01-29-2013 09:30 PM
As for "trusting NASA's math" their math showed a certain O Ring was safe when it wasn't, killing seven astronauts.... You are welcome to trust them.
Phillip Duke Ph.D.
I've never really looked into the Challenger disaster that closely, but I was under the impression that the decision to launch was a political one, made by the administrators over the objections of the engineers. I could be misremembering that though.
01-29-2013 10:32 PM
Challenger had two things wrong with it. The first was the administrative decision to launch below the temperatures that were known to be safe and the second was the re-mixing of new components in the 'rubber' mix for the O-rings. The original compound in the O-rings was what was used for the launch ratings. When the new compouds were substituted for the originals the rings were never fully tested again until after. The new compounds was more brittle in cold temperatures. The correction was doubling the O-rings as a safety measure.
Keep's Books and Tales
01-30-2013 08:25 AM
The O rings were a built-in potential disaster There was a proposal without O rings, but it was not from the favored contractor. The favored contractor was so distant, that the length without O rings made surface transport impossible. The O rings were inserted just so the sections could be transported by the favored contractor. If NASA had only refused the design with O rings, the disaster would not have occurred.
I see the prior thread is gone. This is the third time posts related to my original thread "Is star tgravel possible now?" have been removed. The two star review by ManuelGarcia of my book "Starship To New Earth NOW" on which the thread was based, remains. I previously repeatedly asked him to please send me the mathematics on which he bases his claim that the book's propulsion system is invalid, but I never heard from him.
I have decided to write and publish a new, revised edition of the book, primarily to discuss the propulsion related vissue. ManuelGarcia, email me the math you claim shows my propulsion system is invalid. If you won't, then your review is based on spite, not fact.
Phillip Duke Ph.D.
01-30-2013 09:34 AM - edited 01-30-2013 09:34 AM
EinsteinPD, I am not sure a thread about Buck Rodgers is the proper place for this. But since the math isn't that complicated I'll post it here.
As I mentioned in a previous thread, the main equation is Tsiolkovsky rocket equation. Arthur C. Clarke called it the most important equation in the whole of rocketry. There is a picture of Tsiolkovsky on the ISS. It is
Dv =Ev * ln(R)
Dv is delta-v - the maximum change of speed of the vehicle
Ev is the exhaust velocity of the propellant
R is the Mass Ratio that is the mass of the rocket ship before any fuel is used divided by mass once the fuel quits being used
It can be reformulated to calculate R as R=e^(Dv/Ev)
The exhaust velocity of the NERVA nuclear engines which used hydrogen as propellant is 17,658 m/s, 0.01c is about 3,000,000 m/s. Hydrogen is used instead of water because it gives a higher exhaust velocity. Plugging those figures in gives a R of 6 *10^73 i.e. 6 with 73 zeros after it. It get much worse for speeds above 0.01c.
02-20-2013 04:08 PM - edited 02-20-2013 04:08 PM
Now that we are finished discussing rockets not in Buck Rogers (I hope) let's get back to the things mentioned in the book that have come to pass.
It has remote piloted surveillance and attack drones, paratroopers, night vision devices and Bazookas.
02-22-2013 11:26 AM
<As for Buck Rogers I read both "Armageddon 2419 A.D." and "The Airlords of Han" as a teenager and again last year. Note "Armageddon 2419 A.D." was later renamed "Buck Rogers In The 25th Century". I really like both>
I forgot to reply to this earlier. The name change happened because a movie company trademarked the original title so the only open title for Buck Rogers stories has to have 25th Century. I had to add 25th Century to my sequel to Buck Rogers because of the trademark question.
Keep's Books and Tales