|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#511
|
|||
|
|||
Terrell Miller wrote:
Derek Lyons wrote: Terrell Miller wrote: Derek Lyons wrote: The Shuttle can carry it's destination with itself, where the CSM has to have one provided. erm...Derek, please take a moment and realize exactly what you just said... And you think it's not what I meant? A Shuttle can launch a wide variety of missions without requiring that there be something for it to meet in orbit. It carries it's purpose with itself. ...which begs the question: what point is the journey, then? y'know? ROTFLMAO. So, since the Shuttle can carry the SRTM or Spacehab/lab with itself to orbit... There's no need to send it orbit. You know better. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#512
|
|||
|
|||
|
#513
|
|||
|
|||
Pat Flannery wrote:
Len wrote: There were--and are--workable solutions. They just haven't been tried. Instead, official funding has gone into unnecessarily complex technical approaches. Two-stage--or even some assisted single-stage-- space transports with existing rocket technolgy, plus clever system design, will work. This approach was almost tried in 1972, before being drowned out by the Space Shuttle. It was almost tried again two decades later in a black program before being preempted by NASP. The Air Force had their minishuttle on the 747 carrier concept, but I guess they didn't think it was worth it without the ability to carry big reconnaissance satellites. ....snip... I was referring to our 1971 Windjammer concept--which was the direct precursor of the Boeing RASV. In the late '70's we also proposed the first use of a 747 for launch of an orbiter on top. This also interested the Air Force, but led to the Boeing Space Sortie Vehicle (minishuttle) --which evolved to something very different from what we had proposed earlier. I now think there are much better ways to launch orbiters than conversion of existing transports or other existing aircraft. IMO, the RASV was a much more substantial and promising effort. The other half of my 1962 position was to rely on Saturn 1 and rendezvous in LEO to get to the moon. Like the Manhattan project, I would not have put all the eggs in one basket. Rather, I would have gone for one or more competitive aproaches--competition is probably always cheaper than concentrating resources without competition. My competitive suggestion was to go for a (reusable) two-stage space transport (reusable being a redundant word, IMO). I think the LEO rendezvous approach could have been done just as quickly and cheaply as developing a whole new direct flight vehicle such as Saturn V. Is the idea to attach a RLV upper component to a lunar apacecraft using a direct landing on the lunar surface and return to Earth then? Or does the the RLV just carry the crew to the orbital assembly site of the lunar spacecraft? A returning aerodynamic RLV could use the Dyna-Soar skip technique to lower the reentry heating of return at lunar velocities. No. The idea either with Saturn 1's and/or a two-stage space transport to LEO was to get to LEO cheaply. This would have presented many options that would have been better, IMO, than direct flight. After all, "once you get to LEO, you are half-way to anywhere." Best regards, Len (Cormier) PanAero, Inc. (change x to len) http://www.tour2space.com Pat |
#514
|
|||
|
|||
"Pat Flannery" wrote ...
Peter Stickney wrote: Let's see now - Three Points: Bats use their echolocation to detect food in the air, at distances long enough to allow maneuvering to intercept the target. Are you suggesting that an F-117 has a lower acoustical cross-section than a Mosquito? I saw a bat fly into a chain link fence once. I'm still trying to figure that one out. That's odd. Because I seem to recall seeing a bat fly _through_ a chain link fence. |
#515
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Stickney wrote:
If that thing were so good at reflecting _all_ types of wave-propagation phenomena, you wouldn't be able to _see_ the bloody thing, _would_ you? After all, light & radio are only different colors of Electromagnetic Radiation. As I said in another post, ultrasonic waves and microwaves have similar wavelengths. Apart from the scalar vs. vector aspect and the materials aspect, they are reflected and refracted in a surprisingly similar manner. Importantly, they are affected by surface roughness and geometry imperfections in a similar way. Light, with a wavelength shorter than either of the above by a few orders of magnitude, behaves very differently. Almost twenty years ago, my former PhD advisor, an expert in scattering and diffraction by electromagnetic waves, was part of a team that received a sizeable grant to translate his work in EM into a form usable in the acoustics domain. It was easier than many might have expected because it mainly involved taking his solutions to the vector wave equation and recasting them in the form of solutions to the far simpler scalar wave equation. Another fellow who did his PhD in electromagnetics at UBC almost thirty years ago went on to work as a defence scientist. He made quite a name for himself by taking techniques used to predict scattering and diffraction of EM waves and applying them to underwater sonar. Again, it was the similarity in wavelength that made this work. -- Dave Michelson |
#516
|
|||
|
|||
Terrell Miller wrote: It wouldn't have worked - the wave action would break up the burning oil slick, which would have 2 effects - gaps in the flames, and the burning oil would turn into a mass of small burning oil puddles, which wouldn't receive enough fuel to keep burning. doesn't matter, by the time the flames disperse all the ammo in the Higgins boats would have cooked off and the entire invasion force would be charred hamburger patty The real big problem is how do your invading troops breath in an area that has no oxygen left in it, as it's been all consumed by combustion? Pat Pat |
#517
|
|||
|
|||
Derek Lyons wrote: BTW, here's what you need for your desk: http://www.worldaircorps.com/tmpages/c5820r3w.htm I've been thinking about that one for a while. Needs the world in full color as the base, centered on the North Pole. Pat |
#518
|
|||
|
|||
Pat Flannery wrote:
Derek Lyons wrote: BTW, here's what you need for your desk: http://www.worldaircorps.com/tmpages/c5820r3w.htm I've been thinking about that one for a while. Needs the world in full color as the base, centered on the North Pole. Needs to be a little higher accuracy. That's why I've been thinking about it, and not saving for it. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#519
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Michelson wrote:
Another fellow who did his PhD in electromagnetics at UBC almost thirty years ago went on to work as a defence scientist. He made quite a name for himself by taking techniques used to predict scattering and diffraction of EM waves and applying them to underwater sonar. Again, it was the similarity in wavelength that made this work. The problem is this, active sonars don't operate in the ultrasonic range. Not the sub-hunting ones anyways. But then *I* know this from experience. You know nothing but second hand information and keep spewing it in the face of corrections from two people. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#520
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul Blay" wrote in message ... "Pat Flannery" wrote ... Peter Stickney wrote: Let's see now - Three Points: Bats use their echolocation to detect food in the air, at distances long enough to allow maneuvering to intercept the target. Are you suggesting that an F-117 has a lower acoustical cross-section than a Mosquito? I saw a bat fly into a chain link fence once. I'm still trying to figure that one out. That's odd. Because I seem to recall seeing a bat fly _through_ a chain link fence. Well, there are different sizes of bats... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lessons Learned but Forgotten from the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident | Jim Oberg | Space Shuttle | 0 | December 13th 04 04:58 PM |
Lessons Learned but Forgotten from the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident | Jim Oberg | History | 0 | December 13th 04 04:58 PM |
"Hindsight bias" could hide real lessons of Columbia accident report,expert says (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 3rd 03 01:54 AM |
NASA Administrator Accepts Columbia Accident Report | Ron Baalke | Space Shuttle | 3 | August 27th 03 04:48 PM |
Columbia Accident Investigation Board Releases Final Report | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 26th 03 03:30 PM |