Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #532283
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space |
| Date | 2015-11-12 04:45 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <q4idhc-ehq.ln1@mail.specsol.com> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <n20kje$1dh$1@speranza.aioe.org> <c43dhc-l1p.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <7bs74bphlv6e5c7v8dvkoq50r26lsfjsp5@4ax.com> <vv8dhc-qjp.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <h1484bhh9d0kf43qopn6qjoa2ll0l5j3ai@4ax.com> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote: > On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 02:09:35 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 00:29:32 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>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) uzytkownik jimp napisal: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>> >>> The original Atlas was a SSTO, >>> all it discarded was two of the three engines. >> >>Nope. > > :" It was a liquid-fuel rocket burning liquid oxygen and RP-1 > :in three engines configured in an unusual "stage-and-a-half" > :or "Parallel Staging" design: its two outboard booster engines > :were jettisoned during ascent, while its center sustainer engine, > :fuel tanks and other structural elements were retained into orbit. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_(rocket_family) > > > (correct the url) Doesn't address the point in question, try again. BTW, the "original Atlas" was an ICBM, not an orbital space vehicle. -- Jim Pennino
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 08:38 -0600
Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 16:01 +0100
Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-07 09:22 -0600
Re: It's not rocket sciencewe need a better way to get to space Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 10:39 -0500
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 sciencewe 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 sciencewe 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 sciencewe 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 Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 09:58 -0600
Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-07 10:01 -0600
Re: It's not rocket sciencewe need a better way to get to space Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 11:21 -0500
Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 10:23 -0600
Re: It's not rocket sciencewe need a better way to get to space Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 11:27 -0500
Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 10:29 -0600
Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-07 10:35 -0600
Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-08 14:01 +1100
Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 18:53 +0000
Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 14:09 -0600
Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 20:22 +0000
Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 14:41 -0600
Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 21:19 +0000
Re: It's not rocket sciencewe need a better way to get to space Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 18:58 -0500
Re: It's not rocket science--we need a better way to get to space "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 22:27 -0800
Re: It's not rocket science--we need a better way to get to space Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-09 16:39 +1100
Re: It's not rocket science--we need a better way to get to space "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 00:41 -0800
Re: It's not rocket science--we need a better way to get to space Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-09 23:16 +1100
csiph-web