View Single Post
Old October 12 2012, 10:12 PM   #222
Rear Admiral
Re: Envisioning the world of 2100

Now I seem to remember a mud volcano that might have been triggered by extraction. Earthquakes might actually be eased by lubricating faults to allow less tension to build up leading to greater quakes.

We are going to have fracking at some level.

Right now we get helium from natural gas wells, and we are running out of that.
Personally, I would support lawsuit protection to allow kids birthday balloons to be hydrogen. If a kid blows his face up--well, he can do that with Dad's Everclear just as well.

Helium must be had for cryogenic research, so we are going to have to use that and be able to get more, I hope. My position puts me at odds with Greens and conservatives in that I support drilling and market restrictions. So be it. The worst implement humans ever used against this planet is not the drill bit, but the plow.

gturner wrote: View Post
Most reserves are still found because the oil and gas is already leaking all the way to the surface through existing fractures.
Very true--

Most of Earth's oil has already leaked to the surface. Around the time of Deepwater Horizon, Wood's Hole found this:

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
And now the OTHER Sci-Tech poster shows up to push his pet philosophy.
There is no need to get ugly. I respect anyone trying to get industry off world.

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post

You yourself have stated again and again that the aerospace industry is not very good at coordinating long-term plans...
The shuttle derived crowd has always been on the outside looking in--wanting something tried and true. Venture Star should have suffered the ire aimed now at SLS which is far simpler.

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
SLS...will never be profitable because it isn't designed to be profitable; it isn't the kind of thing that any serious businessman would try to build.
NASA shouldn't be run by businessmen--that was my point all along--or they would have bailed on Webb.

It isn't about profit man--that's your hang up.

HLV proponents are the ones capable of looking at the history of spaceflight, yet you come up with ad hom' arguements like these:

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
The kinds of people who want the SLS program are the kinds of people who have proven an inability to set coherent priorities for spaceflight (Griffin) people who want it for purely political reasons (Sen Hutchinson/Nelson) and people who simply can't conceive of any other way of doing things (Armstrong and Aldrin).
So I'm supposed to think your word is worth more than theirs? Hardly. Nelsons district will get space money no matter what rocket is used. EELVs--Delta IV anyway--are made in my home state, and I think a lot of Griffins priorities of simplifying spaceflight without as many Rube Goldberg space assembly missions by using larger LVs

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
Which ignores the fact that the United States does not need the mission capability provided by the F-35
We agree on that at least.

************************************************** **************

gturner wrote: View Post

Um, that's idiocy nested several levels deep...
That wasn't the arguement I was making mind you, that was the letter writers.' From what I understand Falcon can fly depressed trajectory in addition to having engine out capability, so it is number one in my book. My concern is that a lot of negativity that Ares/ Constellation faced (and that SLS faces now) will be turned against Musk. You have to know where the arguement is coming from. But this is how it starts. I recognized the letter writers name because--if you keep up with the trades, you see a lot of the same names: Sietzen, Lyles (Lester and Doug) Sega, etc. I'm worried that Musk may be facing more hit pieces in the near future.

gturner wrote: View Post
The RD-180 uses a mixture ratio of 2.7:1, but it makes the pre-burner difficult to make because it has to run in a high temperature oxidizing environment.
And if there is one thing you want to avoid, its hot oxygen. From what I understand, RD-180 is the two nozzle half-strength version of the Zenit first stage/Energiya strap-on's RD-170 series engine of Glushko. He liked hypergolics but wanted time to perfect kerolox designs and Korolev [sic] pushed him, leading to the falling out--among other things (Kolyma).

Now from what I understand, the hydrogen engine equivalent to SSME was the RD-0120, which never had the burn through trouble that Glushko had with the RD-17X series, yet he didn't like the idea of the Energiya having hydrogen.

To me, that is not a problem in that hydrogen's trouble of having low density and high volume just leads to a wider HLLV shroud and all the advantage that comes with that.

Delta IV to me is the worst rocket. It is unwieldy compared to Atlas or even Falcon, yet not really big enough to use hydrogen effectively as opposed to an Energiya/ET/SLS/Ares V type design.

On the subject of Falcon's recent anomaly:

I'm a big believer in engine-out capability--and this proves that a failure in a densely packed aft section need not lead to fratricide. Now I understand that Musk wants to move the engines out around the outer 'rim' of the rocket. I wonder if that might actually make things worse.

When you have engines close together, I would think you would have a venturi effect where any debris would get entrained into the engine exhaust and be hurled downward and away.

I wonder if you widen the area between engines--that you might introduce a stagnant zone that might allow debris to have a more sideways ejection. Any thoughts about that?

Last edited by publiusr; October 12 2012 at 10:52 PM.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote