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

Groups > sci.physics > #568169 > unrolled thread

Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

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: Successful flight by Blue Origin "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-04-05 21:49 -0400
    Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-04-06 21:30 +0000
      Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-04-07 06:07 -0400
        Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 12:45 -0700
          Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Thomas Womack <twomack@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-04-08 16:41 +0100
          Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-04-08 18:27 -0400
        Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> - 2016-04-07 17:43 +0000
          Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 12:56 -0700
            Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-04-08 18:26 -0400
              Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-04-10 08:40 -0400
                Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-04-11 06:11 -0400
                  Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-04-11 06:37 -0400
            Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-08 23:13 +0000
              Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 22:01 -0700
                Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 06:27 +0000
                  Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 08:08 -0700
                    Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 19:03 +0000
                      Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 13:20 -0700
                        Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-09 21:17 +0000
                          Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 20:22 -0700
                            Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 06:11 +0000
                              Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 06:43 -0700
                                Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 17:09 +0000
                                  Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 17:39 -0700
                                    Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 19:13 +0000
                                      Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 19:59 -0700
                                        Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 06:10 +0000
                                          Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 07:12 -0700
                                            Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 18:25 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#568169 — Re: Successful flight by Blue Origin

Blue Origin once again relaunched the same copy of New Shepard:

Why Blue Origin’s latest launch is a huge deal for cheap space access.
Blue already proved it could land. Now it's showing it can rinse and repeat.
by Eric Berger - Apr 2, 2016 3:36pm EDT
[quote]After the January flight, Blue Origin's founder Jeff Bezos told Ars 
that refurbishing the propulsion module after that first flight cost “in the 
small tens of thousands of dollars.” His technicians never even removed the 
engine from the vehicle. “We inspected it and said, 'Let's go.' It was 
designed to be reusable from the start.”[/quote]
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/why-blue-origins-latest-launch-is-a-huge-deal-for-cheap-space-access/

Blue Origin has proven relanding is not particularly hard IF you have 
hovering ability.

On the other hand, "suicide-burn" is the appropriate description for 
SpaceX's Falcon 9 landing technique, not the "hover-slam" term SpaceX has 
been using.

Since the F9 can not hover, it is inappropriate to include the word "hover" 
in the landing description. A more appropriate name, aside from 
suicide-burn,  would be "land-or-slam", since without hovering ability you 
only get one chance at it. You stick the landing on the first try or you 
crash and burn.

SpaceX needs to stop trying to reinvent the wheel, and investigate means of 
giving the F9 hovering capability.


   Bob Clark


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital 
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:

Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Robert Clark"  wrote in message news:n3upd4$hgo$2@dont-email.me...


Kudos to Blue Origin. This is a MAJOR milestone towards reusable rockets.
The key capability that allowed the New Shepard to land successfully while
SpaceX failed is hovering ability. SpaceX would already have succeeded if
they had given the F9 the ability to hover:

Hovering capability for the reusable Falcon 9, page 2: Merlin engines in a
pressure-fed mode?
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2015/07/hovering-capability-for-reusable-falcon.html


  Bob Clark

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A mission to Europa could result in the most important scientific advance in
human history, dwarfing even the Apollo missions, to discover life on
another world. By commercial space, launch and spacecraft costs can be
slashed by a factor of 10 or more. This would be a cost that could be
financed privately. And at costs this low it can even be done at a profit:

Low cost Europa lander missions.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2015/02/low-cost-europa-lander-missions.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Jeff Findley"  wrote in message
news:MPG.30beb884bcf464f8989913@news.eternal-september.org...

I saw this on Twitter this morning.

Blue Origin - Historic Rocket Landing - Published on Nov 24, 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pillaOxGCo

Yes, I know it's only suborbital, but a successful launch, separation,
descent, and landing from 100 km is nothing to sneeze at.

Jeff
-- 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#568405

Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> schrieb:

> SpaceX needs to stop trying to reinvent the wheel, and investigate means of 
> giving the F9 hovering capability.

One second of hovering costs 9.81 m/s of delta v.

If your aim is to achieve orbit with a reusable rocket and a reasonable
payload, you need to save as much delta v as possible.

If you aim is to ferry up tourists for a few minutes of zero g, you
don't need to economize as much.

Both choices are reasonable for what the respective companies want to
do.

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

#568519

In article <ne3v51$216$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de>, 
tkoenig@netcologne.de says...
> 
> Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> schrieb:
> 
> > SpaceX needs to stop trying to reinvent the wheel, and investigate means of 
> > giving the F9 hovering capability.
> 
> One second of hovering costs 9.81 m/s of delta v.

Yes, but hovering an almost empty first stage with no payload on top 
requires far less fuel and oxidizer than launch.  Note that only one 
(the center engine) out of nine of the first stage engines are used for 
landing.  On top of that, the engine is throttled down as much as it can 
be. So, fuel consumption upon landing is far, far less than during 
launch.
 
> If your aim is to achieve orbit with a reusable rocket and a reasonable
> payload, you need to save as much delta v as possible.

Or make everything, but the payload, bigger.  
 
> If you aim is to ferry up tourists for a few minutes of zero g, you
> don't need to economize as much.

This is because a sub-orbital hop requires far less delta-V than 
attaining orbital velocity.  
 
> Both choices are reasonable for what the respective companies want to
> do.

They're reasonable if they work.  SpaceX is trying to avoid adding other 
engines to the Falcon 9 first stage.  The stage could hover and land, 
for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first stage.  But, 
they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first stage carries.  
This would mean adding completely different tanks, plumbing, and etc. 
for those engines.  Also, if Super Dracos were used, it would be 
advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent any remaining LOX in 
the tanks before landing.  So, any "leftover" fuel and oxidizer would be 
"wasted".  In my book, this would not be a good trade to make.  

All of that added complexity and added mass would cost money compared to 
using "leftover" fuel and oxidizer and an engine that is already there 
for launch.  

Jeff
-- 
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.  
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, 
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

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

#568653

Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:

>In article <ne3v51$216$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de>, 
>tkoenig@netcologne.de says...
>> 
>> Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> schrieb:
>> 
>> > SpaceX needs to stop trying to reinvent the wheel, and investigate means of 
>> > giving the F9 hovering capability.
>> 
>> One second of hovering costs 9.81 m/s of delta v.
>
>Yes, but hovering an almost empty first stage with no payload on top 
>requires far less fuel and oxidizer than launch.  Note that only one 
>(the center engine) out of nine of the first stage engines are used for 
>landing.  On top of that, the engine is throttled down as much as it can 
>be. So, fuel consumption upon landing is far, far less than during 
>launch.
> 

SpaceX plans to reserve about 10% of the fuel load to get the first
stage back down.  If someone needs more payload than that calculation
allows, they will have to buy off the booster because it will be
expended.  That's going to be MUCH more expensive, so people are going
to size their loads to not require it.

Nothing says you have to use the full capacity of the booster for
payload.  Fuel is cheap.  Hardware is expensive.


-- 
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable 
 man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, 
 all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
                                      --George Bernard Shaw

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

#568947

In article <brddgb96l4aj50rcpdnbfum6e7fubraf0k@4ax.com>,
Fred J. McCall  <fmccall@gmail.com> wrote:

>Nothing says you have to use the full capacity of the booster for
>payload.  Fuel is cheap.  Hardware is expensive.

I think there's quite an interesting question as to what you can do
with, say, launches which cost a million dollars and which put
precisely one ton in a 1m x 1m x 2m volume into LEO.  It's certainly
not straightforward and I'd be unsure whether it's possible to put
into one ton enough of a spacecraft to be able to rendezvous with
something else and attach the remaining payload to it.

Obviously the first priority would be to get something assembled which
is large enough to stay on orbit indefinitely, do all the difficult
bits of the rendezvous, and let you make the small spacecraft as
stupid as possible.

Almost every imaginable space concept was designed by bored graduate
students in the sixties, I'd be quite intrigued to see how little you
have to bolt around a quantity of liquid xenon to make it reasonable
for some other spacecraft to collect and transfer to its own internal
tankage the liquid xenon.

Tom

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

#569093

In article <brddgb96l4aj50rcpdnbfum6e7fubraf0k@4ax.com>, 
fjmccall@gmail.com says...
> 
> Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> >In article <ne3v51$216$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de>, 
> >tkoenig@netcologne.de says...
> >> 
> >> Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> schrieb:
> >> 
> >> > SpaceX needs to stop trying to reinvent the wheel, and investigate means of 
> >> > giving the F9 hovering capability.
> >> 
> >> One second of hovering costs 9.81 m/s of delta v.
> >
> >Yes, but hovering an almost empty first stage with no payload on top 
> >requires far less fuel and oxidizer than launch.  Note that only one 
> >(the center engine) out of nine of the first stage engines are used for 
> >landing.  On top of that, the engine is throttled down as much as it can 
> >be. So, fuel consumption upon landing is far, far less than during 
> >launch.
> > 
> 
> SpaceX plans to reserve about 10% of the fuel load to get the first
> stage back down.  If someone needs more payload than that calculation
> allows, they will have to buy off the booster because it will be
> expended.  That's going to be MUCH more expensive, so people are going
> to size their loads to not require it.
> 
> Nothing says you have to use the full capacity of the booster for
> payload.  Fuel is cheap.  Hardware is expensive.

Agreed.  And if Falcon 9 is too small, buy a Falcon Heavy launch, 
assuming that its development progresses this year.

Jeff
-- 
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.  
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, 
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

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

#568938

In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
> They're reasonable if they work.  SpaceX is trying to avoid adding
> other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage.  The stage could hover
> and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first
> stage.  But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first
> stage carries.  This would mean adding completely different tanks,
> plumbing, and etc.  for those engines.  Also, if Super Dracos were
> used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent
> any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing.  So, any "leftover"
> fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted".  In my book, this would not be
> a good trade to make.

If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover,
wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a
deeply-throttled Merlin?

rick jones
-- 
a wide gulf separates "what if" from "if only"
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...

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

#569060

Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> wrote:

>In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>> They're reasonable if they work.  SpaceX is trying to avoid adding
>> other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage.  The stage could hover
>> and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first
>> stage.  But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first
>> stage carries.  This would mean adding completely different tanks,
>> plumbing, and etc.  for those engines.  Also, if Super Dracos were
>> used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent
>> any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing.  So, any "leftover"
>> fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted".  In my book, this would not be
>> a good trade to make.
>
>If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover,
>wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a
>deeply-throttled Merlin?
>

Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you
start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine.


-- 
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable 
 man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, 
 all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
                                      --George Bernard Shaw

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

#569092

In article <d53ggbdkh7rh268kiug7h5kpsoofgqd4e8@4ax.com>, 
fjmccall@gmail.com says...
> 
> Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> wrote:
> 
> >In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
> >> They're reasonable if they work.  SpaceX is trying to avoid adding
> >> other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage.  The stage could hover
> >> and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first
> >> stage.  But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first
> >> stage carries.  This would mean adding completely different tanks,
> >> plumbing, and etc.  for those engines.  Also, if Super Dracos were
> >> used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent
> >> any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing.  So, any "leftover"
> >> fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted".  In my book, this would not be
> >> a good trade to make.
> >
> >If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover,
> >wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a
> >deeply-throttled Merlin?
> >
> 
> Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you
> start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine.

And today's successful barge landing proves they don't *need* to hover!

http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/8/11392138/spacex-landing-success-falcon-
9-rocket-barge-at-sea

I watched it live and it looked like a very nice landing.  

Jeff
-- 
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.  
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, 
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

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

#569413

If they can do this 4 or 5 times in a row even if they have 1 failure after 
that, then might be adequate for an unmanned booster. More likely though 
they'll have couple of successes then a failure. Suicide-burn is inherently 
less reliable than a hovering approach.

  Bob Clark



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital 
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:

Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Jeff Findley"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.3171fa19623b53449899ab@news.eternal-september.org...

In article <d53ggbdkh7rh268kiug7h5kpsoofgqd4e8@4ax.com>,
fjmccall@gmail.com says...
>
> Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> wrote:
>
> >In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
> >> They're reasonable if they work.  SpaceX is trying to avoid adding
> >> other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage.  The stage could hover
> >> and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first
> >> stage.  But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first
> >> stage carries.  This would mean adding completely different tanks,
> >> plumbing, and etc.  for those engines.  Also, if Super Dracos were
> >> used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent
> >> any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing.  So, any "leftover"
> >> fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted".  In my book, this would not be
> >> a good trade to make.
> >
> >If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover,
> >wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a
> >deeply-throttled Merlin?
> >
>
> Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you
> start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine.

And today's successful barge landing proves they don't *need* to hover!

http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/8/11392138/spacex-landing-success-falcon-
9-rocket-barge-at-sea

I watched it live and it looked like a very nice landing.

Jeff
-- 

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

#569666

In article <nedhe6$rve$2@dont-email.me>, 
rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com says...
> 
> If they can do this 4 or 5 times in a row even if they have 1 failure after 
> that, then might be adequate for an unmanned booster. More likely though 
> they'll have couple of successes then a failure. Suicide-burn is inherently 
> less reliable than a hovering approach.

Agreed.  But that said, space shuttle glide landings were inherently 
less reliable than powered landings, yet it was "safe enough" that we 
did not see a landing failure during that program.  

SpaceX is gaining experience with this mode of recovery even if a thrust 
to weight greater than one is not ideal.  On their next reusable launch 
vehicle design, they should have the opportunity to make improvements.  
Exactly what improvements may very well depend on how the rest of the 
Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy program pans out.
 
Jeff
-- 
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.  
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, 
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

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

#569669

"Jeff Findley"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.317542546b3a01499899ba@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>In article <nedhe6$rve$2@dont-email.me>,
>rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com says...
>>
>> If they can do this 4 or 5 times in a row even if they have 1 failure 
>> after
>> that, then might be adequate for an unmanned booster. More likely though
>> they'll have couple of successes then a failure. Suicide-burn is 
>> inherently
>> less reliable than a hovering approach.
>
>Agreed.  But that said, space shuttle glide landings were inherently
>less reliable than powered landings, yet it was "safe enough" that we
>did not see a landing failure during that program.

To fair we'd had over 8 decades of experience of gliding/horizontal landings 
and we had the Mark I eyeball in the cockpit to respond to unknowns.

>
>SpaceX is gaining experience with this mode of recovery even if a thrust
>to weight greater than one is not ideal.  On their next reusable launch
>vehicle design, they should have the opportunity to make improvements.
>Exactly what improvements may very well depend on how the rest of the
>Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy program pans out.
>

Ayup.

>Jeff

-- 
Greg D. Moore                   http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net 

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

#569105

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> wrote:
> 
>>In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>> They're reasonable if they work.  SpaceX is trying to avoid adding
>>> other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage.  The stage could hover
>>> and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first
>>> stage.  But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first
>>> stage carries.  This would mean adding completely different tanks,
>>> plumbing, and etc.  for those engines.  Also, if Super Dracos were
>>> used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent
>>> any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing.  So, any "leftover"
>>> fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted".  In my book, this would not be
>>> a good trade to make.
>>
>>If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover,
>>wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a
>>deeply-throttled Merlin?
>>
> 
> Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you
> start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine.
 
Yet you were just saying in another thread space stuff doesn't have
bureaucrat bullshit.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#569138

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> They're reasonable if they work.  SpaceX is trying to avoid adding
>>>> other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage.  The stage could hover
>>>> and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first
>>>> stage.  But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first
>>>> stage carries.  This would mean adding completely different tanks,
>>>> plumbing, and etc.  for those engines.  Also, if Super Dracos were
>>>> used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent
>>>> any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing.  So, any "leftover"
>>>> fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted".  In my book, this would not be
>>>> a good trade to make.
>>>
>>>If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover,
>>>wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a
>>>deeply-throttled Merlin?
>>>
>> 
>> Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you
>> start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine.
> 
>Yet you were just saying in another thread space stuff doesn't have
>bureaucrat bullshit.
> 

Cite?


-- 
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
 your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
                             -- Mark Twain

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

#569199

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>> They're reasonable if they work.  SpaceX is trying to avoid adding
>>>>> other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage.  The stage could hover
>>>>> and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first
>>>>> stage.  But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first
>>>>> stage carries.  This would mean adding completely different tanks,
>>>>> plumbing, and etc.  for those engines.  Also, if Super Dracos were
>>>>> used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent
>>>>> any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing.  So, any "leftover"
>>>>> fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted".  In my book, this would not be
>>>>> a good trade to make.
>>>>
>>>>If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover,
>>>>wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a
>>>>deeply-throttled Merlin?
>>>>
>>> 
>>> Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you
>>> start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine.
>> 
>>Yet you were just saying in another thread space stuff doesn't have
>>bureaucrat bullshit.
>> 
> 
> Cite?
 
Sure, it was by someone called Fred J. McCall talking about nuclear
reactors on Mars being cheap for lack of bureaucrat bullshit.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#569224

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> 
>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>> They're reasonable if they work.  SpaceX is trying to avoid adding
>>>>>> other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage.  The stage could hover
>>>>>> and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first
>>>>>> stage.  But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first
>>>>>> stage carries.  This would mean adding completely different tanks,
>>>>>> plumbing, and etc.  for those engines.  Also, if Super Dracos were
>>>>>> used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent
>>>>>> any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing.  So, any "leftover"
>>>>>> fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted".  In my book, this would not be
>>>>>> a good trade to make.
>>>>>
>>>>>If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover,
>>>>>wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a
>>>>>deeply-throttled Merlin?
>>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you
>>>> start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine.
>>> 
>>>Yet you were just saying in another thread space stuff doesn't have
>>>bureaucrat bullshit.
>>> 
>> 
>> Cite?
>>
> 
>Sure, it was by someone called Fred J. McCall talking about nuclear
>reactors on Mars being cheap for lack of bureaucrat bullshit.
> 

Wow, you REALLY don't comprehend English, do you?  Either that or
you're just so intellectually dishonest everything sounds different to
you.  Note that even if you interpret that one instance the way you do
(which is twisted) it doesn't say what you claim I've said.

Stop making up lies, Chimp.


-- 
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
 your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
                             -- Mark Twain

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

#569265

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> 
>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> They're reasonable if they work.  SpaceX is trying to avoid adding
>>>>>>> other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage.  The stage could hover
>>>>>>> and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first
>>>>>>> stage.  But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first
>>>>>>> stage carries.  This would mean adding completely different tanks,
>>>>>>> plumbing, and etc.  for those engines.  Also, if Super Dracos were
>>>>>>> used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent
>>>>>>> any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing.  So, any "leftover"
>>>>>>> fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted".  In my book, this would not be
>>>>>>> a good trade to make.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover,
>>>>>>wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a
>>>>>>deeply-throttled Merlin?
>>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>> Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you
>>>>> start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine.
>>>> 
>>>>Yet you were just saying in another thread space stuff doesn't have
>>>>bureaucrat bullshit.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Cite?
>>>
>> 
>>Sure, it was by someone called Fred J. McCall talking about nuclear
>>reactors on Mars being cheap for lack of bureaucrat bullshit.
>> 
> 
> Wow, you REALLY don't comprehend English, do you?  Either that or
> you're just so intellectually dishonest everything sounds different to
> you.  Note that even if you interpret that one instance the way you do
> (which is twisted) it doesn't say what you claim I've said.
> 
> Stop making up lies, Chimp.
 
Stop taking mind altering drugs, space cadet.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#569280

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> 
>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> They're reasonable if they work.  SpaceX is trying to avoid adding
>>>>>>>> other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage.  The stage could hover
>>>>>>>> and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first
>>>>>>>> stage.  But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first
>>>>>>>> stage carries.  This would mean adding completely different tanks,
>>>>>>>> plumbing, and etc.  for those engines.  Also, if Super Dracos were
>>>>>>>> used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent
>>>>>>>> any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing.  So, any "leftover"
>>>>>>>> fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted".  In my book, this would not be
>>>>>>>> a good trade to make.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover,
>>>>>>>wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a
>>>>>>>deeply-throttled Merlin?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you
>>>>>> start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine.
>>>>> 
>>>>>Yet you were just saying in another thread space stuff doesn't have
>>>>>bureaucrat bullshit.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Cite?
>>>>
>>> 
>>>Sure, it was by someone called Fred J. McCall talking about nuclear
>>>reactors on Mars being cheap for lack of bureaucrat bullshit.
>>> 
>> 
>> Wow, you REALLY don't comprehend English, do you?  Either that or
>> you're just so intellectually dishonest everything sounds different to
>> you.  Note that even if you interpret that one instance the way you do
>> (which is twisted) it doesn't say what you claim I've said.
>> 
>> Stop making up lies, Chimp.
> 
>Stop taking mind altering drugs, space cadet.
>

Stop begging to suck my dick, Chimp.


-- 
You are 
What you do 
When it counts.

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

#569301

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> 
>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> They're reasonable if they work.  SpaceX is trying to avoid adding
>>>>>>>>> other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage.  The stage could hover
>>>>>>>>> and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first
>>>>>>>>> stage.  But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first
>>>>>>>>> stage carries.  This would mean adding completely different tanks,
>>>>>>>>> plumbing, and etc.  for those engines.  Also, if Super Dracos were
>>>>>>>>> used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent
>>>>>>>>> any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing.  So, any "leftover"
>>>>>>>>> fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted".  In my book, this would not be
>>>>>>>>> a good trade to make.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover,
>>>>>>>>wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a
>>>>>>>>deeply-throttled Merlin?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you
>>>>>>> start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>Yet you were just saying in another thread space stuff doesn't have
>>>>>>bureaucrat bullshit.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cite?
>>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>Sure, it was by someone called Fred J. McCall talking about nuclear
>>>>reactors on Mars being cheap for lack of bureaucrat bullshit.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Wow, you REALLY don't comprehend English, do you?  Either that or
>>> you're just so intellectually dishonest everything sounds different to
>>> you.  Note that even if you interpret that one instance the way you do
>>> (which is twisted) it doesn't say what you claim I've said.
>>> 
>>> Stop making up lies, Chimp.
>> 
>>Stop taking mind altering drugs, space cadet.
>>
> 
> Stop begging to suck my dick, Chimp.
 
Sounds like someone would really like being in an all male isolated
environment.

Go have your fun, I'm not prejudiced against the LGBT community.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#569354

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> 
>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> They're reasonable if they work.  SpaceX is trying to avoid adding
>>>>>>>>>> other engines to the Falcon 9 first stage.  The stage could hover
>>>>>>>>>> and land, for example, if it added Super Draco engines to the first
>>>>>>>>>> stage.  But, they require different fuel and oxidizer than the first
>>>>>>>>>> stage carries.  This would mean adding completely different tanks,
>>>>>>>>>> plumbing, and etc.  for those engines.  Also, if Super Dracos were
>>>>>>>>>> used, it would be advantageous to deplete the kerosene and then vent
>>>>>>>>>> any remaining LOX in the tanks before landing.  So, any "leftover"
>>>>>>>>>> fuel and oxidizer would be "wasted".  In my book, this would not be
>>>>>>>>>> a good trade to make.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If one wanted to give the Falcon 9 first stage the ability to hover,
>>>>>>>>>wouldn't the most straightforward way to do that be create a
>>>>>>>>>deeply-throttled Merlin?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Straightforward, perhaps, but it's a very big design change so you
>>>>>>>> start with having to requalify as if it's a whole new engine.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>Yet you were just saying in another thread space stuff doesn't have
>>>>>>>bureaucrat bullshit.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Cite?
>>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>>Sure, it was by someone called Fred J. McCall talking about nuclear
>>>>>reactors on Mars being cheap for lack of bureaucrat bullshit.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Wow, you REALLY don't comprehend English, do you?  Either that or
>>>> you're just so intellectually dishonest everything sounds different to
>>>> you.  Note that even if you interpret that one instance the way you do
>>>> (which is twisted) it doesn't say what you claim I've said.
>>>> 
>>>> Stop making up lies, Chimp.
>>> 
>>>Stop taking mind altering drugs, space cadet.
>>>
>> 
>> Stop begging to suck my dick, Chimp.
> 
>Sounds like someone would really like being in an all male isolated
>environment.
>

Yeah, but it doesn't matter how much you beg.  You're not my type.  I
prefer them female, smart, cute, and human.  You miss on all four.

>
>Go have your fun, I'm not prejudiced against the LGBT community.
>

And yet you toss it off like you think it's an insult.  You need to
leave denial behind, chimp, and stop compensating so hard.


-- 
You are 
What you do 
When it counts.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web