|
Posted by Ian Parker on June 22, 2008, 3:25 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> Ian Parker wrote:
> > The figures for total fuel load show a remarkable similarity to
> > Concorde. I think the deadweight could be sent well below Concorde.
> > Fares BTW were something like $5,000 for a 2 way flight across the
> > Atlantic. British Airways towards the end promoted Concorde as a
> > luxury product and the fares approached $10,000. Here the analogy
> > ends, this is a cargo plane predominantly.
>
> That sounds like this thing:http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/lapcat.html
>
BTW M5 = about 1500m/s giving a rocket LEO impulse of 6.5km/s. Going
down all the time.
- Ian Parker
|
|
Posted by Ian Stirling on June 21, 2008, 5:12 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> There is one or twi things in the report to pick up on.
>
<snip>
>
> If you go for my suggestion of phased arrays you do not need a power
> management system. You simply have each transmitter giving a kilowatt
> or less. Voltages need be no higher than TTL (Transistor to Transistor
> Logic). You do though need a computing system though.
>
> Beauty of this too is that the beam can be turned instantaneously from
> point to point. You can focus it on the ISS when it is in darkness, or
> somewhere else when it is not. If you want non nuclear propulsion you
> have to follow a spacecraft. You may even want to power 2 at the same
> time.
Unfortunately.
Broadly, you can't assume that 1000 1w transmitters spread over a 1Km
circle are the same as a nice full dish.
If you have a total area as large as 10% of the 1Km dish, spread over a
1Km circle, then you have a point-spread-function that approaches, perhaps
closely the 1Km dish.
However, all this means is that the central lobe is as tight as the 1Km
dish, it says nothing about its intensity.
The rest of the input power (90% in this case) sprays 'everywhere'
(within the beamwidth of the individual antennas.)
As a simple reason why this is so - consider focussing a beam from a large
antenna made up from 1000 little antennas onto a near diffraction limited
spot.
Now, all radio antennas work equally as well backwards and forwards.
So, place a transmitter at the spot, that
|
|
Posted by jonathan on June 21, 2008, 10:23 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:00:28 -0400, in a place far, far away,
> glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>
>>SERT spent $22 million in 99 and 2000.
>>http://www.rish.kyoto-u.ac.jp/jusps/KA-2.pdf
>>http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/legaff/mankins9-7.html
>
> A completely trivial amount of money for a "program." And again, it
> has nothing do to with what happened in 2004.
It is a small amount. Imagine what advances might occur
with SSP if some money /were spent/ researching
the needed breakthroughs?
> As a former project manager of SPS at a major aerospace corporation, I
> know John Mankins quite well.
>
> None of this supports your insane and ignorant contention that Bush
> killed SPS and replaced it with VSE.
Are you saying Bush didn't kill SERT? Then who did?
Are you saying Bush didn't create the Vision? Then who did?
Are you feeling ok?
Why is the couple of years important? When we needed a new
energy policy, what did Cheney do???
You know what he did, everyone knows, he invited all the big oil execs
and asked them "what policies do you want". And now the oil companies
have profits that exceed anything in human history.
After Columbia, when we needed a new space policy, do you really
think it was any different???
...................................................................
ARE YOU THAT NAIVE?
..................................................................
Why was the X-33 canceled? Was it the fuel tanks? Pahlease.
Do you think Lockheed wanted to build something that would
take them out of the launch business, and give it to
someone else???
Just like Big Oil, Big Aero and the military got just what they
wanted with Bush. Instead of small cheap launchers, we get
just the opposite....Shiny New Saturn 5's. Instead of
SSP, we get a new moon base for missile defense.
Like that commercial, I can see the Corporate Monkeys
turning the chart 90 degrees to show it going up instead
of down, giggling and puffing on cigars made of money.
I don't know what makes me sadder, that NASA, the
American people and our future have been sold out
by a crony-driven administration, or that no one seems
to give a damn.
Don't bother replying, I wouldn't want OM to blow a gasket.
One more response to me and I fear a big fat vein in his forehead
might start to throb..and..throb and go....POP!
After all, this is OM's ng, and he should have the final
say over who says what to who and how.
No wonder Bush rolled over you NASA types
without giving it a second thought.
You're so naive.
Ya know, when Richard Nixon picked John Dean to
be his personal attorney, do you know what Dean's
resume looked like? Dean had just been fired from
his first job out of college after only a few months.
Dean then went to DC for the /only reason/ because
he couldn't pass the bar exam in any other state.
DC was known to be the easiest, and it took him
four tries to pass. He applied all over town and not
a single call came from anyone, and he concluded his law
career was probably over. Needless to say, he didn't
think to apply at the White House. Duh!
But lo and behold, he got a call from the White House
offering him the job without so much as an interview.
In fact, the caller said show up at the White House
/tomorrow/ and you're hired. He showed up an
hour early!
Why?
Nixon got a flunky that so desperately wanted the job, that
he'd do anything at all (legal or not) to keep it.
Now you know how the current NASA head got his job, same
corrupt tactics. He wasn't even on the original short list of
candidates. I bet he didn't even apply for the job.
When those two /jr White House staffers/ were tasked to outline
a new space policy, who do you think was 'advising' them???
Jonathan
s
|
|
Posted by Ian Parker on June 21, 2008, 10:11 am
Please log in for more thread options On 21 Jun, 14:42, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:23:13 -0400, in a place far, far away,
> glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >> None of this supports your insane and ignorant contention that Bush
> >> killed SPS and replaced it with VSE.
>
> >Are =A0you saying Bush didn't kill SERT?
>
> No. =A0SERT wasn't SPS. =A0There was no program.
>
> >Are you saying Bush didn't create the Vision?
>
> No. =A0But it wasn't a replacement for SPS.
>
> >Are you feeling ok?
>
> Fine, thanks.
>
> <rest of paranoid delusions from "jonathan" snipped>
This is what I have always been saying in the thread on "rubbish
postings". you do not talk about "phosphors on monitors" at scientific
conferences, and theis seems to be built into every reply - to anyone.
- Ian Parker
|
|
Posted by jonathan on June 21, 2008, 11:06 am
Please log in for more thread options
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:23:13 -0400, in a place far, far away,
> glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>>Are you saying Bush didn't kill SERT?
>
> No. SERT wasn't SPS. There was no program.
Which of the following words do you not understand?
"NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM (SERT)
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Space
Solar Power (SSP) Exploratory Research and Technology
(SERT) program was charged to develop technologies
needed to provide cost-competitive ground baseload electrical
power from space-based solar energy converters."
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1
Of course, they use the acronym SSP, when I use SPS.
...tomato-tamahto. Is that the crux of your 'argument'?
Please tell me that's not it?
>
>>Are you saying Bush didn't create the Vision?
>
> No. But it wasn't a replacement for SPS.
Ok ....o n e c a m e a f t e r t h e o t h e r.
>
>>Are you feeling ok?
>
> Fine, thanks.
I'm reserving judgment on your sanity for now~
>
> <rest of paranoid delusions from "jonathan" snipped
...rest is .../documented/ below.
That's why Cheney appealed all the way to the Supreme
Court (and lost) to keep secret the people that he
met with in creating our energy policy? That's why
the oil execs lied to Congress they were at those
meetings? Because they have nothing to hide?
The environmentalists were brought in after
the energy policy had already been written
and decided. It was much the same for the
Vision and NASA. It's how they do business.
Read for yourself
Papers Detail Industry's Role in Cheney's Energy Report
By Michael Abramowitz and Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 18, 2007; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071701987.html?nav=rss_politics
|
|
XML Sitemap