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

Groups > sci.physics > #530873 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 08:38 -0600
    Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 16:01 +0100
    Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-07 09:22 -0600
      Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 10:39 -0500
        Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-11-07 15:44 +0000
          Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 11:00 -0500
          Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-07 21:47 +0000
            Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-11-08 00:49 +0000
              Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-08 01:40 +0000
                Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-08 03:27 +0000
                  Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-08 03:43 +0000
                    Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-08 04:10 +0000
                      Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-08 04:42 +0000
                        Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-08 06:23 +0000
                  Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-11-08 16:01 +0000
                    Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-08 17:33 +0000
                      Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-11 23:56 +0000
                        Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 00:29 +0000
                          Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 00:38 +0000
                            Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 01:11 +0000
                              Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 16:07 +0000
                                Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 18:47 +0000
                                  Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 16:06 -0500
                                    Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 21:22 +0000
                              Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 16:08 +0000
                          Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 20:55 -0500
                            Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 02:09 +0000
                              Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 23:08 -0500
                                Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 04:45 +0000
                                  Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 03:28 -0500
                                    Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 18:58 +0000
                                      Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 16:11 -0500
                                        Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 21:43 +0000
                Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-07 22:53 -0500
                  Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-08 04:14 +0000
                    Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-07 23:43 -0500
                      Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-11-08 16:25 +0000
                    Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-08 06:24 +0000
            Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-08 03:29 +0000
              Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-08 03:40 +0000
                Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-08 04:11 +0000
        Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 09:58 -0600
          Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-07 10:01 -0600
          Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 11:21 -0500
            Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 10:23 -0600
              Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 11:27 -0500
                Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 10:29 -0600
                  Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-07 10:35 -0600
                    Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-08 14:01 +1100
          Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 18:53 +0000
            Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 14:09 -0600
              Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 20:22 +0000
                Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 14:41 -0600
                  Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 21:19 +0000
              Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 18:58 -0500
    Re: It's not rocket science--we need a better way to get to space "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 22:27 -0800
      Re: It's not rocket science--we need a better way to get to space Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-09 16:39 +1100
        Re: It's not rocket science--we need a better way to get to space "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 00:41 -0800
          Re: It's not rocket science--we need a better way to get to space Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-09 23:16 +1100

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#532322 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

jimp wrote:

>>>> Any errorbars associated with those proofs? Do you have any proofs,
>>>> to begin with?
>>> 
>>> The fact that the Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit has
>>> nowhere to attach "errorbars" (sic). You are a babbling idiot.
>> 
>> As anticipated, you have no proofs. And dare coming in public with such
>> outrageous set of statements. You are the babbling, mister. In Modern
>> Science only Proofs and Empirical Experiments is what it counts. You
>> have nothing without proofs.
> 
> Babbling, nym shifting troll idiot.

He is not that. You are batshit crazy. You come up with a mouth but no 
palpable proofs.

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

#532392 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

In sci.physics Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> wrote:
> jimp wrote:
> 
>>>>> Any errorbars associated with those proofs? Do you have any proofs,
>>>>> to begin with?
>>>> 
>>>> The fact that the Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit has
>>>> nowhere to attach "errorbars" (sic). You are a babbling idiot.
>>> 
>>> As anticipated, you have no proofs. And dare coming in public with such
>>> outrageous set of statements. You are the babbling, mister. In Modern
>>> Science only Proofs and Empirical Experiments is what it counts. You
>>> have nothing without proofs.
>> 
>> Babbling, nym shifting troll idiot.
> 
> He is not that. You are batshit crazy. You come up with a mouth but no 
> palpable proofs.

Yet another babbling, nym shifting troll idiot.

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#532457 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 18:47:11 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> wrote:
>> jimp wrote:
>> 
>>>>>> Any errorbars associated with those proofs? Do you have any proofs,
>>>>>> to begin with?
>>>>> 
>>>>> The fact that the Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit has
>>>>> nowhere to attach "errorbars" (sic). You are a babbling idiot.
>>>> 
>>>> As anticipated, you have no proofs. And dare coming in public with such
>>>> outrageous set of statements. You are the babbling, mister. In Modern
>>>> Science only Proofs and Empirical Experiments is what it counts. You
>>>> have nothing without proofs.
>>> 
>>> Babbling, nym shifting troll idiot.
>> 
>> He is not that. You are batshit crazy. You come up with a mouth but no 
>> palpable proofs.
>
>Yet another babbling, nym shifting troll idiot.

        Same troll, different name, less brains.  ;-)

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

#532465 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

kefischer wrote:

>>> He is not that. You are batshit crazy. You come up with a mouth but no
>>> palpable proofs.
>>
>>Yet another babbling, nym shifting troll idiot.
> 
>         Same troll, different name, less brains.  ;-)

Indeed, keficxher, jimp and PointedHead are the biggest brains around 
here. Good bye. I know when I'm not welcomed.

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

#532323 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

jimp wrote:

>>>> Any errorbars associated with those proofs? Do you have any proofs,
>>>> to begin with?
>>> 
>>> The fact that the Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit has
>>> nowhere to attach "errorbars" (sic). You are a babbling idiot.
>> 
>> As anticipated, you have no proofs. And dare coming in public with such
>> outrageous set of statements. You are the babbling, mister. In Modern
>> Science only Proofs and Empirical Experiments is what it counts. You
>> have nothing without proofs.
> 
> Babbling, nym shifting troll idiot.

He is not that. You are batshit crazy. You come up with a mouth but no 
palpable proofs.

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

#532251 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 00:29:32 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> wrote:
>> jimp wrote:
>> 
>>> In sci.physics Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) uzytkownik jimp napisal:
>>>> 
>>>>>> No single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) rocket has ever been constructed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit.
>>>> 
>>>> YOu forgot to add "allegedly".
>>> 
>>> No, I did not and Elvis is really dead.
>> 
>> Any errorbars associated with those proofs? Do you have any proofs, to 
>> begin with?
>
>The fact that the Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit has
>nowhere to attach "errorbars" (sic).
>
>You are a babbling idiot.

         The original Atlas was a SSTO,
all it discarded was two of the three engines.

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

#532253 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 00:29:32 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>>In sci.physics Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> wrote:
>>> jimp wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In sci.physics Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) uzytkownik jimp napisal:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> No single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) rocket has ever been constructed.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit.
>>>>> 
>>>>> YOu forgot to add "allegedly".
>>>> 
>>>> No, I did not and Elvis is really dead.
>>> 
>>> Any errorbars associated with those proofs? Do you have any proofs, to 
>>> begin with?
>>
>>The fact that the Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit has
>>nowhere to attach "errorbars" (sic).
>>
>>You are a babbling idiot.
> 
>          The original Atlas was a SSTO,
> all it discarded was two of the three engines.
 
Nope. 
 
 
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#532274 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 02:09:35 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 00:29:32 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> 
>>>In sci.physics Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> In sci.physics Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) uzytkownik jimp napisal:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> No single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) rocket has ever been constructed.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> YOu forgot to add "allegedly".
>>>>> 
>>>>> No, I did not and Elvis is really dead.
>>>> 
>>>> Any errorbars associated with those proofs? Do you have any proofs, to 
>>>> begin with?
>>>
>>>The fact that the Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit has
>>>nowhere to attach "errorbars" (sic).
>>>
>>>You are a babbling idiot.
>> 
>>          The original Atlas was a SSTO,
>> all it discarded was two of the three engines.
> 
>Nope. 

:"  It was a liquid-fuel rocket burning liquid oxygen and RP-1 
:in three engines configured in an unusual "stage-and-a-half" 
:or "Parallel Staging" design: its two outboard booster engines 
:were jettisoned during ascent, while its center sustainer engine, 
:fuel tanks and other structural elements were retained into orbit.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_(rocket_family)


(correct the url)

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

#532283 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 02:09:35 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>>In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 00:29:32 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> 
>>>>In sci.physics Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> wrote:
>>>>> jimp wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> In sci.physics Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) uzytkownik jimp napisal:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> No single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) rocket has ever been constructed.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> YOu forgot to add "allegedly".
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> No, I did not and Elvis is really dead.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Any errorbars associated with those proofs? Do you have any proofs, to 
>>>>> begin with?
>>>>
>>>>The fact that the Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit has
>>>>nowhere to attach "errorbars" (sic).
>>>>
>>>>You are a babbling idiot.
>>> 
>>>          The original Atlas was a SSTO,
>>> all it discarded was two of the three engines.
>> 
>>Nope. 
> 
> :"  It was a liquid-fuel rocket burning liquid oxygen and RP-1 
> :in three engines configured in an unusual "stage-and-a-half" 
> :or "Parallel Staging" design: its two outboard booster engines 
> :were jettisoned during ascent, while its center sustainer engine, 
> :fuel tanks and other structural elements were retained into orbit.
>  
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_(rocket_family)
> 
> 
> (correct the url)

Doesn't address the point in question, try again. 

BTW, the "original Atlas" was an ICBM, not an orbital space vehicle.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#532293 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 04:45:46 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 02:09:35 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> 
>>>In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 00:29:32 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>In sci.physics Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> wrote:
>>>>>> jimp wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In sci.physics Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) uzytkownik jimp napisal:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> No single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) rocket has ever been constructed.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> YOu forgot to add "allegedly".
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> No, I did not and Elvis is really dead.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Any errorbars associated with those proofs? Do you have any proofs, to 
>>>>>> begin with?
>>>>>
>>>>>The fact that the Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit has
>>>>>nowhere to attach "errorbars" (sic).
>>>>>
>>>>>You are a babbling idiot.
>>>> 
>>>>          The original Atlas was a SSTO,
>>>> all it discarded was two of the three engines.
>>> 
>>>Nope. 
>> 
>> :"  It was a liquid-fuel rocket burning liquid oxygen and RP-1 
>> :in three engines configured in an unusual "stage-and-a-half" 
>> :or "Parallel Staging" design: its two outboard booster engines 
>> :were jettisoned during ascent, while its center sustainer engine, 
>> :fuel tanks and other structural elements were retained into orbit.
>>  
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_(rocket_family)
>> 
>> 
>> (correct the url)
>
>Doesn't address the point in question, try again. 
>
>BTW, the "original Atlas" was an ICBM, not an orbital space vehicle.

:"On 18 December 1958, the launch of Atlas 10B sent the missile 
:into orbit around the Earth (without use of an upper stage) carrying 
:the "SCORE" (Signal Communications by Orbiting Relay Equipment)
:communications payload. 
:Atlas 10B/SCORE, at 8,750 lb (3,970 kg) was the heaviest man-made 
:object then in orbit, the first voice relay satellite, and the first man-made 
:object in space easily visible to the naked eye due to the large, 
:mirror-polished stainless steel tank."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-65_Atlas#Launch_history

        See "without use of upper stage".

        It was not an ICBM in that use.

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

#532393 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 04:45:46 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>>In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 02:09:35 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> 
>>>>In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 00:29:32 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>In sci.physics Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> jimp wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) uzytkownik jimp napisal:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> No single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) rocket has ever been constructed.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> The Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> YOu forgot to add "allegedly".
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> No, I did not and Elvis is really dead.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Any errorbars associated with those proofs? Do you have any proofs, to 
>>>>>>> begin with?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The fact that the Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit has
>>>>>>nowhere to attach "errorbars" (sic).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are a babbling idiot.
>>>>> 
>>>>>          The original Atlas was a SSTO,
>>>>> all it discarded was two of the three engines.
>>>> 
>>>>Nope. 
>>> 
>>> :"  It was a liquid-fuel rocket burning liquid oxygen and RP-1 
>>> :in three engines configured in an unusual "stage-and-a-half" 
>>> :or "Parallel Staging" design: its two outboard booster engines 
>>> :were jettisoned during ascent, while its center sustainer engine, 
>>> :fuel tanks and other structural elements were retained into orbit.
>>>  
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_(rocket_family)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> (correct the url)
>>
>>Doesn't address the point in question, try again. 
>>
>>BTW, the "original Atlas" was an ICBM, not an orbital space vehicle.
> 
> :"On 18 December 1958, the launch of Atlas 10B sent the missile 
> :into orbit around the Earth (without use of an upper stage) carrying 
> :the "SCORE" (Signal Communications by Orbiting Relay Equipment)
> :communications payload. 
> :Atlas 10B/SCORE, at 8,750 lb (3,970 kg) was the heaviest man-made 
> :object then in orbit, the first voice relay satellite, and the first man-made 
> :object in space easily visible to the naked eye due to the large, 
> :mirror-polished stainless steel tank."
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-65_Atlas#Launch_history
> 
>         See "without use of upper stage".
> 
>         It was not an ICBM in that use.

From your own link: "configured in an unusual "stage-and-a-half" or".

A stage and a half is not single stage.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#532461 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 18:58:47 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 04:45:46 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> 
>>>In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 02:09:35 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 00:29:32 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>In sci.physics Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> jimp wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) uzytkownik jimp napisal:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> No single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) rocket has ever been constructed.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> The Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> YOu forgot to add "allegedly".
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> No, I did not and Elvis is really dead.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Any errorbars associated with those proofs? Do you have any proofs, to 
>>>>>>>> begin with?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The fact that the Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit has
>>>>>>>nowhere to attach "errorbars" (sic).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You are a babbling idiot.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>          The original Atlas was a SSTO,
>>>>>> all it discarded was two of the three engines.
>>>>> 
>>>>>Nope. 
>>>> 
>>>> :"  It was a liquid-fuel rocket burning liquid oxygen and RP-1 
>>>> :in three engines configured in an unusual "stage-and-a-half" 
>>>> :or "Parallel Staging" design: its two outboard booster engines 
>>>> :were jettisoned during ascent, while its center sustainer engine, 
>>>> :fuel tanks and other structural elements were retained into orbit.
>>>>  
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_(rocket_family)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> (correct the url)
>>>
>>>Doesn't address the point in question, try again. 
>>>
>>>BTW, the "original Atlas" was an ICBM, not an orbital space vehicle.
>> 
>> :"On 18 December 1958, the launch of Atlas 10B sent the missile 
>> :into orbit around the Earth (without use of an upper stage) carrying 
>> :the "SCORE" (Signal Communications by Orbiting Relay Equipment)
>> :communications payload. 
>> :Atlas 10B/SCORE, at 8,750 lb (3,970 kg) was the heaviest man-made 
>> :object then in orbit, the first voice relay satellite, and the first man-made 
>> :object in space easily visible to the naked eye due to the large, 
>> :mirror-polished stainless steel tank."
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-65_Atlas#Launch_history
>> 
>>         See "without use of upper stage".
>> 
>>         It was not an ICBM in that use.
>
>From your own link: "configured in an unusual "stage-and-a-half" or".
>
>A stage and a half is not single stage.

         The "or" was "parallel", to get around
the fact that it was not two or more stages.

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

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

        

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

#532474 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 18:58:47 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>>In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 04:45:46 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> 
>>>>In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 02:09:35 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 00:29:32 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> jimp wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) uzytkownik jimp napisal:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) rocket has ever been constructed.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> YOu forgot to add "allegedly".
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> No, I did not and Elvis is really dead.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Any errorbars associated with those proofs? Do you have any proofs, to 
>>>>>>>>> begin with?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The fact that the Apollo Lunar Module was single-stage-to-orbit has
>>>>>>>>nowhere to attach "errorbars" (sic).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You are a babbling idiot.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>          The original Atlas was a SSTO,
>>>>>>> all it discarded was two of the three engines.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>Nope. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> :"  It was a liquid-fuel rocket burning liquid oxygen and RP-1 
>>>>> :in three engines configured in an unusual "stage-and-a-half" 
>>>>> :or "Parallel Staging" design: its two outboard booster engines 
>>>>> :were jettisoned during ascent, while its center sustainer engine, 
>>>>> :fuel tanks and other structural elements were retained into orbit.
>>>>>  
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_(rocket_family)
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> (correct the url)
>>>>
>>>>Doesn't address the point in question, try again. 
>>>>
>>>>BTW, the "original Atlas" was an ICBM, not an orbital space vehicle.
>>> 
>>> :"On 18 December 1958, the launch of Atlas 10B sent the missile 
>>> :into orbit around the Earth (without use of an upper stage) carrying 
>>> :the "SCORE" (Signal Communications by Orbiting Relay Equipment)
>>> :communications payload. 
>>> :Atlas 10B/SCORE, at 8,750 lb (3,970 kg) was the heaviest man-made 
>>> :object then in orbit, the first voice relay satellite, and the first man-made 
>>> :object in space easily visible to the naked eye due to the large, 
>>> :mirror-polished stainless steel tank."
>>> 
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-65_Atlas#Launch_history
>>> 
>>>         See "without use of upper stage".
>>> 
>>>         It was not an ICBM in that use.
>>
>>From your own link: "configured in an unusual "stage-and-a-half" or".
>>
>>A stage and a half is not single stage.
> 
>          The "or" was "parallel", to get around
> the fact that it was not two or more stages.

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

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

Irrelevant.

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

Maybe, but it didn't.



-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#531119 — Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space

On 8 Nov 2015 01:40:51 GMT, Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain>
wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 00:49:21 +0000, Edgardo Alcantara wrote:
>
>> 
>> You are so easy to fool.
>>
>
>Are you claiming that it is possible to reach orbit with
>a single stage?

        Of course it is, there was a big program
to build one.


>Then you are a fool.
>
>No single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) rocket has ever been constructed.

        The Atlas was a stage and a half, with guidance
a Space Shuttle booster rocket would make orbit
with no payload.

        What kind of delusion nonsense misinformation
makes you think a single stage can't make orbit?        

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

#531121

On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 22:53:55 -0500, kefischer wrote:

> 
>         What kind of delusion nonsense misinformation
> makes you think a single stage can't make orbit?
>

1) The need for different engines at different altitudes.

2) The need for vectoring (steering) to enable the correct trajectory.

Staging easily accommodates these requirements.

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

#531128 — Re: It's not rocket science—we need a better way to get to space

On 8 Nov 2015 04:14:31 GMT, Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain>
wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 22:53:55 -0500, kefischer wrote:
>
>> 
>>         What kind of delusion nonsense misinformation
>> makes you think a single stage can't make orbit?
>>
>
>1) The need for different engines at different altitudes.
>
>2) The need for vectoring (steering) to enable the correct trajectory.
>
>Staging easily accommodates these requirements.

        Nonsense, the engines are gimbaled,
and computer guided, the stages are simply
to discard weight not needed.

https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/gimbaled.html

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

#531170

W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik kefischer napisał:
>
>         Nonsense, the engines are gimbaled,
> and computer guided, the stages are simply to discard weight not needed.
> 
> https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/gimbaled.html

If the engineers and the physicists would have to lock at the math and the 
equations to make sense in my little theory of Divergent Matter. All the 
rest is already solved.

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

#531141 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

In sci.physics Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 22:53:55 -0500, kefischer wrote:
> 
>> 
>>         What kind of delusion nonsense misinformation
>> makes you think a single stage can't make orbit?
>>
> 
> 1) The need for different engines at different altitudes.

Nope, they are all rocket engines.

> 2) The need for vectoring (steering) to enable the correct trajectory.

Nope, all stages have vectoring.

> Staging easily accommodates these requirements.

Nope, the huge gravity well and atmospheric dragg dictates the need for
multiple stages. 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#531113 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

In sci.physics Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 15:44:23 +0000, Edgardo Alcantara wrote:
> 
>> W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik Wally W. napisał:
>> 
>>>>Rockets are simpler, more reliable, faster, less complicated.
>>> 
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistage_rocket The main reason for
>>> multi-stage rockets and boosters is that once the fuel is exhausted, the
>>> space and structure which contained it and the motors themselves are
>>> useless and only add weight to the vehicle which slows down its future
>>> acceleration.
>> 
>> You got it. You are not easy to fool.
> 
> 
> No, he didn't get it at all.
> 
> The main reason for staging has to with trajectories.

Nope, it is the fuel load required to reach orbit.

> The booster lifts the rocket to a certain altitude.  Then the next stage
> is fired to impart a velocity compatible to orbit at that altitude.

Yep, absent all the weight of the first stage engine(s) and fuel tank(s).

You don't bother reading links, do you?


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#531116 — Re: It's not rocket science?we need a better way to get to space

On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 03:29:15 +0000, jimp wrote:

>> 
>> The main reason for staging has to with trajectories.
> 
> Nope, it is the fuel load required to reach orbit.
> 

It's really just a different way of looking at the same thing.

The staging does correspond to those points where burns are executed
specifically to attain an orbital trajectory.

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web