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: Androcles on 26 Apr 2010 16:39 "Dan" <B2431B(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:0zmBn.45407$Db6.4032(a)newsfe05.iad... > Androcles wrote: >> "Dan" <B2431B(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:h7kBn.45389$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? No, and I didn't say "KSC on on florida beach so debris dont fall on residents and being south it picks up rotational speed of earth to help payload", so let's talk some more about what we didn't say. > In response to being told the NASA launches from Florida reduce risk to > residents you brought up Columbia and Lockerbie. I addressed your point. In response to being told debris falling from the sky was neither a rocket launch (true) nor the Lockerbie case (false), I addressed your point. Perhaps the illiterate hallerb(a)aol.com wished to inform us that living near a launch site was some kind of insurance against debris falling from the sky (or not), although I didn't say anything of the kind, did I?
From: Dan on 26 Apr 2010 16:59 Androcles wrote: > "Dan" <B2431B(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:0zmBn.45407$Db6.4032(a)newsfe05.iad... >> Androcles wrote: >>> "Dan" <B2431B(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> news:h7kBn.45389$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? > > No, and I didn't say "KSC on on florida beach so debris dont fall on > residents and being south it picks up rotational speed of earth to help > payload", so let's talk some more about what we didn't say. > >> In response to being told the NASA launches from Florida reduce risk to >> residents you brought up Columbia and Lockerbie. I addressed your point. > > In response to being told debris falling from the sky was neither a rocket > launch (true) nor the Lockerbie case (false), I addressed your point. > Perhaps the illiterate hallerb(a)aol.com wished to inform us that living near > a launch site was some kind of insurance against debris falling from the sky > (or not), although I didn't say anything of the kind, did I? > > I don't know if you are deliberately being difficult or you just can't seem to follow the thread. Haller is the one who brought up KSC,I never attributed that statement to you, but your response to his statement didn't address what he said. Ne never said anything about things not launch related "falling from the sky." That's all I pointed out. In any event you probably understood that in the first place. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
From: hallerb on 26 Apr 2010 17:09 On Apr 26, 4:59�pm, Dan <B24...(a)aol.com> wrote: > Androcles wrote: > > "Dan" <B24...(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >news:0zmBn.45407$Db6.4032(a)newsfe05.iad... > >> Androcles wrote: > >>> "Dan" <B24...(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >>>news:h7kBn.45389$Db6.11570(a)newsfe05.iad... > >>>> Androcles wrote: > >>>>> <hall...(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-anniv... > > >>>> � 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? > > > No, and I didn't say "KSC on on florida beach so debris dont fall on > > residents and being south it picks up rotational speed of earth to help > > payload", so let's talk some more about what we didn't say. > > >> In response to being told the NASA launches from Florida reduce risk to > >> residents you brought up Columbia and Lockerbie. I addressed your point. > > > In response to being told debris falling from the sky was neither a rocket > > launch (true) nor the Lockerbie case (false), I addressed your point. > > Perhaps the illiterate hall...(a)aol.com wished to inform us that living near > > a launch site was some kind of insurance against debris falling from the sky > > (or not), although I didn't say anything of the kind, did I? > > � �I don't know if you are deliberately being difficult or you just > can't seem to follow the thread. Haller is the one who brought up KSC,I > never attributed that statement to you, but your response to his > statement didn't address what he said. Ne never said anything about > things not launch related "falling from the sky." That's all I pointed out. > > � �In any event you probably understood that in the first place. > > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There are 100s if not thousands of spent rocket boosters in the ocean off the cape including whats left of all the saturn 5 first stages that flew. Can you IMAGINE even one saturn rocket coming down in the US. on land???
From: Androcles on 26 Apr 2010 17:31 "Dan" <B2431B(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:y8nBn.137958$sx5.51616(a)newsfe16.iad... > Androcles wrote: >> "Dan" <B2431B(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:0zmBn.45407$Db6.4032(a)newsfe05.iad... >>> 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? >> >> No, and I didn't say "KSC on on florida beach so debris dont fall on >> residents and being south it picks up rotational speed of earth to help >> payload", so let's talk some more about what we didn't say. >> >>> In response to being told the NASA launches from Florida reduce risk to >>> residents you brought up Columbia and Lockerbie. I addressed your point. >> >> In response to being told debris falling from the sky was neither a >> rocket launch (true) nor the Lockerbie case (false), I addressed your >> point. Perhaps the illiterate hallerb(a)aol.com wished to inform us that >> living near a launch site was some kind of insurance against debris >> falling from the sky (or not), although I didn't say anything of the >> kind, did I? >> >> > I don't know if you are deliberately being difficult or you just can't > seem to follow the thread. Oh, you wanted to follow a thread! Unless you are just being deliberately difficult, go back to where it says "<snip>" and you'll find I wrote 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. Of course someone that wanted to follow a thread wouldn't deliberately <snip> and go off on a fuckin' tangent just be difficult, would he? I don't know if you are deliberately being difficult are just fuckin' stupid. <SNIP RIGHT BACK AT YA!>
From: Dan on 26 Apr 2010 17:41
Androcles wrote: > "Dan" <B2431B(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:y8nBn.137958$sx5.51616(a)newsfe16.iad... >> Androcles wrote: >>> "Dan" <B2431B(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> news:0zmBn.45407$Db6.4032(a)newsfe05.iad... >>>> Androcles wrote: >>>>> "Dan" <B2431B(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:h7kBn.45389$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? >>> No, and I didn't say "KSC on on florida beach so debris dont fall on >>> residents and being south it picks up rotational speed of earth to help >>> payload", so let's talk some more about what we didn't say. >>> >>>> In response to being told the NASA launches from Florida reduce risk to >>>> residents you brought up Columbia and Lockerbie. I addressed your point. >>> In response to being told debris falling from the sky was neither a >>> rocket launch (true) nor the Lockerbie case (false), I addressed your >>> point. Perhaps the illiterate hallerb(a)aol.com wished to inform us that >>> living near a launch site was some kind of insurance against debris >>> falling from the sky (or not), although I didn't say anything of the >>> kind, did I? >>> >>> >> I don't know if you are deliberately being difficult or you just can't >> seem to follow the thread. > > Oh, you wanted to follow a thread! > > Unless you are just being deliberately difficult, go back to where it says > "<snip>" and you'll find I wrote > > 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. > > Of course someone that wanted to follow a thread wouldn't deliberately > <snip> and go off on a fuckin' tangent just be difficult, would he? > > I don't know if you are deliberately being difficult are just fuckin' > stupid. > <SNIP RIGHT BACK AT YA!> > > > Well, seeing as you feel airplanes dropping from the air and vulgar abuse are proper debate on space launches I don't think we have anything further to discuss. Have a nice day. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |