A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Steam Rockets



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #221  
Old October 8th 06, 07:02 PM posted to rec.org.mensa,sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle
Brad Guth[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,941
Default Steam Rockets

"American" wrote in message
oups.com

As if the trouble with intuition weren't enough, the logis-
tics of placing large groups of scientists and engineers with-
in a single US private industry shrinks as US bureaucracy
cross-weans the technological trough (through validating the
war effort, and thereby invalidating the potential transfer of
technology to private industry). But the events on 9/11/01
should represent only a part of the paradigm shift of technology
to international diplomacy. Such diplomacy provides for eco-
nomic growth in terms of multinational energy, technology,
trade, and commerce. The other part of the paradigm shift
involves being a part of the new industrial revolution, but
not at the expense of third world diplomacy or rogue nations.


I totally agree, that the rich are seemingly working far less and still
getting not only richer, but also becoming more and more powerful.

China is most likely of what's going to kick off the most technological
bang for our badly failing buck, with Russia not all that far behind.

Global energy surplus has been perfectly doable via renewable resources.
Only the pagan born-again liars like our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush)
is standing in the way of such progress, and of global security that's
affordable and kept at a dull roar.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
  #222  
Old October 8th 06, 08:19 PM posted to rec.org.mensa,sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle
American
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,224
Default Steam Rockets


Brad Guth wrote:
"American" wrote in message
oups.com

As if the trouble with intuition weren't enough, the logis-
tics of placing large groups of scientists and engineers with-
in a single US private industry shrinks as US bureaucracy
cross-weans the technological trough (through validating the
war effort, and thereby invalidating the potential transfer of
technology to private industry). But the events on 9/11/01
should represent only a part of the paradigm shift of technology
to international diplomacy. Such diplomacy provides for eco-
nomic growth in terms of multinational energy, technology,
trade, and commerce. The other part of the paradigm shift
involves being a part of the new industrial revolution, but
not at the expense of third world diplomacy or rogue nations.


I totally agree, that the rich are seemingly working far less and still
getting not only richer, but also becoming more and more powerful.

China is most likely of what's going to kick off the most technological
bang for our badly failing buck, with Russia not all that far behind.

Global energy surplus has been perfectly doable via renewable resources.
Only the pagan born-again liars like our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush)
is standing in the way of such progress, and of global security that's
affordable and kept at a dull roar.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG


Brad Guth wrote:

Global energy surplus has been perfectly doable via renewable resources.
Only the pagan born-again liars like our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush)
is standing in the way of such progress, and of global security that's
affordable and kept at a dull roar.


When you mention GW Bush, you might as well include every single
cabinet member, advisor, personal friend, associate, government
employee,
department, judiciary, etc., that are also under the control of at
least 2/3
of the senate, congress, and judiciary. George Bush is no scapegoat for
the "blame game" being perpetrated by the left, welfare statist, media
spun, upwardly mobile "do-gooder" blood-thirsty, witchunting, minority,

humanist, U.S. Arab Muslim cleric actively involved with perpetrating
the forgiveness of sin with the shedding of innocent blood who would
NEVER KNOW the original "Before Abraham was, I am" blood sacrifice
of over 2,000 years ago! The Christ game is still being perpetrated to
this day. George Bush is NOT Jesus Christ! Those who would like to
play the blame game know nothing about the spirit of forgiveness, yet
they continue to create "foaming seas of shame" in which to bury their
religious paradigms in a newly created purgatory. George Bush is not
dead. George Bush is this country's President. Please leave history's
George Bush alone. The decision for freedom comes from within the
soul of America - not the pocketbook, not the national news media.
It's an awareness thing. It's a communication thing. It's a living
spirit,
and Almighty God is so much larger than that! The unbeliever can't
grasp the concept of the resurrection, or the return, of the same
Christ,
so they must try to create one, in the name of George W. Bush, to
which, although a believer, is not Christ. The last time I checked, I'm

not Christ either. But there are many enemies of Christ everywhere,
including our own national news media, and yes, our own military.

The national news media needs Jesus Christ, first and foremost.
Our planet is a created place. Why proclaim that it's the only one
of its kind while leaving out the fact that a super-advanced (Godly?)
civilization created it? Is it because that mediatricians would love
to nurture our well-being into some kind of alternate reality while
making us forget that there is actually a spiritual war being perpe-
trated on our own turf? Must we be recreating a sea of forgetfulness
in society so as to increase darkness, relativity, limitation, and
ignorance? - Yet that is exactly what is happening when the truth
goes unproclaimed. The "truth" is that there are so many
"cornerstones" of applied science today that industry as a whole
needs a makeover - not television, not radio, but industry - as in
transportation, extraterrestrial resource development, military
readiness, applied research and further development (so that those
"cornerstone building blocks" of advanced technology can help to
preserve the integrity of our species in the universe as we know it).

I'm all for advanced propulsion technology and protection against
exploring off-planet, i.e., extraterrestrial "envirohazards" both to
our immune system and physical well-being. This is where the
paradigm shift needs to occur. We're only rediscovering what our
"progenitors" may have discovered eons ago, but we're definitely
taking the right steps to preserve our species. We must continue
to accept a greater responsibility for continued independence from
the "fallen angels". Their time is coming, as prophesied long ago.
We have the abundant resources to make the tools necessary
to conquer ignorance at our disposal. The longer we wait, the
greater the conflict, and the more "diluted" our efforts become
by spiritual vultures, swine, moles, and - our own forgetfulness.

  #223  
Old October 15th 06, 01:17 AM posted to rec.org.mensa,sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle
Brad Guth[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,941
Default Steam Rockets

"American" wrote in message
oups.com

When you mention GW Bush, you might as well include every single
cabinet member, advisor, personal friend, associate, government
employee, department, judiciary, etc., that are also under the
control of at least 2/3 of the senate, congress, and judiciary.
George Bush is no scapegoat for the "blame game" being perpetrated
by the left, welfare statist, media spun, upwardly mobile "do-
gooder" blood-thirsty, witchunting, minority,


I totally agree. The problem is also extremely Jewish via Henry
Kissinger and by way of those in support of that *******.

Our brown-nosed "tomcat" isn't much better off, whereas his silly words
often say one thing while his actions are 100+% going along with the
flow of whatever our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) spews from between
his butt-cheeks.
-
Brad Guth








--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
  #224  
Old December 22nd 06, 10:14 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.policy,rec.org.mensa
Brad Guth[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,941
Default Steam Rockets

Looks like our warm and fuzzy "tomcat" SSTO waverider spaceplane (in
spite of Usenet ****ology) is getting itself another touch closer to the
finish line.

Skylon SSTO
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/skylon_vehicle.html

However, too bad even team Skylon still can't hardly think outside of
their silly Lox/Lh2 box. Skylon is also too damn small, by a factor of
being ten fold too small, although just about right for easily
accomplishing Venus.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
  #225  
Old December 23rd 06, 05:39 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.policy,rec.org.mensa
Ian Woollard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 75
Default Steam Rockets

Brad Guth wrote:
Skylon SSTO
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/skylon_vehicle.html

However, too bad even team Skylon still can't hardly think outside of
their silly Lox/Lh2 box.


For this engine, and for a horizontal takeoff, LH2 is very hard to
beat. LH2 is light, and this reduces takeoff weight and permits
smaller, lighter wings and undercarriage.

Skylon is also too damn small, by a factor of
being ten fold too small,


It's good for passengers though. Should be relatively safe and the
g-loading is low.

Also the payload fraction is very high for a launch vehicle, and
extremely high for a SSTO.

There's no particular reason it can't be made bigger either.

-
Brad Guth


  #226  
Old December 23rd 06, 08:32 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.policy,rec.org.mensa
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default Steam Rockets

On 23 Dec 2006 08:39:20 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ian
Woollard" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Brad Guth wrote:
Skylon SSTO
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/skylon_vehicle.html

However, too bad even team Skylon still can't hardly think outside of
their silly Lox/Lh2 box.


For this engine, and for a horizontal takeoff, LH2 is very hard to
beat. LH2 is light, and this reduces takeoff weight and permits
smaller, lighter wings and undercarriage.


LH2 is also extremely fluffy, requiring larger, heavier wings and
tankage.
  #227  
Old December 23rd 06, 11:21 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.policy,rec.org.mensa
Brad Guth[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,941
Default Steam Rockets

"Ian Woollard" wrote in message
oups.com

For this engine, and for a horizontal takeoff, LH2 is very hard to
beat. LH2 is light, and this reduces takeoff weight and permits
smaller, lighter wings and undercarriage.


As I said, lh2/lox is doable as long as the necessary volumes and the
added infrastructure of unavoidable inert mass and subsequent
aerodynamic drag are not factors. However h2o2/c3h4o or whatever best
lights your h2o2 fire is way better energy density then any lh2/lox, at
a fraction of the volume and only better yet if it had a laser cannon or
possibly Rn ion beam blasting into the hearth and out the tailpipe.

Skylon is also too damn small, by a factor of
being ten fold too small,


It's good for passengers though. Should be relatively safe and the
g-loading is low.


I agree that keeping the roar well under 2g-loading is important unless
you run yourself out of fuel before obtaining LEO.

Where's all the raw energy coming from in order to make, store and
transport the necessary tonnes upon tonnes of lh2/lox ?

Also the payload fraction is very high for a launch vehicle, and
extremely high for a SSTO.


Whatever's the payload ratio, w/o LRBs it isn't high enough, not even
under the most efficient route to LEO.

There's no particular reason it can't be made bigger either.


I and "tomcat" would agree, that bigger is better.

BTW; what's the reaction engine mass (all inclusive per engine) and of
it's net usable continuous thrust?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
  #228  
Old December 24th 06, 05:28 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.policy,rec.org.mensa
Brad Guth[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,941
Default Steam Rockets

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message


LH2 is also extremely fluffy, requiring larger, heavier wings and
tankage.


I totally agree, but try as you may for sharing that basic knowledge to
either "tomcat" or team Skylon, in that each seem to have a secret and
unlimited cash of LH2, and apparently hardly any cost for obtaining the
likes of LO2. Obviously there's no further argument point, is there.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
  #229  
Old December 24th 06, 09:26 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.policy,rec.org.mensa
Sylvia Else
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,063
Default Steam Rockets

Brad Guth wrote:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message



LH2 is also extremely fluffy, requiring larger, heavier wings and
tankage.



I totally agree, but try as you may for sharing that basic knowledge to
either "tomcat" or team Skylon, in that each seem to have a secret and
unlimited cash of LH2, and apparently hardly any cost for obtaining the
likes of LO2. Obviously there's no further argument point, is there.
-
Brad Guth



In the Sabre engine the LH2 is used during the air-breathing part of the
ascent to liquify the incoming air, so replacing the LH2 with something
else is not a simple matter, and may not even be possible.

Cost of fuel is not a major consideration in a project such as this. The
main costs are development costs which have to be shared across the
craft actually built, and the capital invested in each craft.

Sylvia.


  #230  
Old December 24th 06, 06:09 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.policy,rec.org.mensa
'foolsrushin.'
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default Steam Rockets

To Brad and Tomcat, et Al:

Brad Guth wrote:
"Ian Woollard" wrote in message
oups.com

For this engine, and for a horizontal takeoff, LH2 is very hard to
beat. LH2 is light, and this reduces takeoff weight and permits
smaller, lighter wings and undercarriage.


As I said, lh2/lox is doable as long as the necessary volumes and the
added infrastructure of unavoidable inert mass and subsequent
aerodynamic drag are not factors. However h2o2/c3h4o or whatever best
lights your h2o2 fire is way better energy density then any lh2/lox, at
a fraction of the volume and only better yet if it had a laser cannon or
possibly Rn ion beam blasting into the hearth and out the tailpipe.

Skylon is also too damn small, by a factor of
being ten fold too small,


It's good for passengers though. Should be relatively safe and the
g-loading is low.


I agree that keeping the roar well under 2g-loading is important unless
you run yourself out of fuel before obtaining LEO.

Where's all the raw energy coming from in order to make, store and
transport the necessary tonnes upon tonnes of lh2/lox ?

Also the payload fraction is very high for a launch vehicle, and
extremely high for a SSTO.


Whatever's the payload ratio, w/o LRBs it isn't high enough, not even
under the most efficient route to LEO.

There's no particular reason it can't be made bigger either.


I and "tomcat" would agree, that bigger is better.

BTW; what's the reaction engine mass (all inclusive per engine) and of
it's net usable continuous thrust?
-
Brad Guth


Sheriff Rawlings: Jeez, guys, that's what the Deputy would call an
empirical question ... .

Esteemed rockets, I'd say! Nice that heap of trash got down again!
--
'foolsrushin.'

 




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
How Rockets Differ From Jets tomcat Space Shuttle 139 December 11th 05 10:06 PM
Rockets Can Do It! nightbat Misc 2 August 15th 05 02:38 PM
Big dumb rockets vs. small dumb rockets Andrew Nowicki Policy 28 February 10th 05 01:55 AM
XCOR $11000 Steam Engine Prize Neil Halelamien Policy 0 November 6th 04 12:38 AM
Same Old Rockets for Bold New Mission ? BlackWater Policy 6 May 15th 04 03:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:57 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.