Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #689363 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOCKail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-07 16:24 -0400 |
| Last post | 2018-06-18 15:38 -0700 |
| Articles | 10 on this page of 130 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Towards routine, reusable space launch. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOCKail.com> - 2018-06-07 16:24 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOCKail.com> - 2018-06-07 16:47 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 23:24 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-08 13:10 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-08 08:31 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 20:47 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-09 17:19 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-09 16:02 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-11 03:16 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-10 23:19 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2018-06-11 05:25 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-11 22:18 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 20:52 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-12 06:34 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-12 14:36 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 14:29 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-12 19:00 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-13 02:15 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 01:27 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-13 06:46 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-13 16:28 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 14:38 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-14 05:22 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-14 15:44 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-15 07:52 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-15 21:33 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-16 10:38 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-16 17:51 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 02:16 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-17 15:49 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-17 16:52 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-18 02:44 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 00:05 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-18 14:27 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 19:39 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 18:26 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-13 12:57 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 14:35 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-13 17:55 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 21:44 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-14 22:02 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-13 19:39 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 21:53 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-14 19:46 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-15 07:56 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-15 19:21 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-15 19:18 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-15 21:05 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-16 10:06 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-16 13:21 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-16 13:57 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-16 14:19 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. mvp@web1.calweb.com (Mike Van Pelt) - 2018-06-19 18:38 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-06-19 21:27 -0600
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-15 22:13 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 20:34 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-16 09:54 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-18 13:45 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-18 21:06 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 20:00 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-19 19:45 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-19 22:12 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-20 20:21 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 17:13 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-20 20:34 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-21 06:26 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 03:48 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-21 13:35 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-21 20:57 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-21 23:22 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-22 07:18 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-22 17:45 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-22 19:58 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-23 03:39 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-23 08:38 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-23 17:18 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-23 09:58 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-24 00:53 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-23 08:34 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-18 22:17 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 00:45 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-19 15:58 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 14:38 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-20 15:42 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-20 16:58 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2018-06-25 20:44 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 17:07 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-21 23:24 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 21:38 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-06-19 21:35 -0600
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2018-06-19 17:01 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-21 22:39 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 15:39 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-06-14 15:53 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-14 04:47 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 04:00 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-11 22:35 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 20:58 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-12 15:00 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 14:36 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-12 20:08 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 22:12 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) - 2018-06-15 18:59 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 12:13 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) - 2018-06-18 20:36 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 19:57 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) - 2018-06-25 21:17 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 15:52 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-11 07:49 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2018-06-11 16:36 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-11 14:02 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 17:23 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-11 21:20 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-06-11 19:38 -0600
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-11 22:50 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 21:03 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-12 06:44 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-12 09:57 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 17:52 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-12 15:20 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 14:47 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2018-06-12 19:43 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 14:52 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 16:05 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-13 06:41 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 14:36 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-06-09 09:34 -0600
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-09 15:56 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOCKail.com> - 2018-06-08 18:06 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-18 15:38 -0700
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-12 14:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <o6f0id9pp12elv3g417lcdip54v9p0bhpf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #690215 |
Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote on Tue, 12 Jun
2018 15:20:22 -0000 (UTC):
>For your reference, records indicate that
>Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> I have an engineering degree. When developing new things, engineers
>> work with what they have today because they've got schedules and
>> deadlines to meet. You're talking about technologies not yet invented.
>> That's research, not development. The two are not the same.
>>
>
>I never claimed they were.
>
Actually you are, but you're too thick to recognize the implications
of your position.
>
>The topic of the thread is *not* “what can
>I build today”, it’s “Towards routine, reusable space launch.” That
>has nothing to do with today’s technology, and nobody has made the
>case that continued use of rockets (even reusable ones) can make it
>happen.
>
You're not going to move "towards routine, reusable space launch" with
technologies that you CANNOT build today and that you cannot even
describe a scientific theoretical basis for. It has EVERYTHING to do
with today's technology and if you think there's something other than
rockets, either trot it out or STFU.
>
>>
>> Two different sets of requirements lead to two completely different
>> vehicles. That's how engineering optimization works.
>>
>
>Indeed. Which is why I argue that rockets alone are unlikely to be the
>only path to space. And they *definitely* are not the path to deep
>space.
>
Right now there IS no path to 'deep space'. It's sad, but get over
it.
>
>>
>> What you are trying to get me to admit is that eventually, some day,
>> there may be something better. Sure, there might. Also, monkeys might
>> fly out of my butt.
>>
>
>Really? You think new technologies are butt-monkeys unlikely? Then
>let’s get you retired, man, because you are *not* allowing your field
>to innovate nearly as much as it needs to.
>
He thinks that your 'magic' technology that breaks the laws of physics
is "butt-monkeys unlikely". I agree with him. So does anyone sane
with any knowledge of science and engineering.
>
>>
>> I'm not waiting for sci-fi to become reality. I'm
>> working with what I've got today. Again, that's what engineers do.
>>
>
>Then you should be looking in engineering newsgroups for that kind of
>discussion. Science is about more than just using your current tools.
>
I don't think you know what science is. What it is NOT is airy
speculation about 'new magic' in the sweet by and by.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-12 19:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pfp7o8$ttc$1@newsreader5.netcologne.de> |
| In reply to | #690183 |
Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> schrieb: > In article <pfmubd$62p$1@dont-email.me>, droleary@ > 2017usenet1.subsume.com says... >> >> For your reference, records indicate that >> Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >> >> > Balloon launch isn't worth the trades which have to be made, IMHO. >> >> Certainly not today, no, or people would be doing it. But as I keep >> saying, new technologies keep popping up all the time that might make >> it viable in the future, at least for a few use cases. > > I have an engineering degree. So do I (PhD in chemical engineering). > When developing new things, engineers > work with what they have today because they've got schedules and > deadlines to meet. The world would be a poorer place if that was the case. > You're talking about technologies not yet invented. > That's research, not development. The two are not the same. How would you classify chemical process development? Seems that, according to your defiinition, I am doing more research than I thought :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-12 14:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <krf0id94kqjibilgdcdt8fcss62559cuvk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #690268 |
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote on Tue, 12 Jun 2018
19:43:04 -0000 (UTC):
>Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> schrieb:
>> In article <pfmubd$62p$1@dont-email.me>, droleary@
>> 2017usenet1.subsume.com says...
>>>
>>> For your reference, records indicate that
>>> Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Balloon launch isn't worth the trades which have to be made, IMHO.
>>>
>>> Certainly not today, no, or people would be doing it. But as I keep
>>> saying, new technologies keep popping up all the time that might make
>>> it viable in the future, at least for a few use cases.
>>
>> I have an engineering degree.
>>
>
>So do I (PhD in chemical engineering).
>
That's nice. What would be your reaction if I speculated about a
chemical with 'magic' properties that could be used to build a space
tether here on Earth (I say 'magic' because it requires more strength
in tension than is theoretically possible)?
>
>>
>> When developing new things, engineers
>> work with what they have today because they've got schedules and
>> deadlines to meet.
>>
>
>The world would be a poorer place if that was the case.
>
That IS the case. You're a chemical engineer. When you need to
design a new industrial process to produce some chemical, do you run
off and try to pull something out of your ass or do you start with
known reaction pathways and mechanisms?
>
>>
>> You're talking about technologies not yet invented.
>> That's research, not development. The two are not the same.
>>
>
>How would you classify chemical process development? Seems that,
>according to your defiinition, I am doing more research than I
>thought :-)
>
You're certainly doing SOME research, but I assume what you're doing
is trying to come up with ways to optimize known reaction pathways so
that the one you want 'wins'. In other words, you're starting with
what you know today rather than postulating some undiscovered chemical
reaction.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-12 16:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <p3h0iddsvd8u2pvijb8bb7cnberdqv2sr9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #689678 |
Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote on Sat, 9 Jun
2018 17:19:39 -0000 (UTC):
>For your reference, records indicate that
>Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote on Fri, 8 Jun
>> 2018 13:10:48 -0000 (UTC):
>>
>> >What are the actual numbers when it comes to savings from a reusable
>> >rocket?
>> >
>>
>> That depends on a lot of things.
>>
>
>Well, sure, but it always helps to have some data to work with before
>beginning an optimization process. Best/worst cases or averages or
>whatever. What the savings is related to the total cost of the launch
>is going to be guiding factor on how much effort it makes sense to
>expend to re-use different parts of the system.
>
When I say it depends on a lot of things, I meant exactly that. You
can't 'invent' data. Space Shuttle was supposedly 'partly reusable',
but it was MORE expensive than throwing away hardware with similar
capabilities. SpaceX seems to think that they can reduce the cost of
a launch by a third by reusing first stages (and that was before they
were optimized for reuse). They think that BFR/BFR Spaceship will
cost less than 1% of the hardware price per flight (a fully reusable
system good for 100 launches before servicing). Pick your poison.
>> >It?d also be interesting to know how new technologies might
>> >impact the economics of launching items into space (including just making
>> >disposable launch vehicles much cheaper).
>> >
>>
>> Real reuse will always be cheaper. If you can make disposable launch
>> vehicles much cheaper, the same technologies allow making reusable
>> launch vehicles much cheaper.
>
>That is non-obvious. Ideally, I would think a “zero waste” system
>would be cheapest; every kg of mass that gets sent up either stays up
>(doing something useful) or was the fuel. All this booster landing
>(and subsequent refurbishing for relaunch) we’re seeing, while cool,
>is definitely *not* the most efficient use of resources.
>
Yes, magic would be more efficient, but we don't have magic.
>> >Once you start to contemplate
>> >the need for multiple daily launches, even recovering boosters to reuse
>> >them seems like a slow and labor-intensive process.
>> >
>>
>> But orders of magnitude faster than throwing them away and building a
>> new one.
>
>But that’s still assuming old technologies rather than new ones. You
>don’t “throw away” a space elevator.
>
You also can't build one without 'magic' because it is impossible for
materials to be strong enough.
>
>Nor a mag-lev cannon.
>
Now the payload needs to be 'magic' to withstand the launch.
>
>I’m not
>sure how viable a high-altitude balloon launch would be, but it may
>also be cheaper than traditional first-stage rockets.
>
I'm sure. It doesn't accomplish what a first stage accomplishes, so
it doesn't really matter if it's cheaper or not. What it's not is
'effective'.
>> >On the path to a
>> >space elevator, it seems like there should be many more ways to reach
>> >escape velocity that do a better job than what Musk is doing today.
>> >
>>
>> You've discovered a good supply of unobtainium, have you? Otherwise,
>> rockets are your man for getting stuff to orbit for the foreseeable
>> future.
>>
>
>It’s always a good idea to noodle around with other technologies, no
>matter how impossible they appear to be today.
>
Building a tether on Earth requires materials that are stronger than
materials can theoretically be. Noodle all you like. Basic laws of
physics aren't going to change no matter how hard you wish.
>
>Because, yes, rockets
>are the way to get to orbit, but I’m most interested in the
>*unforeseeable* future that has humans on other planets around other
>stars. Just being satisfied with rockets is not going to make that
>happen.
>
When you're in entirely the wrong newsgroup. You need something that
starts with 'alt' or 'rec'.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-13 06:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.358abee5524d287b989acf@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #690342 |
In article <p3h0iddsvd8u2pvijb8bb7cnberdqv2sr9@4ax.com>, fjmccall@gmail.com says... > > > >Because, yes, rockets > >are the way to get to orbit, but I?m most interested in the > >*unforeseeable* future that has humans on other planets around other > >stars. Just being satisfied with rockets is not going to make that > >happen. > > > > When you're in entirely the wrong newsgroup. You need something that > starts with 'alt' or 'rec'. > > Unfortunately, rec.arts.sf.science is in the stupid distribution list of the posts in this thread. I've removed it from this reply. 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]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-13 14:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <qh33id5p63buahsqu5505n1ehgs91ffrq1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #690397 |
Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote on Wed, 13 Jun 2018 06:41:27 -0400: >In article <p3h0iddsvd8u2pvijb8bb7cnberdqv2sr9@4ax.com>, >fjmccall@gmail.com says... >> > >> >Because, yes, rockets >> >are the way to get to orbit, but I?m most interested in the >> >*unforeseeable* future that has humans on other planets around other >> >stars. Just being satisfied with rockets is not going to make that >> >happen. >> > >> >> When you're in entirely the wrong newsgroup. You need something that >> starts with 'alt' or 'rec'. >> > >Unfortunately, rec.arts.sf.science is in the stupid distribution list of >the posts in this thread. I've removed it from this reply. > I know where the git is posting from. I'm trying to make the point that he shouldn't be posting HERE. -- You are What you do When it counts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 09:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <fo2adqFki2aU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689459 |
Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote: >For your reference, records indicate that >"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOCKail.com> wrote: > >> Several companies are proposing satellite megaconstellations that would >> require hundreds to thousands of communications satellites. This may finally >> provide the impetus to produce reusable launchers. > >What are the actual numbers when it comes to savings from a reusable >rocket? It’d also be interesting to know how new technologies might >impact the economics of launching items into space (including just making >disposable launch vehicles much cheaper). Once you start to contemplate >the need for multiple daily launches, even recovering boosters to reuse >them seems like a slow and labor-intensive process. On the path to a >space elevator, it seems like there should be many more ways to reach >escape velocity that do a better job than what Musk is doing today. "Recovering" them? In Musk's version, they land themselves near the re-assembly plant. -- We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 15:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3585faf19e7ad76e989ac0@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #689653 |
In article <fo2adqFki2aU1@mid.individual.net>, gossg@gossg.org says... > > Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote: > > >For your reference, records indicate that > >"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOCKail.com> wrote: > > > >> Several companies are proposing satellite megaconstellations that would > >> require hundreds to thousands of communications satellites. This may finally > >> provide the impetus to produce reusable launchers. > > > >What are the actual numbers when it comes to savings from a reusable > >rocket? It?d also be interesting to know how new technologies might > >impact the economics of launching items into space (including just making > >disposable launch vehicles much cheaper). Once you start to contemplate > >the need for multiple daily launches, even recovering boosters to reuse > >them seems like a slow and labor-intensive process. On the path to a > >space elevator, it seems like there should be many more ways to reach > >escape velocity that do a better job than what Musk is doing today. > > "Recovering" them? In Musk's version, they land themselves near the > re-assembly plant. News this week of SpaceX proposing new KSC facilities for Block 5 boosters. My guess is they won't be shipping them back to California until they're ready for refurbishment. If they ever get to that point. 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]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOCKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 18:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pfeukn$9ql$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #689363 |
In that discussion I forgot the key point. The most important factor in regards to cost is not the development cost. The key cost factor is what they would charge per flight for a reusable launcher. Robert Zubrin made this point insightfully in one of his books. He recounts that he made the argument for reusable launchers in his former job with one of the big launch companies. He argued that they could cut the cost of launch by an order of magnitude. The company execs responded: why would we do that? Their view was their revenue would then be slashed by a factor of ten. They were assuming the market would still be the same but they would be getting one-tenth the revenue. So the OldSpace companies were acting quite rationally in a business sense in discounting reusability. They were saying the market was not enough to make it advantageous to them. But if there were a large market then they would make more money making more launchers at the lower price. That is, the price would be reduced by a factor of ten but the number of launches would be increased by more than a factor of ten. Also, the importance of the large market and lowered prices for satellite launches extends beyond that of just the satellite market. By making launches at such reduced prices, that increases the possible market for passenger flights to space. So the impending megaconstellation launches may also bring to fruition the long desired routine passenger flights to space. Bob Clark ------------------------------------------------------------------ Single-stage-to-orbit was already shown possible 50 years ago with the Titan II first stage. In fact, contrary to popular belief SSTO's are actually easy. Just use the most efficient engines and stages at the same time, and the result will automatically be SSTO. Blog: Http://Exoscientist.blogspot.com ------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 15:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <69377928-0734-4886-8de2-2c8ea2cca0f9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #689363 |
Do you know what rocket smoke it? I really do not know exactly what the effenicy of a rocket engine it since everyone is concealing the number but I would guess by .01 % or less. Shit that is so lame it makes me want to take a shit. What about you. Do rockets engines make you get an erection of something?
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web