*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #20 on: December 07, 2013, 07:40:15 PM »
No, but amateurs live firing large, powerful rocket engines does suggest that these technologies are not as highly classified as you claim.

Incorrect. Such rocket technology is still classified under American law, wherever they do it from.

If prostitution is legal in New Zealand, it does not nullify the fact that prostitution is illegal in the US.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2013, 07:42:37 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #21 on: December 07, 2013, 07:44:27 PM »
That has nothing to do with whether or not the technology is classified and highly regulated.

It might be possible to build a rocket off-shore where american law does not apply, in countries uncooperative with the US, and launch it from international waters, as these guys are want to do.

However, it appears that this project is still in its research phase and not a real technology. Not-yet-real rocket technologies do not merit use as  evidence for the reality of space travel any more than posting a link to someone researching the possibility of time travel is evidence for the reality of time travel.

The reality if space travel was not the specific topic being debated. If you wish to concede that not all private space technology companies are NASA contractors, we can easily turn to the reality of space travel. Otherwise you are just making a straw man.

The one 'private space technology' company given as an example of a space company which does not have ties with NASA does not have a working rocket.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2013, 10:25:45 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #22 on: December 07, 2013, 11:23:59 PM »
No, but amateurs live firing large, powerful rocket engines does suggest that these technologies are not as highly classified as you claim.

Incorrect. Such rocket technology is still classified under American law, wherever they do it from.
Would you care to cite this law, please?  To the best of my knowledge, rocket engines above a certain thrust level are regulated, but the technology itself not secret.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #23 on: December 08, 2013, 07:57:45 AM »
Would you care to cite this law, please?  To the best of my knowledge, rocket engines above a certain thrust level are regulated, but the technology itself not secret.

Just as you said, rockets past a certain threshold are restricted. See the wikipedia page on Model Rocket Motor Classification. Anything past O requires government oversight.

Since the engines in these professional rockets operate differently, it constitutes a different rocket technology. The Saturn V  rocket (A U class rocket) isn't using the same engine design as an O class rocket available to hobbiests. O class rockets are typically solid state or hybrid engines, while the Saturn V's rocket engine is a specially designed liquid rocket with special fuel injector pumps, heat exchangers, turbines, pressure tranducers, etc. -- all researched to a tune of many millions of dollars. It was not a matter of taking a high powered model rocket motor and scaling up.

The blueprints for the custom development of the Saturn V rocket engine are not available to the public, locked away as a state secret.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2013, 11:38:39 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline spank86

  • *
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #24 on: December 08, 2013, 12:23:32 PM »
Would you care to cite this law, please?  To the best of my knowledge, rocket engines above a certain thrust level are regulated, but the technology itself not secret.

Just as you said, rockets past a certain threshold are restricted. See the wikipedia page on Model Rocket Motor Classification. Anything past O requires government oversight.

"High-Power rockets in the United States, are only federally regulated in their flight guidelines by the FAA"

the FAA, because they regulate pretty much anything big that flies, they're not a fan of you flying stuff into planes, it makes for depressing headlines.

All you need is a license, a flight plan and proof your contraption is safe, same as a helicopter, plane, or zeppelin.

The blueprints for the custom development of the Saturn V rocket engine are not available to the public, locked away as a state secret.

The plans for NASA's specific rockets are kept confidential yes, but then are the plans for pretty much all commercial craft, that doesn't mean other people can't build planes, helicopters or rockets. You just can't build the governments specific rockets (unless you can somehow reverse engineer one).

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #25 on: December 08, 2013, 05:01:30 PM »
Would you care to cite this law, please?  To the best of my knowledge, rocket engines above a certain thrust level are regulated, but the technology itself not secret.

Just as you said, rockets past a certain threshold are restricted. See the wikipedia page on Model Rocket Motor Classification. Anything past O requires government oversight.

Since the engines in these professional rockets operate differently, it constitutes a different rocket technology. The Saturn V  rocket (A U class rocket) isn't using the same engine design as an O class rocket available to hobbiests. O class rockets are typically solid state or hybrid engines, while the Saturn V's rocket engine is a specially designed liquid rocket with special fuel injector pumps, heat exchangers, turbines, pressure tranducers, etc. -- all researched to a tune of many millions of dollars. It was not a matter of taking a high powered model rocket motor and scaling up.

The blueprints for the custom development of the Saturn V rocket engine are not available to the public, locked away as a state secret.
You're right Tom, liquid fuel rocket engine technology is super-duper-tippy-top-hush-hush-secret. ::)
http://heroicrelics.org/info/f-1/f-1-supp.html
http://hackaday.com/2011/09/01/engine-hacks-liquid-fuel-amateur-rocket-roundup/
http://www.gramlich.net/projects/rocket/
http://store.fastcommerce.com/SystemeSolaire/liquid-propellant-rocket-kit-ff8081811928eb610119331daa8d6729-p.html

BTW, the space shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters and several ICBMs and IRBMs use similar solid rocket technology that amateur rocket enthusiasts use.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2013, 05:05:54 PM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #26 on: December 10, 2013, 06:34:35 PM »

The blueprints for the custom development of the Saturn V rocket engine are not available to the public, locked away as a state secret.

This is incorrect.  The blueprints for the Saturn V are not available because they were destroyed during a routine NASA housecleaning (though I imagine that explanation will seem like part of the conspiracy to some).  With all of the advances in technology since the late '60's, you wouldn't really want to duplicate one anyways.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #27 on: December 11, 2013, 01:28:44 AM »

The blueprints for the custom development of the Saturn V rocket engine are not available to the public, locked away as a state secret.

This is incorrect.  The blueprints for the Saturn V are not available because they were destroyed during a routine NASA housecleaning (though I imagine that explanation will seem like part of the conspiracy to some).  With all of the advances in technology since the late '60's, you wouldn't really want to duplicate one anyways.
Actually, since the retirement of the shuttle, NASA has taken another look at the Saturn V in general and the F-1 and J-2 rocket engines in particular.  Currently they're working on further developing and upgrading them to the F-1B and J-2X designs for future launch systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1#F-1B_booster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-2X
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #28 on: December 11, 2013, 01:46:47 PM »
This just confirms what I was talking about.  They're using the existing rocket engines to engineer new ones.  Why would they bother working with the 40 year-old equipment, if the paper designs existed?  Also, it says that in the case of the J-2X, even though they started by looking an existing unit, "it became a clean sheet design".

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #29 on: December 12, 2013, 07:24:31 AM »
"High-Power rockets in the United States, are only federally regulated in their flight guidelines by the FAA"

the FAA, because they regulate pretty much anything big that flies, they're not a fan of you flying stuff into planes, it makes for depressing headlines.

All you need is a license, a flight plan and proof your contraption is safe, same as a helicopter, plane, or zeppelin.

Incorrect. Military airspace starts at 65,000 feet. The FAA isn't going to let you go into military airspace with a device nearly identical to an ICBM based on a flight plan.

Quote
The plans for NASA's specific rockets are kept confidential yes, but then are the plans for pretty much all commercial craft, that doesn't mean other people can't build planes, helicopters or rockets. You just can't build the governments specific rockets (unless you can somehow reverse engineer one).

See Markjo's post above. Rockets past a certain thrust power are regulated.

Would you care to cite this law, please?  To the best of my knowledge, rocket engines above a certain thrust level are regulated, but the technology itself not secret.

Just as you said, rockets past a certain threshold are restricted. See the wikipedia page on Model Rocket Motor Classification. Anything past O requires government oversight.

Since the engines in these professional rockets operate differently, it constitutes a different rocket technology. The Saturn V  rocket (A U class rocket) isn't using the same engine design as an O class rocket available to hobbiests. O class rockets are typically solid state or hybrid engines, while the Saturn V's rocket engine is a specially designed liquid rocket with special fuel injector pumps, heat exchangers, turbines, pressure tranducers, etc. -- all researched to a tune of many millions of dollars. It was not a matter of taking a high powered model rocket motor and scaling up.

The blueprints for the custom development of the Saturn V rocket engine are not available to the public, locked away as a state secret.
You're right Tom, liquid fuel rocket engine technology is super-duper-tippy-top-hush-hush-secret. ::)
http://heroicrelics.org/info/f-1/f-1-supp.html
http://hackaday.com/2011/09/01/engine-hacks-liquid-fuel-amateur-rocket-roundup/
http://www.gramlich.net/projects/rocket/
http://store.fastcommerce.com/SystemeSolaire/liquid-propellant-rocket-kit-ff8081811928eb610119331daa8d6729-p.html

BTW, the space shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters and several ICBMs and IRBMs use similar solid rocket technology that amateur rocket enthusiasts use.

I did not say that liquid fuel technology was secret.

A gasoline powered drilling machine which could drill through the earth and send a nuke to china would be a government secret. Inferior gasoline engines are not. The fact that the public has access to both gasoline and lesser drilling machines which could drill sewers and subway terminals is inconsequential. It is not the same technology.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2013, 07:31:42 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #30 on: December 12, 2013, 07:34:27 AM »
This is incorrect.  The blueprints for the Saturn V are not available because they were destroyed during a routine NASA housecleaning (though I imagine that explanation will seem like part of the conspiracy to some).  With all of the advances in technology since the late '60's, you wouldn't really want to duplicate one anyways.

Yes, "routine housecleaning" I'm sure.

What about all of the other blueprints for other non-Saturn V rockets which have gone into orbit, where are those? Lost in "routine housecleaning" as well?

Offline spank86

  • *
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #31 on: December 12, 2013, 10:10:17 AM »
Incorrect. Military airspace starts at 65,000 feet. The FAA isn't going to let you go into military airspace with a device nearly identical to an ICBM based on a flight plan.



See Markjo's post above. Rockets past a certain thrust power are regulated.

as are planes. that's the FAA's job. they regulate things, they don't ban them outright. the CAA does the same thing over here in the UK but they still allow rockets and amateur rocket launches when they comply with the regulations. Same as you cant just build a helicopter and fly it around.
Just as you said, rockets past a certain threshold are restricted. See the wikipedia page on Model Rocket Motor Classification. Anything past O requires government oversight.
Engines classified beyond O are in the realm of amateur rocketry. In this context, the term amateur refers to the rocketeer's independence from an established commercial or government organization.[1]

A gasoline powered drilling machine which could drill through the earth and send a nuke to china would be a government secret. Inferior gasoline engines are not. The fact that the public has access to both gasoline and lesser drilling machines which could drill sewers and subway terminals is inconsequential. It is not the same technology.
The governments specific designs and plans would be a state secret yes, independently made plans and designs would not. Just because the government keeps it's way of doing things secret doesn't mean others can't come up with them independently.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #32 on: December 12, 2013, 02:55:28 PM »
Military airspace starts at 65,000 feet.
Citation please.

Quote
Quote
The plans for NASA's specific rockets are kept confidential yes, but then are the plans for pretty much all commercial craft, that doesn't mean other people can't build planes, helicopters or rockets. You just can't build the governments specific rockets (unless you can somehow reverse engineer one).

See Markjo's post above. Rockets past a certain thrust power are regulated.
Also note that regulated does not necessarily mean secret.

Quote
I did not say that liquid fuel technology was secret.

A gasoline powered drilling machine which could drill through the earth and send a nuke to china would be a government secret. Inferior gasoline engines are not. The fact that the public has access to both gasoline and lesser drilling machines which could drill sewers and subway terminals is inconsequential. It is not the same technology.
I think that you are using a creative definition for the word "technology".  As I have clearly shown, liquid fuel rocket engine technology is available to the public.  Of course the specific components vary depending on the fuel/oxidizer combination and the overall size of the engine, but the fundamental technology itself is essentially the same from a small reaction control thruster to to the mighty F-1B.  Generally, the biggest obstacle to building liquid fuel rockets is the actual manufacturing of the engine components, which requires some pretty high precision tools.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #33 on: December 12, 2013, 04:07:26 PM »
I think that you are using a creative definition for the word "technology".  As I have clearly shown, liquid fuel rocket engine technology is available to the public.  Of course the specific components vary depending on the fuel/oxidizer combination and the overall size of the engine, but the fundamental technology itself is essentially the same from a small reaction control thruster to to the mighty F-1B.  Generally, the biggest obstacle to building liquid fuel rockets is the actual manufacturing of the engine components, which requires some pretty high precision tools.

Gasoline and car engines are available to the public. However, this does not imply that you can take a consumer car engine, 'scale up', and achieve 400mph or 800mph. Your theory that all engines are the same and it was only a matter of NASA 'scaling up' is absurd. As requirements grow to achieve escape velocity, and as fuel and chassis weight increases, it becomes a substantially different situation requiring a substantially different technology.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2013, 04:23:18 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline spank86

  • *
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #34 on: December 12, 2013, 04:16:15 PM »
Military airspace starts at 65,000 feet.
Citation please.

since that's above the service ceiling of most aircraft I suspect it's a made up figure, even Concorde wasn't rated past 60,000.

Now the blackbird's been decommissioned I'm not sure the military has anything save the U2 that flies that high.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #35 on: December 12, 2013, 04:31:51 PM »
Military airspace starts at 65,000 feet.
Citation please.

since that's above the service ceiling of most aircraft I suspect it's a made up figure, even Concorde wasn't rated past 60,000.

Now the blackbird's been decommissioned I'm not sure the military has anything save the U2 that flies that high.

The Concord's had a rated ceiling at 60,000 feet because anything beyond that is where Military Airspace begins. It general flew at around 59,000 feet.

Military Airspace is enforced at such altitudes because that is where it becomes difficult to shoot things down. It is the realm of MiGs and ICBMs.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2013, 08:34:21 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline spank86

  • *
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #36 on: December 12, 2013, 04:46:44 PM »
Military airspace starts at 65,000 feet.
Citation please.

since that's above the service ceiling of most aircraft I suspect it's a made up figure, even Concorde wasn't rated past 60,000.

Now the blackbird's been decommissioned I'm not sure the military has anything save the U2 that flies that high.

The Concord's had a rated ceiling at 60,000 feet because anything beyond that is where Military Airspace begins. It general flew at around 59,000 feet.

Military Airspace is enforced at such altitudes because that's where it becomes difficult to shoot anything down, at least in many years past. It is the realm of MiGs and ICBMs.

Concorde was rated at 60,000 feet because of how thin the air gets, there is at least one report of an sr17 being asked to move aside since a Concorde was coming through.

Since you mention MiG, their service ceilings are generally below 65,000 feet.

MiG29 - 59,000ft,

MiG35 - 57,400ft

Only the MiGs designed as interceptors can sneak over your 65,000 number with ceilings of 67,000ish feet so there would be no point making that military airspace, it's more like almost never used airspace since most military craft fly well below it most of the time.

Rama Set

Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #37 on: December 12, 2013, 05:02:44 PM »
The altitude record for a manned fixed wing jet aircraft is 125,000ft by a MiG-25

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Jet_aircraft

Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #38 on: December 12, 2013, 05:16:10 PM »
I think that you are using a creative definition for the word "technology".  As I have clearly shown, liquid fuel rocket engine technology is available to the public.  Of course the specific components vary depending on the fuel/oxidizer combination and the overall size of the engine, but the fundamental technology itself is essentially the same from a small reaction control thruster to to the mighty F-1B.  Generally, the biggest obstacle to building liquid fuel rockets is the actual manufacturing of the engine components, which requires some pretty high precision tools.

Gasoline and car engines are available to the public. However, this does not imply that you can take a consumer car engine, 'scale up', and achieve 400mph or 800mph. Your theory that all engines are the same and it was only a matter of NASA 'scaling up' is absurd. As requirements grow to achieve escape velocity, and as fuel and chassis weight increases, it becomes a substantially different situation requiring a substantially different technology.

There are plenty of internal combustion powered cars that can achieve over 400mph.  The theory behind engines is the same.  The Technology differs. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel-driven_land_speed_record

Offline spank86

  • *
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #39 on: December 12, 2013, 05:47:52 PM »
The altitude record for a manned fixed wing jet aircraft is 125,000ft by a MiG-25

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Jet_aircraft

yeah, but they never fly up there because it's dangerous, inefficient and just a pain in the arse.