# 1985 byian.woollard@... on May 30, 2006, 1:18 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On 29/05/06, Robert wrote:
> what you are ignoreing is that fact that at current cost each pound
> cost 10000 dollars. that means a small 5 pound self distruct charge
> cost $50,000 to launch each time.
the first stage is not going to orbit. There's about a 10:1 ratio on
the costs of the second stage relative to the first; the $10,000 apply
to the second.
Second, you appear to be arguing that launch costs can't be lowered,
because... self destruct charges cost too much to launch because costs
can't be lowered...
And this is when the self destruct charges cost less than 0.1% of the
cost of the launch! (As in who cares about $50,000 of self destruct
when a launch costs $50 million?) And, as the costs go down, the cost
of launching the destruct charges goes down also.
--
-Ian Woollard
"Gravity is just a theory. We shouldn't be teaching it to children as
if were fact."
"The NSA would like to remind everyone to call their mothers this
Sunday. They need to calibrate their system."
# 1986 bydehammer@... on May 30, 2006, 6:53 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
if the odds of it happening on any particular flight is on in 10000,
by the time youve had 10000 flights, the odds are it will happen
once. as long as there is one launch every 3 months, it will take a
long time to launch 10000 times. on the other hand if its done on
daily to weekly basis, it becomes a much more likely event.
reaches mach three. it is more likely that it will occur before it is
even moving 100 miles an hour. it will then accelerate to mach three,
giving it somewhat more stability, but by then its already off course.
if it nosed into the wrong direction just after launch it could
easily reach half way to california from floida and still have enough
fuel for that kind of explosive. how many cities do you think it
would have passed.
i lost my wife due to a c 130 having multiple control system failure.
dont tell me it does not happen.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "ANTIcarrot"
wrote:
>
> You're assuming a lot more than that:
> *A complete failure of multiple redundent control systems.
> *That this complete failure doesn't (by itself) destroy the rocket.
> *That the city will be near enough that the rocket can arrrive with
with
> enough fuel for a hollywood style explosion.
> *That out of all the possible places the rocket could land it will
hit the
> city.
>
> Number two is the assumtion I really disagree with. A rocket's
guidence
> system does the same thing as balancing a pencil by it's tip on
your finger,
> only in mach 3 winds, with a million ton pencil, made of tinfoil.
To assume
> this system, and it's backups, will all fall over at once is
reasonable. To
> assume the rocket won't then try to fly sideways at mach three (and
> encounted forces it was never intended to survive, and destroy
itself)
> sounds significantly less reasonable to me.
>
> John
>
simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine
# 1987 bydehammer@... on May 30, 2006, 7:08 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
so i was being a little be on the extream side. 50 hundred gallons
would be somewhere between 30000 and 100000 pounds of fuel, sufficent
to make most short hop flight. in case you did not know, in order to
put more people and cargo on flights, they reduce the load of fuel to
what they need plus a little bit for safety.
# 1988 bydehammer@... on May 30, 2006, 7:11 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
initially it will mostly be done from Cape Canaveral, but as the
number of launches go up, more of the businesses that are doing the
launches will want to reduce the cost by launching the rocket
themselves. i foresee a time when they will lobby congress to allow
launches in many places that are too close to cities and the campaign
contributions given to them before the approval will just be more
coincidences.
# 1989 bydehammer@... on May 30, 2006, 7:24 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Woollard"
wrote:
>
> Well, you mainly need self-destruct charges on the first stage, and
> the first stage is not going to orbit. There's about a 10:1 ratio on
> the costs of the second stage relative to the first; the $10,000
apply
> to the second.
the 10000 applies to the payload. it comes from all the cost of the
rocket. including the cost of the materials to build the sdc and the
fuel to carry that to the altitude that it will reach. it will have
to be added to the upper stage. imagine the problem that would
happen if the upper stage did not ignite. it cant reach orbit, it
cant stay in the air, and in the thin air it begins to tumble. this
causes it to slow way down, and then when it hits the denser
atmosphere, to skewer off to one side. if it hits a city, park,
forest, farmland, or just hits the ocean (and causes a small tidal
wave that damages shore and ships for a few miles) it will still do
damage. no, the sdc will have to be in the upper stage and will cost
the luanch company money, which will have to be passed on to the
customer, which to them will be a waste of money.
>
> Second, you appear to be arguing that launch costs can't be lowered,
> because... self destruct charges cost too much to launch because
costs
> can't be lowered...
huh, where did this come from. no the cost of the sdc will not affect
if the cost can come down or not. it affects how much of the weight
of the rocket is taken up before the payload is added.
> And this is when the self destruct charges cost less than 0.1% of
the
> cost of the launch! (As in who cares about $50,000 of self destruct
> when a launch costs $50 million?) And, as the costs go down, the
cost
> of launching the destruct charges goes down also.
who cares? have you ever seen big buisness. 50 grand is a lot of
profit they dont get, esp for something they see no use in. maybe if
its just a one shot deal they will not care, but if they launch 100
that is 5 million they have tossed out the window.
im sorry if i seem negative, but i dont believe that chemical rockets
will be the answer.
# 1990 byian.woollard@... on May 30, 2006, 9:47 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On 30/05/06, Robert wrote:
> if the odds of it happening on any particular flight is on in 10000,
> by the time youve had 10000 flights, the odds are it will happen
> once. as long as there is one launch every 3 months, it will take a
> long time to launch 10000 times. on the other hand if its done on
> daily to weekly basis, it becomes a much more likely event.
a) 1 in 10,000 is an appallingly large risk- no launch vehicle would
ever be allowed to launch with a 1 in 10,000 risk of hitting a densely
populated area. IRC 1 in a million is the chance of *anyone* on the
ground dying you need to hit before they'll sign off on the launch.
You *do* need permission to launch- it's called a launch license.
b) the chances of failure go down over time- the first space shuttle
had a 80% chance of success. The current space shuttle has a 98%
chance of success. That's after 200 flights. That's because they have
accidents, find the bug in the manufacture, operations or design,
repair it, and the reliability goes up.
> first thing is that your assuming that it only occurs after the ship
> reaches mach three. it is more likely that it will occur before it is
> even moving 100 miles an hour.
Duh huh. Then it isn't going very fast, and has gone very far, so
won't fall far from the launch point when you turn off the engines or
blow up the vehicle.
> it will then accelerate to mach three,
> giving it somewhat more stability, but by then its already off course.
Lessee. Rockets have a takeoff acceleration of between 1.5 and 2g.
Mach 3 = 340*3 = 1020m/s.
2g = 20m/s^2
Acceleration time to mach 3 = 1020/20 = 51seconds
Sooo. You're saying that something has gone drastically wrong with the
rocket (a 1 in a million failure), AND the range safety guy stands
there watching for 51 seconds with his thumb up his ass, in the middle
of a launch AND it's heading for a city. At mach 3. AND all this when
the vehicle isn't designed to do mach 3 in the atmosphere. And mach 3
isn't very fast, a vehicle can't go 100 miles at mach 3 even ignoring
wind drag.
It just isn't credible.
> if it nosed into the wrong direction just after launch it could
> easily reach half way to california from floida and still have enough
> fuel for that kind of explosive. how many cities do you think it
> would have passed.
I've simulated launch vehicles on computers. 99.9% of all trajectories
go hardly any distance- the atmosphere is incredibly efficient at
burning off fuel, at high speed. It's really, really difficult to get
a vehicle to orbit, and every bit as difficult to hit a city, and it's
made even more difficult because they design the vehicle not to do
that.
> i lost my wife due to a c 130 having multiple control system failure.
I'm very sorry to hear that.
> dont tell me it does not happen.
It happens.
The question is what the chances are of a rocket taking out a city.
The chances are very, very, very small indeed. The point is that the
regulations all start from the position that 'we don't care whether
you reach orbit, but you mustn't kill uninvolved people on the
ground'; and the regulations are applied that way.
--
-Ian Woollard
"Gravity is just a theory. We shouldn't be teaching it to children as
if were fact."
"The NSA would like to remind everyone to call their mothers this
Sunday. They need to calibrate their system."
# 1991 byian.woollard@... on May 30, 2006, 10:01 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On 29/05/06, Robert wrote:
> it may not be part of the payload but it adds to the cost by being 5
> pounds, or what ever kilo, that they cant add to the weight of the
> payload.
safety is most important for the first stage. By the time the second
stage separates you are quite a way downrange and moving fast along
the launch corridor.
Adding 5kg to the first stage costs you *very* little. Actually you
just make the first stage a tiny bit bigger to compensate. So if it
was 100 tonnes with a 10 tonne second stage, with no range safety you
make the first stage say 100.055 tonnes and the 10 tonne second
stage's payload is unaffected. So it only costs you 0.01% extra.
Businesses don't give a shit about that kind of extra cost;
particularly if it keeps them out of trouble with the government, and
more importantly their INSURERS who really, really, really, really
don't want them to hit an inhabited area.
The second stage is a LOT smaller, and the damage it can do is
correspondingly less.
--
-Ian Woollard
"Gravity is just a theory. We shouldn't be teaching it to children as
if were fact."
"The NSA would like to remind everyone to call their mothers this
Sunday. They need to calibrate their system."
# 1992 bydante_feditech@... on May 30, 2006, 12:40 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> From: Robert
> first thing is that your assuming that it only occurs after the ship
> reaches mach three. it is more likely that it will occur before it is
> even moving 100 miles an hour. it will then accelerate to mach three,
> giving it somewhat more stability, but by then its already off course.
systems to do anything other than fall over. If the control systems fail on
the scale you're talking about the rocket is not going anywhere. If they do
not fail on the level you are talking about the redundant systems will be
able to either correct the deviation, move into a harmless course, or shut
the engines down.
> i lost my wife due to a c 130 having multiple control system failure.
> dont tell me it does not happen.
And I'm guessing it fell out of the sky rather quickly after that, didn't
it? The complete systems failure didn't cause it fly five hundred miles off
course, did it? I never did tell you such failures didn't happen, I just
said they were very rare. What I am telling you, and what you seem incapable
of acepting, is that an unstable aircraft (unlike a c130 - which is a stable
aircraft) with a dead flight computer WILL depart controlled flight
immediately, and will almost certianly destroy itself in seconds.
John
# 1993 bydehammer@... on May 30, 2006, 2:02 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Woollard"
wrote:
>
> No, for several reasons:
>
> a) 1 in 10,000 is an appallingly large risk- no launch vehicle would
> ever be allowed to launch with a 1 in 10,000 risk of hitting a
densely
> populated area. IRC 1 in a million is the chance of *anyone* on the
> ground dying you need to hit before they'll sign off on the launch.
> You *do* need permission to launch- it's called a launch license.
time they had a successful launch, they lowered the standards of what
had to happen in the next launch, result was someone decided it was
OK to launch under conditions that were not acceptable before. for
the first 25 to 30 launches, everything would be scrutinized, then
gradually over time, after success after success, the scrutiny would
be a little less and a little less. after a time, it would be a
rubber stamp operation. those at the top of the business would
pressure ppl lower to speed things up and tell them to not bother
with checks that were not needed. after a time, as had been proven
time after time in business after business, the risk go up because of
ppl not doing the checks that are needed. many times those checks
will result in nothing. then one day a rocket goes off course, and
the range officer is not paying attention. since hes a salary
employee, he has to have permission to put the key in the activator,
but then, they have to find someone who is willing to face the boss
with the news that he ordered the rocket destroyed. finally someone
does. unfortunately its a little too late and the rocket is no longer
within range.
>
> b) the chances of failure go down over time- the first space shuttle
> had a 80% chance of success. The current space shuttle has a 98%
> chance of success. That's after 200 flights. That's because they
have
> accidents, find the bug in the manufacture, operations or design,
> repair it, and the reliability goes up.
really, then what happen with Challenger and Columbia. sorry to tell
you, but it does not work that way. systems start to fail. people
fall under inertia. steps get shortcut-ted. result: failure.
>
> Duh huh. Then it isn't going very fast, and has gone very far, so
> won't fall far from the launch point when you turn off the engines
or
> blow up the vehicle.
>
your assuming that some low paid salary employee that has been told
that if he ever puts the key into the activator slot, without prior
approval, that he will be terminated and likely sued for risking the
rocket, is willing to put the key in in time. your also assuming that
he is actually at the launch. very likely after many successes, he
will be expected to be doing "more important work than babysitting an
unneeded switch.
>
> Lessee. Rockets have a takeoff acceleration of between 1.5 and 2g.
> Mach 3 = 340*3 = 1020m/s.
>
> 2g = 20m/s^2
>
> Acceleration time to mach 3 = 1020/20 = 51seconds
>
> Sooo. You're saying that something has gone drastically wrong with
the
> rocket (a 1 in a million failure), AND the range safety guy stands
> there watching for 51 seconds with his thumb up his ass, in the
middle
> of a launch AND it's heading for a city. At mach 3. AND all this
when
> the vehicle isn't designed to do mach 3 in the atmosphere. And mach
3
> isn't very fast, a vehicle can't go 100 miles at mach 3 even
ignoring
> wind drag.
OK which is it. first you tell me the rocket will be going mach
three, then when i go with it, you tell me it will not. I'm basing
its speed on what one of you have claimed to be the speed of the
rocket.
>
> I've simulated launch vehicles on computers. 99.9% of all
trajectories
> go hardly any distance- the atmosphere is incredibly efficient at
> burning off fuel, at high speed. It's really, really difficult to
get
> a vehicle to orbit, and every bit as difficult to hit a city, and
it's
> made even more difficult because they design the vehicle not to do
> that.
>
the point is that there is a chance it can. your likely assuming that
all the launches would be from Cape Canaveral. after a few years,
businesses will want to launch from closer to home. this puts more
places at risk.
>
> The question is what the chances are of a rocket taking out a city.
> The chances are very, very, very small indeed. The point is that the
> regulations all start from the position that 'we don't care whether
> you reach orbit, but you mustn't kill uninvolved people on the
> ground'; and the regulations are applied that way.
>
how often do businesses stay to regulation. how many times have they
gotten into trouble in the last few years for ignoring them. ill name
two big ones. Enron, and Valdez
# 1994 bydehammer@... on May 30, 2006, 2:12 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "ANTIcarrot"
wrote:
>
> Launch rockets are not statically stable. They require active
control
> systems to do anything other than fall over. If the control systems
fail on
> the scale you're talking about the rocket is not going anywhere. If
they do
> not fail on the level you are talking about the redundant systems
will be
> able to either correct the deviation, move into a harmless course,
or shut
> the engines down.
chemical rockets especially ones that are mass produced by business
that are more interested in the bottom line than safety. there are
better ways.
>
> And I'm guessing it fell out of the sky rather quickly after that,
didn't
> it? ...
the investigation indicated it flip over and dove several hundred
feet. the pilot recovered but was below a ridge. there was
indications that wind sheer had some effect as well.
... I never did tell you such failures didn't happen, I just
> said they were very rare....
how rare is safe. how less rare will it be with the bean counters in
charge.
...What I am telling you, and what you seem incapable
> of accepting, is that an unstable aircraft (unlike a c130 - which
is a stable
> aircraft) with a dead flight computer WILL depart controlled flight
> immediately, and will almost certianly destroy itself in seconds.
>
what I'm saying (and all of you seem to refuse to hear) is that using
inherently dangerous systems like chemical rockets when others
systems are being proven already, is not the way to do it. not with
businesses with their eye on the bottom line in charge of a system
that could in an extremely rare case, cause the deaths of tens of
thousands of ppl.
# 1995 byian.woollard@... on May 30, 2006, 2:59 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On 30/05/06, Robert wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Woollard"
> wrote:
> >
> > No, for several reasons:
> >
> > a) 1 in 10,000 is an appallingly large risk- no launch vehicle would
> > ever be allowed to launch with a 1 in 10,000 risk of hitting a
> densely
> > populated area. IRC 1 in a million is the chance of *anyone* on the
> > ground dying you need to hit before they'll sign off on the launch.
> > You *do* need permission to launch- it's called a launch license.
>
> your forgetting bureaucracy and inertia. look at Challenger. every
> time they had a successful launch, they lowered the standards of what
> had to happen in the next launch, result was someone decided it was
> OK to launch under conditions that were not acceptable before. for
> the first 25 to 30 launches, everything would be scrutinized, then
> gradually over time, after success after success, the scrutiny would
> be a little less and a little less.
> then one day a rocket goes off course, and
> the range officer is not paying attention. since hes a salary
> employee, he has to have permission to put the key in the activator,
> but then, they have to find someone who is willing to face the boss
> with the news that he ordered the rocket destroyed. finally someone
> does. unfortunately its a little too late and the rocket is no longer
> within range.
Um. No.
Your scenarios are a total joke.
> > b) the chances of failure go down over time- the first space shuttle
> > had a 80% chance of success. The current space shuttle has a 98%
> > chance of success. That's after 200 flights. That's because they
> have
> > accidents, find the bug in the manufacture, operations or design,
> > repair it, and the reliability goes up.
>
> really, then what happen with Challenger and Columbia. sorry to tell
> you, but it does not work that way. systems start to fail. people
> fall under inertia. steps get shortcut-ted. result: failure.
That was the mechanism in action. Both vehicles had pre-existing
faults from day 1 that caused their destruction. Challenger had badly
designed seals, and Columbia had problems with the foam on the
external tank. The foam they're still working on; SRBs were reworked
and will not fail in the same way again.
Actually *all* launch vehicle designs have *many* faults. But as the
vehicle matures the number of faults goes down over time.
> > Duh huh. Then it isn't going very fast, and has gone very far, so
> > won't fall far from the launch point when you turn off the engines
> or
> > blow up the vehicle.
> >
> your assuming that some low paid salary employee that has been told
> that if he ever puts the key into the activator slot, without prior
> approval, that he will be terminated and likely sued for risking the
> rocket, is willing to put the key in in time. your also assuming that
> he is actually at the launch. very likely after many successes, he
> will be expected to be doing "more important work than babysitting an
> unneeded switch.
You're dreaming in technicolour. And even if he wasn't at the switch
(FFS it's his job to *be* at that switch, he deserves to be *executed*
if he's not at that switch, and if anyone stops him being there-
*they* deserve to be executed) the chances of hitting a city is
absolutely miniscule.
> OK which is it. first you tell me the rocket will be going mach
> three, then when i go with it, you tell me it will not. I'm basing
> its speed on what one of you have claimed to be the speed of the
> rocket.
It just can't happen. To get a really big explosion the rocket would
have to travel long distances *and* reach ground level with a lot of
propellant. To go long distances rockets *have* to leave the
atmosphere otherwise airdrag just uses up all the energy in the fuel.
The physics is that rockets only stay in the air for ~7 minutes before
running out of fuel. So a rocket *has* to go fast to get anywhere.
So, after leaving the atmosphere the tankage containing lots of
propellant isn't designed to survive reentry, so it would come bombing
into the atmosphere and promptly explode high up. You'd get some
debris falling. It would be like Columbia. Somebody could die, but
it's not very dangerous to a city (similar analogy- few people died
from the SCUD attacks on Israel).
> how often do businesses stay to regulation. how many times have they
> gotten into trouble in the last few years for ignoring them. ill name
> two big ones. Enron, and Valdez
That kind of corruption only works when everything is hidden.
If somebody starts launching rockets from the outskirts of a major
city, please sue their ass off.
It would take that level of demonstrable incompetence.
--
-Ian Woollard
"Gravity is just a theory. We shouldn't be teaching it to children as
if were fact."
"The NSA would like to remind everyone to call their mothers this
Sunday. They need to calibrate their system."
# 1996 byian.woollard@... on May 30, 2006, 3:03 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On 30/05/06, Robert wrote:
> what I'm saying (and all of you seem to refuse to hear) is that using
> inherently dangerous systems like chemical rockets when others
> systems are being proven already,
It's the only game in town. Deal.
--
-Ian Woollard
"Gravity is just a theory. We shouldn't be teaching it to children as
if were fact."
"The NSA would like to remind everyone to call their mothers this
Sunday. They need to calibrate their system."
# 1997 bydehammer@... on May 30, 2006, 6:08 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Woollard"
wrote:
>
most of this is not worth responding to.
>
> You're dreaming in technicolour. And even if he wasn't at the switch
> (FFS it's his job to *be* at that switch, he deserves to be
*executed*
> if he's not at that switch, and if anyone stops him being there-
> *they* deserve to be executed) the chances of hitting a city is
> absolutely miniscule.
>
have you ever been to floida. there are several towns within site of
the rocket launch site. we're talking about maybe a few miles. it
does not even have to reach mach one to hit one of them in seconds.
other sites could be even worse.
> It just can't happen. To get a really big explosion the rocket would
> have to travel long distances *and* reach ground level with a lot of
> propellant. To go long distances rockets *have* to leave the
> atmosphere otherwise airdrag just uses up all the energy in the
fuel.
> The physics is that rockets only stay in the air for ~7 minutes
before
> running out of fuel. So a rocket *has* to go fast to get anywhere.
all it needs to reach a town near cape canaveral is maybe 30 seconds,
thats plenty of time for it to reach ppl without losing the majority
of its fuel. since the cape is in the hands of nasa, there is little
danger, but let big buisness put up its own launcher and botta bing,
we have toasted civis.
> So, after leaving the atmosphere the tankage containing lots of
> propellant isn't designed to survive reentry, so it would come
bombing
> into the atmosphere and promptly explode high up. You'd get some
> debris falling. It would be like Columbia. Somebody could die, but
> it's not very dangerous to a city (similar analogy- few people died
> from the SCUD attacks on Israel).
thats assuming that it gets that far off the ground before the fault
sets in.
>
> That kind of corruption only works when everything is hidden.
>
> If somebody starts launching rockets from the outskirts of a major
> city, please sue their ass off.
>
> It would take that level of demonstrable incompetence.
and you think everything in the launchers would be out in the open.
heres an example. exxon valdex was suppose to have been built with
double holds. all the ships of that type that ply the us waters were.
few do yet. why? you ask. simple. campaign contributions. permission
was given by congress to lax the codes for big buisness. now you want
to put the same ppl in charge of rockets that could destroy an entire
(small) city. exactly what part of history are you really willing to
learn from. its obviously not the recent one.
# 1998 bydehammer@... on May 30, 2006, 6:13 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
if ppl were willing to spend the money on building another type of
system it could be done. problem is it would cost the equivalant of
several years of launches to begin. People would rather keep using
chemical rather than spend the money for a magnetic launcher (as an
example). its been proven, but no one is interested in building it.
wrote:
# 1999 byian.woollard@... on May 30, 2006, 6:47 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On 30/05/06, Robert wrote:
> have you ever been to floida. there are several towns within site of
> the rocket launch site. we're talking about maybe a few miles. it
> does not even have to reach mach one to hit one of them in seconds.
> other sites could be even worse.
The Shuttle could conceivably hit a town close to the pad, but the
range safety would kill it before it reached that. There would be a
big bang in mid air and lots of debris flying off at the speed of
sound, and I would not want to be in the area at the time.
> > It just can't happen. To get a really big explosion the rocket would
> > have to travel long distances *and* reach ground level with a lot of
> > propellant. To go long distances rockets *have* to leave the
> > atmosphere otherwise airdrag just uses up all the energy in the
> fuel.
> > The physics is that rockets only stay in the air for ~7 minutes
> before
> > running out of fuel. So a rocket *has* to go fast to get anywhere.
>
> all it needs to reach a town near cape canaveral is maybe 30 seconds,
> thats plenty of time for it to reach ppl without losing the majority
> of its fuel.
That's what range safety is for. To protect those towns.
> since the cape is in the hands of nasa, there is little
> danger, but let big buisness put up its own launcher and botta bing,
> we have toasted civis.
Yeah right. Actually the range safety is the responsibility of the
range I believe, so even if civilian launchers ran from there, the
range safety would stop that. If the range safety isn't happy- you do
not launch.
> > So, after leaving the atmosphere the tankage containing lots of
> > propellant isn't designed to survive reentry, so it would come
> bombing
> > into the atmosphere and promptly explode high up. You'd get some
> > debris falling. It would be like Columbia. Somebody could die, but
> > it's not very dangerous to a city (similar analogy- few people died
> > from the SCUD attacks on Israel).
>
> thats assuming that it gets that far off the ground before the fault
> sets in.
You're not listening. If it hasn't left the atmosphere, it's not going
far- it's got to get somewhere before it runs out of fuel. To go large
distances it would have to go hypersonic. But rockets can't go
hypersonic in the atmosphere; they crumple up due to structural loads-
the atmospheric drag would be enormous; many, many tonnes on the nose
cone.
> heres an example. exxon valdex was suppose to have been built with
> double holds. all the ships of that type that ply the us waters were.
> few do yet. why? you ask. simple. campaign contributions. permission
> was given by congress to lax the codes for big buisness. now you want
> to put the same ppl in charge of rockets that could destroy an entire
> (small) city. exactly what part of history are you really willing to
> learn from. its obviously not the recent one.
Yeah right the NIMBYs would really stand for launch vehicles launching
next to cities. The law courts would shut it down faster than you can
countdown from 5.
But it's not about politics; there are real practical issues that
preclude launch vehicles from launching close to habitation. And
insurance. The insurers would laugh at you. For civilian flights it's
the FAA (AST) we're talking about; the FAA don't mess about. The FAA
turn a blind eye to really obscure failures, but basic safety, you
can't bribe the FAA.
--
-Ian Woollard
"Gravity is just a theory. We shouldn't be teaching it to children as
if were fact."
"The NSA would like to remind everyone to call their mothers this
Sunday. They need to calibrate their system."
# 2000 bydehammer@... on May 30, 2006, 10:32 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Woollard"
wrote:
>
> You were talking about cities in California, not towns a few miles
from the pad.
ppl have their way, they could likely be launching from california.
>
> The Shuttle could conceivably hit a town close to the pad, but the
> range safety would kill it before it reached that. There would be a
> big bang in mid air and lots of debris flying off at the speed of
> sound, and I would not want to be in the area at the time.
>
with nasa in charge of the rockets safety, which includes how they
are built, yes. but put big buisness in charge, and the range safety
officer might not even be around because they would expect him to be
doing more that babysitting a switch that is never used.
>
> That's what range safety is for. To protect those towns.
>
with nasa in charge, yes.
>
> Yeah right. Actually the range safety is the responsibility of the
> range I believe, so even if civilian launchers ran from there, the
> range safety would stop that. If the range safety isn't happy- you
do
> not launch.
>
you dont seem to realise how much pull big buisness would have. as
long as they are just launching from cape canaveral and as long as
its nasa in charge of it. there is little likely hood civilains are
going to be hurt. BUT along comes the daily launching of rockets, and
the cape cant handle it anymore, so the big buisnesses arange with
congress to have their own launch sites. next thing you know, one of
the rockets hits a town and everyone blames someone else.
>
> You're not listening. If it hasn't left the atmosphere, it's not
going
> far- it's got to get somewhere before it runs out of fuel. To go
large
> distances it would have to go hypersonic. But rockets can't go
> hypersonic in the atmosphere; they crumple up due to structural
loads-
> the atmospheric drag would be enormous; many, many tonnes on the
nose
> cone.
they dont need to get supersonic to reach a town.
>
>
> Yeah right the NIMBYs would really stand for launch vehicles
launching
> next to cities. The law courts would shut it down faster than you
can
> countdown from 5.
>
> But it's not about politics; there are real practical issues that
> preclude launch vehicles from launching close to habitation. And
> insurance. The insurers would laugh at you. For civilian flights
it's
> the FAA (AST) we're talking about; the FAA don't mess about. The FAA
> turn a blind eye to really obscure failures, but basic safety, you
> can't bribe the FAA.
>
it would not have to be the FAA. congress would write laws that would
enable them to. and dont even suggest that congressmen cant be bribed.
# 2001 bydante_feditech@... on May 30, 2006, 11:14 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> From: Robert
> we're talking about maybe a few miles.
> all it needs to reach a town near cape canaveral is maybe 30 seconds,
Traveling horizontally at mach 2 - not counting acceleration time. Something
most large rockets cannot do.
> since the cape is in the hands of nasa, there is little
> danger, but let big buisness put up its own launcher and botta bing,
> we have toasted civis.
So you trust nasa, who built the flying brick, but not boeing, who built the
747? You might want to take a second look at those safety records.
> thats assuming that it gets that far off the ground before the fault
> sets in.
What kind of flight path do you imagine this labotomised rocket is going to
take?
> and you think everything in the launchers would be out in the open.
Out in the open so terrorists can easily plan how to attack it, no.
Exposed to government oversight, yes.
> its obviously not the recent one.
Apples and oranges. Large ships have to operate in very narrow channels when
they leave or come into port, or they get ripped to pieces by rocks on
either side. Rockets do not face this problem or anything like it. Can you
cite a similar example of corporate greed from the aerospace industry?
John
# 2002 bydante_feditech@... on May 30, 2006, 11:19 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> From: Robert
> its been proven, but no one is interested in building it.
rocket to those kinds of speeds in that kind of circular tunnel before
letting it go is not entirely simple from a safety point of view. And yes,
it will still be a rocket because of atmospheric loss and orbital burns.
Chemical rockets at present is the most mature technology available. And
that is unfortunately unlikely to change baring the construction of:
*A space elevator
*A truely safe nuclear lightbulb rocket
*Antigravity
John
# 2003 bydehammer@... on May 31, 2006, 8:13 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "ANTIcarrot"
wrote:
>
> 12 miles actually - and that's to the nearest town.
rockets.
>
> Traveling horizontally at mach 2 - not counting acceleration time.
Something
> most large rockets cannot do.
1) an accelerating arch would be a rather shallow ballistic flight.
it would not have to be traveling horizontal, it would travel a large
distance horizontally before it arched back into the ground.
2) the rocket could survive a few seconds at mach.
3)90 seconds is still not much. if the connection to the auto
distruct system was not connected, and communtication was lost to
tell it to turn the engine off, (something that could happen at the
same time as the control system goes off since they are connected)
you would have a situation ripe for death. the first thing that would
go out the window with mass production is detailed checking of all
systems. the only thing they would be concerned with it is getting
all the connections that are required for the job. since the
autodestruct is seldom used, it would not get the same attension.
occasionally the connection would be weak, forgotten, or broken, and
noone would notice.
>
> So you trust nasa, who built the flying brick, but not boeing, who
built the
> 747? You might want to take a second look at those safety records.
nasa is not concerned with profit. safety is a much higher priority
than cost. even your vaulted boeing cant say the same thing.
>
> What kind of flight path do you imagine this labotomised rocket is
going to
> take?
5 to 10 seconds into launch, a wire fuses sending a spike into the
communication system. the rocket gets a signal that the it needs to
make a course correction and the ground control cant override due to
the communticating system is fried. a stuggle begins with one system
getting false correction while another is trying to stay with the
older commands. result wild gyrations that send the rocket arching
towards the ground. by the time it comes back to earth it will easily
have traveled 30 to 40 miles. its come close to happening before. a
military rocket, early in the rocket era did nose over like this.
they activated the autodestruct with the rocket 15 miles down range.
since the range had a hundred miles of safe zone, there was no real
danger. cape canaveral does not have that.
>
> Out in the open so terrorists can easily plan how to attack it, no.
> Exposed to government oversight, yes.
yea, just like enron and exxon.
>
> Apples and oranges. Large ships have to operate in very narrow
channels when
> they leave or come into port, or they get ripped to pieces by rocks
on
> either side. Rockets do not face this problem or anything like it.
Can you
> cite a similar example of corporate greed from the aerospace
industry?
>
not right off hand, but i do remember hearing about problems in some
aircraft that resulted in the entire fleet having to be grounded
until a flaw was fixed. if memory serves its happen more than once.
then again your discussion very stable systems like aircraft rather
than inherantly unstable platforms like rockets.
# 2004 bydehammer@... on May 31, 2006, 8:21 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
so what if its 100+ miles. the cost would be less than making a new
fleet of ships that NASA is discussion and the launch of the ships
would be considerable less. a ship could be launched with the speed
to exist the earth's gravity field meaning you could launch something
to mars with it. there would be no need for fuel for that. another
option that the japanese have been trying to do (if they can ever get
the payload into space) is to use a light sail to change your
orbital course/altitude. there would be no need for it to carry fuel
at all. if it did, the amount would be trivial compared to rockets
ppl here are talking about. you could safely launch a hundred
payloads into space a month with no increase in cost. in fact after a
couple hundred launches it would be totally paid for and after that
the cost would be a small fraction of the cost of a chemical launch.
wrote:
>
> It's been proven it would be 100+ miles across, and that
acccelerating a
> rocket to those kinds of speeds in that kind of circular tunnel
before
> letting it go is not entirely simple from a safety point of view.
And yes,
> it will still be a rocket because of atmospheric loss and orbital
burns.
> Chemical rockets at present is the most mature technology
available. And
# 2005 bydante_feditech@... on May 31, 2006, 10:33 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> From: Robert
> > So you trust nasa, who built the flying brick, but not boeing, who
> built the
> > 747? You might want to take a second look at those safety records.
>
> nasa is not concerned with profit. safety is a much higher priority
> than cost. even your vaulted boeing cant say the same thing.
safety record or basic common sense that boeing has. Compare a hundred
flights and two failures (both of which due to the very kind of corruption
you're so happy to atribute to big business) with millions of flights and a
few dozen losses at most for the 747. Do you really think the shuttle is
*safer*?!
You're also a complete twit for scare mongering about 'what big business
will do when it starts launching rockets' when big business is ALREADY
launching rockets. You'll notice sealaunch doesn't operate from downtown LA.
Do you really think they'd do things the way they are if it woul be a simple
matter of bribing a local town mayor to let them launch their rockets next
to the local kinder garden sand pit?
> 5 to 10 seconds into launch, a wire fuses sending a spike into the
> communication system.
So you know nothing about how computers work either do you? A digital flight
computer would not recognise a continous or even intermitant voltage (on an
input channel) as an instruction to do anything. Especially on a PARALLEL
bus! And why talk about THE computer system when there would be
redundencies? Range safety for example would have its own completely
seperate radio reciever, as would the backup range safety package.
> and the ground control cant override due to
> the communticating system is fried.
If it's fried it's dead, and won't interfere with the backup.
> result wild gyrations
Which would destroy the rocket.
> that send the rocket arching
> towards the ground.
In many thousands of tiny pieces.
> military rocket, early in the rocket era did nose over like this.
> they activated the autodestruct with the rocket 15 miles down range.
Though the V2 was in many ways a highly respectable rocket, with a
reliability record exceeding some of it's modern kin, it was built over 60
years ago without any modern safety features modern rockets have. And I'm
pretty sure that's the incident you're talking about.
> yea, just like enron and exxon.
Broken record. Companies like those do not replace their single hull oil
tankers because it would cost several billion dollars per tanker. Even if
they early 'big business' rockets were flawed in some similar way, the whole
point of mass production woudl be to reduce to individual cost to a few
million each, and that each one gets used once. If a serious design flaw is
found there would be no reason not to correct it in all subsequent rockets.
> not right off hand, but i do remember hearing about problems in some
> aircraft that resulted in the entire fleet having to be grounded
> until a flaw was fixed.
You mean big business wasn't able to buy its way out of that one?! I
can't beleive my eyes! It's almost like you're implying that government
bodies have some say over safety regulations!
# 2006 byxenophile2002@... on May 31, 2006, 5:40 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers, "Robert" wrote:
> that if he ever puts the key into the activator slot, without prior
> approval, that he will be terminated and likely sued for risking the
> rocket, is willing to put the key in in time.
So pass a regulation giving him the authority, whether the boss likes
it or not, including something akin to whistleblower protection.
I suppose the babysitter could even be from outside the company,
either governmental or some Launch Safety, Inc. outfit.
> your also assuming that he is actually at the launch. very likely
> after many successes, he will be expected to be doing "more
> important work than babysitting an unneeded switch.
So the first time you catch a launch company pulling that, whether any
cities are taken out or not, you throw that range man's ass in jail on
multiple counts of reckless endangerment, throw his bosses asses in
jail on the same charge, and fine the company a billion dollars. NOW
let's see if they feel like letting the "babysitter" do his job.
If they do it twice, all jail times and fines are doubled, and the
company (including every person in it down to the toilet-scrubber)
looses it's launch licence... forever.
# 2007 bydehammer@... on May 31, 2006, 8:17 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
allow me to suggest an alternative to this obsession with big
explosives objects. it will take care of two problems. the first is
the low cost method of launching perishable that you are concern
with, would be lowered even more. secondly, the space plane that NASA
has proposed has a limited carrying capacity, which this would
increase, and at the same time lower the cost of the launches.
harder materials.
hard launches: this is for things such as liquids (fuel, water,
liquefied gasses) solids and things that are strong enough to
withstand the extra heavy G's.
at 200 g (yes things can handle that), it would only take 4.95
seconds to accelerate to 6 miles a second. this would give room for
the projectile to lose up to a mile per second during its passage
though the air. it has a small engine that would be shrouded in the
atmosphere to reduce drag. its purpose is to alter the orbit once in
to space to allow the projectile to enter a proper (albeit low)
orbit. in addition the shroud over the engine could be opened to form
a pair of stub wings that would aid in the upper atmosphere. once it
was in space another object, one that had been previously launched,
would attach itself, and open a light sail. this would allow it to
take the projectile into a higher orbit over a period of about a
week. there the fuel and oxidizers would link up with a space engine
(literally nothing more than an engine, and fuel tank, which is
refueled by the tanks. once empty they could be used for other
purposes. (i envision a bladder type inner tank that is compressed by
gas, such as helium. the gas could be used to help pressurize the
atmosphere later.) other material could be taken to the space station
directly or to what ever orbit it needed to be in.
i believe the volcano (as long as it remains dormant) in Ecuador
would be excellent for the launch local. a device similar to the one
that dug the English channel (although not as large) could dig a 15
mile tunnel (all that would be needed for a 200 g launch, then
continue to extend the tunnel for the extension of the tube to allow
launches under lower g.
soft launches: this for ppl, most satellites and any other material
that could not handle heavy G's.
this is a four stage launcher (I've seen parts of this suggested,
perhaps all of it has been)
you start with a 747 frame, and build on it what is basically a flat
747. its striped of all of the non essential, the nose is reduced to
as low as it can be with the cockpit comparatively much lower.
instead of having normal sides, it has doors similar to the one f
106's used to fire missiles and rockets at mach 2, save these are on
the sides and top instead of bottom. one the deck of it (its
flattened) the second and third stage is connected with an assembly
that will push it above the eddy currents caused by the abbreviated
nose. at launch it looks like a normal 747 that has a second pair of
wind (short ones) and tail added about half way back. when it gets to
the highest altitude it can reach it opens the door and extends the
connections holding the 2 and 3 stages.
the second stage is little more than a pair of ram jets with a
cockpit and fuel tank between them, and a pair of wings on the
outside. once extended, it fires its engine and separates from the
747 first stage. as the 747 flies home, the second stage accelerates
to mach 2. at this point the scram jet engines of the third stage has
sufficient pressure to start. the empty second stage glides home as
the third stage boost into the upper atmosphere, then into space.
at that point the space engine meets up with it and docks. it can
push the space plane to any point in earth orbit, or beyond.
advantages of this system is:
1) the space plane can carry as much or more than the current
shuttle, but without the much more explosive tank next to it.
2) in the lower atmosphere, the lift is provided by wings, rather
than the engine itself, thereby reducing the amount of energy needed
for the launch.
3) considerably less danger, both to the crew and to any ppl on the
ground.
4) you don't have to expend fuel to get the fuel into space. if you
really push it, the energy could come from solar cells and windmills
charging very large banks of capacitors.
4) the tanks used to carry the fuel oxygen, and oxidizers up could be
used for space habitats.
# 2008 bydehammer@... on June 1, 2006, 11:05 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
>
> So pass a regulation giving him the authority, whether the boss
likes
> it or not, including something akin to whistleblower protection.
>
> I suppose the babysitter could even be from outside the company,
> either governmental or some Launch Safety, Inc. outfit.
>
they have the same system in the nuclear power plant system, yet
peroidally we still have accendents and it seems that every whistle
blower ends up with radiation poisoning or something simular or gets
sued for ruining someone reputation with all the other employees
sticking up for the company. only after the company goes out of
buisness do they find out how bad the company was ignoreing the rules.
>
> So the first time you catch a launch company pulling that, whether
any
> cities are taken out or not, you throw that range man's ass in jail
on
> multiple counts of reckless endangerment, throw his bosses asses in
> jail on the same charge, and fine the company a billion dollars.
NOW
> let's see if they feel like letting the "babysitter" do his job.
>
> If they do it twice, all jail times and fines are doubled, and the
> company (including every person in it down to the toilet-scrubber)
> looses it's launch licence... forever.
>
sounds like a perfect reason for everyone to aid in covering up any
wrong doing by the bigwigs, just like the nuclear power plants.
usually by the time that its obvious how bad the company screwed
things up, everyone has retired.
# 2009 bybhn1700@... on March 14, 2012, 7:47 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Our purpose should be to get cost per launch down so that we can do many many more launches. Not just to build one item in orbit. So if every two weeks you send up 2 tourists to ISS/bigelow Hilton and the price per launch drops by 75%. Now many other ventures that were limited by the cost of launches come into being possible. Mining asteroids, expanding the hotel, SPS, lunar orbits for tourists, rotating station for artificial gravity, exploring the other planets, etc.
Brooks