rebuttal to Jeffrey Bell on "StuntShipOne"

Jeff Findley wrote:

It would if you come up with another source for your high pressure air.

That would be a different system (the "S" in RCS).


I see your point, but what if we get our source of hot air from a pre-burner
on a staged combustion rocket engine?

Fine, but it would still be a different RCS (i.e., one designed for a
spaceship) than the one in the Harrier.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
nk.net...
Jeff Findley wrote:
I see your point, but what if we get our source of hot air from a
pre-burner
on a staged combustion rocket engine?

Fine, but it would still be a different RCS (i.e., one designed for a
spaceship) than the one in the Harrier.

I think you're right. As Mary points out, the Harrier RCS is just a
complicated thrust vectoring system attached to the jet engine.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Rand Simberg wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:

It would if you come up with another source for your high pressure air.

That would be a different system (the "S" in RCS).


I see your point, but what if we get our source of hot air from a pre-burner
on a staged combustion rocket engine?

Fine, but it would still be a different RCS (i.e., one designed for a
spaceship) than the one in the Harrier.

Uhh.. it doesn't matter if it would be a similar or different RCS, but that
Harrier is a good demonstration why specfying "has RCS" for "is spaceship"
is bad.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Sander Vesik wrote:

Fine, but it would still be a different RCS (i.e., one designed for a
spaceship) than the one in the Harrier.


Uhh.. it doesn't matter if it would be a similar or different RCS, but that
Harrier is a good demonstration why specfying "has RCS" for "is spaceship"
is bad.

Not if it's specifiec as an RCS designed to work in space (which is
implicit).

Rand Simberg wrote:

Not if it's specifiec as an RCS designed to work in space (which is
implicit).

That should have been "specified."