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

Groups > sci.physics > #530873 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#530873 — It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space

It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space
> http://phys.org/news/2015-11-rocket-sciencewe-space.html

   Rockets are a terrible way of getting to space.

> The SKYLON project relies on the development of its SABRE engine. The
> unique engine functions as either a plane engine or a rocket engine.
> The vehicle can take off from a runway like a plane (efficient) and
> fly as high and as fast as possible. Then the SKYLON plane switches
> its engines into rocket mode for the rest of its journey.
>
> The design shows enough promise that the European Space Agency and
> the UK Space Agency both recently invested in the concept. The
> company claims test flights could happen by 2019.
>
> Being more efficient means that it is possible to get all of your
> spacecraft and some cargo to orbit and back without having to
> jettison anything along the way. Being able to land the whole vehicle
> means you can use it again, allowing you to spread the cost of
> building it over many flights, just like a plane.
>

   Rockets are a terrible way of getting to space.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#530888

Dne 07/11/2015 v 15:38 Sam Wormley napsal(a):

> 
>    Rockets are a terrible way of getting to space.

Other ways are more terrible to perform.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#530897

On 11/7/2015 8:38 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space

>>
>> Being more efficient means that it is possible to get all of your
>> spacecraft and some cargo to orbit and back without having to
>> jettison anything along the way. Being able to land the whole vehicle
>> means you can use it again, allowing you to spread the cost of
>> building it over many flights, just like a plane.
>>
>
>    Rockets are a terrible way of getting to space.
>


NASA disagrees with you.

  the plane configuration is shown to be unsafe with the multiple 
catrosphic manned failures of NASA airplane like spacecraft.

Rockets are simpler, more reliable, faster, less complicated.

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

#530902 — Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space

On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 09:22:38 -0600, gilber34 wrote:

>On 11/7/2015 8:38 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space
>
>>>
>>> Being more efficient means that it is possible to get all of your
>>> spacecraft and some cargo to orbit and back without having to
>>> jettison anything along the way. Being able to land the whole vehicle
>>> means you can use it again, allowing you to spread the cost of
>>> building it over many flights, just like a plane.
>>>
>>
>>    Rockets are a terrible way of getting to space.
>>
>
>
>NASA disagrees with you.
>
>  the plane configuration is shown to be unsafe with the multiple 
>catrosphic manned failures of NASA airplane like spacecraft.
>
>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.
...
This means that it needs less total fuel to reach a given velocity
and/or altitude.

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

#530904

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

#530910 — 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]

#531033

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]

#531066

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]

#531087

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]

#531112 — 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]

#531117 — 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]

#531124 — 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]

#531126 — 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]

#531140 — 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]

#531167 — 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]

#531190 — 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]

#532228 — 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]

#532239 — 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]

#532240 — 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]

#532248 — 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]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web