Talk-Polywell.org

ladajo wrote:<Yawn>

More yawn as somebody put it.
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/21284 ... sci-fi.htm
First picture of SpaceX spacesuit. More in days to follow. Worth noting that this actually works (not a mockup). Already tested to double vacuum pressure
http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organ ... t-concept/

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/08/f ... lidopinion

I honestly believe much of the data there is old. But even as it is, it clearly claims the FH can get launch costs (not price) to $100/lb to LEO.

A MethaLOx fueled ITS architecture can get it to below $60/lb to LEO, how much lower I hope to see inside a decade.

That is how you blow open a frontier.

Wide the hell open.

ED: You know, because a Polywell powered Mach Effect thruster isn't in sight... yet.

TDPerk wrote:I honestly believe much of the data there is old. But even as it is, it clearly claims the FH can get launch costs (not price) to $100/lb to LEO.
A MethaLOx fueled ITS architecture can get it to below $60/lb to LEO, how much lower I hope to see inside a decade.

That is how you blow open a frontier.
Wide the hell open.

Tht should hav been
Commercial . . . . Customers . . . . . NASA
Launch

NASA wanted to go all commercial years ago, congress wanted the SLS. Congress always gets what it wants.

Nice boost and recovery today of the X-37B.
<yawn>
Very professional and with little fanfare...
Would have been nice to see the second stage cycle and payload release. Oh well, I guess the AF has something to hide, as usual. I wonder if they are flying the Ion drive again?

I wonder if his employees are allowed to tell Musk what they're launching? For this customer, anyway.

They might have to keep that foreign devil out of payload integration.

On this flight, the Air Force will say only that the mission is to carry small satellites, “demonstrate greater opportunities for rapid space access and on-orbit testing of emerging space technologies.” The service also said it would test experimental electronics in a weightless environment.

wonder what type of clearance he does have

[quote="paperburn1"][/quote]

TRW used to let me in to one of their satellite assembly areas, but only after it was cleaned up so you had no idea what they did there. My job was to test their overhead lift to be sure they were not going to drop whatever it was they built.

Orbital was more fun. They'd bring rocket parts over for me to test, and tell me what they were for.

Conestoga brought a composite foam in for testing. They wanted a material to replace the wooden parts of their boosters. Good lord, who knew ... we were flying space rockets with wooden parts.

"test experimental electronics in a weightless environment"

Hmmm...

Tom Ligon wrote:

paperburn1 wrote:

TRW used to let me in to one of their satellite assembly areas, but only after it was cleaned up so you had no idea what they did there. My job was to test their overhead lift to be sure they were not going to drop whatever it was they built.

Orbital was more fun. They'd bring rocket parts over for me to test, and tell me what they were for.

Conestoga brought a composite foam in for testing. They wanted a material to replace the wooden parts of their boosters. Good lord, who knew ... we were flying space rockets with wooden parts.

Which rocket had wooden parts? Honestly, wood can be a hard non- metal to replace for some purposes.

I was having similar thoughts. Especially for plys and wood composite plys.

ladajo wrote:

"test experimental electronics in a weightless environment"

Hmmm...

Em drive?

Hmmm...

Apparently the Conestoga did. This was a pile of surplus LGM-30 (Minuteman) parts, cobbed together by Space Services Inc Of America many years ago. They failed at what Musk and Bezos are doing.

When I expressed surprise, they told me I'd be even more surprised if I knew how many wooden parts were in service in the rocket biz.

Evidently the Soviets used wood for re-entry heat shields at some point. We, of course, used far more sophisticated materials. Walter Cronkite told us so, right? Well, actually, a good description of some of ours would be an oversized melamine dinner plate.

Evidently there are a lot of non-critical bits that were easier to make out of wood. It was light, cheap, got the job done. It is an advanced fiber composite material. Fair electrical insulator. Reasonably good thermal insulator. No problem finding people who could work it, which includes aerospace fabrication experts. Prototype aircraft usually have some wooden parts, too, and some types of wood are well-qualified as aviation materials.

And the typical booster only needed to last for a few minutes once you lit it off. At least, before Musk and Bezos got into the game.

One of my favorite wood substitutes is a flotation material for deep submersibles: syntactic foam. I've used it in places where wood had been suggested, but I needed more precise dimensions and dimensional stability. It is easy to machine or even carve with a knife, is a fairly poor conductor of heat, and is absolutely impervious to water, so I used it in cases where I needed a thermal break that held dimensions well, and condensation was likely to be present. I can see this material or something like it being a good wood substitute.