Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #689127
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science, sci.space.policy, sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) |
| Date | 2018-06-05 22:59 -0700 |
| Organization | is for people who don't have real work to do |
| Message-ID | <ittehdpmtm1rh1u58mp25d8datflmjfohn@4ax.com> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <55s9hd9hl133n69004c3bq99jlt08olhs5@4ax.com> <pf3ihd$r3l$1@dont-email.me> <k3jbhdtp7rr11ef00mfv6grnpjj29cjc9a@4ax.com> <MPG.35803d23c8d3eb97989ab5@news.eternal-september.org> <rsbehdt4ta6d8oec8i67pp84muijlea8jl@4ax.com> |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote on Tue, 05 Jun 2018
20:55:15 -0400:
>On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 07:25:07 -0400, Jeff Findley
><jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <k3jbhdtp7rr11ef00mfv6grnpjj29cjc9a@4ax.com>, jclarke.873638
>>@gmail.com says...
>>>
>>> On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 07:32:20 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On 6/4/2018 1:00 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> >> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote on Sun, 3 Jun 2018
>>> >> 19:36:02 -0700:
>>> >>
>>> >>> On 6/3/2018 4:12 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> >>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote on Sun, 03 Jun 2018
>>> >>>> 17:59:12 -0400:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 14:06:20 -0700, Fred J. McCall
>>> >>>>> <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote on Sun, 03 Jun 2018
>>> >>>>>> 05:10:09 -0400:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 01:58:22 -0700, Fred J. McCall
>>> >>>>>>> <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote on Sun, 03 Jun 2018
>>> >>>>>>>> 04:38:36 -0400:
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 04:17:33 -0400, "Robert Clark"
>>> >>>>>>>>> <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOCKail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Thomas Koenig" wrote in message
>>> >>>>>>>>>> news:pes925$6i6$1@newsreader5.netcologne.de...
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOCKail.com> schrieb:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ===========================================================
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "J. Clarke" wrote in message
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> news:vqtogdhisj5bl28visfpnhkoc2li07ggm0@4ax.com...
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 May 2018 11:30:57 -0700, Fred J. McCall
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that SpaceX has already acknowledged that the Falcon 9 first stage
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the BFR stages will have SSTO capability, but with small payload.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Source? And I don't mean some throwaway comment or some blog post by
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> somebody who doesn't work for SpaceX.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Well, he's not exactly an employee but Elon Musk has said that a
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Falcon 9 Full Thrust first stage reaches (a very low) orbit on an
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> expendable launch and that they deliberately give it a little boost
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> back toward the ground so that it doesn't hang around up there for a
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> month or two.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Source? Other than a tweet?
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> Well, one could try plugging the available numbers into the rocket
>>> >>>>>>>>>> equation. I've taken them from
>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.spaceflight101.net/falcon-9-v11.html (accuracy is
>>> >>>>>>>>>> probably debatable, plus the numbers are old, so a grain of
>>> >>>>>>>>>> salt is advised).
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> Sorry, but your calculation using the rocket equation is not a
>>> >>>>>>>>> statement by a SpaceX employee unless you are telling us now that you
>>> >>>>>>>>> work at SpaceX.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> And you are neglecting drag completely so your analysis is not valid
>>> >>>>>>>>> anyway.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> So believe what you want. You're going to regardless. Bottom line is
>>> >>>>>>>> that almost any two stage booster has a first stage that can do SSTO
>>> >>>>>>>> (with limited or no target).
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Sez you. Still nothing from a SpaceX insider other than a tweet.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Son, you just sit over there and be wrong. I don't mind at all.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> I don't believe what I want to. I believe what is true.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Oh, do you now? Why is what you want to believe "true" with no proof?
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> I believe that it is true that no SSTO has ever made it to orbit.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Which proves NOTHING. You attempt to parlay that into "No current
>>> >>>> first stage is capable of SSTO", which is a non sequitur. There is a
>>> >>>> difference between "not capable" and "not economic".
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> There is also a difference between "in theory" and "in practice". In
>>> >>> Theory SpaceX has two boosters that can do SSTO but until they actually
>>> >>> DO go into orbit it is just theory and theory is not _proof_.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> There is also a difference between 'shown' and 'demonstrated'. I've
>>> >> seen simulations that show that a Falcon 9 first stage can reach orbit
>>> >> (but with practically no payload).
>>> >
>>> >No, there isn't a difference. A computer simulation is just theory.
>>>
>>> Depends on whether the model's been validated. If NASA or SpaceX say
>>> it I'll buy it--they both have track records of producing models that
>>> predict what their hardware will do to a level that is adequate for
>>> interplanetary navigation purposes. Some random stranger on the
>>> Internet is another story.
>>>
>>
>>Just because you are unwilling or unable to do the math yourself doesn't
>>mean the math is wrong. Math is math.
>>
>
>But math is not physics. If the math does not accurately describe the
>physics then the math is irrelevant.
>
Sorry, but now. If the math doesn't adequately describe the physics
the PHYSICS is wrong. You understand that physics is just theory
based on math, right?
>
>>
>>We've had this debate a long, long time ago in the sci.space newsgroups.
>>The fact is that there are many stages which are theoretically capable
>>of performing SSTO with minimal payload.
>>
>
>According to you.
>
According to pretty much everyone who knows anything about the field.
Then there's you...
>
>>
>>No one has ever done it
>>because the cost to get that payload into orbit is typically higher than
>>it would be if you just used a smaller TSTO (or higher number of
>>stages). In other words, it just makes no sense to fly a disposable
>>SSTO. That and the "serious" space organizations just wouldn't do
>>anything like this. They've lost the drive to do anything innovative
>>like this.
>>
>>Now a *reusable* SSTO is a whole other kettle of fish. I'd imagine that
>>we'll see BFS do an SSTO flight. Why? #1 because it will be reusable,
>>so the cost of the flight will be a small multiplier on top of the
>>propellant costs. #2 it would be a useful test flight since BFS will be
>>tested before the BFR first stage. #3 because Elon Musk likes to do
>>things that promote his products in a highly visible way. To be the
>>first to launch an land a reusable SSTO will be one for the record books
>>for sure. #4 Musk has already said that BFS will be SSTO capable.
>>
>
>Musk says a lot of things. Some of them turn out to be true.
>
Ah, the old "if he doesn't agree with me he's lying" fallacy. He's
made billions of dollars being 'wrong'. What have you made being
'right'?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Once into the breach: SSTO's (was more Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOCKail.com> - 2018-05-30 01:46 -0400
Re: Once into the breach: SSTO's (was more Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2018-06-01 20:07 +0000
Re: Once into the breach: SSTO's (was more Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 22:51 -0400
Re: Once into the breach: SSTO's (was more Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2018-06-02 16:19 +0000
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOCKail.com> - 2018-06-03 04:17 -0400
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 04:38 -0400
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 01:58 -0700
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 05:10 -0400
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 14:06 -0700
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 17:59 -0400
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:12 -0700
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 19:54 -0400
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 00:41 -0700
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2018-06-03 19:36 -0700
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 01:00 -0700
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2018-06-04 07:32 -0700
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 08:51 -0700
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-06-04 09:13 -0700
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 09:22 -0700
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 16:08 -0700
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 19:37 -0400
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-05 07:25 -0400
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 13:39 -0700
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-06 06:44 -0400
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 20:55 -0400
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 22:59 -0700
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 06:20 +0000
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-06 06:50 -0400
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 20:54 -0400
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 18:16 -0700
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-07 11:51 -0400
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2018-06-06 06:21 +0000
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 02:14 -0700
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-06 07:08 -0400
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2018-06-07 16:42 +0000
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 12:26 -0700
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOCKail.com> - 2018-06-10 20:16 -0400
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 20:13 -0700
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-06-04 15:40 +0000
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 16:11 -0700
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2018-06-03 10:29 +0000
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 09:25 -0400
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 14:21 -0700
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 18:19 -0400
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:15 -0700
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 19:55 -0400
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 00:44 -0700
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 14:58 -0700
Re: Once more into the breach: SSTO's (was Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-06-05 20:13 -0700
Re: Once into the breach: SSTO's (was more Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 14:59 -0700
Re: Once into the breach: SSTO's (was more Re: Life on Europa in scifi?) "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-06-05 20:13 -0700
csiph-web