[AR] Re: 500,000 tons OFF TOPIC

From: "J. Farmer" <jfarmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 19:34:47 -0400
Gentlemen!  Could we keep it a tiny bit civil and leave the personal slurs to 
private messages?

All of A-Rocket will thank you...

John



Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Given you can't even spell 'Britain'...
>
>...and you don't seem to understand how big modern jet engines are (much 
>bigger diameter than SABRE):
>
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2007/10/24/hypersonic_hydrogen_rocket_airliner/
>
>...and you apparently don't even understand what a rocket stage is...
>
>...or know that Gwynne Shotwell is the COO at SpaceX.
>
>Given that, I think I'll take your pronouncements with several metric tonnes 
>of salt.
>
>I mean you might be right on some points, in the same sense that clocks are 
>right twice a day, even if they're stopped.
>
>But just because you've said something, I'm not seeing any necessary logical 
>connection with whatever the real world is doing.
>
>
>
>On 9 April 2014 20:29, Monroe L. King Jr. <monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> It's simple economics it's not rocket science.
>  I know 2 guy's personally working on Skylon I have seen more real
>photo's than any of you guy's most likely.
>  What "stage" there is no stage to base any of this on?
>  Britton is going to do what, shut down any of it's current production
>and switch to Skylon production. No I don't think so new production
>facilities will have to be built. Skylon engines wont be little engines
>ya know.
>
>  I happen to know they are working on a rocket engine right now a small
>rocket engine for testing and there is no "Jet" yet. What they are
>building is no ordinary jet and when they get to that bit we really
>shale see what the Skylon is going to do.
>
>  Do you know what their private funding increments are? You can say
>you've got a billion dollars of funding but if you cant get it fast
>enough it doesn't matter. They don't have the funding they want I know
>that. Whether it's enough? Well depends on how devoted they are. The 2
>guys I know are devoted enough but will their be enough funding?
>
>  The Space Show? lol your not serious the space show is a joke. Just
>being on there is a sure sign of not enough really going on.
>
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: [AR] Re: 500,000 tons OFF TOPIC
>
>> From: Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Wed, April 09, 2014 8:17 am
>> To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>> I don't find anything comical, and I'm certain I know a lot more about
>> Skylon than you do.
>>
>> Nor, and I'm not being ironic, only pointed, do I find the fact that Elon
>> Musk has been promising fully reusable first stages for about 10 years now,
>> and consistently not achieving it; comical either. I was listening to the
>> space show last night and Gwynne Shotwell was still saying how it was still
>> really hard.
>>
>> Now, 3/4 of the cost is the first stage. And you would think that if they
>> managed to do it, the cost would go down by 3/4.
>>
>> Except, no, since:
>>
>> a) it costs money to refurbish it
>> b) reusing the first stage significantly reduces the payload size (irc 30%
>> less) unless they recover downrange (which they don't want to do)
>> c) the first stage still has a rather finite life
>> d) a reusable first stage costs more to make in the first place in R&D and
>> hardware
>>
>> So my bet is that the price/kg will probably go down by rather less than
>> half if the first stage was reusable, which is certainly not nothing, but
>> won't get me into space any time soon.
>>
>> Of course if they can nail reusability of all the stages it may go down by
>> more than that, the potential is higher, but their progress has, in the
>> real world, been very slow, and you have similar issues with the higher
>> stages.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9 April 2014 03:43, Monroe L. King Jr. <monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >  Yes it is comical indeed
>> >
>> > > -------- Original Message --------
>
>> > > Subject: [AR] Re: 500,000 tons OFF TOPIC
>
>> > > From: Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > > Date: Tue, April 08, 2014 7:17 pm
>
>> > > To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > This whole discussion is quite comical really.
>> > >
>> > > Alan Bond's team lost government funding but picked up private funding
>> > and
>> > > redesigned and found ways around the problems they'd found.
>> > >
>> > > Failing is when you're not getting growing funding, but they've got
>> > working
>> > > hardware, and they're green lit for further work and higher TRL. They
>> > have
>> > > a business plan.
>> > >
>> > > Skylon is a jet plane. UK invented those. About half the jet engines in
>> > the
>> > > world are still developed and built here. Even the rocket equation was
>> > > first discovered in the UK. There's huge amounts of deep aero knowledge
>> > > kicking around over here.
>> > >
>> > > The UK isn't exactly a third world country. Three of the top 10
>> > > universities in the world are in the UK. And the UK is part of Europe.
>> > You
>> > > may remember that Concorde was a joint project between France and the UK,
>> > > and while it never made back its development money, it flew at a profit
>> > for
>> > > the airlines for decades. America couldn't get past a wooden mock up. And
>> > > like Concorde funding for Skylon is coming from the EU. It's not just a
>> > UK
>> > > project; and the UK aero universities are involved as well and European
>> > > aircraft companies; like Airbus. Airbus started on the back of Concorde.
>> > >
>> > > This isn't just some tiny company flapping their arms, they're well
>> > > embedded in the aerospace industry over here, they have both government
>> > and
>> > > private support. They've had models in hypersonic wind tunnels and so
>> > > forth. It's certainly a research project, but there's no known
>> > > show-stoppers; and very good reason to think it will work.
>> > >
>> > > How is this failing?
>> > >
>> > > It ... really ... isn't.
>> > >
>> > > On 9 April 2014 02:01, Chris Jones <clj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson@xxxxxxxxx
>> > >wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Chris Jones <clj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > >> > On 4/8/2014 4:01 AM, Keith Henson wrote:
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Chris Jones <clj@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> snip
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >>> So, in addition to this unflown launcher, whose designers have
>> > failed
>> > > >> >>> previously to deliver something simpler,
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> You must know something I don't.  Far as I know, Skylon is the
>> > first
>> > > >> >> project for Reaction Engines.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > I was referring to HOTOL, a British Aerospace/Rolls Royce design by
>> > Alan
>> > > >> > Bond (et al) before he founded Reaction Engines.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Whatever floats your boat, but I really can't see calling the paper
>> > > >> study on HOTOL "designers failed to deliver."  They never cut metal
>> > > >> for that one because the studies indicated that it would tend to swap
>> > > >> ends in flight due to center of pressure vs center of mass.  That, and
>> > > >> the problem of keeping the body shock waves out of the engines, is
>> > > >> what led to the F-104 shape--with engines on the wing tips in place of
>> > > >> drop tanks.
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > > Well, whatever floats your boat, but that sounds to me like an
>> > excellent
>> > > > example of "failed to deliver".  HOTOL was *supposed* to be a real
>> > > > launcher,
>> > > > not a paper study.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > -Ian Woollard
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Ian Woollard
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>-Ian Woollard 
>
Follow-Ups:
- [AR] Re: 500,000 tons OFF TOPIC
  - From: Michael Holt
[AR] Re: 500,000 tons OFF TOPIC

Other related posts:
