Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #369313 > unrolled thread

Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-11-07 15:44 +0000
    Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 11:00 -0500
    Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-07 21:47 +0000
      Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-11-08 00:49 +0000
        Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-08 01:40 +0000
          Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-08 03:27 +0000
            Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-08 03:43 +0000
              Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-08 04:10 +0000
                Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-08 04:42 +0000
                  Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-08 06:23 +0000
            Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-11-08 16:01 +0000
              Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-08 17:33 +0000
                Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-11 23:56 +0000
                  Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 00:29 +0000
                    Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 00:38 +0000
                      Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 01:11 +0000
                        Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 16:07 +0000
                          Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 18:47 +0000
                            Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 16:06 -0500
                              Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 21:22 +0000
                        Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 16:08 +0000
                    Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 20:55 -0500
                      Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 02:09 +0000
                        Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 23:08 -0500
                          Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 04:45 +0000
                            Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 03:28 -0500
                              Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 18:58 +0000
                                Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 16:11 -0500
                                  Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 21:43 +0000
          Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-07 22:53 -0500
            Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-08 04:14 +0000
              Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-07 23:43 -0500
                Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-11-08 16:25 +0000
              Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-08 06:24 +0000
      Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-08 03:29 +0000
        Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-08 03:40 +0000
          Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-08 04:11 +0000
    Re: It's not rocket science--we need a better way to get to space Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-11 17:40 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#369313 — Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space

W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik Wally W. napisał:

>>Rockets are simpler, more reliable, faster, less complicated.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistage_rocket The main reason for
> multi-stage rockets and boosters is that once the fuel is exhausted, the
> space and structure which contained it and the motors themselves are
> useless and only add weight to the vehicle which slows down its future
> acceleration.

You got it. You are not easy to fool.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#369317 — Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space

On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 15:44:23 +0000 (UTC), Edgardo Alcantara wrote:

>W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) u?ytkownik Wally W. napisa?:
>
>>>Rockets are simpler, more reliable, faster, less complicated.
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistage_rocket The main reason for
>> multi-stage rockets and boosters is that once the fuel is exhausted, the
>> space and structure which contained it and the motors themselves are
>> useless and only add weight to the vehicle which slows down its future
>> acceleration.
>
>You got it. 

So did gilber34.

"Multiple catrosphic manned failures" outweigh fuel savings.

>You are not easy to fool.

Sam wouldn't try to do that, would he?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369335

On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 15:44:23 +0000, Edgardo Alcantara wrote:

> W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik Wally W. napisał:
> 
>>>Rockets are simpler, more reliable, faster, less complicated.
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistage_rocket The main reason for
>> multi-stage rockets and boosters is that once the fuel is exhausted, the
>> space and structure which contained it and the motors themselves are
>> useless and only add weight to the vehicle which slows down its future
>> acceleration.
> 
> You got it. You are not easy to fool.


No, he didn't get it at all.

The main reason for staging has to with trajectories.

The booster lifts the rocket to a certain altitude.  Then the next stage
is fired to impart a velocity compatible to orbit at that altitude.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369342

W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik Fabian Russell
napisał:

>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistage_rocket The main reason for
>>> multi-stage rockets and boosters is that once the fuel is exhausted,
>>> the space and structure which contained it and the motors themselves
>>> are useless and only add weight to the vehicle which slows down its
>>> future acceleration.
>> 
>> You got it. You are not easy to fool.
> 
> 
> No, he didn't get it at all. 
> The main reason for staging has to with trajectories.
> The booster lifts the rocket to a certain altitude.  Then the next stage
> is fired to impart a velocity compatible to orbit at that altitude.

You are so easy to fool.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369345

On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 00:49:21 +0000, Edgardo Alcantara wrote:

> 
> You are so easy to fool.
>

Are you claiming that it is possible to reach orbit with
a single stage?

Then you are a fool.

No single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) rocket has ever been constructed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369346 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

In sci.physics Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 00:49:21 +0000, Edgardo Alcantara wrote:
> 
>> 
>> You are so easy to fool.
>>
> 
> Are you claiming that it is possible to reach orbit with
> a single stage?
> 
> Then you are a fool.
> 
> No single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) rocket has ever been constructed.

The Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369349 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 03:27:01 +0000, jimp wrote:

> 
> The Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit.
>

In addition to its single "stage" the module had an array of
attitude thrusters.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369357 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

In sci.physics Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 03:27:01 +0000, jimp wrote:
> 
>> 
>> The Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit.
>>
> 
> In addition to its single "stage" the module had an array of
> attitude thrusters.

So what?

It was still a single-stage-to-orbit. 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369360 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 04:10:41 +0000, jimp wrote:

> 
> So what?
> 
> It was still a single-stage-to-orbit.
>

The moon has no atmosphere and thus there is no need for different
engines at different altitudes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369362 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

In sci.physics Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 04:10:41 +0000, jimp wrote:
> 
>> 
>> So what?
>> 
>> It was still a single-stage-to-orbit.
>>
> 
> The moon has no atmosphere and thus there is no need for different
> engines at different altitudes.
 
Babbling nonsense.

The Moon has a lower gravity and no atmosphere which means one stage
is sufficient to get to orbit.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369386 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik jimp napisał:

>> No single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) rocket has ever been constructed.
> 
> The Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit.

YOu forgot to add "allegedly".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369392 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

In sci.physics Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> wrote:
> W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik jimp napisał:
> 
>>> No single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) rocket has ever been constructed.
>> 
>> The Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit.
> 
> YOu forgot to add "allegedly".

No, I did not and Elvis is really dead.



-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369719 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

jimp wrote:

> In sci.physics Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org>
> wrote:
>> W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik jimp napisał:
>> 
>>>> No single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) rocket has ever been constructed.
>>> 
>>> The Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit.
>> 
>> YOu forgot to add "allegedly".
> 
> No, I did not and Elvis is really dead.

Any errorbars associated with those proofs? Do you have any proofs, to 
begin with?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369730 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

In sci.physics Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> wrote:
> jimp wrote:
> 
>> In sci.physics Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org>
>> wrote:
>>> W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik jimp napisał:
>>> 
>>>>> No single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) rocket has ever been constructed.
>>>> 
>>>> The Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit.
>>> 
>>> YOu forgot to add "allegedly".
>> 
>> No, I did not and Elvis is really dead.
> 
> Any errorbars associated with those proofs? Do you have any proofs, to 
> begin with?

The fact that the Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit has
nowhere to attach "errorbars" (sic).

You are a babbling idiot.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369731 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

jimp wrote:

>>>>> The Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit.
>>>> 
>>>> YOu forgot to add "allegedly".
>>> 
>>> No, I did not and Elvis is really dead.
>> 
>> Any errorbars associated with those proofs? Do you have any proofs, to
>> begin with?
> 
> The fact that the Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit has
> nowhere to attach "errorbars" (sic). You are a babbling idiot.

As anticipated, you have no proofs. And dare coming in public with such 
outrageous set of statements. You are the babbling, mister. In Modern 
Science only Proofs and Empirical Experiments is what it counts. You have 
nothing without proofs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369739 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

In sci.physics Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> wrote:
> jimp wrote:
> 
>>>>>> The Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit.
>>>>> 
>>>>> YOu forgot to add "allegedly".
>>>> 
>>>> No, I did not and Elvis is really dead.
>>> 
>>> Any errorbars associated with those proofs? Do you have any proofs, to
>>> begin with?
>> 
>> The fact that the Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit has
>> nowhere to attach "errorbars" (sic). You are a babbling idiot.
> 
> As anticipated, you have no proofs. And dare coming in public with such 
> outrageous set of statements. You are the babbling, mister. In Modern 
> Science only Proofs and Empirical Experiments is what it counts. You have 
> nothing without proofs.

Babbling, nym shifting troll idiot.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369784 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

jimp wrote:

>>>> Any errorbars associated with those proofs? Do you have any proofs,
>>>> to begin with?
>>> 
>>> The fact that the Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit has
>>> nowhere to attach "errorbars" (sic). You are a babbling idiot.
>> 
>> As anticipated, you have no proofs. And dare coming in public with such
>> outrageous set of statements. You are the babbling, mister. In Modern
>> Science only Proofs and Empirical Experiments is what it counts. You
>> have nothing without proofs.
> 
> Babbling, nym shifting troll idiot.

He is not that. You are batshit crazy. You come up with a mouth but no 
palpable proofs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369809 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

In sci.physics Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> wrote:
> jimp wrote:
> 
>>>>> Any errorbars associated with those proofs? Do you have any proofs,
>>>>> to begin with?
>>>> 
>>>> The fact that the Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit has
>>>> nowhere to attach "errorbars" (sic). You are a babbling idiot.
>>> 
>>> As anticipated, you have no proofs. And dare coming in public with such
>>> outrageous set of statements. You are the babbling, mister. In Modern
>>> Science only Proofs and Empirical Experiments is what it counts. You
>>> have nothing without proofs.
>> 
>> Babbling, nym shifting troll idiot.
> 
> He is not that. You are batshit crazy. You come up with a mouth but no 
> palpable proofs.

Yet another babbling, nym shifting troll idiot.

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369828 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 18:47:11 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> wrote:
>> jimp wrote:
>> 
>>>>>> Any errorbars associated with those proofs? Do you have any proofs,
>>>>>> to begin with?
>>>>> 
>>>>> The fact that the Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit has
>>>>> nowhere to attach "errorbars" (sic). You are a babbling idiot.
>>>> 
>>>> As anticipated, you have no proofs. And dare coming in public with such
>>>> outrageous set of statements. You are the babbling, mister. In Modern
>>>> Science only Proofs and Empirical Experiments is what it counts. You
>>>> have nothing without proofs.
>>> 
>>> Babbling, nym shifting troll idiot.
>> 
>> He is not that. You are batshit crazy. You come up with a mouth but no 
>> palpable proofs.
>
>Yet another babbling, nym shifting troll idiot.

        Same troll, different name, less brains.  ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369833 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

kefischer wrote:

>>> He is not that. You are batshit crazy. You come up with a mouth but no
>>> palpable proofs.
>>
>>Yet another babbling, nym shifting troll idiot.
> 
>         Same troll, different name, less brains.  ;-)

Indeed, keficxher, jimp and PointedHead are the biggest brains around 
here. Good bye. I know when I'm not welcomed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web