In doing some web searching, I stumbled across this:
http://www.physorg.com/news6341.html
which seems germane to many topics discussed here.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
From an article at
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/pdf/108436main_Integrated_Powerh…
onstrator.pdf
Developed for NASA and the Air Force by the Boeing
Company’s Rocketdyne Propulsion and Power Division
of Canoga Park, Calif., the turbopump’s design addresses
key life limitations common to the Space Shuttle
main engine. In comparison, the Shuttle main engine
turbomachinery requires maintenance and refurbishment
after 10 flights; the Integrated Powerhead Demonstrator
engine is intended to fly 100 times between maintenance
periods. Engineers also are seeking development of a
200-mission lifespan for the new engine – more than
double that of the Shuttle main engine.
With the new CEV architecture, what would NASA need with a 250K thrust
engine with a 200-mission lifespan? The Stick second stage is about 400K
thrust and lost to reentry. The Heavy first stage needs 5 400K SSMEs – is
it likely they’d develop a recoverable 8-9 engine pod? But, the engine
would be about the right size to replace the J2-S engines in a lunar
transfer stage – which could be reused many times with in-orbit refueling.
More likely, the Air Force still has some shuttle-like craft on their
shopping list.
This is a really interesting design for a two-stage-to-orbit reusable
light satellite booster/transatmospheric hypersonic attack aircraft.
At only 123 feet in length and capable of reaching Mach 9-10, the
flyback booster packs a lot of performance into a small vehicle.
http://www.sei.aero/library/paper_archive/AIAA-2004-5950.pdf
http://www.sei.aero/library/paper_archive/AIAA-2004-5950_present.pdf
Pat
An additional indication that the T4B payload is headed
for the US’ western (aka "morning") spysat plane
appeared late yesterday when the launch time was
announced. 11:04 AM PDT is about five minutes before
Vandenberg rotates through the plane and is within the
window for such launches. The reportedly unique shroud
remains unexplained. In addition, the first stage
impact closure area is considerably closer to
VAFB than the previous flight’s, which might indicate
a heavier payload. (Or not; I’m not clear on what
other factors might affect where the stage splashes
down. If anyone here can comment on that, I’d be
interested.)
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/titan/b26/status.html
MONDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2005
2345 GMT (4:45 p.m. PDT)
Wednesday’s launch time has been declassified. Liftoff
of the Titan 4 rocket is scheduled to occur at
11:04 a.m. PDT (2:04 p.m. EDT; 1804 GMT).
See
http://satobs.org/seesat/Oct-2005/0151.html
http://satobs.org/seesat/Oct-2005/0175.html
You CANNOT have "center" centro-symmetry in GR gtr TiVity.!!
You CANNOT have "density" .. .. .. .. .. in GR gtr TiVity.!!
You CANNOT have "sphere" .. .. .. .. .. in GR gtr TiVity.!!
You CANNOT have *OTHER THAN* a GR-POiNT, on ANY WORLDline.!!
You CANNOT have *OTHER THAN* a GR-POiNT ..with NO GR-mass.!!
[ This is BECAUSE GR-mass has NEVER BEEN related to, G_uv. ]
There CANNOT be *MATHEMATiCALLY* exhibited, *ANY* GR-mass.!!
GR-Tivity *POiNTs* CANNOT theoretically "compress" at all.!!
GR-Tivity *POiNTs* CANNOT theoretically HAVE ANY GR-RADii.!!
[ This is BECAUSE GR-mass has NEVER BEEN related to, G_uv. ]
[ This is BECAUSE GR-mass has NEVER BEEN related to, T_uv. ]
PROFOUNDLY, THERE CAN BE *NO* "spacetime curvature" in GR.!!
brian a m stuckless
>><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
- — -
Joe Fischer wrote:
> Tom Roberts tjrobe…@lucent.com wrote:
> >Clearly not true, as any given solid material will compress
> >at the center to a higher density for the larger sphere,
> >generating more than twice the surface gravity of the smaller.
> >This could only be true in a linear theory; GR is not linear.
> >Specifically, for large enough density the sphere will collapse
> >and have no surface at all!
> The objective of this should be to see if surface
> gravity can be predicted for various spheres, based only
> on radius, and density, even in concentric spherical
> layers of various densities.
> I see no reason to apply GR at this stage,
> but maybe insights into GR might reveal themselves.
> Joe Fischer
- — -
martin griffith wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 20:28:30 +0100, in sci.electronics.design Pooh
> Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelati…@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Jim Thompson wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 21:01:19 +0200, martin griffith
> >> <martingriff…@XXyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/sci_nat_enl_11296771…
> >> >martin
> >> Polystyrene foam ?:-)
> >Cheese ? Possibly Wensleydale ? ;-)
> >Graham
> I very much doubt it, no cows in the area
> martin
Hey ! We can send some cows there by atomic rocket !
Don’t let problems of that nature deter you ! ;-)
Graham
If we are to believe the pundits we are in the last few decades of
relatively cheap liquid fossil fuels, we are also being berated
interminably by the message that we are significantly effecting climate
with CO2 releases (personally I’m not 100 percent convinced that it is
entirely anthropogenic yet). At the same time it is I think unlikely
that people will be willing to accept significant drops in standard of
living as a result of these problems – so we need to find solutions.
Hydrogen sucks as a fuel for aircraft due to low energy density, we
could manufacture hydrocarbon fuels from biomass or even atmospheric
CO2 given sufficient energy, but I would like to propose a potentially
more efficient solution: the widespread use of commercial nuclear
aircraft.
The problems associated with nuclear powered aircraft are primarily
down to safety, so to offer a pathway into the widespread adoption and
use of nuclear power for aircraft I propose the following:
Nuclear Tow Planes.
We build Nuclear powered tow planes that are unmanned and completely
autonomous. These tow planes are sufficiently powerful to tow large
commercial jets and have reactors that are capable of operation for
several years at a time continuously aloft on a reactor load of fuel
(readily achievable).
These planes would initially only operate beyond the 200 mile limits
over international waters, far away from land where they could not
cause damage if they crashed. The planes will operate at say
3000-15000m in an environment where they are never exposed to the
dangers of foreign object ingestion, magnetic or gas lubricated
bearings can be used in the turbomachinery with relatively low Turbine
temperatures (say less than 950 deg C) and largish blade clearances to
ensure extremely long reliable engine life).
These planes would never land at airports thus avoiding the risks of
landing and takeoff and ensuring that no one will ever be exposed to
radiation.
Towing on a long rope ensures that passengers would never be exposed to
reactor radiation, and the reactor shielding could be minimal.
All maintenance and support for a large fleet could be done at an
isolated island facility (eg bikini atoll or the like), a
cradle/catapult launch system and recovery via redundant ballistic
recovery parachutes, or water landings could eliminate landing gear.
High lift devices could be eliminated leaving a very simple aircraft
with minimal systems that can go wrong.
Planes being towed could be converted from tubofans to turboprops for
takeoff and landing and with enough fuel to get to safety if the tow
failed for some reason, in flight the turboprops could be feathered.
A further refinement – and perhaps a major selling point, is the
possibility of making supersonic tow planes – towing aircraft around
the world at mach 2-3, anywhere on the planet cheaply in a single
flight of under 10 hours – this could open up a lot of new markets.
The tow planes can drop off one plane and pick up another straight
away, increasing their utilisation so that there is probably only the
need for one tow plane for every two or three international passenger
planes.
This idea can be sold to the public as an environmental boon – could
reduce CO2 emissions greatly, and could prove very economically
attractive with massively increased cargo capacity on long flights and
greatly reduced fuel bills. It probably only makes sense on
international flights of longer than 1 hour, but it could also make
international air cargo a lot cheaper opening up still further market
possibilities.
Bringing it back to space.. nuclear tow planes, possibly supersonic,
could also have application to HTHL assisted SSTO ala KellySpace,
Pioneer et al, with an onboard power excess they could possibly be
tweaked to make LOX and even condense water for LH2 manufacture for mid
air refueling. They would also be excellent for ferrying space planes
closer to the equator for low inclination launches.
Thoughts and comments?
Here it is.
"http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.mhtml?d=87722"
- Ed Kyle
>We already use them in combat. They are typically about 5′ 10", bipedal and
>autonomous. Big improvements could be made in power source and
>heat/environmental tolerance and communication/navigation and general
>quantitative sensor interface as well as processing speed.
We also don’t want bodybags coming back from Iraq. If we were prepared
to lose as many people as the Insurgents they would not stand a chance.
They are relying on the fact that the coalition will retire with lets
say 5,000 dead but in fact undefeated. The insurgents will lose 30,000
but they will all get their houris. The loss of 50,000 VNs would not
really register.
We need to replace peronnel with technology.
NASA & Company Diplomacy – Trying to keep Moon Landing Hoax a secret in
modern times
http://groups.google.com/group/fooled
Some strategies being used by NASA & Company in relation to China and
other space planning countries are mentioned here after being gleaned
from a news item underneath.
Country has an Independent strategy = NASA & company to use "Numero
Uno" strategy, try to assert, beat, mesh and control the space
program of the country. This can also be through political,
economical, social, and technological influence.
Country not open or not have fixed strategy = NASA & Company to use
"freeze thawed" strategy especially when the country has a
challenging, growing and ambitious space program. This can also be
through political, economical, social, and technological influence.
Dependant = NASA & Company to use "space station" model to unify
the aims of different countries. This is really an end goal aim of
NASA & Company and also does not allow anyone challenging the moon
landing hoax. The target for NASA & Company probably to get by 2018
all the ambitious space program countries shifting towards this model,
through the propaganda of another moon mission; deliberately failing
this or trying hard for another moon landing hoax; achieving the real
aim of space unity between space programs of other countries.
China launches its second manned spaceflight mission
Secretive efforts keep outsiders in the dark about the program’s goals
By MARK CARREAU
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle
Reuters
China launched Shenzhou VI, its second manned spacecraft, early today
in northwest China’s Gansu Province.
A pair of military pilots embarked on China’s second manned space
flight early today, hurtling into orbit on a test mission that could
span five days.
The crew of the Shenzhou VI spacecraft was identified as Fei Junlong,
40, and Nie Haishen, 41, by China’s official news agency.
The successful launch from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in
northwest China follows the solo flight of Yang Liwei in October 2003.
His one-day mission vaulted his communist homeland into the elite
circle of spacefaring nations – Russia and the United States – that
can launch and sustain humans in space.
Most experts believe China intends to develop a small space station of
its own over the next several years.
But they remain uncertain about whether China aims to beat the United
States to the moon in its secretive space effort. President Bush has
directed NASA to return to the moon by 2018 with a new generation of
human explorers.
China’s "is not a fly-by-night program," said Joan Johnson-Freese, an
expert on national security who follows space developments in the Asian
nation at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I.
"They are not in any hurry. They want a program that will be a
success," Johnson-Freese said. "They are not going to rush it, because
they don’t want it to be a budget buster. Economics will be a big
determiner in the speed of their program."
China’s overtures to join the U.S.-led effort to develop the 16-nation
international space station have been thwarted for more than a decade
over a range of issues, including the Asian country’s human rights
policies and worries it could acquire technologies that could pose a
security threat.
The freeze thawed some after Yang’s 2003 mission. China was among 30
nations invited to send a delegate to NASA-sponsored roundtable
discussions on Bush’s strategy to reach the moon with astronauts as the
first step in the exploration of Mars and other-deep space
destinations.
"We applaud China’s space achievements," NASA spokesman Allard Beutel
said Tuesday. "We wish them a successful return of their astronauts."
He stressed, however, that NASA would not follow this week’s Chinese
mission through formal channels.
At present, there are no plans for additional meetings with foreign
powers to discuss the Bush exploration initiative or to extend an
invitation to China to join the space station partnership, Beutel said.
The flight of Fei and Nie could mark the end of the opening chapter in
a three-phase Chinese space initiative, Johnson-Freese said.
The first phase, she said, will demonstrate the capability of a
multi-compartment spacecraft that will leave a test module in orbit
when the two fliers return to Earth. The Chinese program’s second phase
will include spacewalks on future missions and demonstrations of
docking and undocking techniques. The final phase will feature the
assembly and operation of a longer-duration space lab.
At least one expert believes China’s intentions might include a
surprise attempt to circle the moon with astronauts before NASA’s
planned lunar return.
"The Americans would be wise to plan accordingly," said John E. Pike,
director of the Alexandria, Va.-based GlobalSecurity.org, a small
national security think tank.
"There is always the possibility they could jam us up, make us look
like we are not numero uno," Pike said.
During the U.S. and Russian lunar race during the Cold War, NASA scored
an early coup by circling the moon with the Apollo 8 crew over the 1968
Christmas holidays. As it turned out, the Soviets never made it to the
moon.
"(China) could be the second country to do that," Pike said. "They
would get in line in front of the Russians. And they would not have to
land on the moon to take us down a notch."
Pike’s concern is based on China’s development of a new medium-lift
rocket, the Long March V, and the construction of a new space launch
complex on Hainan Island in the South China Sea.
The two developments, he said, could eventually enable China’s space
program to mature to the point that experts could assemble and launch
from Earth’s orbit a spacecraft capable of circling the moon with
astronauts and returning home.
mark.carr…@chron.com
