Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #585003 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-15 11:47 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-06-17 06:25 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 196 — 13 participants |
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.
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-06-15 11:47 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-15 18:02 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-15 18:53 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-15 19:41 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-06-15 20:12 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-15 22:18 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-16 05:57 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 08:47 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-18 12:59 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 08:45 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-19 13:49 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 10:56 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-20 15:41 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 14:30 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-20 18:41 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-20 21:55 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-21 01:32 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-21 06:09 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-06-21 09:04 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-21 18:23 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-06-21 23:41 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-21 13:16 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 12:47 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-21 20:18 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-21 16:12 -0500
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-21 21:31 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 12:25 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-22 21:57 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-22 22:30 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-23 06:27 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 10:19 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-24 06:43 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 05:12 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 12:23 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-22 20:53 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 14:37 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-22 22:20 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 00:31 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-23 17:45 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 14:27 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-23 22:51 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 05:42 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-24 15:54 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 20:30 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-01 05:47 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 17:31 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-02 00:57 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 19:55 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-02 05:28 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 14:25 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-02 23:15 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 21:39 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-03 05:52 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 22:43 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-04 16:28 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 17:06 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-08 01:03 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 02:00 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-09 17:06 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 11:23 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-10 19:41 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 00:21 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-11 15:50 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 09:35 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-12 18:08 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 17:46 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-13 02:56 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-07-04 09:33 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 16:58 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-07 00:17 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-07-07 14:07 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-07 19:05 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 02:48 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-08 18:42 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 11:03 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-10 19:00 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 23:47 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-11 15:28 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 08:47 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-12 17:20 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 17:43 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-13 02:54 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-07-02 23:01 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 21:43 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-03 05:55 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 22:46 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-04 16:34 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 17:11 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-08 01:10 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 02:07 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-09 17:20 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 11:37 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-10 19:57 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 00:33 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-11 15:59 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 09:59 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-12 18:28 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 18:06 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-13 03:11 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-07-08 01:16 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 02:18 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-07-03 22:25 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 19:40 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-22 18:51 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 00:35 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-22 18:26 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 00:32 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-21 22:39 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-22 05:01 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 13:50 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-22 18:25 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-22 13:42 -0500
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 15:07 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-22 18:11 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-22 23:31 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-22 20:15 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 05:05 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-23 05:50 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 10:22 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-23 17:54 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 15:24 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-23 22:58 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 05:47 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-24 16:03 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-24 22:56 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-25 08:54 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-25 14:21 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-25 16:33 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 23:32 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 20:41 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 20:35 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-01 05:56 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 17:32 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-02 01:03 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 19:56 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-02 05:34 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 14:05 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 14:27 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-02 23:20 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 21:41 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-03 05:56 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 20:53 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-05 06:11 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 17:12 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-08 01:12 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 02:08 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-09 17:23 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 11:38 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-10 19:57 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 00:35 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-11 15:59 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 10:01 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-12 18:29 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 18:09 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-13 03:14 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-07-02 23:03 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-03 05:57 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-24 22:44 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-25 08:57 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-25 14:31 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-25 16:39 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-06-25 16:43 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-26 00:05 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-26 15:40 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-06-27 21:31 +0100
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-28 06:18 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-06-26 22:29 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 23:36 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 23:28 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 00:26 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 12:36 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 06:31 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> - 2016-06-21 15:37 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-21 18:27 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 20:11 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-06-21 09:02 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 07:59 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jonathan <writeInstead@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 05:12 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 20:55 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-07-05 06:06 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 20:04 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-20 21:59 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-21 01:42 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-21 06:21 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-21 13:36 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 06:34 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-21 13:54 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 10:24 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 07:42 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 20:12 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 04:30 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-18 12:45 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 08:37 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-06-18 14:27 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 04:18 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-17 06:25 -0400
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-23 15:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <r2lombtbgaqgeimg718nrv4161km3ahth5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #586339 |
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 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>>> On 2016-06-22 19:31, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Most of this is apples and oranges as Spacex is not producing certified
>>>>> aircraft.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> McCall had argued SpaceX can't change its design because it is in
>>>> production.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That is just stupid; they are unlikely to ever go into production.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it is just stupid. Which is why I never said it.
>
>I certainly didn't say you did, McCrap.
>
I certainly didn't say you said I did, Chimpshit.
>>>
>>>For the anal, production is when you can call up the company and
>>>have their product delivered, which is not the SpaceX business
>>>model.
>>>
>>
>> I pointed out to Mr Mezei some time ago that rockets are hand built
>> and aren't like cars at all. I don't think the boy reads very well.
>
>Morgan cars are hand built and in production, McCrap.
>
How nice for them. What payload do they have to LEO?
>
>Being in production has nothing to do with how something is built or
>what that something is, McCrap.
>
Where did I say it did, Chimpshit? I know it's difficult for assholes
like you, but try reading the actual words other people say instead of
inserting your own delusions.
Being in production also has nothing to do with whether you can buy
your own personal copy or not. For example, Falcon 9 and Dragon are
both 'in production'. You just get it as a package that includes
launching it for you.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-23 22:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <a66u3d-eis.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #586354 |
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 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >>>>> On 2016-06-22 19:31, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Most of this is apples and oranges as Spacex is not producing certified >>>>>> aircraft. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> McCall had argued SpaceX can't change its design because it is in >>>>> production. >>>>> >>>> >>>>That is just stupid; they are unlikely to ever go into production. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, it is just stupid. Which is why I never said it. >> >>I certainly didn't say you did, McCrap. >> > > I certainly didn't say you said I did, Chimpshit. Then why talk to me about it other than to be argumentative, McCrap? >>>> >>>>For the anal, production is when you can call up the company and >>>>have their product delivered, which is not the SpaceX business >>>>model. >>>> >>> >>> I pointed out to Mr Mezei some time ago that rockets are hand built >>> and aren't like cars at all. I don't think the boy reads very well. >> >>Morgan cars are hand built and in production, McCrap. >> > > How nice for them. What payload do they have to LEO? Irrelevant; what matters being hand built has nothing to do with production. >>Being in production has nothing to do with how something is built or >>what that something is, McCrap. >> > > Where did I say it did, Chimpshit? It was implied above in "rockets are hand built" Mc Crap. <snip ranting bile> > Being in production also has nothing to do with whether you can buy > your own personal copy or not. For example, Falcon 9 and Dragon are > both 'in production'. You just get it as a package that includes > launching it for you. The word production in American English implies continuous manufacture for sale. SpaceX manufactures as needed for their own use. SpaceX is selling launch services, not space ships, Space Cadet McCrap. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-24 05:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vlaqmb93jnc34plk3pjea6n702j6a4p2hb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #586358 |
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 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2016-06-22 19:31, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most of this is apples and oranges as Spacex is not producing certified
>>>>>>> aircraft.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> McCall had argued SpaceX can't change its design because it is in
>>>>>> production.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That is just stupid; they are unlikely to ever go into production.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it is just stupid. Which is why I never said it.
>>>
>>>I certainly didn't say you did, McCrap.
>>>
>>
>> I certainly didn't say you said I did, Chimpshit.
>
>Then why talk to me about it other than to be argumentative, McCrap?
>
Then why talk to me about it other than to be argumentative,
Chimpshit?
>>>>>
>>>>>For the anal, production is when you can call up the company and
>>>>>have their product delivered, which is not the SpaceX business
>>>>>model.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I pointed out to Mr Mezei some time ago that rockets are hand built
>>>> and aren't like cars at all. I don't think the boy reads very well.
>>>
>>>Morgan cars are hand built and in production, McCrap.
>>>
>>
>> How nice for them. What payload do they have to LEO?
>
>Irrelevant; what matters being hand built has nothing to do with
>production.
>
Irrelevant, since I never said it did.
>>>Being in production has nothing to do with how something is built or
>>>what that something is, McCrap.
>>>
>>
>> Where did I say it did, Chimpshit?
>
>It was implied above in "rockets are hand built" Mc Crap.
>
Oh, it was IMPLIED. In other words, you're listening to the voices in
your head instead of what others say, Chimpshit.
>
><snip ranting bile>
>
Hearing those voices in your head again, I see.
>> Being in production also has nothing to do with whether you can buy
>> your own personal copy or not. For example, Falcon 9 and Dragon are
>> both 'in production'. You just get it as a package that includes
>> launching it for you.
>
>The word production in American English implies continuous manufacture
>for sale. SpaceX manufactures as needed for their own use. SpaceX is
>selling launch services, not space ships, Space Cadet McCrap.
>
The word 'production' in American English MEANS "the action of making
or manufacturing from components or raw materials, or the process of
being so manufactured. "the production of chemical weapons" synonyms:
manufacture, making, construction, building, fabrication, assembly,
creation; mass-production "the production of washing machines"
As you can see, it has nothing to do with 'continuous', nor is there
anything about 'sale', regardless of what the voices in your head are
currently whispering to you, Schizo Chimpshit.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-24 16:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <58204d-kj5.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #586384 |
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 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2016-06-22 19:31, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Most of this is apples and oranges as Spacex is not producing certified >>>>>>>> aircraft. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> McCall had argued SpaceX can't change its design because it is in >>>>>>> production. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>That is just stupid; they are unlikely to ever go into production. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes, it is just stupid. Which is why I never said it. >>>> >>>>I certainly didn't say you did, McCrap. >>>> >>> >>> I certainly didn't say you said I did, Chimpshit. >> >>Then why talk to me about it other than to be argumentative, McCrap? >> > > Then why talk to me about it other than to be argumentative, > Chimpshit? You started, again, McCrap. >>>>>> >>>>>>For the anal, production is when you can call up the company and >>>>>>have their product delivered, which is not the SpaceX business >>>>>>model. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I pointed out to Mr Mezei some time ago that rockets are hand built >>>>> and aren't like cars at all. I don't think the boy reads very well. >>>> >>>>Morgan cars are hand built and in production, McCrap. >>>> >>> >>> How nice for them. What payload do they have to LEO? >> >>Irrelevant; what matters being hand built has nothing to do with >>production. >> > > Irrelevant, since I never said it did. Then why bring up hand built in the first place, McCrap, or are you going to lie and say you didn't? >>>>Being in production has nothing to do with how something is built or >>>>what that something is, McCrap. >>>> >>> >>> Where did I say it did, Chimpshit? >> >>It was implied above in "rockets are hand built" Mc Crap. >> > > Oh, it was IMPLIED. In other words, you're listening to the voices in > your head instead of what others say, Chimpshit. "I pointed out to Mr Mezei some time ago that rockets are hand built...". Your words, McCrap. If hand built is of no significance, why bring it up at all, McCrap? >><snip ranting bile> >> > > Hearing those voices in your head again, I see. Nope, just no point to responding to ranting bile and name calling. >>> Being in production also has nothing to do with whether you can buy >>> your own personal copy or not. For example, Falcon 9 and Dragon are >>> both 'in production'. You just get it as a package that includes >>> launching it for you. >> >>The word production in American English implies continuous manufacture >>for sale. SpaceX manufactures as needed for their own use. SpaceX is >>selling launch services, not space ships, Space Cadet McCrap. >> > > The word 'production' in American English MEANS "the action of making > or manufacturing from components or raw materials, or the process of > being so manufactured. "the production of chemical weapons" synonyms: > manufacture, making, construction, building, fabrication, assembly, > creation; mass-production "the production of washing machines" > > As you can see, it has nothing to do with 'continuous', nor is there > anything about 'sale', regardless of what the voices in your head are > currently whispering to you, Schizo Chimpshit. The suffix "ing" in making and manufacturing implies an on going action, McCrap. As for sale, why else would a company be manufacturing something on an on going basis, McCrap? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-24 22:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <576df2f3$0$62137$b1db1813$19ace300@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #586391 |
re: rockets being hand built. Just because there are humans in the production line doesn't mean something is hand built. Not sure if SpaceX uses carbon fabric or carbon threads to do its carbon structures. With carbon threads, you have to have a robot lay the thread (pre=preg with epoxy) on the mandrel in a precise layup (directions, number of layers that intersec each other at specific angles etc). Humans cannot achieve this. (the 787 fuselage is built that way). With fabric, more human intervention is possible on positioning the fabric layers over mandrel and then wrapping it in bag and using vacuum pumps to draw the epoxy everywhere without any air bubbles. Building the engines cannot be done by hand as it requires computer precision. So a human may be pushing buttons, but a machine makes the shapes very precisely. Not sure how SpaceX puts the fuselage of rockets together. Is it single piece cylinders on top of each other held with rivets ? In this case, manual riveting is possible, but so is robotic. (Airbus has robotic riveting for most of its planes).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-25 08:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31d84921fc16560398977f@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #586507 |
In article <576df2f3$0$62137$b1db1813$19ace300@news.astraweb.com>, jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca says... > > re: rockets being hand built. > > Just because there are humans in the production line doesn't mean > something is hand built. > > > Not sure if SpaceX uses carbon fabric or carbon threads to do its carbon > structures. With carbon threads, you have to have a robot lay the > thread (pre=preg with epoxy) on the mandrel in a precise layup > (directions, number of layers that intersec each other at specific > angles etc). Humans cannot achieve this. (the 787 fuselage is built that > way). Their tanks are certainly an aluminum lithium alloy. I'm unsure about the rest of the structure of the stages, but I'd guess aluminum there too. Flights which use a fairing use a composite payload fairing. Reference (found in 10 seconds of Googling, because it was the first link at the top of my first search): Falcon 9 Payload User's Guide http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/falcon_9_users_guide_rev_ 2.0.pdf > With fabric, more human intervention is possible on positioning the > fabric layers over mandrel and then wrapping it in bag and using vacuum > pumps to draw the epoxy everywhere without any air bubbles. > > Building the engines cannot be done by hand as it requires computer > precision. So a human may be pushing buttons, but a machine makes the > shapes very precisely. I wouldn't say "cannot" because machinists in the aerospace industry have quite mad skills. There's a reason they're paid quite well. But yes, I'm sure SpaceX has automated as much as they can during production because it's more efficient and can be more precise. > Not sure how SpaceX puts the fuselage of rockets together. Is it single > piece cylinders on top of each other held with rivets ? In this case, > manual riveting is possible, but so is robotic. (Airbus has robotic > riveting for most of its planes). OMFG! Read the PDF above. Lots of info in there. Google is your friend! 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 | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-25 14:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <576ecbba$0$10146$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #586562 |
On 2016-06-25 08:54, Jeff Findley wrote: > http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/falcon_9_users_guide_rev_ > 2.0.pdf Thanks. To show that there are continual improvements instead of fixed design: ## As of summer 2015, Falcon 9 is upgraded from its previous v1.1 configuration (flown from 2013 – summer 2015). Unused margin on the engines has been released to increase thrust. The airframe and thrust structures have been reinforced to accommodate the additional thrust and increase reliability. The upgraded vehicle also includes first-stage recovery systems, to allow SpaceX to return the first stage to the launch site after completion of primary mission requirements. ## However, while that document mentions the tanks are aluminium/lithium, I didn't see the nature of the outer skin. But did find a reference to " "Falcon 9’s walls are made of aluminum-lithium alloy, a material made stronger and lighter than aluminum by the addition of lithium." But just after that: "Inside the two stages are two large tanks each capped with an aluminum dome, which store liquid oxygen and rocket-grade kerosene (RP-1) engine propellants. So it isn't clear to me if the skin of the stage 1 is the tank or if it is a skin over the tank. The Interstage and payload are documented as composite skins. I recall seeing large composite structures in some photos of SpaceX facilities. I was under the impression that SpaceX had extensive use of composites for the rocket. Cool that they have pneumatic systems instead of pyrothecnic for both the release from launch pad and for stage separation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-25 16:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31d8b49b57fb62ac989783@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #586642 |
In article <576ecbba$0$10146$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com>, jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca says... > > On 2016-06-25 08:54, Jeff Findley wrote: > > http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/falcon_9_users_guide_rev_ > > 2.0.pdf > > Thanks. To show that there are continual improvements instead of fixed > design: > ## > As of summer 2015, Falcon 9 is upgraded from its previous v1.1 > configuration (flown from 2013 ? summer 2015). Unused margin on the > engines has been released to increase thrust. The airframe and thrust > structures have been reinforced to accommodate the additional thrust and > increase reliability. The upgraded vehicle also includes first-stage > recovery systems, to allow SpaceX to return the first stage to the > launch site after completion of primary mission requirements. > ## Except that increase in thrust likely didn't require any hardware changes. The increase was quite likely done in software based on hard data from many ground tests and many Falcon 9 flights. That's not quite the same as changing the design. It's literally just tapping into "unused margin on the engines". > However, while that document mentions the tanks are aluminium/lithium, I > didn't see the nature of the outer skin. But did find a reference to " Likely because there is no external skin, except on the parts of the vehicle between the tanks, over the thrust structure, and between the stages. Surely the LOX tanks are insulated, but I don't know the details if there is insulation covered by an external skin (unlikely) or if the LOX tank has external spray on foam insulation (more likely) or something else. > "Falcon 9?s walls are made of aluminum-lithium alloy, a material made > stronger and lighter than aluminum by the addition of lithium." > > But just after that: > > "Inside the two stages are two large tanks each capped with an aluminum > dome, which store liquid oxygen and rocket-grade kerosene (RP-1) engine > propellants. > > So it isn't clear to me if the skin of the stage 1 is the tank or if it > is a skin over the tank. They're describing the end caps of the tanks. There likely is no outer skin over the tanks. Likely just a layer of insulation over the LOX tank. > The Interstage and payload are documented as composite skins. Ok. > I recall seeing large composite structures in some photos of SpaceX > facilities. I was under the impression that SpaceX had extensive use of > composites for the rocket. the biggest composite bits are for the payload fairing, which is quite large. The interstage is indeed made of composites. The landing legs are carbon composite and aluminum honeycomb. Since I work for Siemens PLM Software, I know they use our software to design the composite structures: SpaceX, Leading space-launch company cuts development time from 70 to 85 percent with Fibersim https://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/CaseStudyWeb/dispatch/viewResourc e.html?resourceId=29661 > Cool that they have pneumatic systems instead of pyrothecnic for both > the release from launch pad and for stage separation. Because pneumatic systems are inherently reusable. Pyros are not only "one time use", but can cause collateral damage. Great for separating ICBM stages, but not so great if you plan on reusing the first stage. 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 | 2016-06-30 23:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gh3cnbhsvrif7kircbvvnk0lp5nrm8likq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #586642 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>On 2016-06-25 08:54, Jeff Findley wrote:
>> http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/falcon_9_users_guide_rev_
>> 2.0.pdf
>
>Thanks. To show that there are continual improvements instead of fixed
>design:
>##
>As of summer 2015, Falcon 9 is upgraded from its previous v1.1
>configuration (flown from 2013 – summer 2015). Unused margin on the
>engines has been released to increase thrust. The airframe and thrust
>structures have been reinforced to accommodate the additional thrust and
>increase reliability. The upgraded vehicle also includes first-stage
>recovery systems, to allow SpaceX to return the first stage to the
>launch site after completion of primary mission requirements.
>##
>
That's not 'continual improvements', you nitwit. It's what's known in
the trade as a 'block update'.
--
"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]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 20:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <papbnbpssro1as2hk91ga1a3467gprite6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #586507 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>re: rockets being hand built.
>
>Just because there are humans in the production line doesn't mean
>something is hand built.
>
Have any experience with building rockets? They're hand built with
shitloads of what is referred to in the trade as 'touch labor'. It's
one of the reasons they cost so much.
>
>Not sure if ...
>
Then you should STFU and stop arguing with people who know better than
you.
<snip>
>
>Building the engines cannot be done by hand as it requires computer
>precision. So a human may be pushing buttons, but a machine makes the
>shapes very precisely.
>
Then human beings go in with jewelers files and shit during assembly.
DOH!
>
>Not sure how ...
>
Then you should STFU and stop arguing with people who know better than
you.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 20:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kvobnb5ap45pf4u1r3v3c63tuv89ef6l43@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #586391 |
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 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2016-06-22 19:31, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Most of this is apples and oranges as Spacex is not producing certified
>>>>>>>>> aircraft.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> McCall had argued SpaceX can't change its design because it is in
>>>>>>>> production.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That is just stupid; they are unlikely to ever go into production.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, it is just stupid. Which is why I never said it.
>>>>>
>>>>>I certainly didn't say you did, McCrap.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I certainly didn't say you said I did, Chimpshit.
>>>
>>>Then why talk to me about it other than to be argumentative, McCrap?
>>>
>>
>> Then why talk to me about it other than to be argumentative,
>> Chimpshit?
>>
>
>You started, again, McCrap.
>
No, Chimpshit. You injected yourself because you're so stupid that
Mezei caught you in the crosspost.
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>For the anal, production is when you can call up the company and
>>>>>>>have their product delivered, which is not the SpaceX business
>>>>>>>model.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I pointed out to Mr Mezei some time ago that rockets are hand built
>>>>>> and aren't like cars at all. I don't think the boy reads very well.
>>>>>
>>>>>Morgan cars are hand built and in production, McCrap.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How nice for them. What payload do they have to LEO?
>>>
>>>Irrelevant; what matters being hand built has nothing to do with
>>>production.
>>>
>>
>> Irrelevant, since I never said it did.
>>
>
>Then why bring up hand built in the first place, McCrap, or are you going
>to lie and say you didn't?
>
Why not, Chimpshit? Why bring up limited production old wooden cars
when we're talking about a bloody rocket?
>>>>>Being in production has nothing to do with how something is built or
>>>>>what that something is, McCrap.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Where did I say it did, Chimpshit?
>>>
>>>It was implied above in "rockets are hand built" Mc Crap.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, it was IMPLIED. In other words, you're listening to the voices in
>> your head instead of what others say, Chimpshit.
>
>"I pointed out to Mr Mezei some time ago that rockets are hand built...".
>
>Your words, McCrap. If hand built is of no significance, why bring it
>up at all, McCrap?
>
Blot, Chimpshit. You're going to short something out. You brought up
airplanes (which are marginally appropriate) and wooden cars (which
are totally inapt).
>
>>><snip ranting bile>
>>>
>>
>> Hearing those voices in your head again, I see.
>
>Nope, just no point to responding to ranting bile and name calling.
>
Hearing those voices in your head again, I see.
>>>> Being in production also has nothing to do with whether you can buy
>>>> your own personal copy or not. For example, Falcon 9 and Dragon are
>>>> both 'in production'. You just get it as a package that includes
>>>> launching it for you.
>>>
>>>The word production in American English implies continuous manufacture
>>>for sale. SpaceX manufactures as needed for their own use. SpaceX is
>>>selling launch services, not space ships, Space Cadet McCrap.
>>>
>>
>> The word 'production' in American English MEANS "the action of making
>> or manufacturing from components or raw materials, or the process of
>> being so manufactured. "the production of chemical weapons" synonyms:
>> manufacture, making, construction, building, fabrication, assembly,
>> creation; mass-production "the production of washing machines"
>>
>> As you can see, it has nothing to do with 'continuous', nor is there
>> anything about 'sale', regardless of what the voices in your head are
>> currently whispering to you, Schizo Chimpshit.
>
>The suffix "ing" in making and manufacturing implies an on going action,
>McCrap.
>
No, it implies a CURRENT action.
>
>As for sale, why else would a company be manufacturing something on
>an on going basis, McCrap?
>
Buy a fucking dictionary and look it up, Chimpshit.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 05:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p8dh4d-q44.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #587426 |
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: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In sci.physics JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2016-06-22 19:31, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Most of this is apples and oranges as Spacex is not producing certified >>>>>>>>>> aircraft. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> McCall had argued SpaceX can't change its design because it is in >>>>>>>>> production. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>That is just stupid; they are unlikely to ever go into production. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, it is just stupid. Which is why I never said it. >>>>>> >>>>>>I certainly didn't say you did, McCrap. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I certainly didn't say you said I did, Chimpshit. >>>> >>>>Then why talk to me about it other than to be argumentative, McCrap? >>>> >>> >>> Then why talk to me about it other than to be argumentative, >>> Chimpshit? >>> >> >>You started, again, McCrap. >> > > No, Chimpshit. You injected yourself because you're so stupid that > Mezei caught you in the crosspost. > >> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>For the anal, production is when you can call up the company and >>>>>>>>have their product delivered, which is not the SpaceX business >>>>>>>>model. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I pointed out to Mr Mezei some time ago that rockets are hand built >>>>>>> and aren't like cars at all. I don't think the boy reads very well. >>>>>> >>>>>>Morgan cars are hand built and in production, McCrap. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> How nice for them. What payload do they have to LEO? >>>> >>>>Irrelevant; what matters being hand built has nothing to do with >>>>production. >>>> >>> >>> Irrelevant, since I never said it did. >>> >> >>Then why bring up hand built in the first place, McCrap, or are you going >>to lie and say you didn't? >> > > Why not, Chimpshit? Why bring up limited production old wooden cars > when we're talking about a bloody rocket? > >>>>>>Being in production has nothing to do with how something is built or >>>>>>what that something is, McCrap. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Where did I say it did, Chimpshit? >>>> >>>>It was implied above in "rockets are hand built" Mc Crap. >>>> >>> >>> Oh, it was IMPLIED. In other words, you're listening to the voices in >>> your head instead of what others say, Chimpshit. >> >>"I pointed out to Mr Mezei some time ago that rockets are hand built...". >> >>Your words, McCrap. If hand built is of no significance, why bring it >>up at all, McCrap? >> > > Blot, Chimpshit. You're going to short something out. You brought up > airplanes (which are marginally appropriate) and wooden cars (which > are totally inapt). > >> >>>><snip ranting bile> >>>> >>> >>> Hearing those voices in your head again, I see. >> >>Nope, just no point to responding to ranting bile and name calling. >> > > Hearing those voices in your head again, I see. > >>>>> Being in production also has nothing to do with whether you can buy >>>>> your own personal copy or not. For example, Falcon 9 and Dragon are >>>>> both 'in production'. You just get it as a package that includes >>>>> launching it for you. >>>> >>>>The word production in American English implies continuous manufacture >>>>for sale. SpaceX manufactures as needed for their own use. SpaceX is >>>>selling launch services, not space ships, Space Cadet McCrap. >>>> >>> >>> The word 'production' in American English MEANS "the action of making >>> or manufacturing from components or raw materials, or the process of >>> being so manufactured. "the production of chemical weapons" synonyms: >>> manufacture, making, construction, building, fabrication, assembly, >>> creation; mass-production "the production of washing machines" >>> >>> As you can see, it has nothing to do with 'continuous', nor is there >>> anything about 'sale', regardless of what the voices in your head are >>> currently whispering to you, Schizo Chimpshit. >> >>The suffix "ing" in making and manufacturing implies an on going action, >>McCrap. >> > > No, it implies a CURRENT action. > >> >>As for sale, why else would a company be manufacturing something on >>an on going basis, McCrap? >> > > Buy a fucking dictionary and look it up, Chimpshit. manufacture: the making of goods or wares by manual labor or by machinery, especially on a large scale goods: articles of trade; wares; merchandise -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 17:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <er2enbhk9hmaok0oaf64kslnf7fgtv652e@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #587451 |
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:
>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2016-06-22 19:31, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Most of this is apples and oranges as Spacex is not producing certified
>>>>>>>>>>> aircraft.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> McCall had argued SpaceX can't change its design because it is in
>>>>>>>>>> production.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That is just stupid; they are unlikely to ever go into production.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, it is just stupid. Which is why I never said it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I certainly didn't say you did, McCrap.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I certainly didn't say you said I did, Chimpshit.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then why talk to me about it other than to be argumentative, McCrap?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then why talk to me about it other than to be argumentative,
>>>> Chimpshit?
>>>>
>>>
>>>You started, again, McCrap.
>>>
>>
>> No, Chimpshit. You injected yourself because you're so stupid that
>> Mezei caught you in the crosspost.
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>For the anal, production is when you can call up the company and
>>>>>>>>>have their product delivered, which is not the SpaceX business
>>>>>>>>>model.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I pointed out to Mr Mezei some time ago that rockets are hand built
>>>>>>>> and aren't like cars at all. I don't think the boy reads very well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Morgan cars are hand built and in production, McCrap.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How nice for them. What payload do they have to LEO?
>>>>>
>>>>>Irrelevant; what matters being hand built has nothing to do with
>>>>>production.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant, since I never said it did.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Then why bring up hand built in the first place, McCrap, or are you going
>>>to lie and say you didn't?
>>>
>>
>> Why not, Chimpshit? Why bring up limited production old wooden cars
>> when we're talking about a bloody rocket?
>>
>>>>>>>Being in production has nothing to do with how something is built or
>>>>>>>what that something is, McCrap.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where did I say it did, Chimpshit?
>>>>>
>>>>>It was implied above in "rockets are hand built" Mc Crap.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, it was IMPLIED. In other words, you're listening to the voices in
>>>> your head instead of what others say, Chimpshit.
>>>
>>>"I pointed out to Mr Mezei some time ago that rockets are hand built...".
>>>
>>>Your words, McCrap. If hand built is of no significance, why bring it
>>>up at all, McCrap?
>>>
>>
>> Blot, Chimpshit. You're going to short something out. You brought up
>> airplanes (which are marginally appropriate) and wooden cars (which
>> are totally inapt).
>>
>>>
>>>>><snip ranting bile>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hearing those voices in your head again, I see.
>>>
>>>Nope, just no point to responding to ranting bile and name calling.
>>>
>>
>> Hearing those voices in your head again, I see.
>>
>>>>>> Being in production also has nothing to do with whether you can buy
>>>>>> your own personal copy or not. For example, Falcon 9 and Dragon are
>>>>>> both 'in production'. You just get it as a package that includes
>>>>>> launching it for you.
>>>>>
>>>>>The word production in American English implies continuous manufacture
>>>>>for sale. SpaceX manufactures as needed for their own use. SpaceX is
>>>>>selling launch services, not space ships, Space Cadet McCrap.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The word 'production' in American English MEANS "the action of making
>>>> or manufacturing from components or raw materials, or the process of
>>>> being so manufactured. "the production of chemical weapons" synonyms:
>>>> manufacture, making, construction, building, fabrication, assembly,
>>>> creation; mass-production "the production of washing machines"
>>>>
>>>> As you can see, it has nothing to do with 'continuous', nor is there
>>>> anything about 'sale', regardless of what the voices in your head are
>>>> currently whispering to you, Schizo Chimpshit.
>>>
>>>The suffix "ing" in making and manufacturing implies an on going action,
>>>McCrap.
>>>
>>
>> No, it implies a CURRENT action.
>>
>>>
>>>As for sale, why else would a company be manufacturing something on
>>>an on going basis, McCrap?
>>>
>>
>> Buy a fucking dictionary and look it up, Chimpshit.
>
>manufacture: the making of goods or wares by manual labor or by machinery,
>especially on a large scale
>
>goods: articles of trade; wares; merchandise
>
Note nothing about 'selling' the results. You're done.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 01:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5ggj4d-h8b.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #587586 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > <snip> >>> Buy a fucking dictionary and look it up, Chimpshit. >> >>manufacture: the making of goods or wares by manual labor or by machinery, >>especially on a large scale >> >>goods: articles of trade; wares; merchandise >> > > Note nothing about 'selling' the results. You're done. wares: articles of merchandise or manufacture; goods merchandise: the manufactured goods bought and sold in any business goods: articles of trade; wares; merchandise -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 19:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <99benb5ouo1r4sfe7isupfesm9gsi6k0fk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #587604 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>
><snip>
>
>>>> Buy a fucking dictionary and look it up, Chimpshit.
>>>
>>>manufacture: the making of goods or wares by manual labor or by machinery,
>>>especially on a large scale
>>>
>>>goods: articles of trade; wares; merchandise
>>>
>>
>> Note nothing about 'selling' the results. You're done.
>
>wares: articles of merchandise or manufacture; goods
>
>merchandise: the manufactured goods bought and sold in any business
>
>goods: articles of trade; wares; merchandise
>
Note that orbital services are 'wares'.
No doubt you can string together sufficient tenuous bullshit to
connect anything to anything.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 05:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ub0k4d-nrc.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #587615 |
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: >>> >> >><snip> >> >>>>> Buy a fucking dictionary and look it up, Chimpshit. >>>> >>>>manufacture: the making of goods or wares by manual labor or by machinery, >>>>especially on a large scale >>>> >>>>goods: articles of trade; wares; merchandise >>>> >>> >>> Note nothing about 'selling' the results. You're done. >> >>wares: articles of merchandise or manufacture; goods >> >>merchandise: the manufactured goods bought and sold in any business >> >>goods: articles of trade; wares; merchandise >> > > > Note that orbital services are 'wares'. services: the performance of any duties or work for another SpaceX is a delivery service who's business model is almost identical to UPS and FedX, i.e. all three accept cargo to be delivered to a specific location. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 14:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0413a54c-b96f-4466-94e8-748e0b412c42@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #587628 |
DON'T ware THAT like THAT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 14:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fbcgnbld8rk9nbud3131voqoi5hqqo8mtm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #587628 |
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:
>>>>
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>> Buy a fucking dictionary and look it up, Chimpshit.
>>>>>
>>>>>manufacture: the making of goods or wares by manual labor or by machinery,
>>>>>especially on a large scale
>>>>>
>>>>>goods: articles of trade; wares; merchandise
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note nothing about 'selling' the results. You're done.
>>>
>>>wares: articles of merchandise or manufacture; goods
>>>
>>>merchandise: the manufactured goods bought and sold in any business
>>>
>>>goods: articles of trade; wares; merchandise
>>>
>>
>> Note that orbital services are 'wares'.
>>
>
>services: the performance of any duties or work for another
>
>SpaceX is a delivery service who's business model is almost identical
>to UPS and FedX, i.e. all three accept cargo to be delivered to a
>specific location.
>
The difference is that SpaceX is also the truck manufacturer in your
inapt example.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 23:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lqul4d-kcj.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #587699 |
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: >>>>> >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>>>>>> Buy a fucking dictionary and look it up, Chimpshit. >>>>>> >>>>>>manufacture: the making of goods or wares by manual labor or by machinery, >>>>>>especially on a large scale >>>>>> >>>>>>goods: articles of trade; wares; merchandise >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Note nothing about 'selling' the results. You're done. >>>> >>>>wares: articles of merchandise or manufacture; goods >>>> >>>>merchandise: the manufactured goods bought and sold in any business >>>> >>>>goods: articles of trade; wares; merchandise >>>> >>> >>> Note that orbital services are 'wares'. >>> >> >>services: the performance of any duties or work for another >> >>SpaceX is a delivery service who's business model is almost identical >>to UPS and FedX, i.e. all three accept cargo to be delivered to a >>specific location. >> > > The difference is that SpaceX is also the truck manufacturer in your > inapt example. Both FedEx and UPS use highly customized COTS delivery vehicles. As there are no COTS orbital delivery vehicles (at the present time), SpaceX has little choice in the matter. But they are still nothing more than a freight delivery service. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 21:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <qn5hnblq559e33umlbv2b5qu2de7u3gn73@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #587731 |
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:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Buy a fucking dictionary and look it up, Chimpshit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>manufacture: the making of goods or wares by manual labor or by machinery,
>>>>>>>especially on a large scale
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>goods: articles of trade; wares; merchandise
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note nothing about 'selling' the results. You're done.
>>>>>
>>>>>wares: articles of merchandise or manufacture; goods
>>>>>
>>>>>merchandise: the manufactured goods bought and sold in any business
>>>>>
>>>>>goods: articles of trade; wares; merchandise
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note that orbital services are 'wares'.
>>>>
>>>
>>>services: the performance of any duties or work for another
>>>
>>>SpaceX is a delivery service who's business model is almost identical
>>>to UPS and FedX, i.e. all three accept cargo to be delivered to a
>>>specific location.
>>>
>>
>> The difference is that SpaceX is also the truck manufacturer in your
>> inapt example.
>
>Both FedEx and UPS use highly customized COTS delivery vehicles.
>
Note: "COTS delivery vehicles".
>
>As there are no COTS orbital delivery vehicles (at the present time),
>SpaceX has little choice in the matter.
>
>But they are still nothing more than a freight delivery service.
>
That manufactures rockets and orbital capsules.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web