Re: 8 Reasons Why Going Back to the Moon Is Loony by MARGARET WERTHEIM

On 18 Jan 2006 01:58:57 -0800, "Brad Guth" <ieisbradguth@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>>Michael Gallagher; Brad, I have no idea what those ratios mean,
>>and even if I did, they probably aren't relevant to the issue.
>You've got to be absolutely kidding. Now you're saying that with all
>of your supposed rocket-science and other smarts, that you have
>absolutely no freaking idea or viable notions as to what the rocket
>liftoff mass per payload mass ratio is all about, or how it could
>possibly be related to this argument of whatever it takes for quickly
>getting 47t into orbiting our moon. How about you give me a break.
>

I never claimed to have rocket science smarts. I've followed space
exploration since I was a kid, and I've read a lot about it. I don't
know the math, but I do know the basics. Payload mass/booster mas
ratios never came up anywhere that I remember.

I DO know that the size of the booster depends on where the payload is
going. You want to put a small saellite in LEO, for instance, the
air-launched Pegasus rocket will do just fine. You want to send the
same payload to Mars, you need a Delta 2. It's not a straight ratio
of this-to-that.

>Is that another typical batch of those MI6/NSA~CIA scripted responses?
>

MI6? NSA? CIA? Don't even have their phone numbers.


>Are you and of your santimounious naysay of damage-control even for
>real?
>

Are you for real?


>If you can't manage to come down to my common level of honesty, don't
>expect myself to beg my way up to your pagan brown-nosed high and
>mighty wizard of Oz status quo.
>

Brad, I have tried to be fair and polite. I tried to steer you
towards information that would help you get at the theoretical
underpinnings of rocket science. You want to be paranoid, fine, be
that way.


>As to that "No math of the kind you've posted is mentioned at all" is
>exactly what I've meant by way of having been on a need-to-know (aka
>taboo/nondisclosure) basis .....

It's not on a "non-disclosure" basis, brad. It just means nothing.
It has nothing to do with the mechanics. So it doesn't matter. So
you won't find it anywhere because rocket scientists *simply do not
think about it.*

What matters is not just the mass of the payload but how fast you want
it to go. The New Horizons porbe, for instance, was launched on an
Atlas V and left Earth at 30,000 mph -- well over planetary escape
velocity of 25,000 mph. But would you need as big a rocket if you
wanted to put the same size vehicle in Low Earth orbit at 17,500 mph?
No. You would need a smaller rocket ... which would, logically,
change the ratio you are playing with. But the ratio means NOTHING.
You can't find it anywhere because in all probability, it has nothing
to do with determining the size of a booster for a given mission. The
basic laws of motion, beginning with F=ma, do. Remember that form
highschool?

> ..... If you plan upon keeping this sort of nonsense up, in no time at all
>I'm going postal all over your sorry but otherwise apparently
>dumbfounded butt.
>-

Feel free to killfile me, Brad; I don't care. But let me know where
you live, so that when you decide to go out into a crowd with a
machine gun, I won't be anywhere near you.


>Brad Guth


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Best Book on Space Race/Cold War/Missles?
    ... a fair and balanced look-see at the truth and nothing but the truth. ... Obviously you can't get this down to the basics of rocket to payload ... What if anything comes close to the nearly 55:1 ratio ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: Saturn V Now a "Weapon"
    ... at nearly 30% inert GLOW ... 60:1 ratio of rocket per payload ... Quickly getting such tonnage to the moon with payload and fuel to ...
    (rec.models.rockets)
  • Re: National Space Intelligence Center proposed
    ... -- millions and millions of dollars worth of brand new rocket motors, ... "Fat Albert" is going to weigh 200 million pounds. ... and since it'll take at the very least 2.6 times that ratio amount ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Big dumb rockets vs. small dumb rockets
    ... Let's say we have a rocket in the shape of a cube 10 m on a side (makes ... The surface to area ratio is 600/1000, ... but the basic result is that since the wall thickness scales up exactly ... Of course large engines are harder to debug, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Computer Program Design program for Skyrockets
    ... versus propellent length; core base diamter as a fucntion of ID; ... the rocket mix makes a huge difference and will affect ... briquette fuel. ... the best ratio of burning surface to nozzle size. ...
    (rec.pyrotechnics)