Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.space.policy > #56657 > unrolled thread
| Started by | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-03 13:14 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-06-19 22:40 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 250 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.space.policy
Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-03 13:14 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 14:08 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-03 14:12 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 15:43 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 17:57 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-03 15:50 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 17:55 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-03 15:48 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-04 04:16 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 nj_kruse@me.com (Niels Jørgen Kruse) - 2016-06-04 10:58 +0200
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 08:26 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-04 14:23 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 15:16 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> - 2016-06-06 18:51 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-06-05 22:49 +0100
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-06 07:14 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-06-09 22:11 +0100
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-10 14:00 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-10 13:56 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-10 18:30 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-11 02:42 -0700
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 bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2016-06-23 00:25 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2016-06-23 00:27 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 09:09 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 09:06 -0700
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 nj_kruse@me.com (Niels Jørgen Kruse) - 2016-07-03 11:24 +0200
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 20:57 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 04:40 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-07-06 06:44 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-07-07 14:00 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> - 2016-07-07 18:39 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-07-07 23:06 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 02:57 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-07-08 06:52 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-07-08 06:47 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 17:21 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> - 2016-07-05 17:14 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-07-05 13:33 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 23:31 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-07-05 15:29 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 23:34 -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 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 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 bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2016-06-25 06:10 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-25 16:13 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-06-25 16:41 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-25 16:48 -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
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 08:12 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-20 13:57 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 11:05 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-20 21:47 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-06-20 22:34 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 20:17 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 17:53 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2016-06-18 15:09 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-19 15:55 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-19 22:05 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-19 22:40 -0400
Page 8 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 13 Next page →
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 13:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <577bef58$0$10184$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #56914 |
On 2016-07-05 13:14, Rick Jones wrote: > Just guessing, but I suspect the landing system isn't designed to have > the mass of a Dragon sitting on top of the first stage at landing. Stage 1 has enough trouble steering itself for landing without any mass at the top. I suspect steering ability would be bigger problem than thurst power to land smoothly. On the other hand, put 2 barges, and get Dragon to separate say 1000m above sea level and it lands on barge 1 while stage 1 lands on barge 2. However, short of a joy ride, I don't see much use for a shoot up and back down right away in a dragon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 23:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <qjstnbtm0slrif9rn76l7tr72dntistjap@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56915 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>On 2016-07-05 13:14, Rick Jones wrote:
>>
>> Just guessing, but I suspect the landing system isn't designed to have
>> the mass of a Dragon sitting on top of the first stage at landing.
>>
>
>Stage 1 has enough trouble steering itself for landing without any mass
>at the top. I suspect steering ability would be bigger problem than
>thurst power to land smoothly.
>
>On the other hand, put 2 barges, and get Dragon to separate say 1000m
>above sea level and it lands on barge 1 while stage 1 lands on barge 2.
>
Does Dragon CRS have the landing legs that Dragon 2 has?
>
>However, short of a joy ride, I don't see much use for a shoot up and
>back down right away in a dragon.
>
There are lots of 'sounding rocket' things that could be done, but
this would be a more expensive way to do them than using a dedicated
sounding rocket.
--
"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 | "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 15:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <RNudnQ4hxLYil-HKnZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #56914 |
"Rick Jones" wrote in message news:nlgptp$ife$1@news.hpeswlab.net... > >Niels Jørgen Kruse <nj_kruse@me.com> wrote: > >> I have been wondering if it makes sense for SpaceX to stack a >> recovered Dragon on top of a recovered Falcon 9 first stage and use >> it as a suborbital jumper. There would be no need to separate the >> capsule, just stick some experiments in there. > >> The idea would be to not risk significant new hardware and gain >> experience. > >Just guessing, but I suspect the landing system isn't designed to have >the mass of a Dragon sitting on top of the first stage at landing. > >rick jones Hmm, on the flip side, one of the problems Falcon 9 has right now is that the engines can't throttle deep enough to hover (because the empty stage is too light) so with more fuel and a heavier payload you might "solve" that problem. Of course given the complications that introduces, I'm not sure that's a solution I want. -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 23:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <k7iunbl7628d8uhm3up47a2fu7d25v2prj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56916 |
"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>"Rick Jones" wrote in message news:nlgptp$ife$1@news.hpeswlab.net...
>>
>>Niels Jørgen Kruse <nj_kruse@me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have been wondering if it makes sense for SpaceX to stack a
>>> recovered Dragon on top of a recovered Falcon 9 first stage and use
>>> it as a suborbital jumper. There would be no need to separate the
>>> capsule, just stick some experiments in there.
>>
>>> The idea would be to not risk significant new hardware and gain
>>> experience.
>>
>>Just guessing, but I suspect the landing system isn't designed to have
>>the mass of a Dragon sitting on top of the first stage at landing.
>>
>
>Hmm, on the flip side, one of the problems Falcon 9 has right now is that
>the engines can't throttle deep enough to hover (because the empty stage is
>too light) so with more fuel and a heavier payload you might "solve" that
>problem. Of course given the complications that introduces, I'm not sure
>that's a solution I want.
>
Yeah, but now you'd need totally new landing software and landing
techniques if you wanted to take advantage of that.
So far most failed landings have been because the rocket ran out of
consumables or was just coming in too 'hot'. I'm not sure a lack of
hovering (which would use more consumables) is the problem here.
--
"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 | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-22 18:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <576b1682$0$62875$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #56764 |
On 2016-06-22 17:37, Fred J. McCall wrote: > 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. Don't attribute your fantasies to me. I didn't claim that. When you have a new product, you don't have any evidence of reliability. You have to build this over time. And in order to determine how many times a rocket can fly, you have to do frequent inspections to detect if the last flight caused any degradation. You may have designed a rocket to fly 10 times, but the proof is in the pudding. You can't say Falcon is able to be reflown 10 times until sufficient number of stage 1s have been reflown 10 times to validate the design. New airplanes are designed to be reliable and fly on single engine if needed. But they don't get ETOPS certification until they have flown a certain number of hours to prove engine reliability statistics. (and initial ETPOS is extended over time as reliability has further proven. When the A380 was first flown commercially (SIN to SYD), Airbus and Rolls Royce had teams at both airports to inspect aircraft after every flight, and systems to notify them of problems during a flight so they could fix things quickly as soon as airplane landed. Despite all the testing during certification, they knew that glitches were bound to show up during comemercial operations with the aircraft flying close to 20 hours per day. This isn't just for design problems, but also potential production glitches where an aircraft may not have had a perfect assembly, or some component was deffective etc. Consider the possibility that slight variations during production of Falcom 9s might result in some being able to be reflown 5 times before obvious signs of wear appear, while others could go 10 or 15 times before same signs happen. Only proper testing/inspection after each flight will give you that information. And IF you find diferrences, you can then trace back to manufacturing to find out what was done differently and fix that. The days of carelessly sending stuff up are over. SpaceX is a business and gets paid to deliver very expensive cargo to orbit. It isn't some cowboy astronaut. As such they are more likelty to be very vigilent with rocket re-use to validate that the plan is working isntead of carelessly relaunching them just because the plan was to relainch them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-23 00:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <064nmbdflfna78f47joml73o4ggijmiaoq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56768 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>On 2016-06-22 17:37, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Don't attribute your fantasies to me. I didn't claim that.
>
Oh, come now. The least you can do is read and understand what YOU
say.
>
>When you have a new product, you don't have any evidence of reliability.
>
Of course you do.
<snip Moron Mezei ignorance>
You know, given a choice between what Elon Musk says and what you pull
out of your ass, I think I'm going to go with Musk.
--
"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 | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-22 18:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <576b109c$0$62868$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #56760 |
On 2016-06-22 15:23, Fred J. McCall wrote: > 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". Exactly what they did with the Comet. They had not considered the issue of pressurization cycles on airframe and stress it causes on square corners of windows. It took a while for the problem to manifest itself and when it did, people died. This is why to this day, you don't see square windows on aircraft that are pressurized. And this is why today, aircraft airframe maintenance/inspection is dicated not just by hours of flight but also pressurization cycles. (similar issue with the Aloha convertible 737). You really learn about a system's limits when it goes beyond its limits. Those GTO flights are testing Falcon9's limits on succesful landings. And with every flight, I am pressure sure they tweak the software and possibly hardware to increase the odds of a succesful return. To state that Flacon 9 is in production and doesn't change is silly. > Yes, it did, but that's because basic materials science improved, not > because of increased experience with the old short-lived systems. When you travel into new territory, you cannot predict every problem. The Comet is a good example of not thinking about a problem, it wasn't about materials improving. Apollo 1 is another example where they didn't consider the danger of pressurizing a module to 16.7 PSI of pure Oxygen. >What > YOU are talking about is not what Moron Mezei is talking about. Your level of professionalisn is very high.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-23 00:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <i24nmbtl2isn7oshn2svjc8a1vg40olib2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56766 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>On 2016-06-22 15:23, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
>> 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".
>
>Exactly what they did with the Comet.
>
Nonsense!
<snip Moron Mezei ignorance>
--
"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 | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-21 22:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5769fa4a$0$18135$c3e8da3$a9097924@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #56747 |
On 2016-06-21 15:47, Fred J. McCall wrote: > 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. An aircraft gets constant improvements over the years, same with its engines. It's called fine tuning. And common to aerospace. That is why for insance, when they discovered flaws on some A380 Roll Royce engines they applied to a narrow set of aircraft as that flaw had been fixed for engines built after X date. If Musk isn't tweaking his designs to increase efficiency of engines or lighten the stages, I am quite surprised. This doesn't mean redrawing the whole thing. > The leg didn't 'collapse'. It did just what it was supposed to do. The crush core is a failsafe backup. It isn't meant to crush to absorb landing on a normal landing. So this means that landing was harder than nominal. Unless you have access to the engineering data from the landing, you cannot state that the crush zone absorbed enough of the G force that what was left was not a problem for the stage to absorb without damage. Yes, the crush zone worked as designed. But if it is designed to absorb X G force, and you have a impact greater than X, the crush zone still works as designed, expect that everything above X gets transmitted to the stage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-22 05:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pmip3d-q8d.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #56753 |
In sci.physics JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 2016-06-21 15:47, Fred J. McCall wrote: > >> 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. > > An aircraft gets constant improvements over the years, same with its > engines. It's called fine tuning. Nope, with aircraft it is a new model, e.g. the 747 has over twenty models and the 777 has 7 and each model has to be certified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777 -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-22 13:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nkej5q$1gu3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #56755 |
On 6/22/2016 1:01 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >> On 2016-06-21 15:47, Fred J. McCall wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> An aircraft gets constant improvements over the years, same with its >> engines. It's called fine tuning. > > Nope, with aircraft it is a new model, e.g. the 747 has over twenty > models and the 777 has 7 and each model has to be certified. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747 > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777 > > Not so. There are several processes by which in-service aircraft are routinely upgraded and modified. The basic method is by STC. "A supplemental type certificate ( STC ) is a type certificate ( TC ) issued when an applicant has received FAA approval to modify an aeronautical product from its original design." STCs are available for upgrades and aircraft modifications both very simple, and amazingly major. Sometimes brand new aircraft are built that incorporate a pile of various STCs. Another way is when the FAA orders a change for safety reasons. This is called an Airworthiness Directive (AD) Another way is that individual aircraft or engine parts may be improved is via a Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA). "a combined design and production approval for modification and replacement articles. It allows a manufacturer to produce and sell these..." There is a healthy market for improved parts in the aviation industry. If you can figure out how to make something better or to solve a recurring problem, there is money to be made.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-22 18:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ip1r3d-68i.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #56757 |
In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/22/2016 1:01 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >>> On 2016-06-21 15:47, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> An aircraft gets constant improvements over the years, same with its >>> engines. It's called fine tuning. >> >> Nope, with aircraft it is a new model, e.g. the 747 has over twenty >> models and the 777 has 7 and each model has to be certified. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747 >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777 >> >> > Not so. There are several processes by which in-service aircraft are > routinely upgraded and modified. The basic method is by STC. "A > supplemental type certificate ( STC ) is a type certificate ( TC ) > issued when an applicant has received FAA approval to modify an > aeronautical product from its original design." > > STCs are available for upgrades and aircraft modifications both very > simple, and amazingly major. Sometimes brand new aircraft are built > that incorporate a pile of various STCs. STCs do not make major changes in the airframe and each has to be certified. My airplane has several STCs; a split nose cowl instead of one piece, ground adjustable cowl flap, modern rudder light, varnier mixture control. None significantly changes anything. An engine design STC requires a LOT of certification effort. > Another way is when the FAA orders a change for safety reasons. This is > called an Airworthiness Directive (AD) Which is generally to address something that is wrong, such as adding reinforcement to a wing spar that tends to crack or frequent inspection of things found to have limited life or high wear. > Another way is that individual aircraft or engine parts may be improved > is via a Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA). "a combined design and > production approval for modification and replacement articles. It allows > a manufacturer to produce and sell these..." > There is a healthy market for improved parts in the aviation industry. > If you can figure out how to make something better or to solve a > recurring problem, there is money to be made. PMA parts are not "better" parts, they are replacement parts that are at least as good as the original part that are not made by the original manufacture. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-22 15:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nkenl1$1oko$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #56758 |
On 6/22/2016 2:25 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/22/2016 1:01 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> STCs are available for upgrades and aircraft modifications both very >> simple, and amazingly major. Sometimes brand new aircraft are built >> that incorporate a pile of various STCs. > > STCs do not make major changes in the airframe STCs make both small and major changes. For example, you can take an old DC-3 airliner and make a vastly different plane from it by swapping out the ancient radial engines for turboprops, stretch the fuselage and also perhaps add a big cargo door. The result is called a BT-67, bit the resulting aircraft is still type-certified as a DC-3 and it's all done by the STC process (STC SA4840NM) http://www.baslerturbo.com/overview1.html You could call the above example "Minor modifications" if you wish, but you would be far out on a limb. > and each has to be certified. Yes! That's why the last word in "Supplemental Type Certificate" (STC) is "Certificate". > My airplane has several STCs; a split nose cowl instead of one piece, > ground adjustable cowl flap, modern rudder light, varnier mixture > control. None significantly changes anything. > > An engine design STC requires a LOT of certification effort. Arm waving > >> Another way is when the FAA orders a change for safety reasons. This is >> called an Airworthiness Directive (AD) > > Which is generally to address something that is wrong, such as adding > reinforcement to a wing spar that tends to crack or frequent inspection > of things found to have limited life or high wear. Which is exactly what I imply above. It is still a modification to a type certified aircraft and the aircraft model number is still the same after it is done. Your point? > >> Another way is that individual aircraft or engine parts may be improved >> is via a Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA). "a combined design and >> production approval for modification and replacement articles. It allows >> a manufacturer to produce and sell these..." >> There is a healthy market for improved parts in the aviation industry. >> If you can figure out how to make something better or to solve a >> recurring problem, there is money to be made. > > PMA parts are not "better" parts, they are replacement parts that are > at least as good as the original part that are not made by the original > manufacture. > Oh yes they can be! You can buy a PMA starter for your airplane that is lighter and more powerful than the original. There are a multitude of internal engine parts that are improvements over the originals. (Or at least, claimed to be better.) And I might also point out that most GA aircraft these days very likely incorporate electronics that wasn't even invented when their aircraft model was originally type-certified. Anyhow, if you wish to continue arm waving and hair-splitting on this topic, you are on your own. This thread is about the Falcon 9.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-22 18:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <576b0d17$0$8264$c3e8da3$cc4fe22d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #56758 |
On 2016-06-22 14:25, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > STCs do not make major changes in the airframe and each has to be certified. But there are many changes done which do not change the aircraft's behaviour/performance but lighten its weight. Those are rollned into the production line over the years. So a 737-800 built today is not exactly the same as the first 737-800 that rolled off the production line. The first bunch of 777-200 produced in 1995 had limited range due to them being overweight. But within a year, Boeing reduced the weight of aircraft and have the 777-200 with increased gross weight which enabled the 777-200 to do trans atlantic with decent load. Of course, Boeing also produce variants sur as the ER and LR versions and those get certified. If you replace component A with component B, and B has been tested to perform the same as A despite being lighter, you don't need to recertify the aircraft. It would be silly of SpaceX not to integrate improvements to the production line as they see opportunities to improve things. For one thing, althopugh McCall states they doN't change anything, it is pretty obvious that they are constntly fine tuning the landing software. Also, consider when they loaded the rocket with cooled fuel to increase performance. I suspect there was software adaptation to this as well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-22 23:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <smjr3d-o0k.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #56765 |
In sci.physics JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 2016-06-22 14:25, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> STCs do not make major changes in the airframe and each has to be certified. > > But there are many changes done which do not change the aircraft's > behaviour/performance but lighten its weight. Those are rollned into > the production line over the years. So a 737-800 built today is not > exactly the same as the first 737-800 that rolled off the production line. > > The first bunch of 777-200 produced in 1995 had limited range due to > them being overweight. But within a year, Boeing reduced the weight of > aircraft and have the 777-200 with increased gross weight which enabled > the 777-200 to do trans atlantic with decent load. > > Of course, Boeing also produce variants sur as the ER and LR versions > and those get certified. > > If you replace component A with component B, and B has been tested to > perform the same as A despite being lighter, you don't need to recertify > the aircraft. > > It would be silly of SpaceX not to integrate improvements to the > production line as they see opportunities to improve things. For one > thing, althopugh McCall states they doN't change anything, it is pretty > obvious that they are constntly fine tuning the landing software. > > Also, consider when they loaded the rocket with cooled fuel to increase > performance. I suspect there was software adaptation to this as well. Most of this is apples and oranges as Spacex is not producing certified aircraft. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-22 20:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <576b2a27$0$9116$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #56769 |
On 2016-06-22 19:31, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Most of this is apples and oranges as Spacex is not producing certified > aircraft. McCall had argued SpaceX can't change its design because it is in production.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-23 05:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2a4nmb1d9qluf0144h42jnsagva5ujoomo@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56770 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>On 2016-06-22 19:31, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>> Most of this is apples and oranges as Spacex is not producing certified
>> aircraft.
>>
>
>McCall had argued SpaceX can't change its design because it is in
>production.
>
Mezei can't read and has the attention span of a mayfly. I said no
such thing.
--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-23 05:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gu9s3d-35m.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #56770 |
In sci.physics JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 2016-06-22 19:31, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> Most of this is apples and oranges as Spacex is not producing certified >> aircraft. > > > McCall had argued SpaceX can't change its design because it is in > production. That is just stupid; they are unlikely to ever go into production. For the anal, production is when you can call up the company and have their product delivered, which is not the SpaceX business model. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-23 10:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mj6ombho4kr35ke0o0ik9f64m1tejni9uo@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56782 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> On 2016-06-22 19:31, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>> Most of this is apples and oranges as Spacex is not producing certified
>>> aircraft.
>>
>>
>> McCall had argued SpaceX can't change its design because it is in
>> production.
>>
>
>That is just stupid; they are unlikely to ever go into production.
>
Yes, it is just stupid. Which is why I never said it.
>
>For the anal, production is when you can call up the company and
>have their product delivered, which is not the SpaceX business
>model.
>
I pointed out to Mr Mezei some time ago that rockets are hand built
and aren't like cars at all. I don't think the boy reads very well.
--
"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 | 2016-06-23 17:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5bkt3d-clq.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #56786 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >>> On 2016-06-22 19:31, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>> Most of this is apples and oranges as Spacex is not producing certified >>>> aircraft. >>> >>> >>> McCall had argued SpaceX can't change its design because it is in >>> production. >>> >> >>That is just stupid; they are unlikely to ever go into production. >> > > Yes, it is just stupid. Which is why I never said it. I certainly didn't say you did, McCrap. >> >>For the anal, production is when you can call up the company and >>have their product delivered, which is not the SpaceX business >>model. >> > > I pointed out to Mr Mezei some time ago that rockets are hand built > and aren't like cars at all. I don't think the boy reads very well. Morgan cars are hand built and in production, McCrap. Being in production has nothing to do with how something is built or what that something is, McCrap. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.space.policy
csiph-web