Re: Waiting for controversy...?

in article efafpj$c3l$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Andre Lieven at
dg411@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 9/25/06 11:02 PM:

George Evans (georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) writes:
in article ef7qoo$s1r$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Andre Lieven at
dg411@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 9/24/06 10:51 PM:

George Evans (georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) engages in more lets pull ***
out of his ass:

in article ef77u1$ior$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Andre Lieven at
dg411@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 9/24/06 5:29 PM:

<snip>

No, because the payload attached to one side of the core stage used space
there, and thus, you could not also attach anything else to the same
space.

But I would think that with the more conventional cylindrical payload it
would be advantageous to have the boosters placed more symmetrically
relative to the CG.

So, you wish to claim that you are smarter than Energiya's designers ? That
is an extrordinary claim, please post your extraordinary PROOF.

Is there something special about Energiya designers that I don't know about?

Loads.

OK, this should be entertaining. What makes Ehergiya designers special?

So, somehow they knew nothing would fall off at Max Q and endanger the
Buran?

Yep. Because a *rocket stage* is built quite differently from a big *fuel
tank*.

So why were there five tiles missing and other assorted damage to the TPS
after the test flight?

I don't know. Which is why *I* don't make such fact free claims.

Let me hazard a guess. Ice formed around the LOX portion of the tank and
came off during launch.

George Evans

.

Quantcast