite being under-funded, the X-33 brought numerous new technologies to light, including

1) lightweight composite fuel tanks (which is used commercially in hydrogen fueled systems today)


Please identify FLYING HARDWARE using such composite tanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5dmJZzAzxE

You mean the flying hardware using composite tanks that are NOT part of unacknowledged programs. Or flying hardware using composite tanks that are part of unacknowledged programs extend further back - but cannot be talked about openly.

You are
aware that one of the major failures that ended the X-33 program was
failure of the composite tank, right?

A test failed and that test was used as an excuse to change the course of the program. The changed course was used to attack the program on political grounds, ending the program.

You understand that the Al-Li
tank that replaced the composite tank turned out to be lighter than
the composite tank it replaced, right?

The composite test tank had mechanical features useful for the test that wouldn't have appeared in a flight weight tank, while the Al-Li tank was flight weight from the beginning - since it used proven technology - so the composite tank weighed more for that reason. This fact was mis-reported and used to undercut any real appreciation of what the program had achieved, and was used by those who sought to kill the program to kill it.


2) a metallic thermal protection system lighter than the shuttle's ceramic tiles.


Because the thermal loads on X-33 were supposed to be lower than those
on the Shuttle.

Nonsense. Zirconium diboride and hafnium diboride the best hot TPS materials out there, is better than RCC used on the Shuttle's leading edge and nose, and the RCC is superior to the Shuttle tiles.

All your arguments proceed from flawed politically motivated comments. They have no basis is physical reality or any appreciation of the fundamentals of what the program was all about. This tendency to devolve to the political and ignore the fundamental is a powerful argument against governments doing any science or technology development of any sort.

Fact is radiatively cooled TPS, called a hot metal TPS was proposed for the Space Shuttle originally. Hot metal TPS for the Shuttle was based on nickel superalloy and titanium shingles. These were superior to the silica tiles.

The earlier Shuttle TPS concept was rejected because it was believed a silica tile based TPS offered less expensive development and manufacturing costs despite the advantages hot metal TPS offered. Political infighting also played a role in the selection.

A nickel superalloy shingle TPS was again proposed for the X-33 single-stage to orbit (SSTO) prototype which would have migrated to the hafnium and zirconium based superalloys in the Venturestar.

These advanced systems have been flight tested and proven.

Referred to by their prototype vehicle Slender Hypervelocity Aerothermodynamic Research Probe (SHARP), these TPS materials have been based upon zirconium diboride and hafnium diboride.

SHARP TPS have performance improvements allowing for sustained Mach 7 flight at sea level, Mach 11 flight at 100,000 ft (30,000 m) altitudes, and significant improvements for vehicles designed for continuous hypersonic flight..

SHARP TPS materials enable sharp leading edges and nose cones to greatly reduce drag for air breathing combined cycle propelled space planes and lifting bodies. SHARP materials have exhibited effective TPS characteristics from zero to more than 2,000 °C, with melting points over 3,500 °C. They are structurally stronger than RCC, thus do not require structural reinforcement with materials such as Inconel.

SHARP materials are also extremely efficient at re-radiating absorbed heat, thus eliminating the need for additional TPS behind and between SHARP materials and conventional vehicle structure.

NASA initially funded (and discontinued) a multi-phase R&D program through the University of Montana in 2001 to test SHARP materials on test vehicles.


3) advanced autopiloting,


snork

Apparently, you do not recognize that autopiloting through the various flight regimes for a highly recoverable spacecraft element pays huge dividends. For example, a modular booster element separates, slows to subsonic speed, deploys inflatable wings, and glides toward a tow plane where it is snagged by the tow plane - and carried back to the launch centre. The tow plane releases the flight element, and it executes a powered vertical touch down in a manner similar to the old tail sitter aircraft. Obviously autopiloting in all these flight regimes pays huge dividends - as does communicating with active landing systems that absorb shocks without the requirement to carry landing gear on board the spacecraft. This is all possible through advanced autopiloting - and this is the short list.



4) improved ground handling,


'Ground handling' is specific by vehicle. It's not a 'technology' you
develop and then apply to everything.

People used to say nonsense like that about cargo handling in the old days. But, in 1955, Malcom P. McLean, a trucking entrepreneur from North Carolina, USA, bought a steamship company with the idea of transporting entire truck trailers with their cargo still inside. He realized it would be much simpler and quicker to have one container that could be lifted from a vehicle directly on to a ship without first having to unload its contents.

McLean's ideas were based on the theory that efficiency could be vastly improved through a system of "intermodalism", in which the same container, with the same cargo, can be transported with minimum interruption via different transport modes during its journey. Containers could be moved seamlessly between ships, trucks and trains. This would simplify the whole logistical process and, eventually, implementing this idea led to a revolution in cargo transportation and international trade over the next 50 years.

Similar approaches to standardized aircraft components have been used to reduce the costs associated with aircraft operations, not only to cargo, but also to fueling and servicing the aircraft efficiently.

Application of these techniques to standardised space vehicle design have the potential to reduce the size of the standing army needed to support space launch reducing costs and increasing reliability.

The common core booster is a case in point. Three flight elements all of similar size and shape, all with similar control connection, fueling venting, radically reduce the complexity of ground operations reducing costs and improving reliability.


snip

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

On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 7:17:22 AM UTC-5, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

Clueless people ranting about how Lockheed abused NASA's trust and the public trust don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Which is why X-33's LH2 tanks flew so gracefully...

The LH2 tank failed in test, it didn't fail in flight. It was never given a proper chance. The entire program was under political fire by those who would didn't want to deal with real competition.

My point stands.

Nonsense.

Lockheed did not know what they were doing with X-33.

Lockheed was outmaneuvered by their much better connected competitors who succeeded in portraying them as not knowing what they were doing. The fact is, composite tanks are a great idea. Boeing didn't want Lockheed to be the one developing them.

If a similar tank
was produced for a "dark" program that succeeded, then it was either not
the same as X-33, or it was successful due to dumb luck.

Nonsense. If you had any real understanding of how these tanks work, and you had real technical data to explain why Lockheed's program was fundamentally flawed, you would trot that data out. Unfortunately, your commentary is not supported by the reality of the Lockheed program.

Sure, a tank failed under test. Sure, politically motivated teams used that failure to substitute Al-Li tank for the composite tank. Sure, the Al-Li team was able to convince management the composite team didn't know what they were doing by spinning data to their favour. Sure, this political infighting was used by larger political forces to blacken the entire program. Sure, clueless people like yourself read such tripe and think it means something.

Meanwhile, nothing gets done and billions are spent, and shortly, the nation is no longer sending people into space.

There are unacknowledged programs. The XB-70, the U2, the B1 bomber,
the B2 bomber, the F117A, etc., all were at one time or another
unacknowledged flying hardware that could not be shown.

I never said there weren't.

So, you know that Lockheed has real reasons to keep quiet about things.

But when details of such are kept dark,
it's quite impossible for someone not "in the know" to validate
Lockheed's claims that they knew what they're doing (wink-wink, nod-nod,
trust us, we know what we're doing).

Lockheed did validate its program before starting it. You obviously haven't read the reports on this. You just read what's in the press and make up stories that are emotionally appealing to you. Fact is, reams of technical data are available for anyone who cares to look.

Trust, but verify!

Reagan said that. Lockheed did precisely this in their composite program. That you think they didn't just shows you're not familiar with the relevant details. Just the gossip after the fact.

Unfortunately, NASA could not verify Lockheed's claims

That's a lie.

and chose to
trust them with X-33.

NASA cannot do that - and did not do that. The managers who supported the program, later distanced themselves and said they were fooled. But that's just CYA behaviour. The record shows what actually happened, if you would care to look at the details.

No, the effort was not all for naught as some
pieces of tech did soldier on (I trimmed your verbal spewing on this
quite tangential topic).

The skills were in place from unacknowledged programs. They remain in place today.

But the program failed after about $1 billion
or so in spending on tech Lockheed assurred NASA would work right the
first time (it didn't).

Nonsense. $1 billion was spent on a program that was expected to cost $5 billion over its development, and a poorly managed test ended up breaking a tank under test (not in flight) and that was used by competing teams to justify a radical shift in the program. The shift was used to blacken the program to Congress. NASA managers back pedaled to save their ass leaving others to twist in the wind until NASA and Congress pulled the plug on the whole thing.

Fact is, had Lockheed stayed the course with composites and managed to get $5 billion spent on X-33 Venturestar would be flying today.


My point still stands.

Your point was flawed because you are looking at gossip, not engineering facts and actual reports.

X-33 failed because Lockheed did not *quite*
know what they were doing

Nonsense.

while NASA watched on, convinced that Lockheed
really did know what they were doing (wink-wink, nod-nod, know what I
mean?).

Bull****.


After all, the maths worked out on all of Lockheed's napkins that they
used to extrapolate from prior programs...

Your appreciation of real science and engineering is quite limited isn't it?

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 Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 12:26:19 AM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 11:16:52 PM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

Clueless people ranting ...

Clueless person ranting elided


(The space shuttle costs about $10,000 per pound of payload,


BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The Space Shuttle never got anywhere near $1,000
per pound of payload! This is the sort of absolute boner (along with
the nutty things) that leaves people laughing at you, Mookie.


A typo!

That's right, I meant to say $10,000 per pound - and that more advanced systems wanted to reduce that to $1,000 per pound - thanks for the pointer.


And that's typical of you.


To admit to a typo when it occurs? lol. Thanks I guess.

Your brain is off by at least an order of
magnitude.

Nonsense.


Despite being under-funded, the X-33 brought numerous new technologies to light, including

1) lightweight composite fuel tanks (which is used commercially in hydrogen fueled systems today)


Please identify FLYING HARDWARE using such composite tanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5dmJZzAzxE


Already knew about that. It's well behind what you claimed and
doesn't stem from where you said it does.

Former NASA director Ivan Bekey appeared in front of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, at the US House of Representatives. His testimony on April 11, 2001, on NASA's FY2001 budget request 'Aero-Space Technology Enterprise,' spoke extensively about composite LH2 tank structures.

His address to US lawmakers stressed that the X-33 had to continue with composite tanks.

'The principal purpose of the X-33 program is to fly all the new technologies that interact with each other together on one vehicle, so that they can be fully tested in an interactive flight environment,' said Bekey during his testimony.

'Even though the thermal protection system and the engine would be tested, the structure and its interaction with the tanks and support for the thermal protection system would not be tested. Since the biggest set of unknowns in this vehicle configuration have to do with the structure-tankage-aeroshell-TPS-airflow interactions, it is my belief that to fly the vehicle with an aluminium tank makes little sense from a technical point of view.'


You mean the flying hardware using composite tanks that are NOT part of unacknowledged programs. Or flying hardware using composite tanks that are part of unacknowledged programs extend further back - but cannot be talked about openly.


Your claim was "used commercially in hydrogen fueled systems today".
I'm calling bull**** based on your wriggling, above.

Composite hydrogen storage containers are in wide use and under extensive development for a wide range of hydrogen fueled vehicles.

You are
aware that one of the major failures that ended the X-33 program was
failure of the composite tank, right?

A test failed and that test was used as an excuse to change the course of the program. The changed course was used to attack the program on political grounds, ending the program.


Multiple tests failed AND WERE PREDICTED TO FAIL.

That's right by people who knew how to build working tanks and were kept from doing so! Skunk Works is named after the smell of the composites curing - just so you know how extensive their experience is!

Minor issues continued to be ironed out by newbies until a critical test highlighted solutions to concerns which the old timers provided, but were ignored by management. Management who were listening to higher ups who didn't want X-33 to go forward with composites. Al-Li yeah. Composites, not so much.

So, this was no surprise to those working on the program who were aware of the disconnect between the experienced hands and the newbies.

Since the volume and areas were smaller, the go-ahead was given to build the LOX (liquid oxygen) tank out of the same aluminium-lithium alloy that is currently used on the external tanks for the Space Shuttle. The LOX tank passed testing and was installed with plumbing and electronics around the front third of the vehicle's structure.

A five foot long tank was built and tested at NASA Lewis (now NASA Glenn).

Skunk Works' designers of the LH2 tank knew that storing liquid hydrogen in a pressurized composite notably material IM7/997-2 tank with the hollow honeycomb walls was doomed to failure - but NASA management ignored their advice.

Concerns grew with engineers of the tank, as problems in the LH2 tank fabrication stages during late 1997 and 1998 saw Alliant Techsystems personnel try to find solutions, personnel who also lacked experience with composite tanks equal to that of Skunk Works, despite other vendors with extensive experience being available.

This led to the first tank - fabricated by Alliant in Sunnyvale - found to have debonds and delaminations - being sent back to try and fix the problems.

A second LH2 tank appeared to be in a much better shape and was shipped to MSFC (Marshall Space Flight Center) in Huntsville, Alabama for testing. The failure of the tank during testing at MSFC was still predicted - and occurred on November 3, 1999, during the fifth stage of testing.

Ironically, Skunk Works engineers - predicted the impending problem - had a solution already at hand. By filling the honeycomb walls of the tank with closed-cell foam, air wouldn't be able to enter the structure and liquefy.

This advice was rejected, to the detriment of the program.


The program
'changed course' because it simply couldn't be done on the original
course.



You understand that the Al-Li
tank that replaced the composite tank turned out to be lighter than
the composite tank it replaced, right?

The composite test tank had mechanical features useful for the test that wouldn't have appeared in a flight weight tank, while the Al-Li tank was flight weight from the beginning - since it used proven technology - so the composite tank weighed more for that reason. This fact was mis-reported and used to undercut any real appreciation of what the program had achieved, and was used by those who sought to kill the program to kill it.


Bull****.

Reasons for the cancellation was a disagreement over extra funding from both industry partners, NASA and Lockheed Martin in light of the fact Lockheed wasn't allowed to use best available composite tech on the program.

The composite tank properly built could keep costs down, but not if Skunk Works proceeded with one hand tied behind its back.




2) a metallic thermal protection system lighter than the shuttle's ceramic tiles.


Because the thermal loads on X-33 were supposed to be lower than those
on the Shuttle.

Nonsense. Zirconium diboride and hafnium diboride the best hot TPS materials out there, is better than RCC used on the Shuttle's leading edge and nose, and the RCC is superior to the Shuttle tiles.


Jesus, but you're an ignorant git, Mookie. Look at the mass vs
surface of the two vehicles.

The metallic TPS developed by BF Goodrich is still seen as one of the most impressive parts that made up the X-33.

Not only was the program cancelled, but all the successful new technology was laid to rest along with the death of the X-33.

Four XRS-2200 Linear Aerospike main engines were constructed (two for testing and two for flight). One complete engine is still around today, displayed at NASA Stennis, at least two others were disassembled.

Two LOX tanks were built over the lifetime of the X-33 construction, both are mothballed at NASA Glenn. The partially built vehicle, still in a storage hanger at Edwards Air Force Base, was actually disassembled.

All this despite interest from the Air Force in resurrecting the project, with Lockheed Martin high-flyer Cleon Lacefield in charge of the effort to re-start the program on at least one occasion. Each time the Air Force made requests to take the X-33 project as their own, they found the opportunity denied at the highest level of US government.

snip

I'm bored arguing with an idiot. You would insist with your dying
breath that you could breath water if you had previously made the
claim and someone held your head under to prove it.

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

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 8:57:23 PM UTC-5, William Mook wrote:
That's right by people who knew how to build working tanks and were kept from doing so! Skunk Works is named after the smell of the composites curing - just so you know how extensive their experience is!

Plastics yes, but surely not the composites used for the X-33! According to Ben Rich's memoir & Lockheed's own web site, - starting in 1943 -, it got the name from having the original top secret XP-80 jet fighter project located in a circus tent next to a plastics factory that gave off the noxious fumes. This was because the rest of Lockheed's facilities were tied up in WWII aircraft production. About the same time this tent was erected, Al Capp introduced his Lil' Abner readers to "Injun Joe" and the Skonk Works located deep in the back woods. It used old shoes and dead skunks and other secret ingredients to make "Kickapoo joy juice". Irv Culver working on the project at the time and an avid Lil' Abner fan later once answered the phone as "Skonk Works, inside man Culver speaking". And the rest is history.

Dave

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/aer...ks/origin.html
Skunk Works - Ben R. Rich and Leo Janus; Little, Brown & Co. ISBN 978-0-316-24693-4

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 10:03:32 PM UTC-5, David Spain wrote:
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 8:57:23 PM UTC-5, William Mook wrote:
That's right by people who knew how to build working tanks and were kept from doing so! Skunk Works is named after the smell of the composites curing - just so you know how extensive their experience is!

Plastics yes, but surely not the composites used for the X-33! According to Ben Rich's memoir & Lockheed's own web site, - starting in 1943 -, it got the name from having the original top secret XP-80 jet fighter project located in a circus tent next to a plastics factory that gave off the noxious fumes. This was because the rest of Lockheed's facilities were tied up in WWII aircraft production. About the same time this tent was erected, Al Capp introduced his Lil' Abner readers to "Injun Joe" and the Skonk Works located deep in the back woods. It used old shoes and dead skunks and other secret ingredients to make "Kickapoo joy juice". Irv Culver working on the project at the time and an avid Lil' Abner fan later once answered the phone as "Skonk Works, inside man Culver speaking". And the rest is history.

Dave

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/aer...ks/origin.html
Skunk Works - Ben R. Rich and Leo Janus; Little, Brown & Co. ISBN 978-0-316-24693-4

Whistling a merry tune!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9e8tuC2Yik

On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 7:28:23 AM UTC-5, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 7:30:55 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 18/01/2015 10:00 PM, William Mook wrote:

Consider 31.7780° N, 35.2354° E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3qFI0ievNY

to calibrate the systems...

probably violates many many rules and regulations, though in the end,
nothing was really harmed. That wouldn't stop some regulators from
raining on my parade, I am sure.

Are you seriously suggesting that you tested the system by flying it
into one of the most militarily sensitive areas of the world? If it were
true (and I don't believe it), I'd take it as evidence that you're too
irresponsible to be allowed to do this stuff at all.

haha - Nonsense! I am very responsible, which is why it was a success. You have no idea of the care and preparation that flight took. So, why pretend you do?

Fact is, if I had no video evidence at all you would come to the same conclusion! lol. So, under what circumstances would you say, job well done? lol.

The answer is, NEVER! Because you're a stooge doing a job maintaining a toxic environment in a strategically sensitive channel.

You're using UFO footage on YouTube to support your claims? LOL!

Back to the "Bozo bin", as MicroPlanet Gravity calls its killfile:

PLONK!

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9e8tuC2Yik

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 11:23:48 PM UTC-5, William Mook wrote:

Whistling a merry tune!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9e8tuC2Yik

Don't look, but I think W. Mook just gave me the bird!
;-)

Dave

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 11:40:14 PM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 12:26:19 AM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 11:16:52 PM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

Clueless people ranting ...

Clueless person ranting elided


(The space shuttle costs about $10,000 per pound of payload,


BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The Space Shuttle never got anywhere near $1,000
per pound of payload! This is the sort of absolute boner (along with
the nutty things) that leaves people laughing at you, Mookie.


A typo!

That's right, I meant to say $10,000 per pound - and that more advanced systems wanted to reduce that to $1,000 per pound - thanks for the pointer.


And that's typical of you.


To admit to a typo when it occurs? lol. Thanks I guess.


Try reading complete thoughts. I know it's hard for you...


Your brain is off by at least an order of
magnitude.

Nonsense.


Yes, that's generally what your mental deficiencies lead to.


Despite being under-funded, the X-33 brought numerous new technologies to light, including

1) lightweight composite fuel tanks (which is used commercially in hydrogen fueled systems today)


Please identify FLYING HARDWARE using such composite tanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5dmJZzAzxE


Already knew about that. It's well behind what you claimed and
doesn't stem from where you said it does.

Former NASA director Ivan Bekey appeared in front of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, at the US House of Representatives. His testimony on April 11, 2001, on NASA's FY2001 budget request 'Aero-Space Technology Enterprise,' spoke extensively about composite LH2 tank structures.

His address to US lawmakers stressed that the X-33 had to continue with composite tanks.


And that's what killed it, since every engineer on the program knew
that the composite tank just couldn't be made to work.

'The principal purpose of the X-33 program is to fly all the new technologies that interact with each other together on one vehicle, so that they can be fully tested in an interactive flight environment,' said Bekey during his testimony.

'Even though the thermal protection system and the engine would be tested, the structure and its interaction with the tanks and support for the thermal protection system would not be tested. Since the biggest set of unknowns in this vehicle configuration have to do with the structure-tankage-aeroshell-TPS-airflow interactions, it is my belief that to fly the vehicle with an aluminium tank makes little sense from a technical point of view.'


You mean the flying hardware using composite tanks that are NOT part of unacknowledged programs. Or flying hardware using composite tanks that are part of unacknowledged programs extend further back - but cannot be talked about openly.


Your claim was "used commercially in hydrogen fueled systems today".
I'm calling bull**** based on your wriggling, above.

Composite hydrogen storage containers are in wide use and under extensive development for a wide range of hydrogen fueled vehicles.


Again, please cite the currently flying vehicles using such tanks.
Stop wriggling and either provide the vehicles or admit you're talking
out your ass.

snip remaining Mooklunacy unread

Those with relevant Q-clearances who pointed to flying hardware throughout unacknowledged programmes, would be subject to arrest. So, all they can do is urge open program managers strenuously to follow specific guidelines without getting themselves arrested by pointing to things in the open literature!

As I pointed out, and you elided in your reply, describing it as 'lunacy' even though you also said it was 'unread' lol, NASA was given very specific guidance compounding and cell structure, inclusion materials, and so forth - very specific guidance in how to build a successful tank. Guidance upper management chose to ignore for specious reasons in this case. Guidance that was spun at the highest levels to indict those giving good advice, and paint as unsung heroes those who pushed the Al-Li alternative.

Of course this is easily explained by the fact that highly placed program managers of black budget programs who don't want to see their power reduced one iota and knowing the constraints the engineers are working under, do what they can to spin any open technical information so hapless non-technical bureaucrats make the wrong decisions, and then when the engineered failures occur, black budget management friends in the intelligence community who are on their side in trying to keep their useless secrets, spin things further afield! Which becomes the accepted wisdom at the end of the day.

This sort of political infighting means the USG can no longer do high tech and cannot be relied upon to make credible decisions or run efficient programs unless and until there is a huge shake up and a reset in how things are done at NASA, in Washington, and in the DOD.


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

On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 12:10:01 AM UTC-5, David Spain wrote:
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 11:23:48 PM UTC-5, William Mook wrote:

Whistling a merry tune!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9e8tuC2Yik

Don't look, but I think W. Mook just gave me the bird!
;-)

Dave

If you're not into Anime - here's an English version...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpMVGgwfMcA

and Japanese...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpHaKqZ52G8

and why are the Japanese so crazy over this song?

Studio Ghibli is celebrating the ability of children of World War II in overcoming the destruction of World War 2 and embrace life - conquering death.



Grave of the Fireflies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETmicDpb7W0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9WEyuMq0Yk

I'm reminded of Joe Campbell's, "Hero with a Thousand Faces"

Only birth can conquer death -- the birth, not of the old thing again, but of something new. Within the soul, within the body social, there must be -- if we are to experience long survival -- a continuous "recurrence of birth" to nullify the unremitting recurrences of death. For it is by means of our own victories, if we are not regenerated, that the work of nemesis is wrought: doom breaks from the shell of our very virtue. Peace then is a snare; war is a snare; change is a snare; permanence is a snare. When our day is come for the victory of death, death closes in; there is nothing we can do, except be crucified -- and resurrected; dismembered totally, and then reborn.

On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 9:43:48 AM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 11:40:14 PM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 12:26:19 AM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 11:16:52 PM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

Clueless people ranting ...

Clueless person ranting elided


(The space shuttle costs about $10,000 per pound of payload,


BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The Space Shuttle never got anywhere near $1,000
per pound of payload! This is the sort of absolute boner (along with
the nutty things) that leaves people laughing at you, Mookie.


A typo!

That's right, I meant to say $10,000 per pound - and that more advanced systems wanted to reduce that to $1,000 per pound - thanks for the pointer.


And that's typical of you.


To admit to a typo when it occurs? lol. Thanks I guess.


Try reading complete thoughts. I know it's hard for you...


Your brain is off by at least an order of
magnitude.

Nonsense.


Yes, that's generally what your mental deficiencies lead to.


Despite being under-funded, the X-33 brought numerous new technologies to light, including

1) lightweight composite fuel tanks (which is used commercially in hydrogen fueled systems today)


Please identify FLYING HARDWARE using such composite tanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5dmJZzAzxE


Already knew about that. It's well behind what you claimed and
doesn't stem from where you said it does.

Former NASA director Ivan Bekey appeared in front of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, at the US House of Representatives. His testimony on April 11, 2001, on NASA's FY2001 budget request 'Aero-Space Technology Enterprise,' spoke extensively about composite LH2 tank structures.

His address to US lawmakers stressed that the X-33 had to continue with composite tanks.


And that's what killed it, since every engineer on the program knew
that the composite tank just couldn't be made to work.

'The principal purpose of the X-33 program is to fly all the new technologies that interact with each other together on one vehicle, so that they can be fully tested in an interactive flight environment,' said Bekey during his testimony.

'Even though the thermal protection system and the engine would be tested, the structure and its interaction with the tanks and support for the thermal protection system would not be tested. Since the biggest set of unknowns in this vehicle configuration have to do with the structure-tankage-aeroshell-TPS-airflow interactions, it is my belief that to fly the vehicle with an aluminium tank makes little sense from a technical point of view.'


You mean the flying hardware using composite tanks that are NOT part of unacknowledged programs. Or flying hardware using composite tanks that are part of unacknowledged programs extend further back - but cannot be talked about openly.


Your claim was "used commercially in hydrogen fueled systems today"..
I'm calling bull**** based on your wriggling, above.

Composite hydrogen storage containers are in wide use and under extensive development for a wide range of hydrogen fueled vehicles.


Again, please cite the currently flying vehicles using such tanks.
Stop wriggling and either provide the vehicles or admit you're talking
out your ass.

snip remaining Mooklunacy unread

Those with relevant Q-clearances who pointed to flying hardware throughout unacknowledged programmes, would be subject to arrest. So, all they can do is urge open program managers strenuously to follow specific guidelines without getting themselves arrested by pointing to things in the open literature!


You're an ignorant moron.

Nonsense.

The 'Q Clearance' is a Department of ENERGY
clearance that is equivalent to DoD TS.

Since Peter Benchley's book "Q Clearance" was published in 1986, the term Q-Clearance has a more general meaning than the one you've chosen to mean. This is particularly useful when talking about SAP and USAP clearance process since it reveals very little information the projects to those who have need to know someone is cleared, but they don't want to say what it is they're cleare to do. A more technically accurate description of clearance process may be too revealing - so Q-clearance has gained this sort of informal use.

You are quite correct however that in the U.S. you only have 3 types of classification: Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret. That's it. But this doesn't matter, since the true power of the classification system is the famous 'need to know' policy.

Just because you have a Top Secret clearance doesn't mean you can gain access to all the different Top Secret documents of the CIA, Army, Navy, and Air Force.

However, this 3-tiered classification system is not enough to protect some of the more sensitive information. Therefore additional levels of compartmentalization have been created.

The DOE was the first to formalize this 'need to know' process among its contractors. Thus Q clearance started out as a United States Department of Energy (DOE) security clearance and is still the technical meaning of the term today. Q Clearance in this context is more or less equivalent to a United States Department of Defense Top Secret (TS) clearance as you say. However, its use is far wider ranging outside the DOE particularly among non-military personnel.

Much of the DoE information at the Q level requires collateral access to Critical Nuclear Weapon Design Information (CNWDI).

Such information bears the page marking TOP SECRET//CNWDI and the paragraph marking (TS-N). Note that there is also a Department of Energy "Top Secret" clearance, which is, in fact, rather more limited.

DOE clearances apply for access specifically relating to atomic or nuclear related materials ("Restricted Data" under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954) and thus Q-Clearance, particularly following Peter Benchley's 1986 novel, "Q Clearance" has become a generic term describing generally the process of proving one's need to know in a SAP or USAP particularly among non-military personnel in unacknowledged programs, since the DOE Q-clearance is issued predominantly to non-military personnel. Military personnel have a more formalized process and generally use Q-clearance in a more technically accurate way as a result.

In 1946 U.S. Army Counter Intelligence Corps Major William L. Uanna, in his capacity as the first Chief of the Central Personnel Clearance Office at the newly formed Atomic Energy Commission, named and established the criteria for the Q Clearance.

There are actually two types of Q clearance: Q-sensitive, abbreviated Q(S), and Q-nonsensitive, abbreviated Q(NS). The difference is that both have access to TOP SECRET Formerly Restricted Data (FRD) and National Security Information (NSI), but Q(S) can access TOP SECRET Restricted Data (RD) whereas Q(NS) can only access Restricted Data up to the SECRET level.

That is Q-Clearance is sometimes used to refer to the additional Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) clearance, under which information is buried that needs to be restricted to even fewer individuals.

This TS-SCI is generally called Q-Clearance among non-military types after 1986 following Benchley's Book "Q-Clearance".

The informal use of the term to describe higher levels of access is particularly useful if one doesn't even wish to discuss the details of that access.. Particularly when even the TS-SCI clearance doesn't provide the secrecy needed for some of the most sensitive projects.

This is the reason that Special Access Programs (SAP) are created all the time.

In this case only a predetermined list of authorized personnel has access to the project and additional security measures can be taken to keep outsiders away from it.

Most SAPs start out as Unacknowledged Special Access Programs (USAP), better known as Black Projects. The F-117A Nighthawk and the B-2 Spirit are examples of projects that started out as Unacknowledged SAPs.

A DOD manual describes a USAP as follows:

"Unacknowledged SAPs require a significantly greater degree of protection than acknowledged SAPs... A SAP with protective controls that ensures the existence of the Program is not acknowledged, affirmed, or made known to any person not authorized for such information. All aspects (e.g., technical, operational, logistical, etc.) are handled in an unacknowledged manner."

Persons involved in a particular USAP are ordered to deny such a program exists. It's not allowed to react with a "no comment", because that way someone immediately suspects something is being hidden and might be motivated to look further into it. Officers not 'accessed' for a USAP, even superior ones, are to be given the same response. The more sensitive the program, the more protection the commanding officer can demand. He could even subject his personnel to lie-detector tests to see whether or not they have been talking about it to anyone. According to a 1997 Senate investigation:

"Additional security requirements to protect these special access programs can range from mere upgrades of the collateral system's requirements (such as rosters specifying who is to have access to the information) to entire facilities being equipped with added physical security measures or elaborate and expensive cover, concealment, deception, and operational security plans."

There are two versions of the Unacknowledged Special Access Programs. The first one is the regular USAP. These regular USAPs are reported in the same way as their acknowledged versions. In closed sessions, the House National Security Committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the defense subcommittees of the House and Senate Appropriations committees can get some basic information about them. The Secretary of Defense, however, can decide to 'waive' particularly sensitive USAPs. These are unofficially referred to as Deep Black Programs. According to the same 1997 Senate investigation as mentioned earlier:

"Among black programs, further distinction is made for "waived" programs, considered to be so sensitive that they are exempt from standard reporting requirements to the Congress. The chairperson, ranking member, and, on occasion, other members and staff of relevant Congressional committees are notified only orally of the existence of these programs."

This leads to the conclusion that only very few people are aware of these waived Unacknowledged Special Access Programs. Congress certainly doesn't get the information it needs to speak out against newly established waived USAPs and I haven't read anywhere that their opinion is actually appreciated. You could also ask yourself if Congress is told the truth about many of the most sensitive Special Access Projects or if their successors are informed about previously activated (waived) USAPs. Even with regular SAPs Congress is ignored at times:

"Last summer, the House Defense Appropriations Committee complained that "the air force acquisition community continues to ignore and violate a wide range of appropriations practices and acquisition rules". One of the alleged infractions was the launch of an SAP without Congressional notification."

What makes Unacknowledged Special Access Projects even more impenetrable is the fact that a lot of these programs are located within private industry. The U.S. government generally doesn't develop a whole lot. If you look at the defense industry, you have companies like Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop, McDonnell Douglas, TRW, Rockwell, Bechtel, SAIC, or Decision-Science Applications (DSA Inc.), who develop certain technologies for the U.S. government.

This means it's virtually impossible to get information about these projects, because private industry is protected by something called 'proprietary privilege'. You generally can't get any information about a USAP by issuing a FOIA or by annoying a Congressman (National Security), but just in case anyone might be able to succeed, there's always the argument of proprietary privilege of the private industry.

The point is, those who know about USAPs that are flying the composite hydrogen filled tanks can't talk about the flight hardware, and you know it. Ranting about a use of Q-Clearance you choose to call idiotic, avoids the main issue. Namely, flight hardware exists using light weight composite hydrogen tanks. These exist in USAPs. Vendors who wanted to transfer unclassified skill sets to NASA came to the negative attention of those who wished to illegally constrain those vendors, and we had the exercise of the X-33 as a result.

A shaped aerodynamic composite form with adequate metal TPS for orbital flight, filled with LH2 and LOX, massing 2% of the propellant weight and costing less than the Al-Li alloy tank then in use, is possible. It should have been flying by 1999 - but it was not. Blaming NASA and the vendors who knew how to build the tank, but were not permitted to do so, ignores the criminals operating behind the cover to national security who derailed the program.

And you go out of your way to protect those criminals.

There is no reason why DOE
would be involved in hydrogen-fueled aircraft/spacecraft.

Nonsense.

http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/photos/default.aspx

Even restricting the use of the term Q-Clearance to the pre-Benchley usage, its important to note that the DOE issued more Q-Clearances for non-weapons research than for weapons research. This includes the old NERVA and ORION programs, along with variety of alternative energy programs.

The most advanced composite liquid hydrogen tank technology has been developed by the DOE. It would be foolish to believe sensitive information developed by the DOE would have escaped classification.

http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/hydrogen-fuel-tanks.htm

Let me try again.

Your claim was "used commercially in hydrogen fueled systems today".
I'm calling bull**** based on your wriggling, above.

I reply that USAPs involving LH2 have been flying since the SR-71 was retired. Those LH2 and LOX tanks use composites with metal TPS that permit reductions of inert mass to 2% for LOX/LH2 fuel combinations. Since this capacity gives strategically important capabilities to the USG through USAPs, specialists who know about this flight hardware CANNOT talk about it under heavy penalties including in some cases death.

Commercial and open programs that develop along similar lines are subject to negative attention from the intelligence community to maintain our secrets. The X-33 program was obviously on the receiving end of such negative attention, given the obviously poor choices made and the manipulation of both management and publicity to spin the results of the program in a way that reduces public attention on this technology.

Again, please cite the currently flying vehicles using such tanks.

I cannot cite USAPs and SAPs. Extend the aerospike in the right way, and equip it with the ability to detonate air/fuel mixtures externally, and you would find the X-33 looks very much like some versions of Aurora. Aurora is a host of USAPs post-SR-71. Folks near retirement who wanted to see NASA advance beyond the Shuttle, pushed hard to get NASA up to speed - but that just made them look foolish and threatened their pension. So, to hell with it.

Fact is, a powerful neutron source, in combination with LH2 and composite tanks and Lithium-6 Deuteride pellets, form a variety of X-33 type platforms today. With advanced propulsion, these use LH2 fueled external combustion propulsion to take off and accelerate to Mach 7, and then uses LOX/LH2 to accelerate to Mach 18, and LH2 heated with Lithium-6 Deuteride fusion micropulse to accelerate to Mach 23. Then, use micropulse fusion pellets to accelerate in space at low continuous gee through interplanetary space.

The X-33 was about 80% of the technology described above, and despite the fact that the technology was not classified, its use in the USAPs was classified, and so, was the basis of the psy-op that was carried out against the X-33 program.



Stop wriggling and either provide the vehicles or admit you're talking
out your ass.

You are a propagandist who is trying to shut down a discussion you've been tasked with shutting down.

YOu made the claim and all you can do is wriggle and emit ****e. I
think you stand revealed as bull****.

Its clear that 2% structure fraction is easily achieved with LOX/LH2 propellants. It would be insane to believe that USAPs were underway that did not use this technology. Its obvious LH2 fuelled external combustion scramjets have been operational since the declassification of SR-71. Its equally obvious they use composite LH2 tanks. Its obvious they're flying today. Its obvious anyone who replicates this technology or is on a path toward replication will come under negative attention from the national security state and be removed.


snip

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

True words that tell a lie are a sweet evil then. That is what you trade in, and you should be ashamed.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ck_Hobgood.jpg

Daniel Dennet wrote,"The juvenile sea squirt wanders through the sea searching for a suitable rock or hunk of coral to cling to and make its home for life. For this task, it has a rudimentary nervous system. When it finds its spot and takes root, it doesn't need its brain anymore, so it eats it! It's rather like getting tenure."

All animals are evolved from sea squirts who remain in the juvenile mobile stage. However, we can understand the evolutionary logic of eating your brain when you no longer need it to find a suitable home.

It may be that the present technical capacity of humanity may not be needed after the establishment of AI & Global Governance, and we will witness in our lifetime humanity devouring its own brain, much like the sea squirt.

The alternative view is to challenge humanity by plunging into the sea of space surrounding us on all sides, and leave our ancestral home.

This entails ridding ourselves of the pervasive national security state operating illegally and the constraint of accumulated power used illegally. Eradicating all illegal financial, military and intelligence personnel. Killing off ruthlessly anyone who illegally pretends to military or government power. Anyone in funny clothes that illegally pretends they have power they do not. Anyone carrying out any religious, government, corporate, or legal sanctioned role to illegally restrict your freedom.

We are in a fight for our life, its either the system or free people.

The sooner free people realize this, and end their learned helplessness, the better we will all be.

Propagandists who work here in support of the criminal class, take note.