A correction to my own book, re: Viking rocket
Matt
Press, 2004), we had nailed down every fact about the earliest
satellites. Naturally, I find I am mistaken. Dwayne Day, Rick
Sturdevant, and Mike Gruntman have all pointed out some things to
correct. The most serious flaw, to me, though, is the account we
included of the Viking rocket static test firing which ripped part of
the test stand free of the concrete pad. We wrote that Viking No. 8
actually took off with the test stand attached, rising four miles as
the most unaerodynamic rocket in history. Gil Moore, who was there,
told us about that day, but I either mistook what he said or misread my
notes later. (I was not the first to get this story wrong - I found it
in some articles I referenced also.)
Gil collared me at the last Conference on Small Satellites to
energetically correct me. The Viking did not take off with the stand,
but forced its way out of it, severly damaging the stand in the
process. It rose only four miles because of the limited propellant on
board.
One thing we learned in writing THE FIRST SPACE RACE is that once an
error gets into the literature (the appearance of the Explorer I flight
vehicle and the erroneous quotation "Goldstone has the bird" are two we
addressed), it tends to stay there forever. We hope to put out a
revised and expanded version of our book in 2007, but I didn't want the
misconception to remain out there.
Regards,
Matt Bille
www.mattwriter.com
OM
>Gil collared me at the last Conference on Small Satellites to
>energetically correct me. The Viking did not take off with the stand,
>but forced its way out of it, severly damaging the stand in the
>process. It rose only four miles because of the limited propellant on
>board.
...Some stories are better when the facts are a bit skewed towards the
"holy shit!" end of the spectrum. I suggest correcting the error for
the 2nd edition, but adding a footnote telling the stand-attached
version, just so future generations don't miss out on the tall tale
:-)
OM
--
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
>...Some stories are better when the facts are a bit skewed towards the
>"holy shit!" end of the spectrum. I suggest correcting the error for
>the 2nd edition, but adding a footnote telling the stand-attached
>version, just so future generations don't miss out on the tall tale
>:-)
>
>
I've read the "accidental launch of the Viking" story in more than one
place, but had never heard of a variant of the story where it took off
with the test stand attached.
""""""Pat FLANNERY""""""
bombardmentforce
get corrected.
Ami Silberman
"bombardmentforce" <vacuumsup...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124973300....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> An I'll vote for truth in this book also. Good to see some books do
> get corrected.
>
OM
wrote:
>"bombardmentFARCE" <vacuumbetween...@yahoo.com> babbled
>> An I'll vote for truth in this book also. Good to see some books do
>> get corrected.
...This dickhead is so goddamn full of himself he's either a) CT in
drag or b) related to that trolling asshat. Just killfile him and be
done with the problem.
>So now you can go on to the next page?
...Preferably, he'll just off himself and go straight to Hell. This
troll's the type who'd complain to Dr. Seuss that page 4 of _The Cat
in the Hat_ contained a factual error.
bombardmentforce
> "bombardmentforce" <vacuumsup...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1124973300....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > get corrected.
> >
> So now you can go on to the next page?
_THE FIRST SPACE RACE_- Now moves from the list of unknowns to my
consider reading list.
_Fairy Tales About Rocket Science_ - Uncorrected, stays on my avoid
list, along with the horse it rode in on.
bombardmentforce
non-fiction authors should strive to write true statements.
crossposted to pseudosci.cave.history
fluffy...@yahoo.com.au
www.harrylime.biz
www.jollyroger.com
and who be the victim of thy vitriol?
please, dilate
palpitate
and o'course
urinate
--
`~~~~ ****the cigar-smokin' bigshot****~~~~`
__
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
>
>...Preferably, he'll just off himself and go straight to Hell. This
>troll's the type who'd complain to Dr. Seuss that page 4 of _The Cat
>in the Hat_ contained a factual error.
>
>
"Orion ships would not have won in Nam.
I do not like them.
Uncle Sam I am.
Would you like them if they carried SLAMs?
If they could blow up Commie dams?
What in they were captained by a baboon?
What if they hid out by the Moon?
I would not like them armed with SLAMs.
Even if they could blow up those damn dams.
Not if they were captained by a baboon.
Not if they hid out by the moon.
Orion ships would not have won in Nam.
I do not like them.
Uncle Sam I am.
If we armed them with some nukes?
If we crewed them with Navy pukes?
If we made them extra stealthy?
If we made their fallout much more healthy?
I would not like them equipped with nukes.
Or if their crew were Navy pukes.
You cannot make their signatures stealthy.
You cannot make their fallout healthy.
Orion ships would not have won in Nam.
I do not like them.
Uncle Sam I am.
If we filled them full of ice?
Made their crew quarters extra-nice?
Put a Casaba Howitzer in their tail?
Or moon rocks ejected in a pail?
I would not like them full of ice.
Even if their quarters were extra-nice.
The Casaba Howitzer might sometimes fail.
The bucket launcher would weigh as much as a whale.
Orion ships would not have won in Nam.
I do not like them.
Uncle Sam, I am.
If we deployed them in vast fleets?
If we covered them in cunning RAM sheets?
Dropped off troops each in a MOOSE?
Turned the Orionship Troopers loose?
I cannot afford such vast fleets.
Nor to cover them in RAM sheets.
I will not put my soldiers in a MOOSE.
The Orionship Troopers would cook, like a goose.
Orion ships would not have won in Nam.
I do not like them.
Uncle Sam, I am.
Came from Moon to Earth in only five hours?
Made the U.S. the greatest of all Earth's powers?
Used them to bomb all of Afghanistan?
Put them under control of Space Command?
They will not fly here in five hours.
They will not threaten the foreign powers.
They will not bomb all of Afghanistan.
Nor be controlled by loons in Space Command.
Orion ships would not have won in Nam.
I do not like them.
Uncle Sam, I am.
Send them to lay mines in Saturn's rings?
Invade Uranus, do lots of military things?
Use them to seize the poles of Mars?
Go to Venus, visit the Firewomen's bars?
There's no need to mine Saturn's rings.
Wipe out Uranus, or do other silly things.
We can't seize the poles of Mars.
The U.N. space treaty such action bars.
Orion ships would not have won in Nam.
I do not like them.
Uncle Sam, I am.
So take your space bombardment plan.
And file it in the garbage can." ;-)
Pat
bombardmentforce
k's
U.N. Delenda Est
Andre Lieven
Pat Flannery (fla...@daktel.com) writes:
> OM wrote:
>
>>...Preferably, he'll just off himself and go straight to Hell. This
>>troll's the type who'd complain to Dr. Seuss that page 4 of _The Cat
>>in the Hat_ contained a factual error.
>
> "Orion ships would not have won in Nam.
> I do not like them.
> Uncle Sam I am.
>
>
> So take your space bombardment plan.
> And file it in the garbage can." ;-)
Well, that caused my S/O to pretty much lose it, and demand
that I save this ditty.
Get a publishing deal, soon, Pat. Imagine all the kiddies
who are missing this stuff... <g>
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Scott Lowther
>One thing we learned in writing THE FIRST SPACE RACE is that once an
>error gets into the literature (the appearance of the Explorer I flight
>vehicle and the erroneous quotation "Goldstone has the bird" are two we
>addressed), it tends to stay there forever.
>
Yup. Two thousand years ago, Loki got all likkered up and wrote a
pastiche sequel to the Torah, and look how that's turned out...
--
"The only thing that galls me about someone burning the American flag is how unoriginal it is. I mean if you're going to pull the Freedom-of-speech card, don't be a hack, come up with something interesting. Fashion Old Glory into a wisecracking puppet and blister the system with a scathing ventriloquism act, or better yet, drape the flag over your head and desecrate it with a large caliber bullet hole." Dennis Miller
OM
wrote:
>"Orion ships would not have won in Nam.
>I do not like them.
>Uncle Sam I am.
...Pat, that's probably the Apex of your career. Ironically, it's a
slam at a troll at the anus of his.
Scott Hedrick
> _Fairy Tales About Rocket Science_ -
Well, that certainly explains where you've been getting your information.
Scott Hedrick
> undereducated moron
Ah, saw your reflection in the mirror, eh?
> non-fiction authors should strive to write true statements.
Now I understand- you're a *fiction writer*!
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
>
>...Pat, that's probably the Apex of your career. Ironically, it's a
>slam at a troll at the anus of his.
>
>
I can see why Seuss used that type of ryhme scheme- it's very easy to
work with.
Pat
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <11gse6b...@corp.supernews.com>):
>
>
> OM wrote:
>
>>
>> ...Preferably, he'll just off himself and go straight to Hell. This
>> troll's the type who'd complain to Dr. Seuss that page 4 of _The Cat
>> in the Hat_ contained a factual error.
>>
>>
>
> "Orion ships would not have won in Nam.
> I do not like them.
> Uncle Sam I am.
(snip)
> So take your space bombardment plan.
> And file it in the garbage can." ;-)
>
> Pat
>
That may be the best thing I've read here in years. :-)
--
"Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever." ~Anonymous
"I believe as little as possible and know as much as I can."
~Todd Stuart Phillips
<www.angryherb.net>
bombardmentforce
Scenario parameters extract: RVEL +20,297.304 meters/second
P.S.
Dr. Suess was a commie bastard.
bombardmentforce
>>list, along with the horse it rode in on.
That's Georgie's picked book, I figured you could figure that out, not
figuring you'd pretend to be stupid.
bombardmentforce
cultures dominates in this sci. group.
Orion2100 is making closest approch to earth, flight time, less than 5
hours
BEGIN_DESC
END_DESC
BEGIN_ENVIRONMENT
System Sol
Date MJD 51982.7461686227
END_ENVIRONMENT
BEGIN_FOCUS
Ship Orion2100
END_FOCUS
BEGIN_CAMERA
TARGET Orion2100
MODE Extern
POS 8.94 -97.26 34.28
TRACKMODE TargetRelative
FOV 50.00
END_CAMERA
BEGIN_HUD
TYPE Surface
END_HUD
BEGIN_MFD Left
TYPE Orbit
PROJ Ship
FRAME Ecliptic
REF Earth
END_MFD
BEGIN_MFD Right
TYPE Surface
SPDMODE 1
END_MFD
BEGIN_SHIPS
ISS:ProjectAlpha_ISS
STATUS Orbiting Earth
RPOS 5995745.38 -3043987.96 -302649.01
RVEL -3196.233 -6553.012 2468.826
AROT 30.00 0.00 50.00
IDS 0:588 100 1:586 100 2:584 100 3:582 100 4:580 100
NAVFREQ 0 0
XPDR 466
END
Mir
STATUS Orbiting Earth
RPOS 2854085.94 -367968.68 -6016311.21
RVEL 6986.489 202.238 3306.500
AROT 0.00 -45.00 90.00
IDS 0:540 100 1:542 100 2:544 100
XPDR 482
END
Luna-OB1:Wheel
STATUS Landed Moon
POS 0.0000000 0.0000000
HEADING 0.00
IDS 0:560 100 1:564 100
XPDR 494
END
Orion2100:Orion2100
STATUS Orbiting Earth
RPOS -23187422.96 -20519220.37 9148551.68
RVEL 10722.426 -2287.902 18347.200
AROT -8.51 -29.47 1.35
PRPLEVEL 1:0.900
NAVFREQ 0 0
XPDR 0
END
END_SHIPS
Scott Hedrick
>>>_Fairy Tales About Rocket Science_
>>Well, that certainly explains where you've been getting your information.
>
> I figured you could figure that out
You insist on proving it with every post.
Scott Hedrick
Scott Hedrick
Jim Davis
> As a newbie here I'm quite suprised to see which of C.P. Snow's two
> cultures dominates in this sci. group.
Use of a psuedonym is generally characteristic of the literary
culture, not the scientific one.
You seem to be far more comfortable using literary devices
(rhetorical questions and flourishes, appeals to emotion, ambiguity)
than scientific ones (clear and detailed description, mathematical
precision, logical arguments).
For example for the past week you've been talking about a "space
battleship". Can you describe this "space battleship" in scientific
detail? Can you answer questions about it in a straightforward
scientific manner?
Can you engage in scientific discussion instead of literary
pontification?
Jim Davis
Mike Chan
Pat Flannery wrote:
> "Orion ships would not have won in Nam.
> I do not like them.
> Uncle Sam I am.
[snip]
:-D :-D :-D
I would not expect Mr. bombardmentfarce to have the wit to reply in
kind by continuing. "Try Orion ships, Uncle Sam." and ending with "I
like Orion ships, Uncle Sam I am".
OM
>I would not expect Mr. bombardmentfarce to have the wit to reply in
>kind by continuing. "Try Orion ships, Uncle Sam." and ending with "I
>like Orion ships, Uncle Sam I am".
...Shit, I'm still surprised he can string more than four words
together in a sentence, much less add anything resembling punctuation.
Pat Flannery
Mike Chan wrote:
>
>I would not expect Mr. bombardmentfarce to have the wit to reply in
>kind by continuing. "Try Orion ships, Uncle Sam." and ending with "I
>like Orion ships, Uncle Sam I am".
>
>
I would like it noted that in deference to female sci.space.history
posters, I did not right a parody entitled "The Cunt In The Cap" ;-)
Pat
Pat Flannery
Pat Flannery wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>
> I would like it noted that in deference to female sci.space.history
> posters, I did not right a parody entitled "The Cunt In The Cap" ;-)
That's "write", not "right"- I've had a few.
(and intend to have a few more) ;-)
Pat
Dale
>I would like it noted that in deference to female sci.space.history
>posters, I did not right a parody entitled "The Cunt In The Cap" ;-)
Duly noted. I'm sure you scored lots of bonus points with them by pointing
it out, as well :)
Dale
bombardmentforce
>battleship"
Check again, my most common reference, in thread, is to DSBF, or to the
JFK model. I've replied to the battleship metaphor with same to avoid
the side issue, but the term is not my favorite.
The actual model presented to JFK had heavy, missle weapons, and light
armor. So the correct nautical metaphor class would not be the
battleship. As configured for the 5 hour stealth attack run it would be
most like a sub in many ways.
>mathematical precision,
>scientific discussion
Did I miss something? Your posts, so far, have no math. Do you have any
math abilities you are hiding? Do you have a copy of Orbiter? Can you
get Pat's uranium cubes into battle for him? He has failed to find a
plausible launch option.
The last two questions are not rhetorical, put up or shut up. I expect
hard simulation numbers, if you are less innumerate than the crowd.
bombardmentforce
Poet
>Came from Moon to Earth in only five hours?
...
>They will not fly here in five hours.
The math is not hard, if you have the background to handle science.
Pat Flannery
Dale wrote:
>
>Duly noted. I'm sure you scored lots of bonus points with them by pointing
>it out, as well :)
>
>
Restraint is the very basis of civility.
Besides, "Green Eggs And Ham" had a far easier rhyme scheme. ;-)
Pat
Pat Flannery
Pat Flannery wrote:
> Restraint is the very basis of civility.
> Besides, "Green Eggs And Ham" had a far easier rhyme scheme. ;-)
> Pat
And I'm still looking forward to doing "One State, Two State, Red State,
Blue State." on November 12th, 2006.
Pat
Derek Lyons
>The math is not hard, if you have the background to handle science.
Which, I guess, is why you refuse to provide the math.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Scott Hedrick
>>mathematical precision,
>>scientific discussion
>
> Did I miss something? Your posts, so far, have no math.
And what little math you've tried to present has been shown to be wrong. For
example *you* provided a crew number of 40 for your space battleship, as
well as a crew of 7 for the shuttle, but failed to recognize the ratio of
5.5. You further compounded your error by insisting on using irrelevant
measurements, such as comparing the crew to vehicle mass as a determinant of
life support thermal generation. The mass of the vehicle *does not*
determine heat generation.
>put up or shut up.
You first.
Scott Hedrick
Since you cannot handle the math, your own logic shows that you cannot
handle the science, either.
Furthermore, you have not shown that there is any error in the part of the
post you quoted.
Ami Silberman
> >For example for the past week you've been talking about a "space
>>battleship"
>
> Check again, my most common reference, in thread, is to DSBF, or to the
> JFK model. I've replied to the battleship metaphor with same to avoid
> the side issue, but the term is not my favorite.
>
> The actual model presented to JFK had heavy, missle weapons, and light
> armor. So the correct nautical metaphor class would not be the
> battleship. As configured for the 5 hour stealth attack run it would be
> most like a sub in many ways.
>
me.
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <denndv$olb$4...@newslocal.mitre.org>):
Especially in the complete lack of stealthiness part (that Little
General LeMay here can't understand).
Note, also, all the weird groups the little trolling bastard keeps
adding to the headers (which I've removed).
Cyde Weys
Alright, I must have missed out on something, because I don't
understand at all what you're all arguing about. I gather that you're
arguing about physics, but where exactly is this from?
You know what they say about fighting on the internet ...
Post Post Colonial Boy
<vacuumsup...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You say that like its a bad thing...
Nik
Josh Hill
"Anyone who would fight on the Internet would steal sheep." Oh wait,
that's "letterspace lowercase." Never mind.
--
Josh
"You know I could run for governor but I'm basically
a media creation. I've never done anything. I've
worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business. But
that's not the kind of profile you have to have
to get elected to public office." - George W. Bush
OM
wrote:
>"Anyone who would fight on the Internet would steal sheep."
...No, that's anyone who'd start a fight *and* refuse to cite source
and/or facts upon demand -fucks- sheep. And goats.
bombardmentforce
I tried to explain this to you before "the shuttle" is your error, I
never refered to a single shuttle in the internal heat comparison. I
compared the heat output of one ton of shuttles or a set of 101
shuttles.
bombardmentforce
in my mind.
bombardmentforce
Do you now understand the lack of heat generation by an inactive Orion
engine? What references could you point to to prove your point if not?
Jim Davis
>>For example for the past week you've been talking about a "space
>>battleship"
>
> Check again, my most common reference, in thread, is to DSBF, or
> to the JFK model. I've replied to the battleship metaphor with
> same to avoid the side issue, but the term is not my favorite.
Fine. Can you describe this "DSBF" in scientific
detail? Can you answer questions about it in a straightforward
scientific manner?
> The actual model presented to JFK had heavy, missle weapons, and
> light armor. So the correct nautical metaphor class would not be
> the battleship. As configured for the 5 hour stealth attack run
> it would be most like a sub in many ways.
No doubt your next post will contain all the exciting details.
> Did I miss something?
No doubt.
> Your posts, so far, have no math.
Well, that's because your posts don't have enough detail for a
mathematical analysis.
> Do you
> have any math abilities you are hiding?
Do you have any math abilities at all?
> Do you have a copy of
> Orbiter?
No.
> Can you get Pat's uranium cubes into battle for him?
Pat can defend his own proposals.
> He
> has failed to find a plausible launch option.
The two of you have that in common at least.
> The last two questions are not rhetorical, put up or shut up. I
> expect hard simulation numbers, if you are less innumerate than
> the crowd.
<chuckle>
You quite take my breath away. *You* refuse to supply even the most
basic details about your "DSBF" proposal but then have the colossal
effrontery to turn around and demand hard simulation numbers from
*me*.
Jim Davis
OM
wrote:
> Can you describe this "DSBF" in scientific detail?
...In his case, it's his initials preceded by his fetish. Dog Sucking.
OM
wrote:
>You quite take my breath away. *You* refuse to supply even the most
>basic details about your "DSBF" proposal but then have the colossal
>effrontery to turn around and demand hard simulation numbers from
>*me*.
...Numbers aren't what he wants "hard" from you, Jim. Best killfile
him and put him out of all our misery.
Derek Lyons
>>Especially in the complete lack of stealthiness part
>
>Do you now understand the lack of heat generation by an inactive Orion
>engine?
Do you understand there is more to an Orion powered craft than the
engine?
I thought not.
Rand Simberg
Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
Pat, I think that you're an eternal poster boy for the old admonition,
"don't drink and post..."
bombardmentforce
I have a previous post with a detailed NASA-GA list of component
classes and masses for a particular Orion design.
With Herb, I'm trying to work though each section of the ship, he is
sure there us a huge heat source in there that can't be turned off for
stealth. I've added some canned ice to the baseline GA-Air force design
to handle medium sized internal heat loads,. So at this point I'm left
wondering, what large heat source it Herb concerned about? My best
guess is that he confuses the NERVA residual heat issue with Orion's
non-activated structual behaviour.
Dale
<om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org> wrote:
>On 27 Aug 2005 01:21:59 GMT, Jim Davis <jimd...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>
>> Can you describe this "DSBF" in scientific detail?
>
>...In his case, it's his initials preceded by his fetish. Dog Sucking.
Hmmm, I thought it was that fetish followed by another one...
Dale
bombardmentforce
>> Orbiter?
>No.
> Can you get Pat's uranium cubes into battle for him?
>Pat can defend his own proposals.
The fundamental statement at issue here is:
-----------
A DSBF attack circa 1970 could easily be defeated by small additions to
available Soviet resources, without resorting to Sakharov's competing
PK-5000.
------------
As you can see we have not resolved this verbally. I noticed early in
the thread that we don't have a shared conception of the technology.
For instance; Pat still finds it hard to imagine a 5 hour run in from
Lunar orbit. If you fire up the free program Orbiter and load a
standard NASA exploratory model Orion in Lunar orbit you can accelerate
it to 20 km per second and have it passing Earth four and 1/2 hours
later.
OM
...No, that's his sister, DVDA.
Scott Hedrick
> >Especially in the complete lack of stealthiness part
>
> Do you now understand the lack of heat generation by an inactive Orion
> engine? What references could you point to to prove your point if not?
How about the 3K microwave background? Unless your spacecraft matches that
temperature, *it will be detected* because it is *hot*.
Scott Hedrick
> I
> compared the heat output of one ton of shuttles or a set of 101
> shuttles.
*And utterly failed to show that the comparison is valid.*
Scott Hedrick
> As you can see we have not resolved this verbally.
That's because it's a math problem.
bombardmentforce
Take this simple design
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/Echo/DI55G2.htm
spray the inside with liquid Helium. I'm at 4K, where is your circa
1970 detector and what temperature is it cooled to?
bombardmentforce
Vaild, we can argue in other posts.
My point here is that my point there was based on internal heat per ton
of shuttle. That is the unit I am actually using, even if you disagree.
"A shuttle" is your unit; not mine.
Scott Hedrick
> spray the inside with liquid Helium. I'm at 4K
For about one second, then you immediately begin to warm up.
Scott Hedrick
> My point here is that my point there was based on internal heat per ton
> of shuttle.
Which *you have not shown* is a valid comparison.
>That is the unit I am actually using, even if you disagree.
You can use "ass-monkeys" as you unit and be as equally valid, based on what
you've shown here.
> "A shuttle" is your unit; not mine.
Note what you yourself said above- *you* are using the shuttle as a
reference. Interesting how you use the shuttle as a reference in so many
ways, even though it wasn't invented in the 50s, 60s, or 70s (if you say it
was, I say show me the verifiable record of 70s shuttle spaceflights). Yet
another unnecessary inconsistency caused by your lack of understanding of
what you are talking about.
bombardmentforce
bombardmentforce
>internal heat __________per ton___________
>a reference
It is a well know object, not designed to run especially cool, with a
known internal heat load. If we use that as an upper limit for another
design's internal heat load that is a conservative reference. If I
wanted an agggressive reference I could look at MOL's and stealth
satellite's heat budget. I went with a 101-shuttle symphony of heat in
my 'silent running' design to make the inequality more dramatic.
Scott Hedrick
>I went with a 101-shuttle
Then the "shuttle" as a unit of measurement is *your* invention, not mine.
Clearly you lied when you said in message
news:1125173533....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>"A shuttle" is your unit; not mine.
You haven't shown that your choice of measurement is valid. Let's see the
*math* behind your choice, and why you choose to use "shuttles" as a unit
instead of, say, Watts.
More handwaving isn't going to cut it- verifiable research complete with
math and cites will. As *you* yourself said, "put up or shut up".
Scott Hedrick
> Refeflective, concentric spheres, why is the outer one warming up?
>
Solar energy, of course. *Do* pay attention. If you make it shiny to reflect
solar energy, it's clearly visible. If you paint it black to absorb visible
light, it shines in the infrared.
Not to mention you'll get a non-trivial amount of additional energy from
earthshine and moonshine.
bombardmentforce
> "bombardmentforce" <vacuumsup...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1125180587.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >I went with a 101-shuttle
>
> Then the "shuttle" as a unit of measurement is *your* invention, not mine.
> Clearly you lied when you said in message
That's not a unit, I'm describing 101 shuttles lashed together pumping
out heat, like a symphony aboard a 'silent running' submarine.
>> symphony of heat
The DSBF ship has the same mass as 101 shuttles, I'm using the 101
shuttle groups's internal BTUs as my baseline budget.
The unit is BTU's per ton, the set of 101 shuttles on the right has the
same internal heat generation and mass as the Orion ship on the left,
so they are equal in three things.
Mass
Internal heat generated
internal BTU load per ton
Even though these inequalities hold
DSBF crew/ton << Shuttle crew per ton
DSBF cold mode active electronics mass / ton of ship < shuttle normal
mode active electronics mass / ton of shuttle
DSBF cold mode telcom traffic/ ton << shuttle normal mode telcom
traffic /ton
Alan Anderson
> ...Orion's
> non-activated structual behaviour.
Interesting that you should use the term "activated".
How hot is an Orion pusher plate going to be after it's been used to
accelerate to 20 km/sec?
bombardmentforce
There is a tradeoff. Run the numbers for your 4k detector and your
optical (in space-day attack planned) telescope scanning grid. Once we
have parameters for you systems we can pick an optimum unforced
temperature for my outer shell.
If the system you describe is reasonable I could add extra liquid He
to force my shell to a lower cold mode temperature.
A good hint as to where the detector tradeoffs lie would be the ratio
of near earth objects first detected by infrared to optical.
bombardmentforce
Neutron activated, the GA-NASA documents indicate the plate is not very
activated by the pulses because of distance and propellant shielding.
There may be enough data in Volume 3 to calculate BTU/hr * pulse as a
function of time after pulse.
>How hot
The temperature peak is reached after each pulse, with quick cooldown.
The plate has a cycle of about 999 milliseconds cooling followed by one
millisecond heating. I can post plate temperature references Monday.
George William Herbert
Have you calculated the liquid He boiloff rate that will be
required if you make a minimally-optically-reflective surface?
Do you know how to calculate it?
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
bombardmentforce
Black, that's overkill. I'm hoping that Scott's calculations will show
his Soviet, 1970, space based optical network can't cover much of the
sky with high frequency. I wonder what he's using for sensors in place
of CCDs.
How cloud cover tolerant do you figure Scott's ground based 4k detector
could be?
OM
<din...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>You haven't shown that your choice of measurement is valid.
...Remember, this is the type of inbred troll who tells his SO that
two inches is actually twelve. Of course, the problem there is that
these kinds of bimbos *believe* this, and it eventually leads to the
troll reproducing and contaminating our gene pool.
...Which explains why factual measurements are literally anethema to
his kind.
bombardmentforce
There are two DSBF proposals, the offical Air Force one presented in
model form to JFK, and my current one being presented, as developed, on
the blog.
http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/
Some of the concepts are more advanced than those in the original
design, so understanding of DSBF(1) is a prerequisite.
>you do not need the free program Orbiter to make these calculations.
True, but Pat does for the calculations to sink in. He's the
ur-defender of the idea that the orginal DSBF could be easily deflected
by the Soviets.
>The "standard NASA exploratory model of Orion" armed with hundreds
>of nuclear weapons and carrying a 1000 tons of ice?
The DSBF addon isn't ready yet, so the lower performance NASA model
will stand in. The ice is canned in extra, pulse unit container sized,
insulated cans; so many Orion designs can hold 10% of their mass in
ice.
>> four and 1/2 hours later.
>Perhaps if you would describe your
Air Force's
>DSBF proposal in enough
>numerical detail he could make this determination for himself?
The detail that I provided far up-thread for this was
---- 20 km/sec attack run ----
He could have understood the implied calculation, but has not.
Scott Hedrick
> The DSBF ship has the same mass as 101 shuttles, I'm using the 101
> shuttle groups's internal BTUs as my baseline budget.
Repeating that doesn't show that it's valid. Let's see the math, son. Talk
isn't going to cut it.
Instead of using phrases such as "101 shuttle groups's internal BTUs", why
don't you just use numbers?
Scott Hedrick
> >minimally-optically-reflective surface
>
> Black, that's overkill.
That's nice, but I see you weasled George's question. Let's see some real
numbers for a change.
I'm hoping that Scott's calculations will show
> his Soviet, 1970, space based optical network
What "Soviet, 1970, space based optical network" are you talking about?
Please provide a verifiable link to a post where *I* discussed such a thing.
> How cloud cover tolerant do you figure Scott's ground based 4k detector
> could be?
I thought it was "space based". Please try to be consistent with your
imaginative false interpretations of my posts.
Scott Hedrick
> Neutron activated, the GA-NASA documents indicate the plate is not very
> activated by the pulses because of distance and propellant shielding.
> There may be enough data in Volume 3 to calculate BTU/hr * pulse as a
> function of time after pulse.
Why don't you *go find out*, then.
Leon
"Scott Hedrick" <din...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dDsQe.12482$2_.1...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
Most of the numbers I know have already been used, so whatisname must have
the same problem. "23 Skidoo" is long gone. "86 on the blue plate special"
has been replaced with "do you want fries with that?" And "5 by 5" is now
politically correct "grossly obese."
Leon
bombardmentforce
I'm running DSBF offense in the simulation, you think you have a easy
defense. You need to specify it in enough detail so that we could
imagine the Soviet's, circa 1970, deploying it and detecting the ship.
Otherwise you implicitly support my point that Pat was wrong to think
this hypothetical attack could be easily deflected.
>I thought it was "space based"
If you look into what it takes to detect a 4k object with infrared
you'll see that ground systems are a remote option. If you consider
what it takes for your optical systems to see the incoming ship during
the day, you'll see that they have to be space based.
OM
>And "5 by 5" is now politically correct "grossly obese."
...No, "5 by 5" still means "reading you loud and clear".
bombardmentforce
I already posted the total heat output, in BTUs, of the shuttle set,
which is the maximum internal heat budget of the DSBF ship.
OM
<din...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>That's nice, but I see you weasled George's question. Let's see some real
>numbers for a change.
...You know, the more I see of this dickwad's weasling out of
providing facts and figures that can be verified, the more I'm
convinced he *has* to be CT in disguise. If not, either way it's safer
just to killfile the ignorant dipshit and put him out of our misery.
Scott Hedrick
> >What "Soviet, 1970, space based optical network"
>
> I'm running DSBF offense in the simulation, you think you have a easy
> defense. You need to specify it in enough detail so that we could
> imagine the Soviet's, circa 1970
Why would I do that? I haven't discussed any Soviet hardware. If you want to
add it to your fantasy, *you* do the homework.
>>I thought it was "space based"
>
> If you look into what it takes to detect a 4k object with infrared
> you'll see that ground systems are a remote option.
First you say I'm talking about a space-based system, then a ground based
one. Which one is it? Why are you having such a hard time providing a
verifiable reference to a post of mine where *I* made any such reference?
If you consider
> what it takes for your optical systems to see the incoming ship during
> the day, you'll see that they have to be space based.
>
Then why are *you* talking about ground based systems?
Jim Davis
> There are two DSBF proposals, the offical Air Force one
> presented in model form to JFK,
No details of which are publicly available, as far as I know. If
I'm mistaken on this point please let me know.
> and my current one being
> presented, as developed, on the blog.
>
> http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/
You'll have to provide a better link than that. I saw much about
Organic Acts, Northwest Ordinances, logs of the USS Taylor and the
like but no DSBF details.
> Some of the concepts are more advanced than those in the
> original design, so understanding of DSBF(1) is a prerequisite.
But an understanding of DSBF(1) is not *possible* because no one,
yourself included apparently, knows anything about it.
>>you do not need the free program Orbiter to make these
>>calculations.
>
> True, but Pat does for the calculations to sink in. He's the
> ur-defender of the idea that the orginal DSBF could be easily
> deflected by the Soviets.
A view which, for all you know, may be correct given your ignorance
of the details of the original DSBF proposal.
> The DSBF addon isn't ready yet, so the lower performance NASA
> model will stand in. The ice is canned in extra, pulse unit
> container sized, insulated cans; so many Orion designs can hold
> 10% of their mass in ice.
But you don't know that 1000 tons is 10% of the original DSBF's
mass. You, like everyone else, know next to nothing about the
original DSBF design. You have no idea what kind of impact such an
arbitrary adition would have on the design. You're making it all up
as you go along.
>>> four and 1/2 hours later.
>
>>Perhaps if you would describe your
>
> Air Force's
Fine. Describe the Air Force's DSBF design in *detail*.
>>DSBF proposal in enough
>>numerical detail he could make this determination for himself?
>
> The detail that I provided far up-thread for this was
>
> ---- 20 km/sec attack run ----
>
> He could have understood the implied calculation, but has not.
Why should anyone take the "20 km/sec attack run" seriously? Maybe
it's something you made up like the the 1000 tons of ice, or the
liquid helium, or the heat load equal to two shuttle orbiters just
like the ones in "Footfall"?
We've exchanged about half a dozen posts and it's clear you have
*no* idea exactly what the Air Force proposed back in the day or
what you yourself are proposing *now*.
You have this monomaniacal obsession with Orion and contempt for
anyone who doesn't share it.
Jim Davis
Scott Hedrick
> >use numbers
>
> I already posted the total heat output, in BTUs, of the shuttle set,
> which is the maximum internal heat budget of the DSBF ship.
>
*You* keep making references to "shuttle heat loads". *You* have not shown
that your assumption, using the shuttle as a model, is valid. Your inability
to validate your model does not make it correct.
You keep making references to 60s and 70s stuff. Unless the material *you*
are working from describes potential thermal issues in reference to the
shuttle, why do you?
Kelly McDonald sympatico.ca>
<vacuumsup...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course this does not take into account a wide variety of variables.
Specifically
1. The proposed Orion design used mid 60's tech, Shuttle late 70's.
Quite a significant difference in efficiency of electronics.
2. The Shuttle Ku Band only has to transmit between itself and the
TDRSS network. It doesn't have to trasnsmit at cis-lunar distances.
Expect Orion to have a much more substantial and powerful
communications system (plus a whole lot more systems and people that
need to communicate with the ground, meaning larger bandwidth
requirements too)
3. An Orion warship is going to require all sorts of active systems
that the Shuttle doesn't have. Such as a Targetting and Tracking
system which means a large active radar system (it's uber plasma gun
won't be much use without a system to detect, track and target the bad
guys). Unlike a sub, where passive Sonar can be an effective tool,
passive radar is only going to detect actively broadcasting targets)
4. The Shuttle is designed for 14 day missions, Orion would be used
for much longer deployments. So it's going to have things like large
refrigerators for food, possibly hydroponic gardens, rec facilities
for the crew, crew berths, etc etc etc
All this means that there is only one power source that can meet an
Orion warship's needs. An onboard nuclear reactor, which has to be
cooled at all times (even when powered down to low levels during
"stealth" mode)
The devil is in the details
Kelly McDonald
Pat Flannery
Alan Anderson wrote:
>
>How hot is an Orion pusher plate going to be after it's been used to
>accelerate to 20 km/sec?
>
>
Considering that it was supposed to be made out of Styrofoam IIRC, it
better not get any too hot.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Jim Davis wrote:
>>True, but Pat does for the calculations to sink in. He's the
>>ur-defender of the idea that the orginal DSBF could be easily
>>deflected by the Soviets.
>>
>>
>
>A view which, for all you know, may be correct given your ignorance
>of the details of the original DSBF proposal.
>
>
>
Pat decided that this whole thing is about as silly as figuring out what
the Germans would have done if they had developed an atomic bomb and a
working antipodal bomber to carry it to America by 1945.
Orion might be a fun idea for a alternate history wargame or sci-fi
story- but as far a reality goes, it's pointless to discuss in
detail...because it never happened, and the whole program was canceled
early on before anyone could even determine if it would actually work if
you built it.
I've got better things to do than play "Crimson Void".
Can't we discuss something more realistic- say, Soviet nuclear jet
engine powered supersonic dirigible bombers?
(I read an article about those when I was a kid.)
Pat
bombardmentforce
The subject of the subthread is a simulated 1970 attack run against the
Soviet Union. You propsed two detection methods, a telescope
consellation and a infrared detector capable of seeing a small, fast
moving 4 degree kelvin object. Provide details so I can pick my hull
temperature.
>space-based system, then a ground based
Both
1: Optical, must be space based because the this is a day attack.
2: Deeeeeep Infrared: Your 4k detector, do you know what frequency the
photons are?
bombardmentforce
>>current one (DBSF plan) as developed
There's a link, to be made clear later.
>proposing *now*.
Proposing now and in the future. There's a lot of detail to work
through and your input is useful. For instance Herb's objections led
to a radical redesign of the logistics systems in the new design.
>no one...knows anything (re DSBF (1) )
You exagerate, twice.
>>easily deflected by the Soviets.
>A view which, for all you know, may be correct
As captain of the simulated attack ship I'll take smal, possibly
redundant steps to prevent this, like the ice.
>don't know that 1000 tons is 10%
I'm taking 10% ice, if the ship if bigger we'll can more.
>two shuttle
/two/ /101/
> what the Air Force proposed
We're making some progress on this, Voulme three has some good
equations for general Orion ship design.
http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2005/07/pdf-documents-from-nasa-technical.html
bombardmentforce
>early on before anyone could even determine if it would actually work if
>you built it.
I'm starting to be interested in the fact that both the American and
the Soviet programs were canceled, and exploration was neutered in a
short time span. It took quite a while to prove that JFK traded the
Turkey missle bases for the Cuba ones.
bombardmentforce
>Styrofoam
Styrofoam! The references I see are for steel or aluminium, are you
sure?
bombardmentforce
>Quite a significant difference in efficiency of electronics.
Lower mass and lower power per function, one reason I'm comparing
internal heat per ton.
>The Shuttle Ku Band only has to transmit between itself and the
>TDRSS network. It doesn't have to trasnsmit at cis-lunar distances.
>Expect Orion to have a much more substantial and powerful
>communications system (plus a whole lot more systems and people that
>need to communicate with the ground, meaning larger bandwidth
>requirements too)
All transmitters would be off for stealth. I'd also assume a low freq.
comm network similar to that for subs for incoming messages.
>4... large active radar system
Transmitters on other elements of the fleet.
>4. The Shuttle is designed for 14 day missions, Orion would be used
>for much longer deployments. So it's going to have things like large
>refrigerators for food,
>possibly hydroponic gardens, rec facilities
>for the crew, crew berths, etc etc etc
> An onboard nuclear reactor, which has to be
>cooled at all times
I went with unshielded reactors on a stick, disposable in extremis,
that reduces the reactor mass to be cooled to a minimum.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/images/content/108874main_nuclear-spacecraft.jpg
Ami Silberman
"OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org> wrote
in message news:ifs4h1h038pb8p277...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 20:31:31 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
> <din...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>That's nice, but I see you weasled George's question. Let's see some real
>>numbers for a change.
>
> ...You know, the more I see of this dickwad's weasling out of
> providing facts and figures that can be verified, the more I'm
> convinced he *has* to be CT in disguise. If not, either way it's safer
> just to killfile the ignorant dipshit and put him out of our misery.
>
> OM
>
politics), and his politics are so "Cold Warrior" that if we made the crew
of Orion clones of his the nuclear reactor would freeze.
Scott Hedrick
> I went with unshielded reactors on a stick, disposable in extremis,
> that reduces the reactor mass to be cooled to a minimum.
Which is nothing more than waving a very hot stick that says "Here I am!"
Don't have to shoot your spaceship- just the reactor.
Scott Hedrick
> The subject of the subthread is a simulated 1970 attack run against the
> Soviet Union.
That's what you, and you alone, seem to think.
>You propsed two detection methods, a telescope
> consellation
Nope. Sorry. Not me.
and a infrared detector capable of seeing a small, fast
> moving 4 degree kelvin object. Provide details so I can pick my hull
> temperature.
Reveal your hull temperature, along with the math and verifiable details
supporting it, first.
Also, I mentioned something that could detect your imaginary space
battleship, not something small.
>
>>space-based system, then a ground based
>
> Both
Fine, but don't say that *I* discussed it when *you* clearly invented it.
Nobody is going to fall for that trick when better than you have tried it
and failed. You're going to do your own homework.
>Your 4k detector, do you know what frequency the
> photons are?
Yes. Do you?
Scott Hedrick
> It took quite a while to prove that JFK traded the
> Turkey missle bases for the Cuba ones.
So, then, you think the guy on the grassy knoll was a disgruntled DSBF
worker?
Scott Hedrick
>>no one...knows anything (re DSBF (1) )
> You exagerate, twice.
You fail to provide any verifiable details, repeatedly. *Your* own website
is NOT a valid reference. Why not provide some bibliographic information?
> As captain of the simulated attack ship I'll take smal, possibly
> redundant steps to prevent this, like the ice.
Since you are pulling the details out of your ass, you can handwave anything
you like.
>>two shuttle
>
> /two/ /101/
One again, *you* are using "shuttles" as a unit. Clearly this is because you
have no idea just how much heat a shuttle generates and are too lazy to find
out.
bombardmentforce
>waving a very hot stick that says "Here I am!"
The engine does that too, It'll be running on fuel cells during the
inbound run.
bombardmentforce
I'm tuning the hull temperature to exploit the gap between the
capabilities of your two detection methods.