 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / March 2006North South East or West
In 1969 the direction (North, South, East, or West) of NASA seemed much different that it does today. "By the year 2000 we will undoubtedly have a sizable operation on the Moon, we will have achieved a manned Mars landing, and it's entirely possible we will have flown with men to the outer planets." - Wernher von Braun, 1969 I believe, however, that the United States has moved responsibly into Outer Space. It seems to me that today we have far more in the way of practical and money producing satellites than would have been predicted in 1969. Also, it is beginning to appear that American Free Enterprise is gearing up for the conquest of Outer space, afterall. Our knowledge of Outer Space, today, is immense. Our capabilities is very substantial. I believe, therefore, that the self imposed limits on what we have accomplished are the limits of practicality and economics. I do believe, however, that we are now capable of HTOL waverider vehicles. I also believe that vechicles of this type may be the true super heavy lifters of the future. Initially, the vertical tubular rockets will be intermixed in use with the waveriders because so many types and numbers of them exist today. Also, we have the industrial capability to make them quickly and fairly cheaply for smaller payloads. Ultimately, however, I foresee huge waverider HTOL vehicles roaring into the sky with enormous payloads actually setting up Moon Base as well as true SSTP to the planets within the next 20 years. Current efforts to build the CEV and 'heavy lifter' will eventually be seen as an intermediate step helping to insure reliability and continuity of what is now mankind's thrust into Outer Space. tomcat The engineering and design of components for the next generation reusable vehicle such as wave riders are still a long ways off. Advancements in material are required to produce a next generation civilian space vehicle, especially if the new design utilizes a sharp leading edge. New components have not been able to provide the heat dissipation, nor do we have a complete understanding of plasma flow inside a structure that contains components that must be kept at low temps to maintain structural integrity. In addition speed braking from the vertical tail was part of the crew return vehicles design, but that design discovered extreme heat affects to the tail which requires much more robust materials than originally planned. > The engineering and design of components for the next generation > reusable vehicle such as wave riders are still a long ways off. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > design discovered extreme heat affects to the tail which requires much > more robust materials than originally planned. Remember, the Space Shuttle does pretty good most of the time. So, how can you say that all these "advancements in material" are absolutely necessary? Also, I am not sure that knife edge leading edges are necessary. Curves dissipate shockwaves very effectively. Right now I envison a huge delta shaped vehicle that takes off like a WWII bomber fully loaded. It will use SSMEs (Space Shuttle Main Engines) and have 28 minutes of fuel. When it is over 100,000 feet at more than mach 5 the thrust to weight should be about 2:1 giving it the ability to shoot through hypersonic speed ranges in rarified air. It should make orbit with fuel to spare. tomcat good luck with the integrated testing. > good luck with the integrated testing. When it comes to materials the following solution is what I intend to use. Take any metal, say titanium with a 'weakening point' at about 2500 deg. F. Add a single layer of carbon fiber using graphite epoxy as a binder. Now your weakening point is about 3500 deg. F. and the strength of the two has more than doubled. In short, you have a composite of both the metal and the composite laminated on top of it. Now take clamps and clamp tile on top of the above mix of materials. Clamps need to be used because temperature expansion and shrinkage of the metal can 'pop' cemented tiles off the skin. The tile should, itself, be a composite: Corelle and Silica Tile. The Corelle has strength with the same heat resistance of silica tile. The silica tile, however, adds extreme thermal reflectivity and lightness to the mix. So, once again, we have a 'composite' with the best properties of two different materials. With this 'composite' approach testing can be minimal. The individual materials are well tested and proven. Their having been mixed together should not cause deleterous alteration. tomcat In scientific writing the reason for citing sources is to allow the reader to separate out what are the authors' original ideas, from the previous existing knowledge. Understanding what exactly an author is stating is only achieved by the author giving credit as to where the information came from, and allowing the reader to conduct peer review. Haphazardly providing opinions without references or citations does not represent the original ideas in such a way that the can be cross referenced. This is extremely important as you have demonstrated the ability to possibly make a new space vehicle, and therefore you deserve the credit for your hard work, if it is correct and valid. But making assertions of material strength, design capability, or any other specifics for that matter without references does not give your theory any credibility, just make your statement, cite your sources, let the science stand on its own, and if the theory is valid you'll get you're funding. > In scientific writing the reason for citing sources is to allow the > reader to separate out what are the authors' original ideas, from the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > science stand on its own, and if the theory is valid you'll get > you're funding. This is, perhaps, a reasonable criticism. It is difficult, however, to get discussions going on the Usenet by being so rigorous. Imagine a Usenet post with a Table of Contents, Footnotes, Bibliography, and Appendix! Please feel free to ask me about any specific facts that I have stated. In fact, I originally expected such questions but, instead, some years ago, received the most disgusting kinds of remarks as well as snubbing. But this is the Usenet so I hung in there punching with the rest, though in a somewhat more constructive way than most. I look forward to intelligent questions. tomcat Burden of proof is the authors, not the readers, and therefore you have the responsibility and ethical duty to provide your sources of information, and citations for proper peer review of your theory and conclusions. Also please cite your source so you can be given credit for your unique ideas, otherwise your writing science fiction, not science. In addition many posts here are long, and you have demonstrated the ability to type your ideas, but the burden of proof is yours, and citation is necessary in order for you're credibility to be established, and your theory to be validated. > Burden of proof is the authors, not the readers, and therefore you have > the responsibility and ethical duty to provide your sources of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > yours, and citation is necessary in order for you're credibility to > be established, and your theory to be validated. This is the Usenet, not an Engineering Journal. I am willing to address specific questions. For me, most of the things I mention I regard as common knowledge, but many people do not have this. I don't mean to be depreciating, but the various temperature relations between materials commonly used should be, at least, roughly known. I shouldn't even have to mention temperatures. I know that people that have never flown planes probably don't know that when a pilot steps on both pedals various control surfaces are activated such that substantially increased drag is created, slowing the airplane. This is standard technology and has been in use since before WWII. Having flown military planes for more than 30 years it is, for me, common knowledge. I didn't know it was 'stoning' others. Once again, ask specific questions regarding any of my comments you do not understand and I will help. Don't try and pretend that I am making things up. I don't have to do that, and I don't do it. Could I be mistaken? Of course -- but not often. tomcat Appealing to your own authority does not establish credibility, nor establish your intellect. Science is not the telling of anecdotes, as I am not sure you understand your responsibility with information to the scientific community, which does not produce confidence in your ability to be responsible with funding for your alleged project. Provide your sources to provide yourself, and your ideas credibility and validity, as you just took up several hundred characters to excuse your lack of responsibility, and could have simply copy and pasted your citations. > Appealing to your own authority does not establish credibility, nor > establish your intellect. Science is not the telling of anecdotes, as [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > your lack of responsibility, and could have simply copy and pasted your > citations. Once again, "you could have simply copy and pasted 'your' citations." And, I am not sure that you understand 'your' responsibility with information to the scientific community. The Usenet is filled with strangers. Posts are taken at whatever value one chooses to place on them (they are not journal articles). To explain the obvious and commonly known and accepted facts is not reasonably possible in this medium of information exchange. It is commonly accepted that curves dissipate shockwave better than sharp angles. This is why the F-22 looks as it does. The sharp angles of the F-117 are designed for stealth, not speed. I should not have to explain this. Anyone with an engineering background already knows it. If things like this need to be explained . . . then ask. tomcat Your following post from a different thread but discussing the wave riders has no citations as to what is previous known, and what are your new ideas. With out proper citation your explanations are science fiction, not science. You wrote. "I agree that hypersonic plasma needs intense study. I believe, however, that waveriders can be designed right now. They may not be 'perfect' waveriders but a lot of knowledge of hypersonic plasma already exists. The SR-71 used cones to control air flow to it's engines. Those engines performed well at high supersonic speeds. The Space Shuttle has done 'braking reentry' successfully, demonstrating that enough technology exists right now to design effective air brakes. That additional study might enable design of even more effective air brakes is a real possibility, however. In fact, air brakes might be designed in such a way that they reroute air away from portions of the vehicle's skin to further protect against heat damage. Air brakes on the nose of a vehicle that are made of super heat resistent materials could protect most of the vehicle. To make the vehicle stable when this is done, however, would require a larger air brake(s) in the rear to prevent uncontrollable yaw or pitch from spinning it around. In short, air brakes have proven to work and there are open to vast improvement over the Shuttle's." > Your following post from a different thread but discussing the wave > riders has no citations as to what is previous known, and what are your [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > spinning it around. In short, air brakes have proven to work and there > are open to vast improvement over the Shuttle's." Well, at least I know what got you upset. Your question, here, is not very specific but, then again, my statements do 'appear' to be somewhat floating by themselves. The cones on the SR-71 are well known of by pilots and students of aviation. It resulted in the SR-71 being, I believe, the first plane to have a rudimentary fly-by-wire system. Pilots had difficulty adjusting the cones manually resulting in frequent flameouts. So, engineers computerized the process, which is based on speed and altitude, to maintain proper airflow to the engines. Any site giving an in-depth look at the SR-71 will provide ample support of my statements regarding the SR-71. The existence of -- standard -- air braking Space Shuttle capability is common knowledge available, I would think, on the NASA web site. Virtually all aircraft have air brakes because, at the very least, they are used on landing. Actually, you can reason your way to the probability of the assertion that the Shuttle is capable of 'air braking' at high speeds. The control surfaces had to be designed to work as soon as the Shuttle enters the atmosphere or else there would be catastrophic loss of control of the vehicle. To work the control surfaces, rudder and ailerons, required tiles on these surfaces which can be seen in photos. It happens that I know the rudder 'splits' for braking. Once again, you may find confirmation on the NASA web site. I didn't realize that some of my statements were a little . . . opaque. But they are accurate nonetheless. tomcat Making assertions of new design capabilities, and appealing to your own authority for validation is not logical, and is simply pure speculation lacking any credibility. Do not just engage in a hypothetical discussion of design capabilities and physical properties by selecting a design capability of one system, and selecting another systems capability without any correlation, no even attempting to provide any realistic resolutions to the many problems that would arise from such design combinations. But recklessly making assertions without correlation, and proper citation is bad science, as a proper peer review would expose any invalid conclusions. Practice of improper logic and bad science does not make you a good candidate for the funding you desire, and therefore you may want to rethink your approach to presenting your theory. Making assertions of new design capabilities, and appealing to your own authority for validation is not logical, and is simply pure speculation lacking any credibility. Do not just engage in a hypothetical discussion of design capabilities and physical properties by selecting a design capability of one system, and selecting another systems capability without any correlation, no even attempting to provide any realistic resolutions to the many problems that would arise from such design combinations. But recklessly making assertions without correlation, and proper citation is bad science, as a proper peer review would expose any invalid conclusions. Practice of improper logic and bad science does not make you a good candidate for the funding you desire, and therefore you may want to rethink your approach to presenting your theory. > Making assertions of new design capabilities, and appealing to your own > authority for validation is not logical, and is simply pure speculation [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > funding you desire, and therefore you may want to rethink your approach > to presenting your theory. If you knew the facts, which obviously you don't, then you would know that my statements are accurate and very conventional. You need to start reading those books that are in your college bookstore and stop lecturing those that have read, experimented, flown, and 'somehow' survived various real life engineering vehicles that sometimes explode of their own accord. There is a danger in education. It is self perpetuating. One book leads to another and another with the 'things' described becoming more and more unworldly, far off, too distant to actually believe in. So, soon, it seems impossible that 'some people' have 'hands on' experience that they share with others on the Usenet. And, the same is true of 'mathematics' where reality is sacrificed for precision. Yes, mathematics is deadly accurate, within the confines of the given. The 'Given', however, is often over simplified and in error. Garbage in, garbage out (GIGO). This results in the biggest mistakes and leads to years, even decades, of waste time. Mathematics is important, but commonsense has to rule. Footnotes are fine, but are cumbersome and have no place on the Usenet where 'Ideas' rule and experience shines. I don't know your background and you don't know mine. This is good in Usenet situations hence the coding of names. You have to be able to evaluate each post yourself and not rely on footnotes and bibliographies, indexes, and the like, to 'prove' things to you. Such crutches don't work anyway. All a footnote represents is someone else that agrees. All a 'proof' represents is someone's -- evaluation -- of formula, or experiment. I have run into people that don't believe NASA, MIT, and other cannons of this world. Quoting sources, then, is more work than accomplishment. Once again, on the Usenet commonsense and your own real 'knowledge' is all that is trusted. And, if you want to get 'technical', critique should have quotes, footnotes, and 'proof' as well. The burden isn't really on the person you attack. Go check your college bookstore. They have books on proper critique too. tomcat Appealing to your own authority does not establish your credibility, nor relieve you of you're obligation to cite your sources allowing peers to review your conclusions. Practice of good ethical science is not dancing around responsibility, especially those who presenting a theory for funding. Good science does not stop because of laziness by an author who does not want to be burdened by writing citations, as burden of proof is on the author to validate the fact the he or she being honest. Protection of bad science does not benefit anyone, nor does dishonesty, as peer review and reproducibility will reveal mistakes, or wrong conclusions. Either take responsibility for your assertions by citing your sources, or understand you are writing sci-fi not science. > Appealing to your own authority does not establish your credibility, > nor relieve you of you're obligation to cite your sources allowing [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > assertions by citing your sources, or understand you are writing sci-fi > not science. I am not an author, I am a spaceship builder. I do not do sci-fi, I build spaceships. If you don't want to read what I write, then don't. tomcat Building space ships, or space terds it dosent matter you have a responsibility to practice good ethical science to establish your credibility and validity of your theory. > Building space ships, or space terds it dosent matter you have a > responsibility to practice good ethical science to establish your > credibility and validity of your theory. It isn't that we are complete heathen. We do make vicious attacks when things seem 'not quite right'. And, we ask questions from time to time. Sometimes there are no replies. Sometimes there are quite good replies. And, sometimes people admit mistakes. But, this is not a Journal. Perhaps a Journal Usenet could be set up. The requirement would be that each post be carefully documented. But, so far, none such Usenet site has been set up. I also have doubts as to how many people would participate. tomcat As far as 'tomcat's spaceplane' is concerned, my comments come largely from experience. I know the difference in a point 5 thrust to weight and a 1:1 thrust to weight. At point 5 you take off quickly and with nearly instant maneuverability. You reach 20,000 feet rapidly and can push the plane to 1.8 mach or so. At 1:1 you take off very rapidly, and have noticed the G-forces in doing so. The plane will climb so fast it as though it almost wants to go up and can accelerate on a rapid climb. You reach 50,000 feet rapidly and can push the plane past mach 2. Now I know that engineers like to talk instead of Dry Weight and Mass Ratios. Those are mathematical things, open to errors unique to mathematics, namely, GIGO. But an experienced pilot can extrapolate based on the point 5 and 1:1 experiences to predict spaceplane handling and speeds with a spaceplane. And, ya, I know it is 'seat of the pants', but seat of the pants works. The F-15 Eagle is roughly a 1:1 bird. The USAF loves to show pictures of it climbing perfectly vertical. Impressive! But it doesn't climb very fast perfectly vertical. In fact, you begin to wonder when the plane will make it to even 1000 feet. Wings are useless in a vertical climb. Their lift is in the wrong direction -- sideways -- and has to be compensated for by control surfaces and, ultimately, thrust. Rocket Scientists build vertical tubular rockets that have no wings. They rise up perfectly vertical. They rise up very slow despite thrust to weight in excess of the F-15. Use wings in a 30 degree climb with better than 1:1 and you will really 'jet' away from the runway and climb very rapidly. Why the difference? Air. Air compressed to 1 atmosphere by 1 G provides lift via the wings, a lot of lift. This helps the vehicle speed up and climb, both. Scientists forgot in their mathematics that air doesn't just induce drag. It also acts as a ramp, holding much of the vehicle weight. How do I know this. Because their calculations could not account for the B-29 delivering a bomb load over Germany with a point 1 thrust to weight. According to their mathematical calculations that B-29 should not have been able to leave the runway at all. In short, their calculations were . . . wrong! So, tomcat decided to jump on the Scientists a little and point out their 'little' mistake. Now, with a little luck maybe I have the Country thinking of spaceplanes that are HOTOL (Horizontal TakeOff and Land). And, yes those science types tried to shoot me down, but I did what 'tomcats' always do, I just came back and did it again until they quit fighting. If you don't believe me just go to your nearest 'bird farm' and ask some of the other 'tomcats'. tomcat Scientific peer review will show any invalid conslusions you have made, or "little mistakes". Sci-fi writing or appealing to your own authority simply reduces the credibility of your findings, and is not science. Understanding your flawed logic will produce fewer "little mistakes" in the design of space ships or space terds, as peer review will assist you in your endeavor, and is not your enemy. > Scientific peer review will show any invalid conslusions you have made, > or "little mistakes". How do you know this? This statement is not properly backed up by at least 3 scientists. You have no footnotes and no bibliography. Bad, bad, bad. > Sci-fi writing or appealing to your own > authority simply reduces the credibility of your findings, and is not > science. How do you know this? This statement is not properly backed up by at least 3 scientists. You have no footnotes and no bibliography. Bad, bad, bad. > Understanding your flawed logic will produce fewer "little > mistakes" in the design of space ships or space terds, as peer review > will assist you in your endeavor, and is not your enemy. How do you know this? This statement is not properly backed up by at least 3 scientists. You have no footnotes and no bibliography. Bad, bad, bad. tomcat Please read the following "Responsible conduct of Authors, Reviewers, and of research supervisors and trainees" by Caroline Whitbeck and Stephanie j. conducting a Case Western Reserve University study in April, 2001. And there you will find the necessary information to assist you in establishing credibility in your work at this site http://onlineethics.org/reseth/mod/rcr.pdf > Please read the following > "Responsible conduct of Authors, Reviewers, and of research [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > establishing credibility in your work at this site > http://onlineethics.org/reseth/mod/rcr.pdf How do you know this? This statement is not properly backed up by at least 3 scientists. You have no footnotes and no bibliography. Bad, bad, bad. tomcat http://onlineethics.org/moral/boisjoly/RB-intro.html "Boisjoly, Roger M. 1987. Ethical Decisions -- Morton Thiokol and the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Annual Meetings" http://onlineethics.org/moral/austin/index.html "In 1992, Inez Austin received the Scientific Freedom and Responsibility Award from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) "for her courageous and persistent efforts to prevent potential safety hazards involving nuclear waste contamination" as a senior engineer at the Hanford Site in Washington state, a 586-square-mile former plutonium production facility." http://onlineethics.org/moral/cuny/intro.html "Fred Cuny was a disaster relief specialist who used his training in engineering to do humanitarian work. He worked in countries such as Biafra, Guatemala, Ethiopia, Iraq, Somalia, and Bosnia. In March 1995, he disappeared in Chechnya and was never found. His life was featured on the PBS documentary program Frontline". |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.