A kerosene-fueled X-33 as a single stage to orbit vehicle.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: JSH:Twin primes probability correlation
Next: SpaceX says Falcon 9 rocket test fire is a success
From: hallerb on 26 Apr 2010 12:27 On Apr 26, 12:02�pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Dean" <damark...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:71f03aab-4132-4d64-a7e7-ae6e3a48554e(a)u31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 25, 12:32 pm, hcobb <henry.c...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > There already is a single stage to orbit vehicle in the sense that the > > Shuttle uses the same main engines from launch pad to orbit and the > > only part thrown away is a simple fuel tank. > > > How's that single-stagy, reusey thing working out for you? > > > -HJC > > What the hell do you call those two big pencil like things hanging on > the side of the shuttle then? > ============================================ > Those big pencils hang on the side of the tank to lift the tank (and > themselves); the shuttle lifts itself but can't lift its own fuel. In short, > it's an expensive clusterfuck and a double failure to be scrapped. > > If a plane takes off into the wind the least an orbiter could do is > take off from a mountain, taking any advantage available. Denver > is mile-high city, why take off from sea level? > Fuel is burnt as a function of time, not altitude or velocity, so > an electric sled on a ramp providing the initial acceleration would > enable a greater payload. KSC on on florida beach so debris dont fall on residents and being south it picks up rotational speed of earth to help payload
From: Androcles on 26 Apr 2010 13:11 <hallerb(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:97e0372d-f01f-4afa-881e-d2ed2120feea(a)i37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... On Apr 26, 12:02?pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Dean" <damark...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:71f03aab-4132-4d64-a7e7-ae6e3a48554e(a)u31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 25, 12:32 pm, hcobb <henry.c...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > There already is a single stage to orbit vehicle in the sense that the > > Shuttle uses the same main engines from launch pad to orbit and the > > only part thrown away is a simple fuel tank. > > > How's that single-stagy, reusey thing working out for you? > > > -HJC > > What the hell do you call those two big pencil like things hanging on > the side of the shuttle then? > ============================================ > Those big pencils hang on the side of the tank to lift the tank (and > themselves); the shuttle lifts itself but can't lift its own fuel. In > short, > it's an expensive clusterfuck and a double failure to be scrapped. > > If a plane takes off into the wind the least an orbiter could do is > take off from a mountain, taking any advantage available. Denver > is mile-high city, why take off from sea level? > Fuel is burnt as a function of time, not altitude or velocity, so > an electric sled on a ramp providing the initial acceleration would > enable a greater payload. KSC on on florida beach so debris dont fall on residents and being south it picks up rotational speed of earth to help payload ================================================= This debris fell on residents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster So did this: http://luckybogey.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/gallery-lockerbie-anniver-002.jpg
From: hcobb on 26 Apr 2010 13:26 On Apr 26, 8:16 am, Dean <damark...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 25, 12:32 pm, hcobb <henry.c...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > There already is a single stage to orbit vehicle in the sense that the > > Shuttle uses the same main engines from launch pad to orbit and the > > only part thrown away is a simple fuel tank. > > > How's that single-stagy, reusey thing working out for you? > > > -HJC > > What the hell do you call those two big pencil like things hanging on > the side of the shuttle then? Reusable solid fuel boosters? Like I said, only a simple tank is thrown away. -HJC
From: Dan on 26 Apr 2010 13:33 Androcles wrote: > <hallerb(a)aol.com> wrote in message <snip> > KSC on on florida beach so debris dont fall on residents and being > south it picks up rotational speed of earth to help payload > > ================================================= > This debris fell on residents: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster > So did this: > http://luckybogey.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/gallery-lockerbie-anniver-002.jpg > Neither occurred during a rocket launch and the Lockerbie case wasn't even space related. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
From: Dan on 26 Apr 2010 16:19
Androcles wrote: > "Dan" <B2431B(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:h7kBn.45389$Db6.11570(a)newsfe05.iad... >> Androcles wrote: >>> <hallerb(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> <snip> >>> KSC on on florida beach so debris dont fall on residents and being >>> south it picks up rotational speed of earth to help payload >>> >>> ================================================= >>> This debris fell on residents: >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster >>> So did this: >>> >>> http://luckybogey.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/gallery-lockerbie-anniver-002.jpg >>> >> Neither occurred during a rocket launch and the Lockerbie case wasn't >> even space related. >> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired > > Oh, I see. Only debris that falls on residents during launches is of any > consequence. I didn't say anything of the kind, did I? In response to being told the NASA launches from Florida reduce risk to residents you brought up Columbia and Lockerbie. I addressed your point. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |