OK, I'm glad I'm not totally in left field. Thanks for taking the time to reply.
I was less concerned about the cost of fuel, than the operating costs of a heavier vehicle. My design prof said that operating cost was (at a first approximation) linear with vehicle weight, but I suppose that's not a good rule of thumb for an experimental vessel like this one.
My intuition told me that you were on the wrong side of a geometric progression, but you guys have done actual engineering and showed me my error. Thanks for taking the time.
Thanks for your reply. This is something I've been really curious about since first reading about your design.
My intuition was wrong: I'm stunned that so little propellant is used for landing. Nevertheless, you still need lots of propellant to schlep around your landing propellant through the boost phase. About how much "extra" propellant would you estimate is required? By my back-of-the-envelope thinking, it'd be about 800 lbs.
Does your site have specs on the big vehicle's fuel consumption and thrust estimates? I'd like to play around with your numbers. Just to keep my hand in, you know...
Dick flew Burt's aircraft, Voyager, around the world unrefuelled in 1984 (or so). Jeanna Yeager (no relation to Gen. Chuck Yeager) was the other pilot.
And the reason NASA didn't pick it is because landing on your tail using rocket power isn't very smart, when you've got an atmosphere that's really good at slowing things down.
I figure you need about four times as much fuel at liftoff for a vertical rocket-borne landing as you would for a parachute- or wing-borne landing.
Be careful with your math, because your acceleration will be decreased since you're carrying more fuel, and accelerating that fuel mass as well. More than three times? yes. I'd need more data about their fuel burn parameters to figure out how much more than three times the altitude. Of course, the situation gets geometrically worse when you have to burn fuel to decelerate yourself for landing as well.
Just because they may not be first does not mean that they may not be pioneers.
Glenn Curtiss was not the first to fly a powered aircraft, but he pioneered just about all the technologies that made commercial and military aviation practical, everyday matters.
OK, am I from some weird alternate reality where the little paragraph mark button exists on the Standard toolbar in Word? Push it. It shows the formatting marks.
I don't understand why you think this feature isn't there. Maybe I don't understand the feature you're talking about.
With all due respect to your really impressive engineering, I'm curious as to why you chose the Flash Gordon landing-on-rockets method. Seems to me that atmospheres are really good at slowing things down to controllable landings, whereas with your system you have to carry lots of extra fuel to lift the fuel that you're going to use to land the fuel that you're going to use to land ad nauseam...
I ran the numbers on an air-breathing single stage to orbit spacecraft for a class project, and the numbers did not look very feasible. What is your thinking on the subject?
Patrick Henry is rolling in his grave. Nowadays, it would be "I do not agree with what you have to say, and I'm going to find some court somewhere that will throw you in jail if you keep saying it."
OK, but only if we can also ban jokes that belittle men, and jokes that belittle women, and jokes that belittle blondes, or brunettes, or redheads, or Aggies, or any other group.
This law will not make anybody safer. This law will not make one person any less of a racist. This law will try to keep a lid on something that will get worse the longer it festers.
Having said all that, people who think there's a race problem in America need to take a trip to Sudan for a while.
Me, I'm vaguely interested in PKD, and I didn't know about this project. So it's news to me. What's wrong with that? How should it be presented so as not to "pander"?
Had the people been interesting, and the things they said been interesting, the movie would have been interesting.
Liking this movie does not make you deep. I had al the thoughts expressed in that movie when I was 13, and I didn't feel the need to make a movie about it.
But, of course, I must be just a typical slashdotter. What the hell do I know?
And I think you're talking out of your ass on your FW800 contention. Unless you've got some data, I am going to proceed from the pretty-good assumption that Apple's engineers wouldn't pull such a boner.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I'm glad I'm not totally in left field. Thanks for taking the time to reply.
I was less concerned about the cost of fuel, than the operating costs of a heavier vehicle. My design prof said that operating cost was (at a first approximation) linear with vehicle weight, but I suppose that's not a good rule of thumb for an experimental vessel like this one.
My intuition told me that you were on the wrong side of a geometric progression, but you guys have done actual engineering and showed me my error. Thanks for taking the time.
Thanks for your reply. This is something I've been really curious about since first reading about your design.
My intuition was wrong: I'm stunned that so little propellant is used for landing. Nevertheless, you still need lots of propellant to schlep around your landing propellant through the boost phase. About how much "extra" propellant would you estimate is required? By my back-of-the-envelope thinking, it'd be about 800 lbs.
Does your site have specs on the big vehicle's fuel consumption and thrust estimates? I'd like to play around with your numbers. Just to keep my hand in, you know...
Impressive work. I can't wait to see more.
I'll take your critique of Rutan's designs more seriously when I see your designs. I'll be glad to critique them.
I lost them. You insensitive clod.
Well, you might write the telephone number down as a contact. And you can make different categories for phone messages and to-dos.
But hey, maybe I'm talking crazy talk.
Dick flew Burt's aircraft, Voyager, around the world unrefuelled in 1984 (or so). Jeanna Yeager (no relation to Gen. Chuck Yeager) was the other pilot.
Burt and Dick are brothers.
Note that the X-Prize rules allow the second two "passengers" to be ballast, if the team wishes.
DC-X was McDonnell-Douglas.
And the reason NASA didn't pick it is because landing on your tail using rocket power isn't very smart, when you've got an atmosphere that's really good at slowing things down.
I figure you need about four times as much fuel at liftoff for a vertical rocket-borne landing as you would for a parachute- or wing-borne landing.
Be careful with your math, because your acceleration will be decreased since you're carrying more fuel, and accelerating that fuel mass as well. More than three times? yes. I'd need more data about their fuel burn parameters to figure out how much more than three times the altitude. Of course, the situation gets geometrically worse when you have to burn fuel to decelerate yourself for landing as well.
Just because they may not be first does not mean that they may not be pioneers.
Glenn Curtiss was not the first to fly a powered aircraft, but he pioneered just about all the technologies that made commercial and military aviation practical, everyday matters.
OK, have you done the fuel consumption math on this vertical landing idea?
If you were looking for a good example of a concept that doesn't scale well, this would be a great place to start.
Yeah you do. At least, if you want to know the secret handshake...
Uh, thanks. (Never mind the fact that there are valid orbits at all altitudes, I'm sure you were trying to be helpful)
Now would you like to explain to me why that makes landing on rockets a better idea than, say, using a parachute?
Incidentally, when trying to orbit, altitude is not a big problem. Velocity is a big problem.
OK, am I from some weird alternate reality where the little paragraph mark button exists on the Standard toolbar in Word? Push it. It shows the formatting marks.
I don't understand why you think this feature isn't there. Maybe I don't understand the feature you're talking about.
With all due respect to your really impressive engineering, I'm curious as to why you chose the Flash Gordon landing-on-rockets method. Seems to me that atmospheres are really good at slowing things down to controllable landings, whereas with your system you have to carry lots of extra fuel to lift the fuel that you're going to use to land the fuel that you're going to use to land ad nauseam...
I ran the numbers on an air-breathing single stage to orbit spacecraft for a class project, and the numbers did not look very feasible. What is your thinking on the subject?
Patrick Henry is rolling in his grave. Nowadays, it would be "I do not agree with what you have to say, and I'm going to find some court somewhere that will throw you in jail if you keep saying it."
OK, but only if we can also ban jokes that belittle men, and jokes that belittle women, and jokes that belittle blondes, or brunettes, or redheads, or Aggies, or any other group.
This law will not make anybody safer. This law will not make one person any less of a racist. This law will try to keep a lid on something that will get worse the longer it festers.
Having said all that, people who think there's a race problem in America need to take a trip to Sudan for a while.
Yeah, I bet they just put them there on the steering wheel, to confuse and distract the driver.
All the drivers that are in the habit of jerking the steering wheel are DEAD. Darwin said they lose.
Could be your camera. All the Mac DV guys I know love FireWire.
What exactly are you talking about?
Me, I'm vaguely interested in PKD, and I didn't know about this project. So it's news to me. What's wrong with that? How should it be presented so as not to "pander"?
Had the people been interesting, and the things they said been interesting, the movie would have been interesting.
Liking this movie does not make you deep. I had al the thoughts expressed in that movie when I was 13, and I didn't feel the need to make a movie about it.
But, of course, I must be just a typical slashdotter. What the hell do I know?
I don't agree with you. (I haven't read Androids, so I can't comment on that book directly)
However, if I can't identify and empathize with the characters, I have no interest in spending time with them. I'll go read something else.
OK, so what do YOU use for external storage devices?
Firewire is fast enough for most digital video apps. Need more speed than that? Get fiber channel.
"sucky performance" indeed...
So use FiberChannel.
And I think you're talking out of your ass on your FW800 contention. Unless you've got some data, I am going to proceed from the pretty-good assumption that Apple's engineers wouldn't pull such a boner.
How do you figure? Firewire's pretty darn fast...