Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #690118 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-11 22:18 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-06-14 04:47 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 84 — 12 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: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-11 22:18 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 20:52 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-12 06:34 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-12 14:36 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 14:29 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-12 19:00 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-13 02:15 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 01:27 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-13 06:46 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-13 16:28 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 14:38 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-14 05:22 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-14 15:44 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-15 07:52 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-15 21:33 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-16 10:38 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-16 17:51 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 02:16 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-17 15:49 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-17 16:52 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-18 02:44 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 00:05 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-18 14:27 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 19:39 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 18:26 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-13 12:57 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 14:35 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-13 17:55 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 21:44 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-14 22:02 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-13 19:39 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 21:53 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-14 19:46 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-15 07:56 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-15 19:21 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-15 19:18 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-15 21:05 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-16 10:06 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-16 13:21 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-16 13:57 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-16 14:19 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. mvp@web1.calweb.com (Mike Van Pelt) - 2018-06-19 18:38 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-06-19 21:27 -0600
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-15 22:13 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 20:34 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-16 09:54 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-18 13:45 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-18 21:06 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 20:00 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-19 19:45 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-19 22:12 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-20 20:21 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 17:13 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-20 20:34 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-21 06:26 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 03:48 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-21 13:35 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-21 20:57 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-21 23:22 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-22 07:18 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-22 17:45 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-22 19:58 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-23 03:39 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-23 08:38 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-23 17:18 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-23 09:58 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-24 00:53 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-23 08:34 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-18 22:17 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 00:45 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-19 15:58 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 14:38 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-20 15:42 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-20 16:58 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2018-06-25 20:44 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 17:07 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-21 23:24 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 21:38 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-06-19 21:35 -0600
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2018-06-19 17:01 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-21 22:39 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 15:39 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-06-14 15:53 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-14 04:47 -0400
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 02:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <TwIVC.239099$T14.51381@fx44.iad> |
| In reply to | #690994 |
On 2018-06-17 16:52, Jeff Findley wrote: > Also, you act like they've done zero cryogenic testing on this composite > cryogenic tank design. This is utterly false. Here is a cite from > Composites Manufacturing Magazine: I mentioned that they built one, filled it succesfully, then destructively tested it to see at what pressure it failed. I did not ignore this. The article you linked is older and doesn't mention the destructive test SpaceX did (which I mentioned). These tests do not mean the tank is ready. There are other tests they need to do, in particulat measure how many fill/empty cycles can be made before flaws start to appear. And if that number if below expectations, fix the design to add longevity. This is a normal part of development. Nothing nefarious about it. But just because they did 2 tests doesn't mean that they did all the tests. > You seem to keep assuming SpaceX engineers don't perform any sort of > ground testing and just "wing it" every time they fly. The facts do not > support that assertion. I was responding to McCall who claimed engineers can build stuff that works (in response to my arguments they need to test to validate the designs and in doing so, can possibly find problems that need to be fixed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 00:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <i7meidl64sd2ae6t146o453698fjb63rmv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #691042 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote on Mon, 18 Jun 2018
02:44:03 -0400:
>On 2018-06-17 16:52, Jeff Findley wrote:
>>
>> Also, you act like they've done zero cryogenic testing on this composite
>> cryogenic tank design. This is utterly false. Here is a cite from
>> Composites Manufacturing Magazine:
>>
>
>I mentioned that they built one, filled it succesfully, then
>destructively tested it to see at what pressure it failed. I did not
>ignore this. The article you linked is older and doesn't mention the
>destructive test SpaceX did (which I mentioned).
>
You also claimed that what they built and tested wasn't representative
of what they intend to build as a final article and fly, which is just
a stupid assertion.
>
>These tests do not mean the tank is ready. There are other tests they
>need to do, in particulat measure how many fill/empty cycles can be made
>before flaws start to appear. And if that number if below expectations,
>fix the design to add longevity.
>
>This is a normal part of development. Nothing nefarious about it. But
>just because they did 2 tests doesn't mean that they did all the tests.
>
Just because they only told you about two tests doesn't mean they
didn't do any others.
>
>>
>> You seem to keep assuming SpaceX engineers don't perform any sort of
>> ground testing and just "wing it" every time they fly. The facts do not
>> support that assertion.
>>
>
>I was responding to McCall who claimed engineers can build stuff that
>works (in response to my arguments they need to test to validate the
>designs and in doing so, can possibly find problems that need to be fixed.
>
Apparently your deficiency in knowledge of engineering is only
surpassed by your defective English skills, since I said no such
thing. My responses were replies to your massively stupid assertion
that they just built any old tank and tested that without any idea at
all of what they're actually going to build.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 14:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <3QSVC.447214$PE5.193775@fx37.iad> |
| In reply to | #691045 |
On 2018-06-18 03:05, Fred J. McCall wrote: > You also claimed that what they built and tested wasn't representative > of what they intend to build as a final article and fly, which is just > a stupid assertion. I did no such thing. I claimed that it was not necessarily what the final would be because during testing, they discovery problems that require changes. > Just because they only told you about two tests doesn't mean they > didn't do any others. And just because of that, you can't claim they performed those tests succesfully either. My point is that you can't claim "mission accomplished" on those tanks just because of 2 tests that SpaceX chose to make public.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-18 19:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <prqgidhluuejocbapnnqbnld81vconq3vp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #691074 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote on Mon, 18 Jun 2018
14:27:11 -0400:
>On 2018-06-18 03:05, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>
>> You also claimed that what they built and tested wasn't representative
>> of what they intend to build as a final article and fly, which is just
>> a stupid assertion.
>>
>
>I did no such thing. I claimed that it was not necessarily what the
>final would be because during testing, they discovery problems that
>require changes.
>
Of course you did. You said that they built their test tank out of
existing resins using existing processes but that would not be what
they built the 'real' tank using.
>
>>
>> Just because they only told you about two tests doesn't mean they
>> didn't do any others.
>>
>
>And just because of that, you can't claim they performed those tests
>succesfully either.
>
>My point is that you can't claim "mission accomplished" on those tanks
>just because of 2 tests that SpaceX chose to make public.
>
They've made more than two of them public. Your perpetual
underinformed state is your personal problem.
--
"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 | 2018-06-17 18:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <og2eidhiv6vdgnc143i6iu5gp9g03vfvnm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #690990 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote on Sun, 17 Jun 2018
15:49:50 -0400:
>On 2018-06-17 05:16, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>
>> Not how engineering works. Can you really be this clueless?
>>
>
>Engineering tries to PREDICT how a structure will behave.
>
Like I said, not how engineering works. You really don't understand
any of this except in the most simplistic ways, do you?
<snip idiocy>
--
"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 | Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-13 12:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pfr4bf$hj8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #690340 |
For your reference, records indicate that Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > In article <pfolpv$t6n$1@dont-email.me>, droleary@ > 2017usenet1.subsume.com says... > > > > For your reference, records indicate that > > Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > Sure, sure, Star Trek style transporters with infinite range. I'll get > > > right on that. > > > > No, you won?t. But you apparently *will* use it as a straw man to avoid > > actually addressing the likelihood that new technologies developed in > > the future will change the economies of space launches. Hell, that?s > > essentially what SpaceX is demonstrating today. > > Bullshit. SpaceX is not demonstrating any new technologies. They've > combined existing technologies in novel ways to solve the problems > involved in building Merlin engines and Falcon launch vehicles. There > is zero new tech in them. If you believe differently, name a new > technology they're using in their engines, launch vehicles, Dragon, and > etc. <Sigh> Of *course* there’s no “new technology” in *anything* that’s in the world today. Your engineering mindset has you in a motivated reasoning spiral. The fact remains that, over the course of time, new technologies have been developed that have made their way into space programs. SpaceX is taking advantage of some of those technologies today. It is a safe bet that such innovations will occur in the future, and somebody will take advantage of them. -- "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain." River Tam, Trash, Firefly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-13 14:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ce33idle0q108acica4hoe9ijflsrjp8p2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #690402 |
Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote on Wed, 13 Jun
2018 12:57:19 -0000 (UTC):
>For your reference, records indicate that
>Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <pfolpv$t6n$1@dont-email.me>, droleary@
>> 2017usenet1.subsume.com says...
>> >
>> > For your reference, records indicate that
>> > Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Sure, sure, Star Trek style transporters with infinite range. I'll get
>> > > right on that.
>> >
>> > No, you won?t. But you apparently *will* use it as a straw man to avoid
>> > actually addressing the likelihood that new technologies developed in
>> > the future will change the economies of space launches. Hell, that?s
>> > essentially what SpaceX is demonstrating today.
>>
>> Bullshit. SpaceX is not demonstrating any new technologies. They've
>> combined existing technologies in novel ways to solve the problems
>> involved in building Merlin engines and Falcon launch vehicles. There
>> is zero new tech in them. If you believe differently, name a new
>> technology they're using in their engines, launch vehicles, Dragon, and
>> etc.
>
><Sigh> Of *course* there’s no “new technology” in *anything* that’s
>in the world today. Your engineering mindset has you in a motivated
>reasoning spiral. The fact remains that, over the course of time,
>new technologies have been developed that have made their way into
>space programs. SpaceX is taking advantage of some of those
>technologies today. It is a safe bet that such innovations will occur
>in the future, and somebody will take advantage of them.
>
And it's an even safer bet that none of those 'new technologies' are
going to replace "throwing stuff aft to move forward". A space
elevator on Earth requires not 'new technology', but 'new physics'.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-13 17:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <CpgUC.155484$mD.3074@fx31.iad> |
| In reply to | #690480 |
On 2018-06-13 17:35, Fred J. McCall wrote: > And it's an even safer bet that none of those 'new technologies' are > going to replace "throwing stuff aft to move forward". Now now. We already know we'll test drive warp drive in 2063. They've even already made a movie about it. (and on same day, we meet the Vulcans in northern USA (I think it was Montana). Until then, the accelerate mass backwards" may remain primary mode of propulsion, but there could still be much innovation in how you do it. Out of curiosity, if you detonated an atomic bomb inside an engine bell (assume engine bell is infinitely strong). does f=ma stll apply in terms of the mass being limited to the mass of the bomb? Or do many other factors kick in in a nuclear explosion because mass doesn't remain constant? Is knowledge enough today that would allow micro nuclear explosions that can be focused in trhowing its mass backwards at very high speed? (aka: regular micro explosions to slowly accelerate ship) Or must one have critiocal mass of nuclear material to cause an exlosion so the smallest explosioon that can happen is HUGE ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-13 21:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <16s3id58j1v4j3gjelt56lj774f1ikq4vs@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #690487 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote on Wed, 13 Jun 2018
17:55:45 -0400:
>On 2018-06-13 17:35, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>
>> And it's an even safer bet that none of those 'new technologies' are
>> going to replace "throwing stuff aft to move forward".
>>
>
>Now now. We already know we'll test drive warp drive in 2063. They've
>even already made a movie about it. (and on same day, we meet the
>Vulcans in northern USA (I think it was Montana).
>
I'm sure that makes perfect sense to 'Doc'.
>
>Until then, the accelerate mass backwards" may remain primary mode of
>propulsion, but there could still be much innovation in how you do it.
>
>
>Out of curiosity, if you detonated an atomic bomb inside an engine bell
>(assume engine bell is infinitely strong).
>
Not how you want to do it.
>
>does f=ma stll apply in terms of the mass being limited to the mass of
>the bomb? Or do many other factors kick in in a nuclear explosion
>because mass doesn't remain constant?
>
Pretty much yes, although you'd probably get a decent 'photon drive'
component.
>
>Is knowledge enough today that would allow micro nuclear explosions that
>can be focused in trhowing its mass backwards at very high speed? (aka:
>regular micro explosions to slowly accelerate ship)
>
This technology was investigated over half a century ago. See?
Existing technology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
>
>Or must one have critiocal mass of nuclear material to cause an exlosion
>so the smallest explosioon that can happen is HUGE ?
>
Forty tons (the smallest bomb we built in the 1950's) is not
particularly 'huge'. In fact, it was regarded as too small for
anything but an orbital test program.
--
"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 | Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-14 22:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pfuomi$7a6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #690487 |
For your reference, records indicate that JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > Is knowledge enough today that would allow micro nuclear explosions that > can be focused in trhowing its mass backwards at very high speed? (aka: > regular micro explosions to slowly accelerate ship) > > Or must one have critiocal mass of nuclear material to cause an exlosion > so the smallest explosioon that can happen is HUGE ? <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)> -- "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain." River Tam, Trash, Firefly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-13 19:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pfs9v0$r2b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #690480 |
On Jun/13/2018 at 5:35 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : > Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote on Wed, 13 Jun > 2018 12:57:19 -0000 (UTC): > >> For your reference, records indicate that >> Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >> >>> In article <pfolpv$t6n$1@dont-email.me>, droleary@ >>> 2017usenet1.subsume.com says... >>>> >>>> For your reference, records indicate that >>>> Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sure, sure, Star Trek style transporters with infinite range. I'll get >>>>> right on that. >>>> >>>> No, you won?t. But you apparently *will* use it as a straw man to avoid >>>> actually addressing the likelihood that new technologies developed in >>>> the future will change the economies of space launches. Hell, that?s >>>> essentially what SpaceX is demonstrating today. >>> >>> Bullshit. SpaceX is not demonstrating any new technologies. They've >>> combined existing technologies in novel ways to solve the problems >>> involved in building Merlin engines and Falcon launch vehicles. There >>> is zero new tech in them. If you believe differently, name a new >>> technology they're using in their engines, launch vehicles, Dragon, and >>> etc. >> >> <Sigh> Of *course* there’s no “new technology” in *anything* that’s >> in the world today. Your engineering mindset has you in a motivated >> reasoning spiral. The fact remains that, over the course of time, >> new technologies have been developed that have made their way into >> space programs. SpaceX is taking advantage of some of those >> technologies today. It is a safe bet that such innovations will occur >> in the future, and somebody will take advantage of them. >> > > And it's an even safer bet that none of those 'new technologies' are > going to replace "throwing stuff aft to move forward". A space > elevator on Earth requires not 'new technology', but 'new physics'. It would be possible to build a space elevator using materials available today without any major new technology. But that wouldn't be economical. Not even remotely close to being economical. New materials would be needed to build a sane space elevator, but new physics isn't needed. See for instance http://space.nss.org/media/2000-Space-Elevator-NASA-CP210429.pdf Alain Fournier
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-13 21:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <03t3idhgt3qal5td21cd7a7eqpuhg7i69b@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #690514 |
Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote on Wed, 13 Jun 2018
19:39:10 -0400:
>On Jun/13/2018 at 5:35 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
>> Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote on Wed, 13 Jun
>> 2018 12:57:19 -0000 (UTC):
>>
>>> For your reference, records indicate that
>>> Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <pfolpv$t6n$1@dont-email.me>, droleary@
>>>> 2017usenet1.subsume.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>> For your reference, records indicate that
>>>>> Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, sure, Star Trek style transporters with infinite range. I'll get
>>>>>> right on that.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you won?t. But you apparently *will* use it as a straw man to avoid
>>>>> actually addressing the likelihood that new technologies developed in
>>>>> the future will change the economies of space launches. Hell, that?s
>>>>> essentially what SpaceX is demonstrating today.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit. SpaceX is not demonstrating any new technologies. They've
>>>> combined existing technologies in novel ways to solve the problems
>>>> involved in building Merlin engines and Falcon launch vehicles. There
>>>> is zero new tech in them. If you believe differently, name a new
>>>> technology they're using in their engines, launch vehicles, Dragon, and
>>>> etc.
>>>
>>> <Sigh> Of *course* there’s no “new technology” in *anything* that’s
>>> in the world today. Your engineering mindset has you in a motivated
>>> reasoning spiral. The fact remains that, over the course of time,
>>> new technologies have been developed that have made their way into
>>> space programs. SpaceX is taking advantage of some of those
>>> technologies today. It is a safe bet that such innovations will occur
>>> in the future, and somebody will take advantage of them.
>>>
>>
>> And it's an even safer bet that none of those 'new technologies' are
>> going to replace "throwing stuff aft to move forward". A space
>> elevator on Earth requires not 'new technology', but 'new physics'.
>
>It would be possible to build a space elevator using materials available
>today without any major new technology. But that wouldn't be economical.
>Not even remotely close to being economical. New materials would be
>needed to build a sane space elevator, but new physics isn't needed.
>
>See for instance
>http://space.nss.org/media/2000-Space-Elevator-NASA-CP210429.pdf
>
I recall reading at least some analyses that said that the tensile
strength required exceeded atomic forces (in other words, an
impossibly strong material).
--
"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 | Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-14 19:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pfuuo0$bpj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #690554 |
On Jun/14/2018 at 12:53 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : > Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote on Wed, 13 Jun 2018 > 19:39:10 -0400: > >> On Jun/13/2018 at 5:35 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : >>> Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote on Wed, 13 Jun >>> 2018 12:57:19 -0000 (UTC): >>> >>>> For your reference, records indicate that >>>> Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <pfolpv$t6n$1@dont-email.me>, droleary@ >>>>> 2017usenet1.subsume.com says... >>>>>> >>>>>> For your reference, records indicate that >>>>>> Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Sure, sure, Star Trek style transporters with infinite range. I'll get >>>>>>> right on that. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, you won?t. But you apparently *will* use it as a straw man to avoid >>>>>> actually addressing the likelihood that new technologies developed in >>>>>> the future will change the economies of space launches. Hell, that?s >>>>>> essentially what SpaceX is demonstrating today. >>>>> >>>>> Bullshit. SpaceX is not demonstrating any new technologies. They've >>>>> combined existing technologies in novel ways to solve the problems >>>>> involved in building Merlin engines and Falcon launch vehicles. There >>>>> is zero new tech in them. If you believe differently, name a new >>>>> technology they're using in their engines, launch vehicles, Dragon, and >>>>> etc. >>>> >>>> <Sigh> Of *course* there’s no “new technology” in *anything* that’s >>>> in the world today. Your engineering mindset has you in a motivated >>>> reasoning spiral. The fact remains that, over the course of time, >>>> new technologies have been developed that have made their way into >>>> space programs. SpaceX is taking advantage of some of those >>>> technologies today. It is a safe bet that such innovations will occur >>>> in the future, and somebody will take advantage of them. >>>> >>> >>> And it's an even safer bet that none of those 'new technologies' are >>> going to replace "throwing stuff aft to move forward". A space >>> elevator on Earth requires not 'new technology', but 'new physics'. >> >> It would be possible to build a space elevator using materials available >> today without any major new technology. But that wouldn't be economical. >> Not even remotely close to being economical. New materials would be >> needed to build a sane space elevator, but new physics isn't needed. >> >> See for instance >> http://space.nss.org/media/2000-Space-Elevator-NASA-CP210429.pdf >> > > I recall reading at least some analyses that said that the tensile > strength required exceeded atomic forces (in other words, an > impossibly strong material). Without having checked, I would guess that that applies for a non tapered cable. But if you taper the cable, it is physically possible to build a cable using several existing materials. Alain Fournier
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-15 07:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.358d7374d12be325989ad4@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #690668 |
In article <pfuuo0$bpj$1@dont-email.me>, alain245@videotron.ca says... > >> It would be possible to build a space elevator using materials available > >> today without any major new technology. But that wouldn't be economical. > >> Not even remotely close to being economical. New materials would be > >> needed to build a sane space elevator, but new physics isn't needed. > >> > >> See for instance > >> http://space.nss.org/media/2000-Space-Elevator-NASA-CP210429.pdf > >> > > > > I recall reading at least some analyses that said that the tensile > > strength required exceeded atomic forces (in other words, an > > impossibly strong material). > > Without having checked, I would guess that that applies for a non > tapered cable. But if you taper the cable, it is physically possible to > build a cable using several existing materials. > That's my understanding as well. Better materials would make a tapered cable practical. Today's materials result in a very huge tapered cable necessitating a huge counterweight making the whole thing impractical. So, we're arguing about impossible versus impractical here. Either way, it's not going to be built with today's materials. 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 | Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-15 19:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pg1hm3$3ke$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #690698 |
On Jun/15/2018 at 7:56 AM, Jeff Findley wrote : > In article <pfuuo0$bpj$1@dont-email.me>, alain245@videotron.ca says... >>>> It would be possible to build a space elevator using materials available >>>> today without any major new technology. But that wouldn't be economical. >>>> Not even remotely close to being economical. New materials would be >>>> needed to build a sane space elevator, but new physics isn't needed. >>>> >>>> See for instance >>>> http://space.nss.org/media/2000-Space-Elevator-NASA-CP210429.pdf >>>> >>> >>> I recall reading at least some analyses that said that the tensile >>> strength required exceeded atomic forces (in other words, an >>> impossibly strong material). >> >> Without having checked, I would guess that that applies for a non >> tapered cable. But if you taper the cable, it is physically possible to >> build a cable using several existing materials. >> > > That's my understanding as well. Better materials would make a tapered > cable practical. Today's materials result in a very huge tapered cable > necessitating a huge counterweight making the whole thing impractical. > > So, we're arguing about impossible versus impractical here. Either way, > it's not going to be built with today's materials. Yes. But I think I am a little less optimistic than you about it becoming practical in the future. If we have fantastic materials in the future, maybe an elevator will become more practical, but SpaceX is likely to figure how to build fantastic rockets if you give them fantastic materials. So if you can build an elevator that would seem practical today, that elevator might compete with a rocket that can be reused 1000 times between inspections AND have high orbital mass fraction. It is possible that we find a way to build a practical cable but not find any major improvement to rocket technology. But I wouldn't count too much on that. Of course maybe I just read too much into your sentence "Better materials would make a tapered cable practical." Alain Fournier
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-15 19:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pg1l1n$440$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #690784 |
On 6/15/2018 6:21 PM, Alain Fournier wrote: > On Jun/15/2018 at 7:56 AM, Jeff Findley wrote : >> In article <pfuuo0$bpj$1@dont-email.me>, alain245@videotron.ca says... >>>>> It would be possible to build a space elevator using materials >>>>> available >>>>> today without any major new technology. But that wouldn't be >>>>> economical. >>>>> Not even remotely close to being economical. New materials would be >>>>> needed to build a sane space elevator, but new physics isn't needed. >>>>> >>>>> See for instance >>>>> http://space.nss.org/media/2000-Space-Elevator-NASA-CP210429.pdf >>>>> >>>> >>>> I recall reading at least some analyses that said that the tensile >>>> strength required exceeded atomic forces (in other words, an >>>> impossibly strong material). >>> >>> Without having checked, I would guess that that applies for a non >>> tapered cable. But if you taper the cable, it is physically possible to >>> build a cable using several existing materials. >>> >> >> That's my understanding as well. Better materials would make a tapered >> cable practical. Today's materials result in a very huge tapered cable >> necessitating a huge counterweight making the whole thing impractical. >> >> So, we're arguing about impossible versus impractical here. Either way, >> it's not going to be built with today's materials. > > Yes. But I think I am a little less optimistic than you about it > becoming practical in the future. If we have fantastic materials in the > future, maybe an elevator will become more practical, but SpaceX is > likely to figure how to build fantastic rockets if you give them > fantastic materials. So if you can build an elevator that would seem > practical today, that elevator might compete with a rocket that can be > reused 1000 times between inspections AND have high orbital mass fraction. > > It is possible that we find a way to build a practical cable but not > find any major improvement to rocket technology. But I wouldn't count > too much on that. > > Of course maybe I just read too much into your sentence "Better > materials would make a tapered cable practical." > > > Alain Fournier how about a Space Slingshot ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-15 21:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pg1no8$iv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #690791 |
On Jun/15/2018 at 8:18 PM, Sergio wrote : > On 6/15/2018 6:21 PM, Alain Fournier wrote: >> On Jun/15/2018 at 7:56 AM, Jeff Findley wrote : >>> In article <pfuuo0$bpj$1@dont-email.me>, alain245@videotron.ca says... >>>>>> It would be possible to build a space elevator using materials >>>>>> available >>>>>> today without any major new technology. But that wouldn't be >>>>>> economical. >>>>>> Not even remotely close to being economical. New materials would be >>>>>> needed to build a sane space elevator, but new physics isn't needed. >>>>>> >>>>>> See for instance >>>>>> http://space.nss.org/media/2000-Space-Elevator-NASA-CP210429.pdf >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I recall reading at least some analyses that said that the tensile >>>>> strength required exceeded atomic forces (in other words, an >>>>> impossibly strong material). >>>> >>>> Without having checked, I would guess that that applies for a non >>>> tapered cable. But if you taper the cable, it is physically possible to >>>> build a cable using several existing materials. >>>> >>> >>> That's my understanding as well. Better materials would make a tapered >>> cable practical. Today's materials result in a very huge tapered cable >>> necessitating a huge counterweight making the whole thing impractical. >>> >>> So, we're arguing about impossible versus impractical here. Either way, >>> it's not going to be built with today's materials. >> >> Yes. But I think I am a little less optimistic than you about it >> becoming practical in the future. If we have fantastic materials in the >> future, maybe an elevator will become more practical, but SpaceX is >> likely to figure how to build fantastic rockets if you give them >> fantastic materials. So if you can build an elevator that would seem >> practical today, that elevator might compete with a rocket that can be >> reused 1000 times between inspections AND have high orbital mass fraction. >> >> It is possible that we find a way to build a practical cable but not >> find any major improvement to rocket technology. But I wouldn't count >> too much on that. >> >> Of course maybe I just read too much into your sentence "Better >> materials would make a tapered cable practical." >> >> >> Alain Fournier > > how about a Space Slingshot ? What do you mean by Space Slingshot? Alain Fournier
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 10:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.358ee372afe787b9989ad5@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #690791 |
In article <pg1l1n$440$2@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... > > how about a Space Slingshot ? A fool and his money are soon parted. They're not getting enough money to actually develop and build the thing. They're raised what $40 million or something? They'll need a hell of a lot more than that to turn their design into a reality. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 13:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pg3gub$lov$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #690842 |
On Jun/16/2018 at 10:06 AM, Jeff Findley wrote : > In article <pg1l1n$440$2@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... >> >> how about a Space Slingshot ? > > A fool and his money are soon parted. > > They're not getting enough money to actually develop and build the > thing. They're raised what $40 million or something? They'll need a > hell of a lot more than that to turn their design into a reality. Are you two talking about SpinLaunch? If no, what do you mean by Space Slingshot? Alain Fournier
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 13:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.358f19a8eedbae11989ad7@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #690852 |
In article <pg3gub$lov$1@dont-email.me>, alain245@videotron.ca says... > > On Jun/16/2018 at 10:06 AM, Jeff Findley wrote : > > In article <pg1l1n$440$2@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... > >> > >> how about a Space Slingshot ? > > > > A fool and his money are soon parted. > > > > They're not getting enough money to actually develop and build the > > thing. They're raised what $40 million or something? They'll need a > > hell of a lot more than that to turn their design into a reality. > > Are you two talking about SpinLaunch? If no, what do you mean by Space > Slingshot? That was my guess. I personally don't think SpinLaunch is viable, at least not without a heck of a lot of development. G loads will be pretty crazy, so you can't use it for much except bulk cargo. 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]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web