"SpaceShipTwo could be single stage to SUBorbit"
in [Physics]
|
Prev: O/T: Will Google Groups ever fix its search function?
Next: Chapt 3, can the Hubble Space telescope see #74; ATOM TOTALITY
From: Pat Flannery on 15 May 2010 02:01 On 5/14/2010 7:19 AM, Jeff Findley wrote: > NASP was a research playground which was producing little to no flight > hardware, and certainly wasn't producing flying testbeds (i.e. real X-planes > testing real engines on real test flights). Killing a research program > which was sucking up billions of dollars without producing any actual flown > hardware was a prudent move, IMHO. You can't be really sure it didn't produce some form of flight test hardware, though probably fairly small and unmanned in design. The program was then (and still is) largely classified in nature due to the obvious military applications of the technology it would develop: http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/nasp.htm Pat
From: Greg D. Moore (Strider) on 15 May 2010 00:37 J. Clarke wrote: > > So how many Saturn Vs flew more than a few minutes and how many were > reflown? I guess they don't work either. You're comparing apples to oranges. One is a an engine and the other is the vehicle. The F-1 engine (which would be equivalent to your scramjet) had HOURS of actual firings before it was flown on a Saturn V. In addition, several were re-used. Scramjets have neither of this. > >> But as you seem to know, perhaps you can point me to the ones that >> have flown for hours. And the ones that have reflown. > > Straw man. Ummm, hardly. You're the one claiming that scramjets work. I'm asking you to provide proof. -- Greg Moore Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
From: Greg D. Moore (Strider) on 15 May 2010 00:38 Fred J. McCall wrote: > "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_delet3th1s(a)greenms.com> wrote: > >> J. Clarke wrote: >>> On 5/13/2010 11:14 PM, Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote: >>>> J. Clarke wrote: >>>>>> X-30 was way too much for NASA to do in one huge leap and would >>>>>> have required billions more dollars just to try to make it work. >>>>>> The state of the art in hypersonic propulsion still isn't where >>>>>> it would need to be to build X-30 today (note that X-30 was >>>>>> cancelled more than two decades ago). Hypersonic propulsion is >>>>>> one of those promising looking technologies that's been "only a >>>>>> few years away" for many decades. >>>>> >>>>> Uh, it's not there because Clinton pulled the plug on it. >>>> >>>> Really? Amazing. I didn't realize Clinton whas that powerful. >>>> You mean no one else was capable of doing research on Hypersonic >>>> propulsion? >>> >>> Nobody is capable of doing any kind of research on anything unless >>> somebody is willing to put food on their table while they're doing >>> it. >>> >>>> Hypersonic propulsion was " a few years away" before Clinton and is >>>> still a few years away. >>> >>> So where would it be if development had been continued instead of >>> being stopped and restarted again a decade or so later? >> >> Again, it wasn't stopped worldwide. Clinton wasn't that powerful. >> >> Other countries DID do research and development in the meantime. >> > > Oh? Name those programs. I can think of one in Australia. I believe the Russians were also still doing some flight research at that time. > >> >> Or are you saying only R&D in the US is applicable? >> > > I think he's saying (and it's hard to argue with) that the US was and > is in the forefront of that research, so us stopping tends to stop > everyone. Tell that to the Australians. -- Greg Moore Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
From: Greg D. Moore (Strider) on 15 May 2010 00:39 J. Clarke wrote: > On 5/14/2010 9:10 AM, Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote: >> J. Clarke wrote: >>> On 5/13/2010 11:14 PM, Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote: >>>> J. Clarke wrote: >>>>>> X-30 was way too much for NASA to do in one huge leap and would >>>>>> have required billions more dollars just to try to make it work. >>>>>> The state of the art in hypersonic propulsion still isn't where >>>>>> it would need to be to build X-30 today (note that X-30 was >>>>>> cancelled more than two decades ago). Hypersonic propulsion is >>>>>> one of those promising looking technologies that's been "only a >>>>>> few years away" for many decades. >>>>> >>>>> Uh, it's not there because Clinton pulled the plug on it. >>>> >>>> Really? Amazing. I didn't realize Clinton whas that powerful. You >>>> mean no one else was capable of doing research on Hypersonic >>>> propulsion? >>> >>> Nobody is capable of doing any kind of research on anything unless >>> somebody is willing to put food on their table while they're doing >>> it. >>>> Hypersonic propulsion was " a few years away" before Clinton and is >>>> still a few years away. >>> >>> So where would it be if development had been continued instead of >>> being stopped and restarted again a decade or so later? >> >> Again, it wasn't stopped worldwide. Clinton wasn't that powerful. >> >> Other countries DID do research and development in the meantime. > > So who was putting the same kind of money into it that NASA had been? Ah, what's that sound? Oh right, the goalposts being moved. > >> Or are you saying only R&D in the US is applicable? > > Who else has the economic resources of the US? -- Greg Moore Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
From: J. Clarke on 15 May 2010 06:18
On 5/15/2010 12:38 AM, Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote: > Fred J. McCall wrote: >> "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"<mooregr_delet3th1s(a)greenms.com> wrote: >> >>> J. Clarke wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2010 11:14 PM, Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote: >>>>> J. Clarke wrote: >>>>>>> X-30 was way too much for NASA to do in one huge leap and would >>>>>>> have required billions more dollars just to try to make it work. >>>>>>> The state of the art in hypersonic propulsion still isn't where >>>>>>> it would need to be to build X-30 today (note that X-30 was >>>>>>> cancelled more than two decades ago). Hypersonic propulsion is >>>>>>> one of those promising looking technologies that's been "only a >>>>>>> few years away" for many decades. >>>>>> >>>>>> Uh, it's not there because Clinton pulled the plug on it. >>>>> >>>>> Really? Amazing. I didn't realize Clinton whas that powerful. >>>>> You mean no one else was capable of doing research on Hypersonic >>>>> propulsion? >>>> >>>> Nobody is capable of doing any kind of research on anything unless >>>> somebody is willing to put food on their table while they're doing >>>> it. >>>> >>>>> Hypersonic propulsion was " a few years away" before Clinton and is >>>>> still a few years away. >>>> >>>> So where would it be if development had been continued instead of >>>> being stopped and restarted again a decade or so later? >>> >>> Again, it wasn't stopped worldwide. Clinton wasn't that powerful. >>> >>> Other countries DID do research and development in the meantime. >>> >> >> Oh? Name those programs. > > I can think of one in Australia. > > I believe the Russians were also still doing some flight research at that > time. > >> >>> >>> Or are you saying only R&D in the US is applicable? >>> >> >> I think he's saying (and it's hard to argue with) that the US was and >> is in the forefront of that research, so us stopping tends to stop >> everyone. > > Tell that to the Australians. So how many billion dollars a year _were_ the Australians putting into it? > |