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 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
| From | "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-21 23:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <OaidnR0KqYFilffKnZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #586086 |
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message news:MPG.31d388574e9d191298977a@news.eternal-september.org... > >In article <pdOdnWenpsr7pvTKnZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@earthlink.com>, >mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com says... >> >> "Jeff Findley" wrote in message >> news:MPG.31d2dc7ea9b434b7989778@news.eternal-september.org... >> > >> >Advocates of reusable launch vehicle tech have known this since the days >> >of the X-15 (earlier if you want to count the German rocket powered >> >fighter experience). It was rocket powered and the three copies which >> >were built flew so many times, I can never remember exactly how many >> >flights were made. >> >> 199. I always remember that because they were 1 short of 200 and did try >> for >> it, but couldn?t get the conditions and everything in order before the >> money >> finally ran out. >> >> Jenkins (no surprise) has a good book on the X-15. > >So 199 flights out of 3 airframes and the only thing really holding them >back from flying more was funding. Follow-on vehicles were thought >about as well (like a delta-winged X-15), but never got a chance to fly. >And everyone should remember, the first X-15 flight was 1959 and last >flight was 1968. So this entire program was based on 1950s technology >with some updates in the 1960s. And keep in mind they basically had a vehicle loss that resulted in a rebuilt vehicle and the complete loss of an airframe. (56-6671 was rebuilt X-15A-2, 56-6672, X-15-3 was a complete vehicle loss) The X-15 program is often considered one of the most successful and productive X programs to date. And of course don't forget the unknown flight by noted test pilot Mike Mars. :-) > >Jeff -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-21 13:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57697657$0$34647$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #585969 |
On 2016-06-21 06:09, Jeff Findley wrote: > It should. There is nothing fundamental about a liquid fueled rocket > stage from an orbital launch vehicle that prevents reuse. It's just > that no one has *tried* all that hard to reuse one, until now. And there is nothing fundamental about jet engines to prevent reuse. And this is done every day by jetliners. HOWEVER, the airlines and FAA learned via experience that jet engines can only run so many hours before needing certain level of inspection, and after another set of hours, require a heavy maintenance check. Oh, and after a "hard" landing, the aircraft needs a maintenance check. So SpaceX will learn via experience how many times a stage can be reflown with just a flashlight inpection, how hard a landing the stage can take without needing more serious inspection and after how many flights is a major inspection required (and whether such major maintenance is economic or not). When you look at the Orbital ATK fireworks at Wallops, didn't they run the engines to test them before ? All seemed fine and yet, engines failed. Doing a flight test (including landing) of engines 10 times is cool. But you really need to test until they fail. There is a big difference if they fail on the 11th simulation vs on the 25th simulation. (on the 25th, it means that when you fly the 10th flight, the engines are still far from failure). > fired on the test stand to test and qualify them. There is no > fundamental problem here that needs solving. It is a question of validating the predictions. They've weeded out the problems they know about. They haven't weeded out problems they don't know about YET. It could very well be that they can do 25 flights instead of 10. Or it may be just 5. It could very well be that a major inspection can extend the life of stage by X more flights, but still remains to be seen if that major inspection is economically sound or if building a new one ends up cheaper. Building new ones may present advantages if there are continuing improvements to the rocket being made, at which point, the older rockets without improvements are less attractive. There are a lot of variables in this. > What "new stuff"? Visual inspections? Validation firings on a test > stand? What do you expect them to do between flights? That is the question. How do you validate a rocket for reflight to ensure nothing untoward happened during last flight. This is what SpaceX needs to develop. This is more about procedures than engineering. > Possibly, but I doubt it since that's what the crushable inner core is > supposed to do. It wasn't unexpected at all. If a leg "collapsed" because of hard landing, it still means it was a hard landing. If the collapsible core was fully compressed, it means additional un-absorbed G forces would have been transmitted to the stage. Just just stating that because the gear absorbed some of the excess G force doesn't mean that it absorbed all of it. > Certainly, but if there had been a significant problem during that main > burn, there would not have been enough fuel left for a landing in the > first place. Not talking about significant problem. Talking about some minor problem that might have been significant. Consider Challenger. Imagine a scenario where video showed SRB exhaust coming out of a o-ring but directed away from ET. The flight might have gone on normally, but video would have shown a problem that needs correcting. You can have a jetliner taking off normally, but plume of smoke when engine starts indicates that the engine should get a check. > Again, possibly. But, pressurized tanks, which make up most of the > structure of the stage, are really freaking strong. How pressurized are they at landing ? > As long as they > don't rupture, the stage as a whole is very likely o.k. I'm sure SpaceX > has done analysis and possibly even ground testing for this case Yes. And they may be confident that the rocket can do X flights. The issue here is problems that you have not foreseen. > Somehow, the launch vehicle guys in both the US and U.S.S.R. got a free > pass to ignore all of that experience with rocket engines and flight > vehicles and clung to the mistaken belief that launch vehicles must be > expendable simply because they started their engineering work with > missiles instead of aircraft. Madness. Simply madness. In a race to space, you focus to get there first, no matter how much it costs. You don't have time to develop a landing system. And did computers and sensors of the 1960s have the power to do a controlled landing of a rocket ? Also, in the USA, I somehow suspect that rocket manufacturers lobbied government hard on the fact that re-using rockets wasn't safe. As long as US manufacturers had no competition, there was little incentive to add re-usability to a rocket. When Soyuz became available commercially and started to compete in the launch market with lower prices, the US rocket makers didn't really react, and this left a big spot for SpaceX to come in. And one way to compete against Soyuz is to look are re-using first stage. Out of curiosity: does Falcon9 have simular ratio of delta-V given by first vs second stage compared to other non-reusable rockets ? Say I have a rockets whose first stage goes much much further and provides much greater delta-V, its re-entry would be more problematic than the Falcon 9.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-21 12:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7bvimbllgsspvm2lriniihemm32og6osgj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #586028 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>On 2016-06-21 06:09, Jeff Findley wrote:
>
>> It should. There is nothing fundamental about a liquid fueled rocket
>> stage from an orbital launch vehicle that prevents reuse. It's just
>> that no one has *tried* all that hard to reuse one, until now.
>
>And there is nothing fundamental about jet engines to prevent reuse. And
>this is done every day by jetliners.
>
Well, DOH!
>
>HOWEVER, the airlines and FAA learned via experience that jet engines
>can only run so many hours before needing certain level of inspection,
>and after another set of hours, require a heavy maintenance check.
>
No, they didn't learn that 'from experience'. They learned it from
what the engines and vehicles were designed to be able to do. Just
like SpaceX has 'learned' that they can relaunch at least 10 times.
>
>Oh, and after a "hard" landing, the aircraft needs a maintenance check.
>
Just the landing gear and only if the landing is so 'hard' that it
exceeds the design specs of the aircraft.
>
>So SpaceX will learn via experience how many times a stage can be
>reflown with just a flashlight inpection, how hard a landing the stage
>can take without needing more serious inspection and after how many
>flights is a major inspection required (and whether such major
>maintenance is economic or not).
>
No, they will CHECK via actual experience whether or not their design
goals are holding up. Engineering ain't wishful magic, Mr Mezei.
>
>When you look at the Orbital ATK fireworks at Wallops, didn't they run
>the engines to test them before ? All seemed fine and yet, engines failed.
>
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
>
>Doing a flight test (including landing) of engines 10 times is cool. But
>you really need to test until they fail.
>
No you don't.
>
>There is a big difference if
>they fail on the 11th simulation vs on the 25th simulation.
>
Are you talking testing or simulation? They're not the same thing.
>
>(on the
>25th, it means that when you fly the 10th flight, the engines are still
>far from failure).
>
Maybe. Maybe not.
>
>> fired on the test stand to test and qualify them. There is no
>> fundamental problem here that needs solving.
>
>It is a question of validating the predictions. They've weeded out the
>problems they know about. They haven't weeded out problems they don't
>know about YET.
>
And may never know about them and thus never weed them out.
>
>It could very well be that they can do 25 flights instead of 10. Or it
>may be just 5. It could very well be that a major inspection can extend
>the life of stage by X more flights, but still remains to be seen if
>that major inspection is economically sound or if building a new one
>ends up cheaper.
>
And maybe unicorns will fart magic rainbow dust all over everything.
Do you know ANYTHING about how actual engineering works?
>
>Building new ones may present advantages if there are continuing
>improvements to the rocket being made, at which point, the older rockets
>without improvements are less attractive. There are a lot of variables
>in this.
>
If you're constantly making hardware changes, every flight is a new
experiment. This is what SpaceX is trying to AVOID with things like
standard engine designs.
>
>>
>> What "new stuff"? Visual inspections? Validation firings on a test
>> stand? What do you expect them to do between flights?
>
>That is the question. How do you validate a rocket for reflight to
>ensure nothing untoward happened during last flight. This is what SpaceX
>needs to develop. This is more about procedures than engineering.
>
I'm sorry. I was apparently unclear. YOU 'VALIDATE' THEM THE SAME
WAY YOU VALIDATE A NEW ONE. They already have that. All clear now?
>
>> Possibly, but I doubt it since that's what the crushable inner core is
>> supposed to do. It wasn't unexpected at all.
>
>If a leg "collapsed" because of hard landing, it still means it was a
>hard landing.
>
The leg didn't 'collapse'. It did just what it was supposed to do.
The 'crush core' crushed. That's what it's there for. You obviously
either never understood this when it was explained to you in detail or
you have the long term memory of a fucking mayfly.
>
>If the collapsible core was fully compressed, it means
>additional un-absorbed G forces would have been transmitted to the
>stage.
>
Wrong.
>
>Just just stating that because the gear absorbed some of the
>excess G force doesn't mean that it absorbed all of it.
>
If it didn't the leg would have broken. It didn't. The leg and crush
core performed just like they were supposed to.
Pay attention when people explain these things to you.
Read what SpaceX says.
<remaining ignorance elided>
Buy a fucking clue. Then phone a friend, if you have one, to explain
to you just what a 'clue' is and why they're useful.
--
"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 | 2016-06-21 20:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q1ko3d-17a.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #586050 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > >>On 2016-06-21 06:09, Jeff Findley wrote: >> >>> It should. There is nothing fundamental about a liquid fueled rocket >>> stage from an orbital launch vehicle that prevents reuse. It's just >>> that no one has *tried* all that hard to reuse one, until now. >> >>And there is nothing fundamental about jet engines to prevent reuse. And >>this is done every day by jetliners. >> > > Well, DOH! > >> >>HOWEVER, the airlines and FAA learned via experience that jet engines >>can only run so many hours before needing certain level of inspection, >>and after another set of hours, require a heavy maintenance check. >> > > No, they didn't learn that 'from experience'. They learned it from > what the engines and vehicles were designed to be able to do. Nonsense. Early jet engines had a service life (Time Between Overhaul or TBO) of 10-15 hours. It took decades of refinements to get TBO up to the current 10's of thousands of hours, with inspection times and many parts replaced much more often then that, and those times are STILL determined by operational and maintenance records. New engine designes usually have short maintenance and inspection time requirements until the engine has proved itself in use. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-21 16:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nkcajs$6b1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #586061 |
On 6/21/2016 3:18 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >> >>> On 2016-06-21 06:09, Jeff Findley wrote: >>> >>>> It should. There is nothing fundamental about a liquid fueled rocket >>>> stage from an orbital launch vehicle that prevents reuse. It's just >>>> that no one has *tried* all that hard to reuse one, until now. >>> >>> And there is nothing fundamental about jet engines to prevent reuse. And >>> this is done every day by jetliners. >>> >> Well, DOH! >> >>> >>> HOWEVER, the airlines and FAA learned via experience that jet engines >>> can only run so many hours before needing certain level of inspection, >>> and after another set of hours, require a heavy maintenance check. >>> >> >> No, they didn't learn that 'from experience'. They learned it from >> what the engines and vehicles were designed to be able to do. > Nonsense. > > Early jet engines had a service life (Time Between Overhaul or TBO) of > 10-15 hours. > > It took decades of refinements to get TBO up to the current 10's of > thousands of hours, with inspection times and many parts replaced much > more often then that, and those times are STILL determined by operational > and maintenance records. > > New engine designes usually have short maintenance and inspection > time requirements until the engine has proved itself in use. > > the problem is vertical landing, all that fuel to slow you down, you have to take round trip. better to land it like the shuttle, glide down, no fuel needed. OBW, military has done the vertical landing R+D for a while, but it took the microprocesser age to get it smart enough
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-21 21:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7aoo3d-nma.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #586069 |
In sci.physics Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > On 6/21/2016 3:18 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2016-06-21 06:09, Jeff Findley wrote: >>>> >>>>> It should. There is nothing fundamental about a liquid fueled rocket >>>>> stage from an orbital launch vehicle that prevents reuse. It's just >>>>> that no one has *tried* all that hard to reuse one, until now. >>>> >>>> And there is nothing fundamental about jet engines to prevent reuse. And >>>> this is done every day by jetliners. >>>> > >>> Well, DOH! >>> >>>> >>>> HOWEVER, the airlines and FAA learned via experience that jet engines >>>> can only run so many hours before needing certain level of inspection, >>>> and after another set of hours, require a heavy maintenance check. >>>> >>> >>> No, they didn't learn that 'from experience'. They learned it from >>> what the engines and vehicles were designed to be able to do. > >> Nonsense. >> >> Early jet engines had a service life (Time Between Overhaul or TBO) of >> 10-15 hours. >> >> It took decades of refinements to get TBO up to the current 10's of >> thousands of hours, with inspection times and many parts replaced much >> more often then that, and those times are STILL determined by operational >> and maintenance records. >> >> New engine designes usually have short maintenance and inspection >> time requirements until the engine has proved itself in use. >> >> > > the problem is vertical landing, all that fuel to slow you down, you > have to take round trip. better to land it like the shuttle, glide > down, no fuel needed. Gliding down requires an aerodynamic configuration, i.e. wings and control surfaces as well as retractable landing gear, which is a lot of extra weight and complexity. > OBW, military has done the vertical landing R+D for a while, but it took > the microprocesser age to get it smart enough So you need a microprocessor, a simple altitude radar, and throttles on the engines, BFD. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-22 12:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <teplmb1t4q98ap8a1rnhvfifbdcrvvdf2d@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #586069 |
Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 6/21/2016 3:18 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2016-06-21 06:09, Jeff Findley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It should. There is nothing fundamental about a liquid fueled rocket
>>>>> stage from an orbital launch vehicle that prevents reuse. It's just
>>>>> that no one has *tried* all that hard to reuse one, until now.
>>>>
>>>> And there is nothing fundamental about jet engines to prevent reuse. And
>>>> this is done every day by jetliners.
>>>>
>
>>> Well, DOH!
>>>
>>>>
>>>> HOWEVER, the airlines and FAA learned via experience that jet engines
>>>> can only run so many hours before needing certain level of inspection,
>>>> and after another set of hours, require a heavy maintenance check.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, they didn't learn that 'from experience'. They learned it from
>>> what the engines and vehicles were designed to be able to do.
>
>> Nonsense.
>>
>> Early jet engines had a service life (Time Between Overhaul or TBO) of
>> 10-15 hours.
>>
>> It took decades of refinements to get TBO up to the current 10's of
>> thousands of hours, with inspection times and many parts replaced much
>> more often then that, and those times are STILL determined by operational
>> and maintenance records.
>>
>> New engine designes usually have short maintenance and inspection
>> time requirements until the engine has proved itself in use.
>>
>
>the problem is vertical landing, all that fuel to slow you down, you
>have to take round trip. better to land it like the shuttle, glide
>down, no fuel needed.
>
The wings to do that weigh more than the fuel required. They also
cost more. They also take away the option of using all the fuel and
expending the stage, because that gets you nothing as you're still
hauling around all that extra structure.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-22 21:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31d50c088a7beec498977c@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #586210 |
In article <teplmb1t4q98ap8a1rnhvfifbdcrvvdf2d@4ax.com>, fjmccall@gmail.com says... > >the problem is vertical landing, all that fuel to slow you down, you > >have to take round trip. better to land it like the shuttle, glide > >down, no fuel needed. > > > > The wings to do that weigh more than the fuel required. They also > cost more. They also take away the option of using all the fuel and > expending the stage, because that gets you nothing as you're still > hauling around all that extra structure. > Agreed. This is key if there is a problem with an engine and it has to be shut down during the mission. With Falcon 9R, you burn the fuel which would have been used for turn-around, reentry, and landing and instead use it to make up for the performance shortfall. Yes, it turns the reusable into an expendable, but the primary mission succeeds and places the customer's payload in the desired orbit. You simply can't do that with a winged return vehicle unless you also keep a fuel reserve on board. If you go that route, you have paid a double mass penalty for recovery (once for wings and a second time for a fuel reserve). 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 | 2016-06-22 22:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <576b49b3$0$9153$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #586256 |
On 2016-06-22 21:57, Jeff Findley wrote: > instead use it to make up for the performance shortfall. Yes, it turns > the reusable into an expendable, but the primary mission succeeds and > places the customer's payload in the desired orbit. Not a problem now, but should launch business become highly competitive and forces SpaceX to price launches based on assumption of recovering stage, then events where the stage is not recovered may generate red ink in the financial statements. > You simply can't do that with a winged return vehicle unless you also > keep a fuel reserve on board. Say the Falcon9 were in the shape of the Concorde with wings having mass of just 1kg. (aka: mythical no weight penalty). After main engine cutoff and stage2 separation, if you leave the stage1 to coast, how far would it go before it lands ? Eastern Atlantic ? Europe ? Russia/Middle East ? Asia/Australia ? Pacific ? California ? Now, if we forget the wings: What if stage1 accelerated a bit and made it to the Coast of California and landed in Hawthorne ? Would that cost more fuel than fuel needed to put on the brakes and accelerate westwards back to KSC/barge ? I understand the logistics of wanting it to land near the USA. Landing in Middle east would require hefty transportation back to USA. But if you went around the world once would that save fuel while giving you logistics advantage of landing near SpaceX's California facility ? > If you go that route, you have paid a > double mass penalty for recovery (once for wings and a second time for a > fuel reserve). Shuttle: because it was a LOX/LH2 vehicle, the wings were empty. What if Stage1's wings become kerosene tanks just like in airliners ? The wings would no longer be dead weight. They may end up being heavier tank than current design, but if extra weight is less than weight of fuel to land, it could be a net gain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-23 06:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31d5838412af6fe98977d@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #586262 |
In article <576b49b3$0$9153$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com>, jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca says... > > On 2016-06-22 21:57, Jeff Findley wrote: > > > instead use it to make up for the performance shortfall. Yes, it turns > > the reusable into an expendable, but the primary mission succeeds and > > places the customer's payload in the desired orbit. > > Not a problem now, but should launch business become highly competitive > and forces SpaceX to price launches based on assumption of recovering > stage, then events where the stage is not recovered may generate red ink > in the financial statements. Not really. The stages aren't that expensive to build, because they're making money now and aren't counting on reuse yet. And they still have a huge launch backlog that will take years to make up. So, losing a few stages here and there won't hurt them one bit. On the contrary, not underperforming on the primary mission would be *worse* for business, since that would impact the customers directly! Perhaps, sometime in the far distant future, this might impact them if the competition is also reusing their stages and they get into a price war with each other. But that is likely 5 to 10 years away, and in the meantime, SpaceX will continue to innovate. So who knows where we'll be then. > > You simply can't do that with a winged return vehicle unless you also > > keep a fuel reserve on board. > > Say the Falcon9 were in the shape of the Concorde with wings having mass > of just 1kg. (aka: mythical no weight penalty). I'm not going to engage in this sort of senseless speculation. Wings are heavy and also impose a significant drag penalty during launch. They are inferior to vertical landing for unmanned stage recovery as long as you're willing to accept that you'll lose a stage from time to time. > > If you go that route, you have paid a > > double mass penalty for recovery (once for wings and a second time for a > > fuel reserve). > > Shuttle: because it was a LOX/LH2 vehicle, the wings were empty. > > What if Stage1's wings become kerosene tanks just like in airliners ? > The wings would no longer be dead weight. They may end up being heavier > tank than current design, but if extra weight is less than weight of > fuel to land, it could be a net gain. Wings are far more heavy (kg of wing mass per liter of storage volume) than cylindrical tanks. This is basic geometry. Spheres are the most mass efficient, but don't make for good aerodynamics, so cylinders are the second most mass efficient, so that's what is used. 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 | 2016-06-23 10:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <oh2omb1ni0go6dpfscdfjoka2aaj47jb1q@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #586298 |
Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>In article <576b49b3$0$9153$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com>,
>jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca says...
>>
>> On 2016-06-22 21:57, Jeff Findley wrote:
>>
>> > instead use it to make up for the performance shortfall. Yes, it turns
>> > the reusable into an expendable, but the primary mission succeeds and
>> > places the customer's payload in the desired orbit.
>>
>> Not a problem now, but should launch business become highly competitive
>> and forces SpaceX to price launches based on assumption of recovering
>> stage, then events where the stage is not recovered may generate red ink
>> in the financial statements.
>
>Not really. The stages aren't that expensive to build, because they're
>making money now and aren't counting on reuse yet. And they still have
>a huge launch backlog that will take years to make up. So, losing a few
>stages here and there won't hurt them one bit. On the contrary, not
>underperforming on the primary mission would be *worse* for business,
>since that would impact the customers directly!
>
Mr Mezei also misses the fact that you don't price based on 'assuming'
future performance, but rather based on present performance. If you
don't have stages to reuse, you don't sell reused stages. It's really
that simple.
Just by the way, Musk's numbers in this regard just don't quite seem
to hang together to me. A new first stage costs $18 million
(presumably his cost). A full up launch (all costs, including
profits) costs $60 million. Musk has said that using a reflown first
stage will reduce the price by around $20 million. That seems to say
that, at least initially, if you go on a reflown first stage he'll
give it to you for free.
Of course, if you actually do refly that stage ten times, the cost
over those launches for the first stage is only around $2 million per
launch.
>
>Perhaps, sometime in the far distant future, this might impact them if
>the competition is also reusing their stages and they get into a price
>war with each other. But that is likely 5 to 10 years away, and in the
>meantime, SpaceX will continue to innovate. So who knows where we'll be
>then.
>
I somehow doubt that anything Mr Mezei postulates is ever going to
come to pass.
>> > You simply can't do that with a winged return vehicle unless you also
>> > keep a fuel reserve on board.
>>
>> Say the Falcon9 were in the shape of the Concorde with wings having mass
>> of just 1kg. (aka: mythical no weight penalty).
>
>I'm not going to engage in this sort of senseless speculation. Wings
>are heavy and also impose a significant drag penalty during launch.
>They are inferior to vertical landing for unmanned stage recovery as
>long as you're willing to accept that you'll lose a stage from time to
>time.
>
And since wings are going to be 'dead stick' single pass if you don't
also reserve fuel, you're going to lose a stage from time to time that
way, too.
>> > If you go that route, you have paid a
>> > double mass penalty for recovery (once for wings and a second time for a
>> > fuel reserve).
>>
>> Shuttle: because it was a LOX/LH2 vehicle, the wings were empty.
>>
>> What if Stage1's wings become kerosene tanks just like in airliners ?
>> The wings would no longer be dead weight. They may end up being heavier
>> tank than current design, but if extra weight is less than weight of
>> fuel to land, it could be a net gain.
>
>Wings are far more heavy (kg of wing mass per liter of storage volume)
>than cylindrical tanks. This is basic geometry. Spheres are the most
>mass efficient, but don't make for good aerodynamics, so cylinders are
>the second most mass efficient, so that's what is used.
>
Dammit, there you go clouding the issues with facts again...
--
"Well, I met a girl in West Hollywood. I ain't naming names.
She really worked me over good. She was just like Jesse James.
She really worked me over good. She was a credit to her gender.
She put me through some changes, Lord.
Sort of like a Waring blender."
-- Warren Zevon, "Poor, Poor, Pitiful Me"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-24 06:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31d6d8cfbbe01eb698977e@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #586332 |
In article <oh2omb1ni0go6dpfscdfjoka2aaj47jb1q@4ax.com>, fjmccall@gmail.com says... > >> > You simply can't do that with a winged return vehicle unless you also > >> > keep a fuel reserve on board. > >> > >> Say the Falcon9 were in the shape of the Concorde with wings having mass > >> of just 1kg. (aka: mythical no weight penalty). > > > >I'm not going to engage in this sort of senseless speculation. Wings > >are heavy and also impose a significant drag penalty during launch. > >They are inferior to vertical landing for unmanned stage recovery as > >long as you're willing to accept that you'll lose a stage from time to > >time. > > > > And since wings are going to be 'dead stick' single pass if you don't > also reserve fuel, you're going to lose a stage from time to time that > way, too. > That and if you do keep a fuel reserve in a winged vehicle and expect to use it in final approach (i.e. while gliding subsonic) the rocket engines you used during launch are going to be both horribly overpowered thrust wise and horribly inefficient fuel consumption wise. So making good use of that fuel which is reserved for landing is going to be a challenge. Many past proposals for fly back boosters include turbojet engines for final approach and landing. Seems rather daft to keep on adding mass and complexity to a design solve the problems that wings cause, especially since cost scales with complexity. 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 | 2016-06-23 05:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <l6knmb541l6pb4d3mv4g3nohvmohl8uqa4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #586262 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>On 2016-06-22 21:57, Jeff Findley wrote:
>
>> instead use it to make up for the performance shortfall. Yes, it turns
>> the reusable into an expendable, but the primary mission succeeds and
>> places the customer's payload in the desired orbit.
>
>Not a problem now, but should launch business become highly competitive
>and forces SpaceX to price launches based on assumption of recovering
>stage, then events where the stage is not recovered may generate red ink
>in the financial statements.
>
SpaceX already beats everyone else on price. Only crazy people price
the way you suggest SpaceX would.
>
>> You simply can't do that with a winged return vehicle unless you also
>> keep a fuel reserve on board.
>
>Say the Falcon9 were in the shape of the Concorde with wings having mass
>of just 1kg. (aka: mythical no weight penalty).
>
>After main engine cutoff and stage2 separation, if you leave the stage1
>to coast, how far would it go before it lands ?
>
>Eastern Atlantic ? Europe ? Russia/Middle East ? Asia/Australia ?
>Pacific ? California ?
>
Atlantic Ocean.
>
>Now, if we forget the wings:
>
>What if stage1 accelerated a bit and made it to the Coast of California
>and landed in Hawthorne ? Would that cost more fuel than fuel needed to
>put on the brakes and accelerate westwards back to KSC/barge ?
>
Yes, because that implies that you've put the first stage virtually
into orbit.
>
>I understand the logistics of wanting it to land near the USA. Landing
>in Middle east would require hefty transportation back to USA. But if
>you went around the world once would that save fuel while giving you
>logistics advantage of landing near SpaceX's California facility ?
>
If you went around the world once you would be a single stage to orbit
vehicle and there aren't any of those with practical payloads.
>
>> If you go that route, you have paid a
>> double mass penalty for recovery (once for wings and a second time for a
>> fuel reserve).
>
>Shuttle: because it was a LOX/LH2 vehicle, the wings were empty.
>
>What if Stage1's wings become kerosene tanks just like in airliners ?
>The wings would no longer be dead weight. They may end up being heavier
>tank than current design, but if extra weight is less than weight of
>fuel to land, it could be a net gain.
>
And if we had magic unicorns we wouldn't bother with rockets.
--
"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 | 2016-06-22 12:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4nilmbti7ab2pjemva5nt2tqg0qtsu4lun@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #586061 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2016-06-21 06:09, Jeff Findley wrote:
>>>
>>>> It should. There is nothing fundamental about a liquid fueled rocket
>>>> stage from an orbital launch vehicle that prevents reuse. It's just
>>>> that no one has *tried* all that hard to reuse one, until now.
>>>
>>>And there is nothing fundamental about jet engines to prevent reuse. And
>>>this is done every day by jetliners.
>>>
>>
>> Well, DOH!
>>
>>>
>>>HOWEVER, the airlines and FAA learned via experience that jet engines
>>>can only run so many hours before needing certain level of inspection,
>>>and after another set of hours, require a heavy maintenance check.
>>>
>>
>> No, they didn't learn that 'from experience'. They learned it from
>> what the engines and vehicles were designed to be able to do.
>>
>
>Nonsense.
>
Nonsense your ass, Chimp.
>
>Early jet engines had a service life (Time Between Overhaul or TBO) of
>10-15 hours.
>
Yes, they did, because of things like limits on metallurgy. That was
the design service life and they knew it going in. They didn't just
build the things and then say, "Now we'll just fly the fuckers and see
what happens".
>
>It took decades of refinements to get TBO up to the current 10's of
>thousands of hours, with inspection times and many parts replaced much
>more often then that, and those times are STILL determined by operational
>and maintenance records.
>
Yes, it did, but that's because basic materials science improved, not
because of increased experience with the old short-lived systems. What
YOU are talking about is not what Moron Mezei is talking about.
>
>New engine designes usually have short maintenance and inspection
>time requirements until the engine has proved itself in use.
>
Cite?
--
"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 | 2016-06-22 20:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ufar3d-j1j.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #586208 |
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: >>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >>> >>>>On 2016-06-21 06:09, Jeff Findley wrote: >>>> >>>>> It should. There is nothing fundamental about a liquid fueled rocket >>>>> stage from an orbital launch vehicle that prevents reuse. It's just >>>>> that no one has *tried* all that hard to reuse one, until now. >>>> >>>>And there is nothing fundamental about jet engines to prevent reuse. And >>>>this is done every day by jetliners. >>>> >>> >>> Well, DOH! >>> >>>> >>>>HOWEVER, the airlines and FAA learned via experience that jet engines >>>>can only run so many hours before needing certain level of inspection, >>>>and after another set of hours, require a heavy maintenance check. >>>> >>> >>> No, they didn't learn that 'from experience'. They learned it from >>> what the engines and vehicles were designed to be able to do. >>> >> >>Nonsense. >> > > Nonsense your ass, Chimp. > >> >>Early jet engines had a service life (Time Between Overhaul or TBO) of >>10-15 hours. >> > > Yes, they did, because of things like limits on metallurgy. That was > the design service life and they knew it going in. No, they didn't; in the early days no one had any clue how long things would hang together in an entirely new application. You learn service life from experience. > They didn't just > build the things and then say, "Now we'll just fly the fuckers and see > what happens". That is EXACTLY what they did in the early days. >>It took decades of refinements to get TBO up to the current 10's of >>thousands of hours, with inspection times and many parts replaced much >>more often then that, and those times are STILL determined by operational >>and maintenance records. >> > > Yes, it did, but that's because basic materials science improved, not > because of increased experience with the old short-lived systems. It was a mix of both. >>New engine designes usually have short maintenance and inspection >>time requirements until the engine has proved itself in use. >> > > Cite? Any new aircraft engine brought to market in modern times; two specific examples are Rotax and Thielert. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-22 14:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ju0mmblinu20ftflpe76c68i7in28asd74@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #586218 |
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: >>>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On 2016-06-21 06:09, Jeff Findley wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It should. There is nothing fundamental about a liquid fueled rocket >>>>>> stage from an orbital launch vehicle that prevents reuse. It's just >>>>>> that no one has *tried* all that hard to reuse one, until now. >>>>> >>>>>And there is nothing fundamental about jet engines to prevent reuse. And >>>>>this is done every day by jetliners. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, DOH! >>>> >>>>> >>>>>HOWEVER, the airlines and FAA learned via experience that jet engines >>>>>can only run so many hours before needing certain level of inspection, >>>>>and after another set of hours, require a heavy maintenance check. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, they didn't learn that 'from experience'. They learned it from >>>> what the engines and vehicles were designed to be able to do. >>>> >>> >>>Nonsense. >>> >> >> Nonsense your ass, Chimp. >> >>> >>>Early jet engines had a service life (Time Between Overhaul or TBO) of >>>10-15 hours. >>> >> >> Yes, they did, because of things like limits on metallurgy. That was >> the design service life and they knew it going in. > >No, they didn't; in the early days no one had any clue how long things >would hang together in an entirely new application. You learn service >life from experience. > Bullshit. >> They didn't just >> build the things and then say, "Now we'll just fly the fuckers and see >> what happens". > >That is EXACTLY what they did in the early days. > Nonsense. >>>It took decades of refinements to get TBO up to the current 10's of >>>thousands of hours, with inspection times and many parts replaced much >>>more often then that, and those times are STILL determined by operational >>>and maintenance records. >>> >> >> Yes, it did, but that's because basic materials science improved, not >> because of increased experience with the old short-lived systems. > >It was a mix of both. > Nonsense. >>>New engine designes usually have short maintenance and inspection >>>time requirements until the engine has proved itself in use. >>> >> >> Cite? > >Any new aircraft engine brought to market in modern times; two specific >examples are Rotax and Thielert. > So let's summarize and I think you'll find you're telling me "nonsense" while you're agreeing with me. I claim that something is DESIGNED for a specific minimum performance. If that was not true, you would have to tear every airplane down after every flight, which we obviously do not do. Mezei claims that you cannot know that you will meet that minimum performance unless you tear every airplane apart after every flight and fly them to destruction. YOU claim that you get "short maintenance and inspection time requirements" (that 'minimum performance' I'm talking about) and that then you do "maintenance and inspection" and that those times MIGHT lengthen with experience. In other words, you claimed I was speaking "nonsense" while you were agreeing with me. That just makes you an unthinking asshole, Chimp. -- You are What you do When it counts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-22 22:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhfr3d-ghj.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #586224 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: <snip> > I claim that something is DESIGNED for a specific minimum performance. Of course it is and based on the knowledge one has at the time. > If that was not true, you would have to tear every airplane down after > every flight, which we obviously do not do. Nope. You test fly the design looking for design discrepancies and errors. After the design is verified, it goes into production and the required periodic inspections may or may not find subtle design flaws such as a gusset that is under strength and needs to be beefed up. > Mezei claims that you cannot know that you will meet that minimum > performance unless you tear every airplane apart after every flight > and fly them to destruction. I don't care what Mezei claims. > YOU claim that you get "short maintenance and inspection time > requirements" (that 'minimum performance' I'm talking about) and that > then you do "maintenance and inspection" and that those times MIGHT > lengthen with experience. Nope; the comment was specifically about engines and things like engine part replacement times and engine overhaul times. This is called "service life", not performance. > In other words, you claimed I was speaking "nonsense" while you were > agreeing with me. That just makes you an unthinking asshole, Chimp. I see you are STILL an argumentative, self centered ass. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-23 00:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rq3nmbd52m58ga5gb1m6tlrk77dlbmrmfr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #586236 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > ><snip> > >> I claim that something is DESIGNED for a specific minimum performance. > >Of course it is and based on the knowledge one has at the time. > >> If that was not true, you would have to tear every airplane down after >> every flight, which we obviously do not do. > >Nope. > Yep. You just agreed, above, Chimp. > >You test fly the design looking for design discrepancies and errors. > >After the design is verified, it goes into production and the required >periodic inspections may or may not find subtle design flaws such as >a gusset that is under strength and needs to be beefed up. > And those 'required periodic inspections' are based on what, Chimp? > >> Mezei claims that you cannot know that you will meet that minimum >> performance unless you tear every airplane apart after every flight >> and fly them to destruction. > >I don't care what Mezei claims. > Then why the fuck are you even in this discussion? >> YOU claim that you get "short maintenance and inspection time >> requirements" (that 'minimum performance' I'm talking about) and that >> then you do "maintenance and inspection" and that those times MIGHT >> lengthen with experience. > >Nope; the comment was specifically about engines and things like engine >part replacement times and engine overhaul times. This is called "service >life", not performance. > And "service life" is part of the engineering "design performance", Chimpshit. >> In other words, you claimed I was speaking "nonsense" while you were >> agreeing with me. That just makes you an unthinking asshole, Chimp. > >I see you are STILL an argumentative, self centered ass. > Only when dealing with an argumentative, self centered ass. -- You are What you do When it counts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-23 17:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <spjt3d-clq.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #586288 |
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: >> >><snip> >> >>> I claim that something is DESIGNED for a specific minimum performance. >> >>Of course it is and based on the knowledge one has at the time. >> >>> If that was not true, you would have to tear every airplane down after >>> every flight, which we obviously do not do. >> >>Nope. >> > > Yep. You just agreed, above, Chimp. Will you be the poster boy for tunnel vision again this year? >> >>You test fly the design looking for design discrepancies and errors. >> >>After the design is verified, it goes into production and the required >>periodic inspections may or may not find subtle design flaws such as >>a gusset that is under strength and needs to be beefed up. >> > > And those 'required periodic inspections' are based on what, Chimp? History, McCrap. >> >>> Mezei claims that you cannot know that you will meet that minimum >>> performance unless you tear every airplane apart after every flight >>> and fly them to destruction. >> >>I don't care what Mezei claims. >> > > Then why the fuck are you even in this discussion? Why the fuck do you care? >>> YOU claim that you get "short maintenance and inspection time >>> requirements" (that 'minimum performance' I'm talking about) and that >>> then you do "maintenance and inspection" and that those times MIGHT >>> lengthen with experience. >> >>Nope; the comment was specifically about engines and things like engine >>part replacement times and engine overhaul times. This is called "service >>life", not performance. >> > > And "service life" is part of the engineering "design performance", > Chimpshit. Nope, two separate, but often, related things, McCrap. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-23 14:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <tukombhfgtepgh24ossi165oj5e7lugfqf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #586338 |
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:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>> I claim that something is DESIGNED for a specific minimum performance.
>>>
>>>Of course it is and based on the knowledge one has at the time.
>>>
>>>> If that was not true, you would have to tear every airplane down after
>>>> every flight, which we obviously do not do.
>>>
>>>Nope.
>>>
>>
>> Yep. You just agreed, above, Chimp.
>
>Will you be the poster boy for tunnel vision again this year?
>
Lack of response noted.
>>>
>>>You test fly the design looking for design discrepancies and errors.
>>>
>>>After the design is verified, it goes into production and the required
>>>periodic inspections may or may not find subtle design flaws such as
>>>a gusset that is under strength and needs to be beefed up.
>>>
>>
>> And those 'required periodic inspections' are based on what, Chimp?
>
>History, McCrap.
>
Wrong, Chimpshit.
>>>
>>>> Mezei claims that you cannot know that you will meet that minimum
>>>> performance unless you tear every airplane apart after every flight
>>>> and fly them to destruction.
>>>
>>>I don't care what Mezei claims.
>>>
>>
>> Then why the fuck are you even in this discussion?
>
>Why the fuck do you care?
>
Rhetorical question. Look it up.
>>>> YOU claim that you get "short maintenance and inspection time
>>>> requirements" (that 'minimum performance' I'm talking about) and that
>>>> then you do "maintenance and inspection" and that those times MIGHT
>>>> lengthen with experience.
>>>
>>>Nope; the comment was specifically about engines and things like engine
>>>part replacement times and engine overhaul times. This is called "service
>>>life", not performance.
>>>
>>
>> And "service life" is part of the engineering "design performance",
>> Chimpshit.
>
>Nope, two separate, but often, related things, McCrap.
>
Yep, the whole works is 'design performance'. Speaking of 'tunnel
vision', there's your narrow definition of 'performance'.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web