Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.space.policy > #62329 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOCKail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-07 16:24 -0400 |
| Last post | 2018-06-08 18:06 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 156 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.space.policy
Towards routine, reusable space launch. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOCKail.com> - 2018-06-07 16:24 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOCKail.com> - 2018-06-07 16:47 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. dumpster4@hotmail.com - 2018-06-07 16:14 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 23:24 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-08 13:10 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-08 08:31 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 20:47 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-09 17:19 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-09 16:02 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-11 03:16 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-10 23:19 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. "Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@comcast.net> - 2018-06-11 03:19 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2018-06-11 05:25 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-11 22:18 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 20:52 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-12 06:34 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-12 14:36 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 14:29 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-12 19:00 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-13 02:15 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 01:27 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-13 06:46 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-13 16:28 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 14:38 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-14 05:22 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-14 15:44 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-15 07:52 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-15 21:33 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-16 10:38 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-16 17:51 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 02:16 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-17 15:49 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-17 16:52 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-18 02:44 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 00:05 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-18 14:27 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 19:39 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 18:26 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-13 12:57 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 14:35 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-13 17:55 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 21:44 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-14 22:02 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-13 19:39 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 21:53 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. frank.scrooby@gmail.com - 2018-06-14 01:24 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2018-06-14 15:15 +0200
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 06:32 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. mvp@web1.calweb.com (Mike Van Pelt) - 2018-06-14 22:26 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-14 19:46 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-15 07:56 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-15 19:21 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-15 19:18 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-15 21:05 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-16 10:06 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-16 13:21 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-16 13:57 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-16 14:19 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. mvp@web1.calweb.com (Mike Van Pelt) - 2018-06-19 18:38 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-06-19 21:27 -0600
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-15 22:13 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 20:34 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-16 09:54 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-18 13:45 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-18 21:06 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 20:00 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-19 19:45 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-19 22:12 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-20 20:21 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. "Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@comcast.net> - 2018-06-20 19:02 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-21 06:22 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2018-06-21 09:16 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 17:13 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-20 20:34 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-21 06:26 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. "Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@comcast.net> - 2018-06-21 04:23 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-21 13:35 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-21 20:57 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-21 23:22 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. bobjenkins166@gmail.com - 2018-08-20 15:47 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-08-20 19:37 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Bob Jenkins <bob_jenkins@burtleburtle.net> - 2018-08-21 11:23 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Bob Jenkins <bob_jenkins@burtleburtle.net> - 2018-08-22 10:43 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-22 07:18 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-22 17:45 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-22 19:58 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-23 03:39 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-23 08:38 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-23 17:18 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-23 09:58 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-24 00:53 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-23 08:34 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. "Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@comcast.net> - 2018-06-23 21:28 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-24 10:36 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-24 13:24 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 13:19 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. "Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@comcast.net> - 2018-06-24 21:31 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 01:50 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-25 07:15 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-25 12:48 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 11:31 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-25 18:29 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 15:53 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-25 21:19 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-26 00:55 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 22:09 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-26 03:49 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 03:58 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-26 07:29 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. "Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@comcast.net> - 2018-06-26 14:14 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-26 21:09 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-18 22:17 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 00:45 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-19 15:58 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 14:38 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-20 15:42 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-20 16:58 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2018-06-25 20:44 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 17:07 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-21 23:24 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 21:38 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-06-19 21:35 -0600
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2018-06-19 17:01 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-14 04:47 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 04:00 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-11 22:35 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 20:58 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-12 15:00 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 14:36 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-12 20:08 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 22:12 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) - 2018-06-15 18:59 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 12:13 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) - 2018-06-18 20:36 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 19:57 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) - 2018-06-25 21:17 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 15:52 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-11 07:49 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2018-06-11 16:36 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-11 14:02 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 17:23 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-11 21:20 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-06-11 19:38 -0600
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-11 22:50 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 21:03 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-12 06:44 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-12 15:20 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 14:47 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2018-06-12 19:43 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 14:52 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 16:05 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-13 06:41 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 14:36 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-06-09 09:34 -0600
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-09 15:56 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOCKail.com> - 2018-06-08 18:06 -0400
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-13 17:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <CpgUC.155484$mD.3074@fx31.iad> |
| In reply to | #62414 |
On 2018-06-13 17:35, Fred J. McCall wrote: > And it's an even safer bet that none of those 'new technologies' are > going to replace "throwing stuff aft to move forward". Now now. We already know we'll test drive warp drive in 2063. They've even already made a movie about it. (and on same day, we meet the Vulcans in northern USA (I think it was Montana). Until then, the accelerate mass backwards" may remain primary mode of propulsion, but there could still be much innovation in how you do it. Out of curiosity, if you detonated an atomic bomb inside an engine bell (assume engine bell is infinitely strong). does f=ma stll apply in terms of the mass being limited to the mass of the bomb? Or do many other factors kick in in a nuclear explosion because mass doesn't remain constant? Is knowledge enough today that would allow micro nuclear explosions that can be focused in trhowing its mass backwards at very high speed? (aka: regular micro explosions to slowly accelerate ship) Or must one have critiocal mass of nuclear material to cause an exlosion so the smallest explosioon that can happen is HUGE ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-13 21:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <16s3id58j1v4j3gjelt56lj774f1ikq4vs@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #62417 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote on Wed, 13 Jun 2018
17:55:45 -0400:
>On 2018-06-13 17:35, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>
>> And it's an even safer bet that none of those 'new technologies' are
>> going to replace "throwing stuff aft to move forward".
>>
>
>Now now. We already know we'll test drive warp drive in 2063. They've
>even already made a movie about it. (and on same day, we meet the
>Vulcans in northern USA (I think it was Montana).
>
I'm sure that makes perfect sense to 'Doc'.
>
>Until then, the accelerate mass backwards" may remain primary mode of
>propulsion, but there could still be much innovation in how you do it.
>
>
>Out of curiosity, if you detonated an atomic bomb inside an engine bell
>(assume engine bell is infinitely strong).
>
Not how you want to do it.
>
>does f=ma stll apply in terms of the mass being limited to the mass of
>the bomb? Or do many other factors kick in in a nuclear explosion
>because mass doesn't remain constant?
>
Pretty much yes, although you'd probably get a decent 'photon drive'
component.
>
>Is knowledge enough today that would allow micro nuclear explosions that
>can be focused in trhowing its mass backwards at very high speed? (aka:
>regular micro explosions to slowly accelerate ship)
>
This technology was investigated over half a century ago. See?
Existing technology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
>
>Or must one have critiocal mass of nuclear material to cause an exlosion
>so the smallest explosioon that can happen is HUGE ?
>
Forty tons (the smallest bomb we built in the 1950's) is not
particularly 'huge'. In fact, it was regarded as too small for
anything but an orbital test program.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-14 22:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pfuomi$7a6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62417 |
For your reference, records indicate that JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > Is knowledge enough today that would allow micro nuclear explosions that > can be focused in trhowing its mass backwards at very high speed? (aka: > regular micro explosions to slowly accelerate ship) > > Or must one have critiocal mass of nuclear material to cause an exlosion > so the smallest explosioon that can happen is HUGE ? <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)> -- "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain." River Tam, Trash, Firefly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-13 19:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pfs9v0$r2b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62414 |
On Jun/13/2018 at 5:35 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : > Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote on Wed, 13 Jun > 2018 12:57:19 -0000 (UTC): > >> For your reference, records indicate that >> Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >> >>> In article <pfolpv$t6n$1@dont-email.me>, droleary@ >>> 2017usenet1.subsume.com says... >>>> >>>> For your reference, records indicate that >>>> Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sure, sure, Star Trek style transporters with infinite range. I'll get >>>>> right on that. >>>> >>>> No, you won?t. But you apparently *will* use it as a straw man to avoid >>>> actually addressing the likelihood that new technologies developed in >>>> the future will change the economies of space launches. Hell, that?s >>>> essentially what SpaceX is demonstrating today. >>> >>> Bullshit. SpaceX is not demonstrating any new technologies. They've >>> combined existing technologies in novel ways to solve the problems >>> involved in building Merlin engines and Falcon launch vehicles. There >>> is zero new tech in them. If you believe differently, name a new >>> technology they're using in their engines, launch vehicles, Dragon, and >>> etc. >> >> <Sigh> Of *course* there’s no “new technology” in *anything* that’s >> in the world today. Your engineering mindset has you in a motivated >> reasoning spiral. The fact remains that, over the course of time, >> new technologies have been developed that have made their way into >> space programs. SpaceX is taking advantage of some of those >> technologies today. It is a safe bet that such innovations will occur >> in the future, and somebody will take advantage of them. >> > > And it's an even safer bet that none of those 'new technologies' are > going to replace "throwing stuff aft to move forward". A space > elevator on Earth requires not 'new technology', but 'new physics'. It would be possible to build a space elevator using materials available today without any major new technology. But that wouldn't be economical. Not even remotely close to being economical. New materials would be needed to build a sane space elevator, but new physics isn't needed. See for instance http://space.nss.org/media/2000-Space-Elevator-NASA-CP210429.pdf Alain Fournier
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-13 21:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <03t3idhgt3qal5td21cd7a7eqpuhg7i69b@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #62418 |
Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote on Wed, 13 Jun 2018
19:39:10 -0400:
>On Jun/13/2018 at 5:35 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
>> Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote on Wed, 13 Jun
>> 2018 12:57:19 -0000 (UTC):
>>
>>> For your reference, records indicate that
>>> Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <pfolpv$t6n$1@dont-email.me>, droleary@
>>>> 2017usenet1.subsume.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>> For your reference, records indicate that
>>>>> Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, sure, Star Trek style transporters with infinite range. I'll get
>>>>>> right on that.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you won?t. But you apparently *will* use it as a straw man to avoid
>>>>> actually addressing the likelihood that new technologies developed in
>>>>> the future will change the economies of space launches. Hell, that?s
>>>>> essentially what SpaceX is demonstrating today.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit. SpaceX is not demonstrating any new technologies. They've
>>>> combined existing technologies in novel ways to solve the problems
>>>> involved in building Merlin engines and Falcon launch vehicles. There
>>>> is zero new tech in them. If you believe differently, name a new
>>>> technology they're using in their engines, launch vehicles, Dragon, and
>>>> etc.
>>>
>>> <Sigh> Of *course* there’s no “new technology” in *anything* that’s
>>> in the world today. Your engineering mindset has you in a motivated
>>> reasoning spiral. The fact remains that, over the course of time,
>>> new technologies have been developed that have made their way into
>>> space programs. SpaceX is taking advantage of some of those
>>> technologies today. It is a safe bet that such innovations will occur
>>> in the future, and somebody will take advantage of them.
>>>
>>
>> And it's an even safer bet that none of those 'new technologies' are
>> going to replace "throwing stuff aft to move forward". A space
>> elevator on Earth requires not 'new technology', but 'new physics'.
>
>It would be possible to build a space elevator using materials available
>today without any major new technology. But that wouldn't be economical.
>Not even remotely close to being economical. New materials would be
>needed to build a sane space elevator, but new physics isn't needed.
>
>See for instance
>http://space.nss.org/media/2000-Space-Elevator-NASA-CP210429.pdf
>
I recall reading at least some analyses that said that the tensile
strength required exceeded atomic forces (in other words, an
impossibly strong material).
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | frank.scrooby@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-14 01:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0d0d8244-0c5b-4a45-b572-d64a386255be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #62420 |
On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 6:53:56 AM UTC+2, Fred J. McCall wrote: > > I recall reading at least some analyses that said that the tensile > strength required exceeded atomic forces (in other words, an > impossibly strong material). According to Wikipedia the best tensile strength measured to date for multi-walled carbon nanotubes in 63GP, well short of a highly theoretical 300 GP. No one talking (writing) about this number seems to think that 300 GP will exceed atomic forces). If I recall the last time the 'Great Space Elevator' debate stomped across the Usenet, the maximum measured tensile strength of MWCN (in laboratories) was doubling every few months. Even if that has slowed to a couple of years that means the goal set in the aforementioned PDF (i.e. that the Space Elevator is a technical challenge for the latter half of the 21st century) is at least theoretically achievable. The same PDF does also claim that a Space Elevator is theoretically possible with much weaker material (a super variant of one of the Spectra or Kevlar materials - I think) but that the sheer size of the needed cable taper makes it UNECONOMICAL, even as a multi-nation supported vanity program. If the meantime any advance in material science (i.e. the availability of much stronger composites made possible by bulk MWCN) will make traditional TSTO even more attractive. It might even make SSTO practical. Take care. Regards Frank Scrooby
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-14 15:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5b226a8f$0$20265$e4fe514c@textnews.kpn.nl> |
| In reply to | #62420 |
On 14-6-2018 6:53, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote on Wed, 13 Jun 2018 > 19:39:10 -0400: > >> On Jun/13/2018 at 5:35 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : >>> Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote on Wed, 13 Jun >>> 2018 12:57:19 -0000 (UTC): >>> >>>> For your reference, records indicate that >>>> Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <pfolpv$t6n$1@dont-email.me>, droleary@ >>>>> 2017usenet1.subsume.com says... >>>>>> >>>>>> For your reference, records indicate that >>>>>> Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Sure, sure, Star Trek style transporters with infinite range. I'll get >>>>>>> right on that. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, you won?t. But you apparently *will* use it as a straw man to avoid >>>>>> actually addressing the likelihood that new technologies developed in >>>>>> the future will change the economies of space launches. Hell, that?s >>>>>> essentially what SpaceX is demonstrating today. >>>>> >>>>> Bullshit. SpaceX is not demonstrating any new technologies. They've >>>>> combined existing technologies in novel ways to solve the problems >>>>> involved in building Merlin engines and Falcon launch vehicles. There >>>>> is zero new tech in them. If you believe differently, name a new >>>>> technology they're using in their engines, launch vehicles, Dragon, and >>>>> etc. >>>> >>>> <Sigh> Of *course* there’s no “new technology” in *anything* that’s >>>> in the world today. Your engineering mindset has you in a motivated >>>> reasoning spiral. The fact remains that, over the course of time, >>>> new technologies have been developed that have made their way into >>>> space programs. SpaceX is taking advantage of some of those >>>> technologies today. It is a safe bet that such innovations will occur >>>> in the future, and somebody will take advantage of them. >>>> >>> >>> And it's an even safer bet that none of those 'new technologies' are >>> going to replace "throwing stuff aft to move forward". A space >>> elevator on Earth requires not 'new technology', but 'new physics'. >> >> It would be possible to build a space elevator using materials available >> today without any major new technology. But that wouldn't be economical. >> Not even remotely close to being economical. New materials would be >> needed to build a sane space elevator, but new physics isn't needed. >> >> See for instance >> http://space.nss.org/media/2000-Space-Elevator-NASA-CP210429.pdf >> > > I recall reading at least some analyses that said that the tensile > strength required exceeded atomic forces (in other words, an > impossibly strong material). > > There was a design for interstellar traffic, using a big protection plate behind the spacepod, using a spring loaded tube to connect them,and provide a bit of distance between ship and plate. Explode nuclear bombs behind that shield. Current technology could implement it, but it would be kind of expensive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-14 06:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0fr4id991thr3dnjsfh6feumtnm4jgce94@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #62424 |
Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote on Thu, 14 Jun 2018 15:15:59 +0200: > >There was a design for interstellar traffic, using a big protection plate >behind the spacepod, using a spring loaded tube to connect them,and >provide a bit of distance between ship and plate. >Explode nuclear bombs behind that shield. >Current technology could implement it, but it would be kind of expensive. > Notional design, not a real design. 1950's technology could implement it, as that was when the idea was originally looked at (Project Orion). This is not 'interstellar traffic' in the sense 'Doc' means, since transit times would be measured in centuries.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mvp@web1.calweb.com (Mike Van Pelt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-14 22:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9YBUC.337021$br4.250439@fx34.iad> |
| In reply to | #62424 |
In article <5b226a8f$0$20265$e4fe514c@textnews.kpn.nl>, Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote: >There was a design for interstellar traffic, using a big protection plate >behind the spacepod, using a spring loaded tube to connect them,and >provide a bit of distance between ship and plate. >Explode nuclear bombs behind that shield. >Current technology could implement it, but it would be kind of expensive. And that's just for the paper to print out the environmental impact statement! -- Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts." mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-14 19:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pfuuo0$bpj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62420 |
On Jun/14/2018 at 12:53 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : > Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote on Wed, 13 Jun 2018 > 19:39:10 -0400: > >> On Jun/13/2018 at 5:35 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : >>> Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote on Wed, 13 Jun >>> 2018 12:57:19 -0000 (UTC): >>> >>>> For your reference, records indicate that >>>> Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <pfolpv$t6n$1@dont-email.me>, droleary@ >>>>> 2017usenet1.subsume.com says... >>>>>> >>>>>> For your reference, records indicate that >>>>>> Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Sure, sure, Star Trek style transporters with infinite range. I'll get >>>>>>> right on that. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, you won?t. But you apparently *will* use it as a straw man to avoid >>>>>> actually addressing the likelihood that new technologies developed in >>>>>> the future will change the economies of space launches. Hell, that?s >>>>>> essentially what SpaceX is demonstrating today. >>>>> >>>>> Bullshit. SpaceX is not demonstrating any new technologies. They've >>>>> combined existing technologies in novel ways to solve the problems >>>>> involved in building Merlin engines and Falcon launch vehicles. There >>>>> is zero new tech in them. If you believe differently, name a new >>>>> technology they're using in their engines, launch vehicles, Dragon, and >>>>> etc. >>>> >>>> <Sigh> Of *course* there’s no “new technology” in *anything* that’s >>>> in the world today. Your engineering mindset has you in a motivated >>>> reasoning spiral. The fact remains that, over the course of time, >>>> new technologies have been developed that have made their way into >>>> space programs. SpaceX is taking advantage of some of those >>>> technologies today. It is a safe bet that such innovations will occur >>>> in the future, and somebody will take advantage of them. >>>> >>> >>> And it's an even safer bet that none of those 'new technologies' are >>> going to replace "throwing stuff aft to move forward". A space >>> elevator on Earth requires not 'new technology', but 'new physics'. >> >> It would be possible to build a space elevator using materials available >> today without any major new technology. But that wouldn't be economical. >> Not even remotely close to being economical. New materials would be >> needed to build a sane space elevator, but new physics isn't needed. >> >> See for instance >> http://space.nss.org/media/2000-Space-Elevator-NASA-CP210429.pdf >> > > I recall reading at least some analyses that said that the tensile > strength required exceeded atomic forces (in other words, an > impossibly strong material). Without having checked, I would guess that that applies for a non tapered cable. But if you taper the cable, it is physically possible to build a cable using several existing materials. Alain Fournier
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-15 07:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.358d7374d12be325989ad4@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #62429 |
In article <pfuuo0$bpj$1@dont-email.me>, alain245@videotron.ca says... > >> It would be possible to build a space elevator using materials available > >> today without any major new technology. But that wouldn't be economical. > >> Not even remotely close to being economical. New materials would be > >> needed to build a sane space elevator, but new physics isn't needed. > >> > >> See for instance > >> http://space.nss.org/media/2000-Space-Elevator-NASA-CP210429.pdf > >> > > > > I recall reading at least some analyses that said that the tensile > > strength required exceeded atomic forces (in other words, an > > impossibly strong material). > > Without having checked, I would guess that that applies for a non > tapered cable. But if you taper the cable, it is physically possible to > build a cable using several existing materials. > That's my understanding as well. Better materials would make a tapered cable practical. Today's materials result in a very huge tapered cable necessitating a huge counterweight making the whole thing impractical. So, we're arguing about impossible versus impractical here. Either way, it's not going to be built with today's materials. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-15 19:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pg1hm3$3ke$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62431 |
On Jun/15/2018 at 7:56 AM, Jeff Findley wrote : > In article <pfuuo0$bpj$1@dont-email.me>, alain245@videotron.ca says... >>>> It would be possible to build a space elevator using materials available >>>> today without any major new technology. But that wouldn't be economical. >>>> Not even remotely close to being economical. New materials would be >>>> needed to build a sane space elevator, but new physics isn't needed. >>>> >>>> See for instance >>>> http://space.nss.org/media/2000-Space-Elevator-NASA-CP210429.pdf >>>> >>> >>> I recall reading at least some analyses that said that the tensile >>> strength required exceeded atomic forces (in other words, an >>> impossibly strong material). >> >> Without having checked, I would guess that that applies for a non >> tapered cable. But if you taper the cable, it is physically possible to >> build a cable using several existing materials. >> > > That's my understanding as well. Better materials would make a tapered > cable practical. Today's materials result in a very huge tapered cable > necessitating a huge counterweight making the whole thing impractical. > > So, we're arguing about impossible versus impractical here. Either way, > it's not going to be built with today's materials. Yes. But I think I am a little less optimistic than you about it becoming practical in the future. If we have fantastic materials in the future, maybe an elevator will become more practical, but SpaceX is likely to figure how to build fantastic rockets if you give them fantastic materials. So if you can build an elevator that would seem practical today, that elevator might compete with a rocket that can be reused 1000 times between inspections AND have high orbital mass fraction. It is possible that we find a way to build a practical cable but not find any major improvement to rocket technology. But I wouldn't count too much on that. Of course maybe I just read too much into your sentence "Better materials would make a tapered cable practical." Alain Fournier
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-15 19:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pg1l1n$440$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #62434 |
On 6/15/2018 6:21 PM, Alain Fournier wrote: > On Jun/15/2018 at 7:56 AM, Jeff Findley wrote : >> In article <pfuuo0$bpj$1@dont-email.me>, alain245@videotron.ca says... >>>>> It would be possible to build a space elevator using materials >>>>> available >>>>> today without any major new technology. But that wouldn't be >>>>> economical. >>>>> Not even remotely close to being economical. New materials would be >>>>> needed to build a sane space elevator, but new physics isn't needed. >>>>> >>>>> See for instance >>>>> http://space.nss.org/media/2000-Space-Elevator-NASA-CP210429.pdf >>>>> >>>> >>>> I recall reading at least some analyses that said that the tensile >>>> strength required exceeded atomic forces (in other words, an >>>> impossibly strong material). >>> >>> Without having checked, I would guess that that applies for a non >>> tapered cable. But if you taper the cable, it is physically possible to >>> build a cable using several existing materials. >>> >> >> That's my understanding as well. Better materials would make a tapered >> cable practical. Today's materials result in a very huge tapered cable >> necessitating a huge counterweight making the whole thing impractical. >> >> So, we're arguing about impossible versus impractical here. Either way, >> it's not going to be built with today's materials. > > Yes. But I think I am a little less optimistic than you about it > becoming practical in the future. If we have fantastic materials in the > future, maybe an elevator will become more practical, but SpaceX is > likely to figure how to build fantastic rockets if you give them > fantastic materials. So if you can build an elevator that would seem > practical today, that elevator might compete with a rocket that can be > reused 1000 times between inspections AND have high orbital mass fraction. > > It is possible that we find a way to build a practical cable but not > find any major improvement to rocket technology. But I wouldn't count > too much on that. > > Of course maybe I just read too much into your sentence "Better > materials would make a tapered cable practical." > > > Alain Fournier how about a Space Slingshot ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-15 21:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pg1no8$iv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62435 |
On Jun/15/2018 at 8:18 PM, Sergio wrote : > On 6/15/2018 6:21 PM, Alain Fournier wrote: >> On Jun/15/2018 at 7:56 AM, Jeff Findley wrote : >>> In article <pfuuo0$bpj$1@dont-email.me>, alain245@videotron.ca says... >>>>>> It would be possible to build a space elevator using materials >>>>>> available >>>>>> today without any major new technology. But that wouldn't be >>>>>> economical. >>>>>> Not even remotely close to being economical. New materials would be >>>>>> needed to build a sane space elevator, but new physics isn't needed. >>>>>> >>>>>> See for instance >>>>>> http://space.nss.org/media/2000-Space-Elevator-NASA-CP210429.pdf >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I recall reading at least some analyses that said that the tensile >>>>> strength required exceeded atomic forces (in other words, an >>>>> impossibly strong material). >>>> >>>> Without having checked, I would guess that that applies for a non >>>> tapered cable. But if you taper the cable, it is physically possible to >>>> build a cable using several existing materials. >>>> >>> >>> That's my understanding as well. Better materials would make a tapered >>> cable practical. Today's materials result in a very huge tapered cable >>> necessitating a huge counterweight making the whole thing impractical. >>> >>> So, we're arguing about impossible versus impractical here. Either way, >>> it's not going to be built with today's materials. >> >> Yes. But I think I am a little less optimistic than you about it >> becoming practical in the future. If we have fantastic materials in the >> future, maybe an elevator will become more practical, but SpaceX is >> likely to figure how to build fantastic rockets if you give them >> fantastic materials. So if you can build an elevator that would seem >> practical today, that elevator might compete with a rocket that can be >> reused 1000 times between inspections AND have high orbital mass fraction. >> >> It is possible that we find a way to build a practical cable but not >> find any major improvement to rocket technology. But I wouldn't count >> too much on that. >> >> Of course maybe I just read too much into your sentence "Better >> materials would make a tapered cable practical." >> >> >> Alain Fournier > > how about a Space Slingshot ? What do you mean by Space Slingshot? Alain Fournier
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 10:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.358ee372afe787b9989ad5@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #62435 |
In article <pg1l1n$440$2@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... > > how about a Space Slingshot ? A fool and his money are soon parted. They're not getting enough money to actually develop and build the thing. They're raised what $40 million or something? They'll need a hell of a lot more than that to turn their design into a reality. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 13:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pg3gub$lov$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62441 |
On Jun/16/2018 at 10:06 AM, Jeff Findley wrote : > In article <pg1l1n$440$2@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... >> >> how about a Space Slingshot ? > > A fool and his money are soon parted. > > They're not getting enough money to actually develop and build the > thing. They're raised what $40 million or something? They'll need a > hell of a lot more than that to turn their design into a reality. Are you two talking about SpinLaunch? If no, what do you mean by Space Slingshot? Alain Fournier
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 13:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.358f19a8eedbae11989ad7@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #62443 |
In article <pg3gub$lov$1@dont-email.me>, alain245@videotron.ca says... > > On Jun/16/2018 at 10:06 AM, Jeff Findley wrote : > > In article <pg1l1n$440$2@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... > >> > >> how about a Space Slingshot ? > > > > A fool and his money are soon parted. > > > > They're not getting enough money to actually develop and build the > > thing. They're raised what $40 million or something? They'll need a > > hell of a lot more than that to turn their design into a reality. > > Are you two talking about SpinLaunch? If no, what do you mean by Space > Slingshot? That was my guess. I personally don't think SpinLaunch is viable, at least not without a heck of a lot of development. G loads will be pretty crazy, so you can't use it for much except bulk cargo. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 14:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pg3kb7$c42$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62444 |
On Jun/16/2018 at 1:57 PM, Jeff Findley wrote : > In article <pg3gub$lov$1@dont-email.me>, alain245@videotron.ca says... >> >> On Jun/16/2018 at 10:06 AM, Jeff Findley wrote : >>> In article <pg1l1n$440$2@gioia.aioe.org>, invalid@invalid.com says... >>>> >>>> how about a Space Slingshot ? >>> >>> A fool and his money are soon parted. >>> >>> They're not getting enough money to actually develop and build the >>> thing. They're raised what $40 million or something? They'll need a >>> hell of a lot more than that to turn their design into a reality. >> >> Are you two talking about SpinLaunch? If no, what do you mean by Space >> Slingshot? > > That was my guess. I personally don't think SpinLaunch is viable, at > least not without a heck of a lot of development. G loads will be > pretty crazy, so you can't use it for much except bulk cargo. On Feb/25/2018 at 11:32 AM, (In sci.space.policy) I wrote: "I might be wrong but I suspect those proposing SpinLaunch are aware of the problems. Their business plan is probably more about collecting investors money than about putting anything in orbit." I haven't seen anything since that would make me change my mind about that. So they aren't going to get any investment money from you and I. Alain Fournier
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mvp@web1.calweb.com (Mike Van Pelt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-19 18:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <P4cWC.157308$np1.150251@fx06.iad> |
| In reply to | #62435 |
In article <pg1l1n$440$2@gioia.aioe.org>, Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >how about a Space Slingshot ? Do you mean a rotating skyhook? Some of those ideas are ... intriguing. And have much less stringent requirements on materials. -- Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts." mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-19 21:27 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <fotvt6Fru7cU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #62473 |
mvp@web1.calweb.com (Mike Van Pelt) wrote: >In article <pg1l1n$440$2@gioia.aioe.org>, Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>how about a Space Slingshot ? > >Do you mean a rotating skyhook? > >Some of those ideas are ... intriguing. And have much less >stringent requirements on materials. A rotating skyhook needs to restore energy after passing a ship upwards. Either it needs at least as much returning mass as departing, or needs (maybe electric ion) booster to retain station. -- We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.space.policy
csiph-web