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

Groups > sci.physics > #532474

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

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 21:43 +0000
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <todfhc-mj3.ln1@mail.specsol.com> (permalink)
References (8 earlier) <h1484bhh9d0kf43qopn6qjoa2ll0l5j3ai@4ax.com> <q4idhc-ehq.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <h7j84b9d18tasd10q3a7f547c4gcdjar1k@4ax.com> <744fhc-ei2.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <3rv94b5dqahnte0nj14iupa1vf4frrl986@4ax.com>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 18:58:47 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>>In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 04:45:46 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> 
>>>>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.
>>> 
>>> :"On 18 December 1958, the launch of Atlas 10B sent the missile 
>>> :into orbit around the Earth (without use of an upper stage) carrying 
>>> :the "SCORE" (Signal Communications by Orbiting Relay Equipment)
>>> :communications payload. 
>>> :Atlas 10B/SCORE, at 8,750 lb (3,970 kg) was the heaviest man-made 
>>> :object then in orbit, the first voice relay satellite, and the first man-made 
>>> :object in space easily visible to the naked eye due to the large, 
>>> :mirror-polished stainless steel tank."
>>> 
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-65_Atlas#Launch_history
>>> 
>>>         See "without use of upper stage".
>>> 
>>>         It was not an ICBM in that use.
>>
>>From your own link: "configured in an unusual "stage-and-a-half" or".
>>
>>A stage and a half is not single stage.
> 
>          The "or" was "parallel", to get around
> the fact that it was not two or more stages.

Semantics; it still doesn't fit the definition of single-stage-to-orbit.

>          But the Atlas was about as big as a
> pressurized tank could be without adding
> too much weight, that is why the more
> recent SSTO project was dropped.

Irrelevant.

>          If the two dropped engines weighed
> less than about 4000 pounds, the Atlas
> could have gone to low Earth orbit with
> them still attached.

Maybe, but it didn't.



-- 
Jim Pennino

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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 science—we 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 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 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 science—we 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 science—we 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 science—we 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