[AR] Re: 500,000 tons OFF TOPIC

From: "Monroe L. King Jr." <monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 17:35:58 -0700
 I don't think I made a personal slur? Did I? If I did I apologize to
Ian Woollard and to Arocket.

 I was referring to Skylon not space-x and no I don't care who the COO
is all I care about is hard progress and not hopeful thinking. There is
hope in Skylon but it is still very much up in the air. Counting on it
working is not good business in my opinion. It's just like counting
chickens before they are hatched.

 Especially because it is such a radical move from the norm. Expect set
backs! and hope for the best. I'd throw em some dollars if I had em to
throw. But I'd know it was a huge gamble. It's by far no shoe in.

 Did you look at the design of the jet? That is such a radical departure
there are bound to be some set backs at the very least.

 A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Space-X is a bird in the
hand there can be no doubt about that.

 Comparing the two there is nothing to compare! It's apples and oranges
and there really is not even an orange there. 

 

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [AR] Re: 500,000 tons OFF TOPIC
> From: "J. Farmer" <jfarmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, April 09, 2014 4:34 pm
> To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> 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 
> >
[AR] Re: 500,000 tons OFF TOPIC

Other related posts:
