What everyone seems to ignore is that in this design, there is no foam. No need to have it to prevent ice build-up and shedding, because there is no delicate heat-shield to protect. These designs would even allow for a 4 SRB vertical stack to be built, in the vein of Delta-4 Heavy, further increasing initial-stage thrust.
Wings on a spaceship are what you get when you want quick turnaround, highly reusuable vehicle, but are saddled with a requirement for high cross-range trajectory on reentry. The original shuttle was meant to be a lifting body (still wings, but not so much so).
To make a reliable two-stage reusable launcher, the first stage has to achieve some nasty speeds and some serious height (say Mach-3-6, 30-50km). To do so requires either a magical "scramjet/turbojet" hybrid, or multiple engines. One to get the craft to altitude and going fast enough to kick on a scramjet.
But at those speeds, a design built for heavy lifting (B52, C5, An-225) would get destroyed from the stresses. And mating a craft to a hypersonic launch vehicle introduces complexity the likes of which I wouldn't want to deal with.
So now we look at 3 stage launches, or a combination second stage where orbiter and scramjet propulsion are mated to a carrier vehicle (think An225) One to get the craft to altitude, one to get the craft to hypersonic velocities, whereupon the orbital craft separates (from the nose) of the engines by firing itself into space.
Figuring the dynamic forces involved in making a two-stage rocketplane with any significant amount of cargo/passenger capacity work properly is something I'm surely not capable of. Even so, I can see the multitude of technical issues facing the reality of getting it to work, and that NASA (as much as they believed it in the late 60's early 70's) was never, and currently is not ready to attempt it.
The two stage shuttle program originally envisioned may indeed have led to working hardware, but I'm fairly certain it wouldn't have been on-time or on-budget. As such, big-dumb-boosters makes the most sense for the reality of today. America, the world, is NOT ready for spending 20-50 BILLION dollars on a reusable space launcher project with no reason to motivate them.
Stages are surely the answer, I don't dispute that, NASA doesn't dispute that. The question, however, is can we make a 100% reusable launcher that offers fairly quick turnaround?
AFAIK, the only government owned "factories" are those involved in the production and maintenance of Nuclear devices, both reactors and the stuff that goes Boom.
Looking back over the past 30 years, you can make the case that the single largest problem in the STS program, was building it in a side-mount configuration. There were a whole slew of things done that, in hindsight, were stupid, delta planform vs. lifting body, etc. The shuttle design was predicated on the assumption that it was going to become a 100% reusable system once launches were underway, and they could stop throwing away the ET.
But it taught us a whole lot about how *NOT* to build a reusable spacecraft. Someday, maybe we'll end up building two-stage reusuable craft like the Shuttle was originally envisioned to be. Someday when we have money, will, and a reason to launch 100 flights per year.
Until that day, rather than sit down and reinvent the whole thing from scratch and fail (X33), they build a smaller incremental change using existing hardware. Maybe someday we go back to lifting bodies strapped to the ET's nose. Maybe those boosters (SRB) get airbreathing assists and flyback capability. Who knows. I'm certainly happy with this decision to reuse existing hardware.
The X38 CRV was actually a halfway decent project, almost to flight-ready scale hardware. A simpler, smaller TPS system, ability to be mated to a booster stack vs. lateral mounting, large cross-range flight envelope, possible runway landings, parachutes for safety.
The cancellation of the X38 never made any sense to me. It was an obvious replacement to the crewed shuttle (in my mind). Mated to a Delta-4 or a modified STS-SRB, it would have made a fine launch platform.
If they are in different markets, then yes, you can indeed have similar trademarks. In fact, I could make a line of Coke computers, and the coca cola company couldn't do squat legally, although they certainly could try and bankrupt me through lawsuits... If I survived, the countersuit would be most exciting to watch!
That is such utter bullshit. Losing patents will not stop development. It might hurt the little guy, but no little guy is going to invent a new miracle drug, not with the FDA the way it is.
Business process patents were a stupid idea to begin with. They need to go.
As if you couldn't own a legal registered product, and a graymarket ghost one to do counterfeiting with. Please, this is solely to capture the small-fry do-it-yourself-at-home moron who thinks he can take 20# bond paper and turn it into 20's and 100's.
Seems to go over pretty well. My entire first grade class was fingerprinted by the Massachusetts Police as part of a program to make finding kidnapped children easier. I'd be naive to think those fingerprint records aren't still on file somewhere...
Pointless now, I give them new ones every 4 years for my carry permit.
No, I understood your point. My point was that DRM isn't the end of the world, not even close. It wouldn't even be a topic of conversation if the world had just taken the hit from the first Napster boyz, and ceased the incessant and highly illegal file trading. Then today, we might have Internet movie delivery (if bandwidth had kept up, of course). Of course, the big boyz would make a big deal out of time shifting, like they did Tivo, but in the end, they'd shut up because they got their money, and their content wouldn't be on zero-hour websites and bittorrent three days before release.
Face it, DRM is coming, here to stay, fighting it is pointless, and I think so more because I agree with the media companies than I do out of apathy. I think it's a way for the little guy to make money, to punch into the markets the big guys control. Steven King proved with his aborted online book project that you cannot count on the goodwill of others if you want remuneration for your product. Some people will want this, in the form of micropayments or pay-per-use. It is as it should be.
The only thing we should be concerned about is making sure that it's open. Accountable maybe, but open. I want to continue using Linux, even on a DRMd Pentium 12. Hell, even Linus agrees with me. Or I agree with Linus, because he's definitely smarter than I am...
That, and you can always get your DRMd product in meatspace, and suffer none of the limitations, other than it's not digital and you have to go through that step all by your lonesome. I concede this could change, but it think it's irrelevant.
Speak quietly, and always carry a katana in your trunk. You can run out of bullets, run out of gas for your chainsaw, but if you're halfway skilled fighting a horde of undead shambling zombies, your katana will last forever.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? Discovery had a faulty SRB? Care to provide a mission reference number?
Note that we *ARE* talking only the SRB's here, and not those hideously complex SSME's?
Or maybe us suse users just don't need help since it "just works?"
What everyone seems to ignore is that in this design, there is no foam. No need to have it to prevent ice build-up and shedding, because there is no delicate heat-shield to protect. These designs would even allow for a 4 SRB vertical stack to be built, in the vein of Delta-4 Heavy, further increasing initial-stage thrust.
Wings on a spaceship are what you get when you want quick turnaround, highly reusuable vehicle, but are saddled with a requirement for high cross-range trajectory on reentry. The original shuttle was meant to be a lifting body (still wings, but not so much so).
To make a reliable two-stage reusable launcher, the first stage has to achieve some nasty speeds and some serious height (say Mach-3-6, 30-50km). To do so requires either a magical "scramjet/turbojet" hybrid, or multiple engines. One to get the craft to altitude and going fast enough to kick on a scramjet.
But at those speeds, a design built for heavy lifting (B52, C5, An-225) would get destroyed from the stresses. And mating a craft to a hypersonic launch vehicle introduces complexity the likes of which I wouldn't want to deal with.
So now we look at 3 stage launches, or a combination second stage where orbiter and scramjet propulsion are mated to a carrier vehicle (think An225) One to get the craft to altitude, one to get the craft to hypersonic velocities, whereupon the orbital craft separates (from the nose) of the engines by firing itself into space.
Figuring the dynamic forces involved in making a two-stage rocketplane with any significant amount of cargo/passenger capacity work properly is something I'm surely not capable of. Even so, I can see the multitude of technical issues facing the reality of getting it to work, and that NASA (as much as they believed it in the late 60's early 70's) was never, and currently is not ready to attempt it.
The two stage shuttle program originally envisioned may indeed have led to working hardware, but I'm fairly certain it wouldn't have been on-time or on-budget. As such, big-dumb-boosters makes the most sense for the reality of today. America, the world, is NOT ready for spending 20-50 BILLION dollars on a reusable space launcher project with no reason to motivate them.
Stages are surely the answer, I don't dispute that, NASA doesn't dispute that. The question, however, is can we make a 100% reusable launcher that offers fairly quick turnaround?
That would be 225 launches with no glitches. Out of 226 SRBs used to launch the shuttle, only one had a fatal performance anomaly.
AFAIK, the only government owned "factories" are those involved in the production and maintenance of Nuclear devices, both reactors and the stuff that goes Boom.
Mere rain isn't when you're slamming into it at 3000 miles per hour. Then it might as well be concrete.
Looking back over the past 30 years, you can make the case that the single largest problem in the STS program, was building it in a side-mount configuration. There were a whole slew of things done that, in hindsight, were stupid, delta planform vs. lifting body, etc. The shuttle design was predicated on the assumption that it was going to become a 100% reusable system once launches were underway, and they could stop throwing away the ET.
But it taught us a whole lot about how *NOT* to build a reusable spacecraft. Someday, maybe we'll end up building two-stage reusuable craft like the Shuttle was originally envisioned to be. Someday when we have money, will, and a reason to launch 100 flights per year.
Until that day, rather than sit down and reinvent the whole thing from scratch and fail (X33), they build a smaller incremental change using existing hardware. Maybe someday we go back to lifting bodies strapped to the ET's nose. Maybe those boosters (SRB) get airbreathing assists and flyback capability. Who knows. I'm certainly happy with this decision to reuse existing hardware.
The X38 CRV was actually a halfway decent project, almost to flight-ready scale hardware. A simpler, smaller TPS system, ability to be mated to a booster stack vs. lateral mounting, large cross-range flight envelope, possible runway landings, parachutes for safety.
The cancellation of the X38 never made any sense to me. It was an obvious replacement to the crewed shuttle (in my mind). Mated to a Delta-4 or a modified STS-SRB, it would have made a fine launch platform.
In fact there is at least one brand still out there called "Duck Tape."
Why not put the foam *IN* the tank? Granted, there may not be room, but we don't put insulation on the outside of houses for a reason...
Reminds me of teaching a bunch of 10-13 year olds how to make change at the driving range not too long ago. Sad really...
Firefox obeys none of your Group Policy nonsense... :-P
Cardu 15 or Glenmorangie 18?
Had Glenmorangie 25 once. OMFG did that hurt.
It's Friday. You're not allowed to be tired. Drunk or stoned, yes. Tired no.
If they are in different markets, then yes, you can indeed have similar trademarks. In fact, I could make a line of Coke computers, and the coca cola company couldn't do squat legally, although they certainly could try and bankrupt me through lawsuits... If I survived, the countersuit would be most exciting to watch!
That is such utter bullshit. Losing patents will not stop development. It might hurt the little guy, but no little guy is going to invent a new miracle drug, not with the FDA the way it is.
Business process patents were a stupid idea to begin with. They need to go.
People seem to have no problem with Sales guys who can work outside the office 100% of the time, why cannot developers or other knowledge workers?
I know several people who work just as effectively, if not more, at home as they do in the office.
I should also comment that SVN needs some damn good access control mechanisms, and decent rename support.
Someone did, it's called SVK, and if TortoiseSVN ever gets support for it, $Deity help BitKeeper. :-)
As if you couldn't own a legal registered product, and a graymarket ghost one to do counterfeiting with. Please, this is solely to capture the small-fry do-it-yourself-at-home moron who thinks he can take 20# bond paper and turn it into 20's and 100's.
Seems to go over pretty well. My entire first grade class was fingerprinted by the Massachusetts Police as part of a program to make finding kidnapped children easier. I'd be naive to think those fingerprint records aren't still on file somewhere...
Pointless now, I give them new ones every 4 years for my carry permit.
No, I understood your point. My point was that DRM isn't the end of the world, not even close. It wouldn't even be a topic of conversation if the world had just taken the hit from the first Napster boyz, and ceased the incessant and highly illegal file trading. Then today, we might have Internet movie delivery (if bandwidth had kept up, of course). Of course, the big boyz would make a big deal out of time shifting, like they did Tivo, but in the end, they'd shut up because they got their money, and their content wouldn't be on zero-hour websites and bittorrent three days before release.
Face it, DRM is coming, here to stay, fighting it is pointless, and I think so more because I agree with the media companies than I do out of apathy. I think it's a way for the little guy to make money, to punch into the markets the big guys control. Steven King proved with his aborted online book project that you cannot count on the goodwill of others if you want remuneration for your product. Some people will want this, in the form of micropayments or pay-per-use. It is as it should be.
The only thing we should be concerned about is making sure that it's open. Accountable maybe, but open. I want to continue using Linux, even on a DRMd Pentium 12. Hell, even Linus agrees with me. Or I agree with Linus, because he's definitely smarter than I am...
That, and you can always get your DRMd product in meatspace, and suffer none of the limitations, other than it's not digital and you have to go through that step all by your lonesome. I concede this could change, but it think it's irrelevant.
Would have been nice if the article included references. Otherwise, it's just a nice op-ed fantasy. :-/ A great read however!
Speak quietly, and always carry a katana in your trunk. You can run out of bullets, run out of gas for your chainsaw, but if you're halfway skilled fighting a horde of undead shambling zombies, your katana will last forever.