"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 16 May 2010 13:05 On 5/16/2010 5:09 AM, pete wrote: >> 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... ;-) > > If he chooses you, he will try to kill you. Ocean liners travel through water, which is made out of hydrogen and oxygen, making it perfect rocket fuel... Pat
From: Pat Flannery on 16 May 2010 13:36 On 5/16/2010 5:12 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> If we were to take the airship Hindenburg, replace three of its hydrogen >> gasbags with ones containing oxygen, replace the fabric covering with >> one made of woven fullerene nanotubes, add a scramjet to the end of each >> of the tail fins, and install a SSME in the tip of the tail... >> > > Hmmm..... > > How long would an SSME run on the hydrogen in Hindenburg? If we were to fill the gasbags with liquid or slush hydrogen, rather than normal hydrogen, they could hold much more.... Another idea I've had is to take a oil tanker truck, wrap the tank in piano wire except for the back end, fill it full of nitroglycerin, and give the driver a parachute as well as a trashcan lid to use as a heatshield on his way back home. Why the makers of oil tanker trucks never realized that with just a few simple modifications their vehicles could be turned into space launch vehicles baffles me. I suspect it is because they are not as smart as I am. ;-) Pat
From: Jeff Findley on 17 May 2010 10:48 "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in message news:hsjoi008j6(a)news7.newsguy.com... > On 5/14/2010 9:08 AM, Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote: >> J. Clarke wrote: >>> On 5/13/2010 11:12 PM, Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote: >>>> J. Clarke wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Scramjets work. Get used to it. >>>> >>>> Really? How many flight hours do they have? >>> >>> Enough to show that they work. >>> >>>> How many have been flown more than once? >>> >>> Enough to show that they work. >> >> Umm, really? I don't know of any that have flown for more than a few >> minutes at my most recent research didn't reveal any that were reflown. > > So how many Saturn Vs flew more than a few minutes and how many were > reflown? I guess they don't work either. Apples and orangutans. Saturn V completed its mission each and every time (launch to orbit), despite several well documented anomolies that were addressed in later vehicles. You're arguing for scramjets for hypersonic cruise and launch to orbit. They need to run much more than a few seconds to do so. Therefore, they're NOT a proven technology for the applications you're talking about. >> 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. Hardly. Jeff -- "Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon
From: Pat Flannery on 17 May 2010 15:04 On 5/17/2010 6:48 AM, Jeff Findley wrote: > You're arguing for scramjets for hypersonic cruise and launch to orbit. > They need to run much more than a few seconds to do so. Therefore, they're > NOT a proven technology for the applications you're talking about. They are going to take a crack at getting one up to Mach 6.5 shortly: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1005/16waverider/ Pat
From: Jeff Findley on 17 May 2010 15:05
"Pat Flannery" <flanner(a)daktel.com> wrote in message news:HuidnTCpRI9o9WzWnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d(a)posted.northdakotatelephone... > On 5/17/2010 6:48 AM, Jeff Findley wrote: > >> You're arguing for scramjets for hypersonic cruise and launch to orbit. >> They need to run much more than a few seconds to do so. Therefore, >> they're >> NOT a proven technology for the applications you're talking about. > > They are going to take a crack at getting one up to Mach 6.5 shortly: > http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1005/16waverider/ Make that Mach 4 to Mach 6.5. To get to Mach 4, the test vehicle is boosted to speed by a solid rocket stage. Because of the choice of fuel, and lack of sufficient TPS, and etc. this vehicle won't get anywhere near the Mach 25 required for an orbital vehicle. In the big scheme of things, this is still a research project, but if it is successful, I'm sure a follow-on research vehicle will be built to expand the flight envelope even further. Practical air breathing hypersonic engines are still "just a few years away", which is where they've been for decades. Jeff -- "Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon |