"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: J. Clarke on 15 May 2010 10:57 On 5/15/2010 7:25 AM, Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote: > J. Clarke wrote: >> On 5/15/2010 12:37 AM, Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote: >>> 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. >> >> I see. So the only time that counts is flight hours for scramjets but >> test stand hours count for rockets. Can you say "double standard"? >> > > No. Feel free to include test stand minutes for scramjets. > > Heck by Apollo 8, the F-1 had more FLIGHT time than Scramjets to date have. So? It also had more FLIGHT time than the Wright Flyer, so I guess airplanes don't work according to your rules. >>>>> 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. >> >> If you are not familiar with the testing history perhaps you should >> not be pontificating about things you do not understand. > > In other words, you can't provide proof. Perhaps you should follow your own > advice here. Geez, that's like asking someone to prove that Obama is President. Why bother? You're getting very boring. You and the guy who told Ugh to quit messing with that crazy "fire" stuff have fun.
From: Sylvia Else on 15 May 2010 23:10 On 11/05/2010 4:47 AM, Robert Clark wrote: > Interesting article here: > > SpaceShipTwo could be single stage to suborbit says ESA firm. > By Rob Coppinger > on April 29, 2010 4:24 PM > "Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo could be a single stage to suborbit > vehicle using liquid chemical propulsion according to independent > research carried out by a company that has been contracted by the > European Space Agency for suborbital and hypersonic transport > studies." > "... the UK firm came to the conclusion that the volume within which > SS2 carries its solid rocket motor and nitrous oxide supply could > equally hold a liquid chemical propulsion system capable of providing > enough thrust for long enough for a horizontal take-off and ascent to > 50,000ft and above without the need for WK2." > http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/04/spaceshiptwo-could-be-single-s.html > > If you also filled up the passenger compartment with fuel leaving only > a pilot's cabin could it even become orbital? No. It would collapse at the fuelling station. Sylvia.
From: Greg D. Moore (Strider) on 15 May 2010 23:55 J. Clarke wrote: > > So? It also had more FLIGHT time than the Wright Flyer, so I guess > airplanes don't work according to your rules. Huh? Umm. No. But if you were in 1903 claiming that flying 400 passengers at a time across the Atlantic was "just a few years away" I'd be making the same argument. The state of the art was far from it. >> >> In other words, you can't provide proof. Perhaps you should follow >> your own advice here. > > Geez, that's like asking someone to prove that Obama is President. Why > bother? Again, if it's so simple to prove, you should be able to do it. But you can't prove it since your claims are bogus. Again, show me a the evidence. You claim to be so knowledgable, but have you to provide any proof. -- Greg Moore Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
From: Greg D. Moore (Strider) on 15 May 2010 23:57 Fred J. McCall wrote: > "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_delet3th1s(a)greenms.com> wrote: > So can I. It was a cooperative effort with the US DARPA. It only > happened in Australia because they have that nice big test range. And your point? It certainly doesn't support Clarke's point that Clinton killed all R&D. > >> >> I believe the Russians were also still doing some flight research at >> that time. >> > > Your belief isn't a cite. No, but I'm not gong to do Clarke's homework for him. He made a broad claim that was easily shown wrong. Anything else is icing on the cake. > You might want to take a closer look at that program... Umm, why? I'm not the one claiming Clinton killed all R&D around the world. -- Greg Moore Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
From: Pat Flannery on 16 May 2010 03:28
On 5/15/2010 7:10 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> If you also filled up the passenger compartment with fuel leaving only >> a pilot's cabin could it even become orbital? > > No. It would collapse at the fuelling station. I'm thinking of catching a Canada Goose...and feeding it on a diet of black powder mixed with corn meal...then, by replacing its beak with one made of quartz rods, sheathing the leading edge of its wing in reinforced carbon-carbon, and painting its belly feathers with a rubber-based ablator... ;-) Pat |