SFF Net Newsgroup Archive
sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Index of Articles for this Newsgroup

 [3-2503]    [2504-3255]    [3256-3756]    [3757-4956]    [4957-5560]    [5561-6211]    [6212-6540]   
 [6541-6821]    [6822-7179]    [7180-7403]    [7404-7884]    [7885-8133]    [8134-8404]    [8405-8634]   
 [8635-8704]    [8705-9004]    [9005-9434]    [9435-9687]    [9688-9766]    [9767-10157]    [10159-10298]   
 [10299-10451]    [10452-10801]    [10802-11023]    [11024-11316]    [11317-11554]    [11555-11772]    [11773-12112]   
 [12113-12294]    [12295-12386]    [12387-12459]    [12460-12540]    [12541-12597]    [12598-12751]    [12752-12789]   
 [12791-13027]    [13028-13277]    [13278-13413]    [13414-13571]    [13572-13579]    [13581-13621]    [13623-14127]   
 [14128-14563]    [14564-14947]    [14948-15129]    [15130-15187]    [15188-15294]    [15295-15642]    [15643-15840]   
 [15841-16230]    [16231-16608]    [16609-16645]    [16647-17506]    [17507-18252]    [18253-18468]    [18469-18614]   
 [18615-18889]    [18890-19019]    [19020-19147]    [19020-19413]    [19414-19417]    [19418-19454]    [19456-20203]   
 [20204-20236]    [20238-20581]    [20582-20675]    [20676-20691]    [20692-20729]    [20730-20781]    [20782-20877]   
 [20878-20929]    [20930-21011]    [21012-21035]    [21036-21058]    [21059-21086]    [21087-21106]    [21107-21118]   
 [21119-21137]    [21138-21281]    [21282-21374]    [21375-21486]    [21487-21558]    [21559-21587]    [21588-21634]   
 [21635-21692]    [21693-21713]    [21714-21739]    [21740-21784]    [21785-21811]    [21812-21834]    [21835-21897]   
 [21898-21920]    [21921-21950]    [21951-21981]    [21982-21988]    [21989-22009]    [22010-22029]    [22030-22044]   
 [22045-22049]    [22050-22086]    [22087-22492]    [22493-22536]    [22537-22574]    [22575-22595]    [22596-22618]   
 [22619-22657]    [22658-22708]    [22709-22759]    [22760-22779]    [22780-22809]    [22810-22863]    [22864-23010]   
 [23011-23067]    [23068-23083]    [23084-23109]    [23110-23127]    [23128-23138]    [23139-23172]    [23173-23247]   
 [23248-23298]    [23299-23312]    [23313-23352]    [23353-23432]    [23433-23451]    [23452-23463]    [23464-23476]   
 [23477-23490]    [23491-23511]    [23512-23525]    [23526-23578]    [23579-23583]    [23584-23608]    [23609-23637]   
 [23638-23648]    [23649-23673]    [23674-23830]    [23831-23856]    [23857-23871]    [23872-23890]    [23891-23907]   
 [23908-24156]    [24157-24194]    [24195-24228]    [24229-24241]    [24242-24252]    [24253-24288]    [24289-24347]   
 [24348-24378]    [5791-5791]   


http://www.sff.net/



Archive of:   sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Archive desc: The Internet home for the Heinlein Forum
Archived by:  webnews@sff.net
Archive date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:42:20
============================================================

Article 23649
From: Ed Johnson 
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 00:11:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Go, Rutan, Go!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I found these specs
http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/elvs/atlas3_specs.shtml
on an Atlas III.  Shows that a ground launched, 500k lb vehicle can
put nearly 25,000 lbs into Low Earth Orbit. This 1:20 ratio could be
1:10 if air launched.
   Imagine strapping the equivalent of an Atlas onto a large
airplane and thereby doubling the payload weight.  That could save
about $95 million (a second launch).  That savings sounds better
than offering the X prize.  It would be for cargo launches (we need
to put fuel and ISS parts into orbit as well as people).  The Atlas
is a liquid-fueled rocked and not suited to riding piggy-back on an
aircraft. But the solid rocket booster for the shuttle can carry
quite a punch and should be given consideration for future designs.
Just a thought.

Ed J

On Mon, 24 May 2004 05:55:20 -0500, Charles Graft
<chasgraft@aol.com> wrote:

>WJaKe--
>     I have felt for some time that some outside the box thinking is
>needed to get into space.  Several books (the best of which IMHO is "The
>Right Stuff", have considered it a major mistake to have stopped
>development of piloted high altitude vehicles such s the X-15 and
>Dyna-Soar in favor of the capsules; many of which can and were operated
>by monkeys.
>
>    I have always felt that using rocket power to get the shuttle off
>of  the ground and into the upper atmosphere was grossly inefficient.  A
>slightly modified commercial airliner (747)  carries the shuttle around
>quite routinely -- why not design a clean sheet version designed to
>carry it to 75,000 or so feet at mach 3 or so?  Using wings and the
>oxygen in the atmosphere would sure beat having to lift tons of oxygen
>and burn it in the atmosphere.


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23650
From: Ed Johnson 
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 00:13:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Go, Rutan, Go!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Tue, 25 May 2004 23:45:12 -0400, Ed Johnson
<eljohn2@comcast.spamthis.net > wrote:

>Charlie:  I recall that a Minuteman missile was launched from the
>cargo bay of a C5 Galaxy aircraft many years ago.  A parachute was
>used to drag the solid-fuel ICBM out the back while the C5 was
   sorry about the poor typing:  "It was launched..." not "I was"<g>
>flying.  I was launched from mid-air.  I have personally launched
>two different Minuteman III missiles from the ground from Vandenberg
>AFB and that was quite impressive.  I only wish that I was part of
>the project that carried off the air launch.
>
>Ed J
>
>On Mon, 24 May 2004 05:55:20 -0500, Charles Graft
><chasgraft@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>WJaKe--
>>     I have felt for some time that some outside the box thinking is
>>needed to get into space.  Several books (the best of which IMHO is "The
>>Right Stuff", have considered it a major mistake to have stopped
>>development of piloted high altitude vehicles such s the X-15 and
>>Dyna-Soar in favor of the capsules; many of which can and were operated
>>by monkeys.
>>
>>    I have always felt that using rocket power to get the shuttle off
>>of  the ground and into the upper atmosphere was grossly inefficient.  A
>>slightly modified commercial airliner (747)  carries the shuttle around
>>quite routinely -- why not design a clean sheet version designed to
>>carry it to 75,000 or so feet at mach 3 or so?  Using wings and the
>>oxygen in the atmosphere would sure beat having to lift tons of oxygen
>>and burn it in the atmosphere.


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23651
From: Kevin Patrick Crowley 
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 08:53:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Go, Rutan, Go!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Ed, the GE90-115B is rated at 115K and has set a world record at 127.9K.
I've been looking at a bank of them as the basis for a reusable first 
stage for a Saturn V equivalent launch system.

Kevin

Ed Johnson wrote:
> Filksinger:  I would like to ask them. I wonder if anyone from JPL
> hangs around a forum with the name of Heinlein in it's title?
>    I only hope that his two to one advantage is available for any
> size rocket.  Where 2:1 means twice thepayload weight put into LEO
> when launched at 540 mph and 38K feet altitude.  I am also aware of
> the advantage of scale.  The old Saturn 5 rocket could put  250K lbs
> into orbit with a total lift-off weight of 6 million lbs. That's a
> 1:24  payload to total weight ratio.   The pegasus is 1:40 (1:80 if
> ground launched) payload to total rocket weight.
>   The larger the rocket, the greater the economy of scale.
>   The shuttle puts about 260K lbs into orbit (200k of which returns)
> for a slightly over 4 million lb total.  A 1:16 ratio if you ignore
> the reusable nature of the shuttle and just look at the efficiency
> of the launch vehicle ratio to total payload weight into orbit. 
>    Somewhere in between a 40k Pegasus and a 4,000k shuttle launch is
> what could probably be launched from the air.  400k lbs should be
> possible on any of the three planes previously mentioned.  Twice
> that on a purpose-built craft.  I assume that if 1:80 is possible
> with a 40k lb launch vehicle and 1:16 is routinely done with a
> 4,000k lb shuttle, then somewhere in between is quite possible for a
> 400k lb launch vehicle.  Does anyone know where to look for payload
> specs on launch vehicles smaller than the shuttle?  Smaller than 1M
> lb would be useful in this discussion.  The titan is probably too
> big, and the new revised Atlas may also be quite large, I not too
> sure.  I have some numbers (payload ratios) in my mind, but I am not
> at all sure of just how valid they might be.
>   I just can't imagine someone in private industry modifying a 1.3
> million pound lift-off weight Antonov 225 with six of the latest 90k
> lb thrust turbo-fan jet engines and launching a serious (400k + lb)
> rocket from its back.  The plane could handle the payload.  It would
> be quite a thing for the Russians to accomplish; headline grabbing.
>   Someone once called a similar situation a "failure of will".
> 
> Ed J
> 
> On Mon, 24 May 2004 18:00:20 -0700, "Filksinger"
> <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Ed Johnson wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>  Is there anyway of estimating the advantage at all?
>>
>>Absolutely. Just as around at JPL, and if they aren't too busy, I'll bet
>>someone could give you a good idea.:)
>>
>>Unfortunately, I can't.:(
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23652
From: Kevin Patrick Crowley 
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 09:00:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Go, Rutan, Go!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Ed,

_IF_ you can get the piggybacked vehicle to launch height in under about 
twenty minutes the vehicle being liquid fueled should not be an overly 
daunting problem.

Kevin

Ed Johnson wrote:

> I found these specs
> http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/elvs/atlas3_specs.shtml
> on an Atlas III.  Shows that a ground launched, 500k lb vehicle can
> put nearly 25,000 lbs into Low Earth Orbit. This 1:20 ratio could be
> 1:10 if air launched.
>    Imagine strapping the equivalent of an Atlas onto a large
> airplane and thereby doubling the payload weight.  That could save
> about $95 million (a second launch).  That savings sounds better
> than offering the X prize.  It would be for cargo launches (we need
> to put fuel and ISS parts into orbit as well as people).  The Atlas
> is a liquid-fueled rocked and not suited to riding piggy-back on an
> aircraft. But the solid rocket booster for the shuttle can carry
> quite a punch and should be given consideration for future designs.
> Just a thought.
> 
> Ed J
> 
> On Mon, 24 May 2004 05:55:20 -0500, Charles Graft
> <chasgraft@aol.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>WJaKe--
>>    I have felt for some time that some outside the box thinking is
>>needed to get into space.  Several books (the best of which IMHO is "The
>>Right Stuff", have considered it a major mistake to have stopped
>>development of piloted high altitude vehicles such s the X-15 and
>>Dyna-Soar in favor of the capsules; many of which can and were operated
>>by monkeys.
>>
>>   I have always felt that using rocket power to get the shuttle off
>>of  the ground and into the upper atmosphere was grossly inefficient.  A
>>slightly modified commercial airliner (747)  carries the shuttle around
>>quite routinely -- why not design a clean sheet version designed to
>>carry it to 75,000 or so feet at mach 3 or so?  Using wings and the
>>oxygen in the atmosphere would sure beat having to lift tons of oxygen
>>and burn it in the atmosphere.
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23653
From: Ed Johnson 
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 23:12:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Go, Rutan, Go!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Kevin:  I was more concerned with "sloshing" of liquids that the
boil-off of cryogenic fuels (I hadn't thought of that problem).

Ed

On Wed, 26 May 2004 09:00:25 -0500, Kevin Patrick Crowley
<kevin.crowley@crowleyenterprises.com> wrote:

>Ed,
>
>_IF_ you can get the piggybacked vehicle to launch height in under about 
>twenty minutes the vehicle being liquid fueled should not be an overly 
>daunting problem.
>
>Kevin
>

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23654
From: Ed Johnson 
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 23:19:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Go, Rutan, Go!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Kevin:   My sentiments exactly!  I forsee these hybrid
aircraft/rocket launch vehicles used for cargo.  Man-rating such a
rocket would put a weight penalty on it from the beginning.
   This would be a giant leap forward towards Cheap Access To Space
(CATS).  I would love to see Lockheed Martin adapt some existing
hardware for this.  I can only dream of a purpose built hybrid.

Thanks for the correction: I mistakenly thought that the "90" was
the thrust; I believe "90" is inches for the fan diameter?  

Ed J



On Wed, 26 May 2004 08:53:44 -0500, Kevin Patrick Crowley
<kevin.crowley@crowleyenterprises.com> wrote:

>Ed, the GE90-115B is rated at 115K and has set a world record at 127.9K.
>I've been looking at a bank of them as the basis for a reusable first 
>stage for a Saturn V equivalent launch system.
>
>Kevin
>
>Ed Johnson wrote:
>> Filksinger:  I would like to ask them. I wonder if anyone from JPL
>> hangs around a forum with the name of Heinlein in it's title?
>>    I only hope that his two to one advantage is available for any
>> size rocket.  Where 2:1 means twice thepayload weight put into LEO
>> when launched at 540 mph and 38K feet altitude.  I am also aware of
>> the advantage of scale.  The old Saturn 5 rocket could put  250K lbs
>> into orbit with a total lift-off weight of 6 million lbs. That's a
>> 1:24  payload to total weight ratio.   The pegasus is 1:40 (1:80 if
>> ground launched) payload to total rocket weight.
>>   The larger the rocket, the greater the economy of scale.
>>   The shuttle puts about 260K lbs into orbit (200k of which returns)
>> for a slightly over 4 million lb total.  A 1:16 ratio if you ignore
>> the reusable nature of the shuttle and just look at the efficiency
>> of the launch vehicle ratio to total payload weight into orbit. 
>>    Somewhere in between a 40k Pegasus and a 4,000k shuttle launch is
>> what could probably be launched from the air.  400k lbs should be
>> possible on any of the three planes previously mentioned.  Twice
>> that on a purpose-built craft.  I assume that if 1:80 is possible
>> with a 40k lb launch vehicle and 1:16 is routinely done with a
>> 4,000k lb shuttle, then somewhere in between is quite possible for a
>> 400k lb launch vehicle.  Does anyone know where to look for payload
>> specs on launch vehicles smaller than the shuttle?  Smaller than 1M
>> lb would be useful in this discussion.  The titan is probably too
>> big, and the new revised Atlas may also be quite large, I not too
>> sure.  I have some numbers (payload ratios) in my mind, but I am not
>> at all sure of just how valid they might be.
>>   I just can't imagine someone in private industry modifying a 1.3
>> million pound lift-off weight Antonov 225 with six of the latest 90k
>> lb thrust turbo-fan jet engines and launching a serious (400k + lb)
>> rocket from its back.  The plane could handle the payload.  It would
>> be quite a thing for the Russians to accomplish; headline grabbing.
>>   Someone once called a similar situation a "failure of will".
>> 
>> Ed J
>> 
>> On Mon, 24 May 2004 18:00:20 -0700, "Filksinger"
>> <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Ed Johnson wrote:
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>  Is there anyway of estimating the advantage at all?
>>>
>>>Absolutely. Just as around at JPL, and if they aren't too busy, I'll bet
>>>someone could give you a good idea.:)
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, I can't.:(
>> 
>> 


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23655
From: Kevin Patrick Crowley 
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 04:27:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Go, Rutan, Go!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Ed,

Here is the GE90 series page.

http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/ge90/index.html

They list the diameter of the engine as 135 inches for the 115B.

The first engine in this series(90B) was rated at 90K.  So you weren't 
wrong.  The series just advanced.

Kevin

Kevin
Ed Johnson wrote:
> Kevin:   My sentiments exactly!  I forsee these hybrid
> aircraft/rocket launch vehicles used for cargo.  Man-rating such a
> rocket would put a weight penalty on it from the beginning.
>    This would be a giant leap forward towards Cheap Access To Space
> (CATS).  I would love to see Lockheed Martin adapt some existing
> hardware for this.  I can only dream of a purpose built hybrid.
> 
> Thanks for the correction: I mistakenly thought that the "90" was
> the thrust; I believe "90" is inches for the fan diameter?  
> 
> Ed J
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 26 May 2004 08:53:44 -0500, Kevin Patrick Crowley
> <kevin.crowley@crowleyenterprises.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Ed, the GE90-115B is rated at 115K and has set a world record at 127.9K.
>>I've been looking at a bank of them as the basis for a reusable first 
>>stage for a Saturn V equivalent launch system.
>>
>>Kevin
>>
>>Ed Johnson wrote:
>>
>>>Filksinger:  I would like to ask them. I wonder if anyone from JPL
>>>hangs around a forum with the name of Heinlein in it's title?
>>>   I only hope that his two to one advantage is available for any
>>>size rocket.  Where 2:1 means twice thepayload weight put into LEO
>>>when launched at 540 mph and 38K feet altitude.  I am also aware of
>>>the advantage of scale.  The old Saturn 5 rocket could put  250K lbs
>>>into orbit with a total lift-off weight of 6 million lbs. That's a
>>>1:24  payload to total weight ratio.   The pegasus is 1:40 (1:80 if
>>>ground launched) payload to total rocket weight.
>>>  The larger the rocket, the greater the economy of scale.
>>>  The shuttle puts about 260K lbs into orbit (200k of which returns)
>>>for a slightly over 4 million lb total.  A 1:16 ratio if you ignore
>>>the reusable nature of the shuttle and just look at the efficiency
>>>of the launch vehicle ratio to total payload weight into orbit. 
>>>   Somewhere in between a 40k Pegasus and a 4,000k shuttle launch is
>>>what could probably be launched from the air.  400k lbs should be
>>>possible on any of the three planes previously mentioned.  Twice
>>>that on a purpose-built craft.  I assume that if 1:80 is possible
>>>with a 40k lb launch vehicle and 1:16 is routinely done with a
>>>4,000k lb shuttle, then somewhere in between is quite possible for a
>>>400k lb launch vehicle.  Does anyone know where to look for payload
>>>specs on launch vehicles smaller than the shuttle?  Smaller than 1M
>>>lb would be useful in this discussion.  The titan is probably too
>>>big, and the new revised Atlas may also be quite large, I not too
>>>sure.  I have some numbers (payload ratios) in my mind, but I am not
>>>at all sure of just how valid they might be.
>>>  I just can't imagine someone in private industry modifying a 1.3
>>>million pound lift-off weight Antonov 225 with six of the latest 90k
>>>lb thrust turbo-fan jet engines and launching a serious (400k + lb)
>>>rocket from its back.  The plane could handle the payload.  It would
>>>be quite a thing for the Russians to accomplish; headline grabbing.
>>>  Someone once called a similar situation a "failure of will".
>>>
>>>Ed J
>>>
>>>On Mon, 24 May 2004 18:00:20 -0700, "Filksinger"
>>><filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ed Johnson wrote:
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>> Is there anyway of estimating the advantage at all?
>>>>
>>>>Absolutely. Just as around at JPL, and if they aren't too busy, I'll bet
>>>>someone could give you a good idea.:)
>>>>
>>>>Unfortunately, I can't.:(
>>>
>>>
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23656
From: Kevin Patrick Crowley 
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 04:31:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Go, Rutan, Go!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Sloshing is a problem with cryogenic fueled vehicle because it increases 
boil-off.  The less cryo you carry the better.  SRBs have several 
advantages but don't have the fine control you need so you need at least 
some liquid fuel for flexibility.

Kevin

Ed Johnson wrote:

> Kevin:  I was more concerned with "sloshing" of liquids that the
> boil-off of cryogenic fuels (I hadn't thought of that problem).
> 
> Ed
> 
> On Wed, 26 May 2004 09:00:25 -0500, Kevin Patrick Crowley
> <kevin.crowley@crowleyenterprises.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Ed,
>>
>>_IF_ you can get the piggybacked vehicle to launch height in under about 
>>twenty minutes the vehicle being liquid fueled should not be an overly 
>>daunting problem.
>>
>>Kevin
>>

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23657
From: Ed Johnson 
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 23:26:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Go, Rutan, Go!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Kevin:   Thanks for that GE90 page.
    That is a seriously large engine!  I believe that one of these
brutes has more thrust than all eight engines on the old B-52.
  I hear that they are relatively fuel efficient as well.

Ed J

On Thu, 27 May 2004 04:27:32 -0500, Kevin Patrick Crowley
<kevin.crowley@crowleyenterprises.com> wrote:

>Ed,
>
>Here is the GE90 series page.
>
>http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/ge90/index.html
>
>They list the diameter of the engine as 135 inches for the 115B.
>
>The first engine in this series(90B) was rated at 90K.  So you weren't 
>wrong.  The series just advanced.
>
>Kevin


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23658
From: Ed Johnson 
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 23:30:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Go, Rutan, Go!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Kevin;   The way the Shuttle does it (SRB plus a liquid fuel set) is
a good mix.  I don't think that piggy-backing a Liq. Hydrogen rocket
is an efficient thing to do, structure wise.  Kerosene and LOX or
some other combo, might be more practical with good SRB strapped on.

Ed

On Thu, 27 May 2004 04:31:30 -0500, Kevin Patrick Crowley
<kevin.crowley@crowleyenterprises.com> wrote:

>Sloshing is a problem with cryogenic fueled vehicle because it increases 
>boil-off.  The less cryo you carry the better.  SRBs have several 
>advantages but don't have the fine control you need so you need at least 
>some liquid fuel for flexibility.
>
>Kevin
>

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23659
From: Kevin Patrick Crowley 
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 23:05:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Go, Rutan, Go!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

They are fuel efficient though I can't get GE to tell me exactly what it is.

Kevin


Ed Johnson wrote:

> Kevin:   Thanks for that GE90 page.
>     That is a seriously large engine!  I believe that one of these
> brutes has more thrust than all eight engines on the old B-52.
>   I hear that they are relatively fuel efficient as well.
> 
> Ed J
> 
> On Thu, 27 May 2004 04:27:32 -0500, Kevin Patrick Crowley
> <kevin.crowley@crowleyenterprises.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Ed,
>>
>>Here is the GE90 series page.
>>
>>http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/ge90/index.html
>>
>>They list the diameter of the engine as 135 inches for the 115B.
>>
>>The first engine in this series(90B) was rated at 90K.  So you weren't 
>>wrong.  The series just advanced.
>>
>>Kevin
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23660
From: Kevin Patrick Crowley 
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 23:06:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Go, Rutan, Go!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I agree a combination is probably the best idea unless some one can 
design a better something or other.

Kevin


Ed Johnson wrote:

> Kevin;   The way the Shuttle does it (SRB plus a liquid fuel set) is
> a good mix.  I don't think that piggy-backing a Liq. Hydrogen rocket
> is an efficient thing to do, structure wise.  Kerosene and LOX or
> some other combo, might be more practical with good SRB strapped on.
> 
> Ed
> 
> On Thu, 27 May 2004 04:31:30 -0500, Kevin Patrick Crowley
> <kevin.crowley@crowleyenterprises.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Sloshing is a problem with cryogenic fueled vehicle because it increases 
>>boil-off.  The less cryo you carry the better.  SRBs have several 
>>advantages but don't have the fine control you need so you need at least 
>>some liquid fuel for flexibility.
>>
>>Kevin
>>

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23661
From: RPostelnek" 
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 23:04:19 -0500
Subject: help with book title
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Hi

A patron came in the library today.  He was looking for a science fiction
book that had live panda bears as telephones. The main character had been
away for a while and hadn't feed the panda bear.  When he picked up the
phone, it bite his ear.  Does anyone know the author or title to this?

Thanks

Rosie



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23662
From: Ed Johnson 
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 23:10:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Fader's Fiftieth
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

JT:
   Does anyone seem interested in another Gathering?
(Can you name a newsgroup that is getting so stagnant that it often
gets less the one posting per day?)

Ed J

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz,


On Fri, 07 May 2004 20:12:45 -0400, JT <JT@REM0VEsff.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 07 May 2004 11:21:21 GMT, fader55@delete.sbcglobal.net (Fader)
>wrote:
>
>>I realize that a year is a little far out,( though for some, just
>>barely enough time[ you know who you are] )
>
>I resemble that remark. ;)  I already know I'm booked the third
>weekend of April 2005, but May's probably doable.  What's good for
>everyone else?
>
>JT


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23663
From: William J. Keaton" 
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 00:49:41 -0400
Subject: SS-1 Date Set
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Ok, it's official. SS-1 will launch for space on June 21, 2004. They will
shoot for 100 Kilometers, the altitude needed to satisfy the X-Prize
requirements.

http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/New_Index/news/062104.htm

If the judges for the 2004 Heinlein award are reading this, don't cast yoru
votes just yet!

WJaKe



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23664
From: JT 
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:38:52 -0400
Subject: Gathering 2005
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 23:10:42 -0400, Ed Johnson
<eljohn2@comcast.spamthis.net > wrote:

>JT:
>   Does anyone seem interested in another Gathering?
>(Can you name a newsgroup that is getting so stagnant that it often
>gets less the one posting per day?)
>

Yes, but the noise-to-information ratio is excellent here. ;)

As far as a Gathering, the Tildens are all but committed (some say we
should be committed ;) to coming.  My wife happens to be on the phone
with Les as I am typing this, and the Vroylks want to come but may
have another family obligation.  We'll see if they can throw out a
weekend that works for them (if they commit to coming also ;)

I'm assuming you will come, Ed, so if worst comes to worst we plan
around Greg, BC, you, and us and then we see who else can make it. <G>

The drive to IN is just a drive around the corner for WJaKe so he'll
probably be there, too. ;)

JT

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23665
From: JT 
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:40:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Gathering 2005
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:38:52 -0400, JT <JT@REM0VEsff.net> wrote:

{snipped}
Of course, I misspelled Vrolyk in my post, but hopefully you all got
the idea and they realize it was just my fat fingers. ;)

JT

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23666
From: JT 
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 21:31:02 -0400
Subject: Balticon 38
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Had a good weekend this past weekend.  It was Balticon time. The
Heinlein Society once again sponsored a blood drive (bloodmobile) at
the con.  WJaKe was kind enough to come up and help out on Saturday
and Sunday with manning the fan table and working the blood drive all
day Sunday.  We were joined on Sunday by a HS member named Pam Somers
who was nice to get to know and a great volunteer.

Our big surprise was learning that David Silver would be able to come
out for the 'con.  WJaKe had met David before but this was my first
opportunity to meet David.  Let me tell you, he's got some good
stories to tell. <G>

David helped out with a Sunday panel that Dr. Kondo put together.  The
first part was viewing the "Cronkite Interview", and the rest of the
panel was discussion the 35th anniversary of the Moon Landing and also
about going back to the Moon and beyond.  I wasn't able to attend the
discussion but it was a well-attended session.

Sunday night Steve Wilson (who is friendly with the Kondo family)
moderated a panel with Dr. Kondo, David, and some guy with the
initials "JT" on _For Us, The Living_. It was my second experience
being on a panel, and I really enjoyed it.

If you have a convention in your area that the Heinlein Society
doesn't yet have a presence at, please consider being that presence.
Looking back at it, it's a chance to really *be* one of "Heinlein's
Children" for a weekend.  If anyone has any questions on what it
really took to set up a fan table or a blood drive, I'd be happy to
chat off the group.

best,

JT

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23667
From: Ed Johnson 
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 22:56:20 -0400
Subject: Re: SS-1 Date Set
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Jake:
   Too cool!


Ed J


On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 00:49:41 -0400, "William J. Keaton"
<wjake@prodigy.net> wrote:

>Ok, it's official. SS-1 will launch for space on June 21, 2004. They will
>shoot for 100 Kilometers, the altitude needed to satisfy the X-Prize
>requirements.
>
>http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/New_Index/news/062104.htm
>
>If the judges for the 2004 Heinlein award are reading this, don't cast yoru
>votes just yet!
>
>WJaKe
>


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23668
From: William J. Keaton" 
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 01:10:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Gathering 2005
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

> {snipped}
> Of course, I misspelled Vrolyk in my post, but hopefully you all got
> the idea and they realize it was just my fat fingers. ;)
>
> JT

Yeah, like we noticed. And like the Vorolyks are here to complain! <g>

<g,d & r, in case Les pops in!>

WJaKe



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23669
From: William J. Keaton" 
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 01:12:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Gathering 2005
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


"JT" <JT@REM0VEsff.net> wrote
>
> The drive to IN is just a drive around the corner for WJaKe so he'll
> probably be there, too. ;)
>

Ah yes, I do love a quick jaunt across the great Mid-East. Set a weekend,
I'll work it out.

See ya!

WJaKe



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23670
From: William J. Keaton" 
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 01:14:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Balticon 38
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


"JT" <JT@REM0VEsff.net> wrote in message
news:mejvb0d5b11rsunls5ovi1rs7ssh97h75g@4ax.com...
> Had a good weekend this past weekend.  It was Balticon time. The
> Heinlein Society once again sponsored a blood drive (bloodmobile) at
> the con.


Good time, good stories, good steak, a heck of a way to spend a weekend. And
I got to shoot my mouth off as the obnoxious audience member at thee FUTL
panel.

WJaKe



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23671
From: Wendy of NJ 
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 09:22:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Balticon 38
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



William J. Keaton wrote:
> "JT" <JT@REM0VEsff.net> wrote in message
> news:mejvb0d5b11rsunls5ovi1rs7ssh97h75g@4ax.com...
> 
>>Had a good weekend this past weekend.  It was Balticon time. The
>>Heinlein Society once again sponsored a blood drive (bloodmobile) at
>>the con.
> 
> 
> 
> Good time, good stories, good steak, a heck of a way to spend a weekend. And
> I got to shoot my mouth off as the obnoxious audience member at thee FUTL
> panel.
> 
> WJaKe
> 
> 
Man, I *miss* Balticon. It was my favorite convention. Maybe next year...
-Wendy



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23672
From: David M. Silver" 
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 10:30:13 -0700
Subject: Re: Balticon 38
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <mejvb0d5b11rsunls5ovi1rs7ssh97h75g@4ax.com>,
 JT <JT@REM0VEsff.net> wrote:

> Our big surprise was learning that David Silver would be able to come
> out for the 'con.  WJaKe had met David before but this was my first
> opportunity to meet David.  Let me tell you, he's got some good
> stories to tell. <G>

It was a pleasure to meet you and Pam, JT, and always a pleasure 
to see Jake.

The work you three put in was very highly appreciated, as was the 
result -- we maxed out the bloodmobile's capacity due to you 
three's devoted and diligent efforts at the fan table before 
Sunday, and at the blood drive table while the bloodtaking went 
on. Later Sunday, I also had a chance to meet and talk to Cynthia 
Kondo, just back from a one-year tour in Afghanistan (Maryland 
ANG, called to active duty after 9/11, and continued with a 
one-week break after a year, since, until she returned), at 
dinner with her parents at a nice Japanese restaurant they took 
me to. She's quite a lady -- and a scant year older than my 
daughter, and bright and delightful as my own, which made me feel 
both old and young at the same time. When she told me she was 
entitled to choose between four war patches, I tried to amuse her 
by telling her one of my stories about a first sergeant who was 
entitled to wear any one of three war patches on his uniform. I 
hope her smile wasn't merely politeness. It didn't seem so. 

Thanks again for everything; and I hope you enjoyed seeing the 
Heinlein-Clarke interview on the most important date in the 
history of humanity.

-- 
David M. Silver www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29, Lt.(jg), USN, R'td, 1907-88

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23673
From: Ed Johnson 
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 21:18:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Gathering 2005
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

JT:
   I believe that you said earlier that you wouldn't be able to
travel this year, IIRC.  How about if some of us visited your
neighborhood some weekend and made a mini-gathering out of visiting
DC?  Would that be at all possible?  You could make it a day trip
from home and (hopefully) not be too inconvenienced with travel
plans.  (Just a thought).  
   I still have fond memories of Dim-Sum at that nice Chinese
restaurant that you selected for us.

Ed J


------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================
Archive of:   sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Archive desc: The Internet home for the Heinlein Forum
Archived by:  webnews@sff.net
Archive date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:42:20
First article in this archive:  23649
Last article in this archive:   23673
Oldest article in this archive: Wed, 26 May 2004 00:11:25 -0400
Newest article in this archive: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:32:59 -0400