"The future ain't what it used to be."

Technical notes

creedo299

Temporal Novice
Credits
0
Tachyons
₮0
Please note in new current submissions department of The Industrial Physicist, March, page 16, there is an article placed, of real time spectrography.

This new article, plus a pre-dated article, Fourier methods used to count blood platelets, shows the ability now, for this current Earth-based mankind, to view into past times, in other realms.

The inherent problem with low technologies within varied cultures expresses as time is looked at as something non-substantive,; however not as a product of a place.

In my definition of time being held in T-mass locales, the equation is that time occurs between the product, of mass and gravity.This is so expresses as a moving diagram, held in space and time, as being active; however due to the fabric of space and time, moves and acts, as also being recorded.

So therefore time, expressed as T-mass locals, can with the proper technologies, be tuned in on.

>There is a moral dilemma, dealing with this ability, that the viewing race, must hold a morality and also must have adopted a highly evolved both morality as well as intellect.

I do not go past this point.\\

*Notes stretched and aerospace vehicles:

The method of both stretching and quantifying a greater however differing shaped cargo hold, for any proposed shuttle variant, would be expressed in the following ways.

One that upon design agreed upon, the a reduced height vertical stringer placement be both modeled and manufactured to less of a height that say the former model of a shuttle would have been in hight.**Inproved aerodynamic flows, a consideration here, so expending less enegy, to obtain orbital profiles, for options thereof?

Two that the length of said proposed vehicle, would be set longer, in proposed on-CAD models, plus in-tunnel modeling.

This new equation means that the utility could be reached, in carrying a proposed, either passenger manifold, or cargo capacity?

The utility would stem from the proposed usage, of a nearby space station, over one half mile in length and volumetric dimensions.

*The elements of external thermal protection dynamics, also change, from thermal tiles, to proposed variants, from said known elements of these choice sets.

These source sets would express themselves, as a advanced type of exterior metal.
This material attached to exterior aerofram values and two, an electrical plasma internally held generator, for the production of electrified plasma, as proposed to a super-hot standoff, in-air, as a thermal protection dynamic boundary.

These new proposed addends, stipulate that re-entry profiles, by changed and or therefore, augmented.

This in simpler terms, means that re-entry profiles, may or may not be augmented?

The new question of a required, to field experimental aero-craft FAA regs., agreed NASA realm, of engine out, to dead stick landing, may or may not require an in-frame aeromotor?

This is not new information, however is held within the Tap_ten groups exploring, of an activity dynamic propulsion unit, or electrified internal engine, with artificially generated plasma airflows, which act as slippery in-air and or in-space coatings, which both repel and or act as propulsion.

So the design criteria from dead-stick, to rear wheels touch-down as opposed to an active aerodynamic plasmic exos-shell, seemed to indicate an evolution within ari-frame characters, i.e.. aerospace active plasma producing shells?

>Extra dynamics, of utiltiy, past near space realms, are not ventured points, from this submitter.
 
(yawn!) Well, we're back to the same, old Creedo again. You need to let some of this go, IMHO.

The new question of a required, to field experimental aero-craft FAA regs., agreed NASA realm, of engine out, to dead stick landing, may or may not require an in-frame aeromotor?

Now you are REALLY getting deep into my experience-base, Creedo. I've signed-off design compliance against FAA regulations for commercial aircraft. And as before, you are less than accurate. NASA does not certify any of its vehicles to FAA FARs. The FAA and NASA have two distinct sets of regulations under CFR Title 14. And even if they did (which they don't), the FAA could not apply any engine-out rules to a shuttle, because by definition, it is a GLIDER (unpowered) throughout the entire re-entry interface through landing. And so the only meaning for "dead-stick" that is even close for a shuttle that glides to recovery would be if hydraulic boost power was lost to control surfaces.

One that upon design agreed upon, the a reduced height vertical stringer placement be both modeled and manufactured to less of a height that say the former model of a shuttle would have been in hight.**Inproved aerodynamic flows, a consideration here, so expending less enegy, to obtain orbital profiles, for options thereof?

Oh JEEEEBUS! If I think what you're trying to say here is what this glob of words is really trying to express, they are WAY WRONG aerodynamically. You're obviously thinking too much about aerodynamic drag during launch ascent by talking about reducing vertical thickness (height?) of the vehicle or its wings. That is of virtually no consequence given the thrust levels used for orbital insertion. The aerodynamic design point for the shuttle is a mixture of re-entry heating profiles and post-re-entry glide phase performance. You design the vehicle to meet those requirements, and you live with its performance on launch!

You really should stay out of the aerospace stuff, Creedo. I am always going to call you on the carpet when you are incorrect in your statements. And such statements dilute from the useful pieces of information you do post. Really....knock it off, I don't think you're impressing anyone. And if you are, shame on them! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
 
Correction notes to Rainman:

First statement you had quoted says dead stick.

The stipulations are and or, possible active engine mounted within aero-frame?

This means a plastic design point.

Not committed to either, so regs. in FAR on X models, is not ventured at this point.

2.On my second statement that you retorted to, this wordage is for the general public, "not you, the way your'e vested".

Also means, NOT shuttle; however a differing point in aerodynamic concepts.

See Gary Voss, founder of Tap_ten, who is known as T-12.

Gary is a very nice person and will tell you about Millennium Twain, and his electric aero-structures venture.

>Personal note;If I had the chance to go into space, not just this system, but other galaxies, I probably would not want to take one such as you along?

Ya' don't know how to hold that tongue of yours and you the type to open it and get both of us killed.

Open the book, UFOlogy and there is a well drawn picture of two Gray Hybrids.

They are deadly quick and also accurate with those ray-guns they are holding.

"A little respect, okay"?
 
Thanks for the added clarification. I wish you could be more clear in your original posts, but I'll accept it if I can understand what you are saying at SOME point before I go nuts.

The stipulations are and or, possible active engine mounted within aero-frame?
What kind and why? This is what I don't understand when you describe it as shuttle-like variant. Why do you want or need an engine on recovery of the vehicle from space/orbit? Any object on-orbit is going so damn fast, and your goal is to SLOW IT WAY DOWN as you recover it to earth. The design goal, if you are inferring normal "winged" recovery, as a shuttle...or like your DynaSoar favorite, is to bleed off all that excess kinetic orbit energy AND potential altitude energy. This is why lots of drag is of no concern as long as you create lift, because drag is your friend in bleeding off speed so you can land the spacecraft. An engine that creates any more force is not only unnecessary, but not wanted.

If you mean something OTHER than this, a classic shuttle concept where it is recovered by atmospheric flight to a runway, then it would help to describe it as something different from the shuttle concept.

Not committed to either, so regs. in FAR on X models, is not ventured at this point.
Go back and read what you wrote that I first quoted. You were talking about "requirements", FAA regs, NASA, engine-out, and dead-stick landing. You were implying a generalized certification requirement, and I was correcting you that there is no such requirement (FAA) for a NASA craft, and especially for a conventional shuttle-like fly-to-runway spacecraft recovery...where you would not have an engine. You cannot determine such certification requirements unless you have a stated vehicle design and its operational concept documented for for either FAA or NASA certification.

Also means, NOT shuttle; however a differing point in aerodynamic concepts.

OK, so you refered to it as a "proposed shuttle variant" in your original, but now you say it is NOT shuttle. Make up your mind. Are you proposing something that tries to fly vertically from an earth orbit down to the ground, rather than flying like a plane? If you're flying like a plane, you have to burn off LOTS of velocity in a fairly short (measured in miles) worth of altitude. The hypersonic glide of the current shuttle from across the pacific, into Edwards AFB or Kennedy spaceport is a nice, long stretch to bleed off that energy. Are you talking about some sort of machine that somehow aborbs that energy and re-enters in a different manner? Trajectory shape?

Ya' don't know how to hold that tongue of yours and you the type to open it and get both of us killed.

Calls 'em as I sees 'em. I don't know how much you think you are getting a clear point across to the "general public". I understand the flight sciences quite well, and I'm having a frustrating time following your descriptions. You seem to say one thing, but mean another.

"A little respect, okay"?
For you, the Gray Hybrids, or both? Seriously, I'm sorry if my sarcastic bitching offends you, but you seem to be trying to talk about shuttle vehicles, and what you say doesn't make sense. Now if you are talking about some sort of magneto-plasma, or Magneto Hydrodynamic Drive (MHD), then say that, and describe that. But if that is your propulsion method, you would not want, nor need, it to look like a shuttle/glider airplane. Such a design, you would want a more conventional saucer-shaped UFO....

or.... a Merkaba Tetrahedon shape!

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
 
Back
Top