*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5646
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #40 on: December 12, 2013, 05:50:15 PM »
I have not been able to find any indication that altitudes over 60,000ft are military only airspace.  Just that it is Class E airspace which requires specific instrumentation and tracking requirements.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #41 on: December 12, 2013, 06:47:37 PM »
Legislation says nobody can own space. Bet it's not really the case though.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3810
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #42 on: December 12, 2013, 08:10:02 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.
I'm sorry Tom, but I'm having a hard time figuring out just how your objections are relevant to this discussion.  Are you saying that NASA is the only organization that knows how to develop large rocket engines?  There are at least a dozen companies that make rocket engines for the aerospace industry, including SpaceX. 
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

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

Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #43 on: December 13, 2013, 06:10:10 AM »
As I see it, Tom is making two arguments: 1) SpaceX can't be a genuine third-party because they are so heavily regulated by the government, and 2) SpaceX can't be a genuine third-party because no one but NASA can make rocket engines.

To the first point, the fact that SpaceX is heavily regulated is irrelevant.  The same can be said of every business in America.  I couldn't start a business designing and building my own airplanes without heavy government regulation from many different agencies over many different aspects of my business.  That wouldn't be evidence that my new airplane company is secretly being run by the FAA.

To the second point, you still haven't produced evidence that it's true, or that all orbital rocket technology is classified/illegal/whatever else.  You've only asserted it.  I can't find any example of such a law, and I can find lots of examples of rocket engine schematics and technical diagrams.  Here are a few of them that I found just for the F-1 engine:

Some of these pdfs are large-ish.
http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/saturn_apollo/documents/F-1_Engine.pdf
http://heroicrelics.org/info/f-1/r-3896-1a/F-1%20Rocket%20Engine%20Technical%20Manual%20Supplement%20(R-3896-1A)%20(small).pdf
http://agentdc.uah.edu/homepages/dcfiles/USSRC/F1EngiFamiTraiManu%20Section%201_072308152849.pdf

There is no reason to believe that SpaceX would be unable to (or prohibited from) design and build their own rocket engines.

I'm still curious to know what kind of evidence you think would be acceptable to get to the truth of the matter.  You can begin to convince me that you're correct by showing me the relevant law that prohibits SpaceX from doing what it alleges it does.  What evidence or source would you be willing to consider as valid evidence that SpaceX is a private entity?
« Last Edit: December 13, 2013, 06:42:01 AM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6510
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #44 on: December 13, 2013, 08:46:36 AM »
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

I am glad you agree. It is not the same technology.

Technology differs = Different Technology

The fastest vehicle in your list was propelled with a large turbine. The last I checked consumer cars didn't have turbines in them.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2013, 08:52:54 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline spank86

  • *
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #45 on: December 13, 2013, 08:52:52 AM »
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

I am glad you agree. It is not the same technology.

Technology differs = Different Technology

if you look at the second on the list (the goldenrod) you'll note it IS exactly the same technology.

4 Chrysler hemi V8 engines, naturally aspirated, 409mph.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6510
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #46 on: December 13, 2013, 09:07:24 AM »
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

I am glad you agree. It is not the same technology.

Technology differs = Different Technology

if you look at the second on the list (the goldenrod) you'll note it IS exactly the same technology.

4 Chrysler hemi V8 engines, naturally aspirated, 409mph.

But what of the fastest on the list powered with the turbine? If this highly intelligent argument of "it's all the same, just scale up" works so well then what is stopping the Goldenrod from simply adding more engines until it broke the the land and air records for fastest vehicle on earth?
« Last Edit: December 13, 2013, 09:13:03 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline spank86

  • *
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #47 on: December 13, 2013, 10:34:45 AM »
But what of the fastest on the list powered with the turbine?

well the technology for that is very similar if not the same as a smaller turbine engine. Clearly a turbine engine and a piston engine are different things.


If this highly intelligent argument of "it's all the same, just scale up" works so well then what is stopping the Goldenrod from simply adding more engines until it broke the the land and air records for fastest vehicle on earth?

costs and the tolerances of the metals mostly. You can scale up but you'll get diminishing returns, if you look down the list you'll see 439mph from a turbocharged hemi. I would imagine a lot of the problems come from issues at either the crank or differential. Or with the gearbox.

Of course you'd never break the absolute record because you're putting power to wheels, the absolute records are held by what are essentially planes without wings, the jet technology there also scales up (inefficient way to do it but whatever), you CAN simply bolt more jets on instead of inventing more efficient better ones it just costs more.


So essentially your answer is it's an inefficient and expensive way to do it not that it can't be done.

Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #48 on: December 13, 2013, 11:46:58 AM »
Your claim was that a gasoline engine could not be "scaled up" to achieve a speed of over 400 mph.  I gave you a list that contained internal combustion engine powered vehicles that have essentially done the exact thing that you are claiming is impossible. 
As for me saying the technology differs but the theory is the same, let me clear that up for you since it seems to have confused you some how.

A car from the 50s versus a modern day car.
Both run on internal combustion engines, same theory behind their opperation.  Inject gas and air, ignite it, the explosion causes the pistons to move which rotate the crankshaft.

Yet the technology in the two are different.  There are more sensors and electronics in the modern day car. Different manufacturing techniques. Different materials.  The list goes on.  Yet the same basic principles behind the internal combustion engine are the same.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3810
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #49 on: December 13, 2013, 02:34:37 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

I am glad you agree. It is not the same technology.

Technology differs = Different Technology

if you look at the second on the list (the goldenrod) you'll note it IS exactly the same technology.

4 Chrysler hemi V8 engines, naturally aspirated, 409mph.

But what of the fastest on the list powered with the turbine? If this highly intelligent argument of "it's all the same, just scale up" works so well then what is stopping the Goldenrod from simply adding more engines until it broke the the land and air records for fastest vehicle on earth?
Tom, this is getting way off topic.  Let's try getting back to why you think that SpaceX wouldn't be able to (or allowed to) design and build their Merlin rocket engines from scratch.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

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

Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #50 on: December 13, 2013, 04:21:38 PM »
Yeah, I'm also pretty confused on what any of this business about car engines has to do with SpaceX's status as a private enterprise.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6510
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #51 on: December 15, 2013, 07:38:16 AM »
The analogy is apt for several reasons. As admitted, a car engine cannot simply be "scaled up" to reach 800mph. This makes the argument that rocket technology is already available to the public invalid. It necessarily does not follow that because small rockets are possible and exist, that a large one weighing hundreds of tons could exceed the speeds necessary to get into space or achieve escape velocity.

Tom, this is getting way off topic.  Let's try getting back to why you think that SpaceX wouldn't be able to (or allowed to) design and build their Merlin rocket engines from scratch.

SpaceX is allowed to build space rockets because they are in league with NASA and the government. They have facilities at government military and research bases and launch from government launch pads, for crying out loud.

A space program I start in my basement is not allowed to build space rockets because not only is FAA and military clearance required, space rockets are regulated as weapons. Even meteorological and sounding rockets are weapons.

According to ITAR and the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, both Launch Vehicles and Rockets are weapons. Even meteorological and sounding rockets are weapons:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/itar/p121.htm
https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/documents/official_itar/ITAR_Part_121.pdf

 
Quote
The following articles, services and related technical data are designated as defense articles and defense services pursuant to sections 38 and 47(7) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 and 2794(7)).


Quote
Category IV-Launch Vehicles, Guided Missiles, Ballistic Missiles, Rockets, Torpedoes, Bombs and Mines

    *(a) Rockets (including but not limited to meteorological and other sounding rockets), bombs, grenades, torpedoes, depth charges, land and naval mines, as well as launchers for such defense articles, and demolition blocks and blasting caps. (See § 121.11.)

    *(b) Launch vehicles and missile and anti-missile systems including but not limited to guided, tactical and strategic missiles, launchers, and systems.

   (c) Apparatus, devices, and materials for the handling, control, activation, monitoring, detection, protection, discharge, or detonation of the articles in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this category. (See § 121.5.)

    *(d) Missile and space launch vehicle powerplants.

    *(e) Military explosive excavating devices.

    *(f) Ablative materials fabricated or semi-fabricated from advanced composites (e.g., silica, graphite, carbon, carbon/carbon, and boron filaments) for the articles in this category that are derived directly from or specifically developed or modified for defense articles.

    *(g) Non/nuclear warheads for rockets and guided missiles.

   (h) All specifically designed or modified components, parts, accessories, attachments, and associated equipment for the articles in this category.

   (i) Technical data (as defined in § 120.21 of this subchapter) and defense services (as defined in § 120.8 of this subchapter) directly related to the defense articles enumerated in paragraphs (a) through (h) of this category. (See § 125.4 of this subchapter for exemptions.) Technical data directly related to the manufacture or production of any defense articles enumerated elsewhere in this category that are designated as Significant Military Equipment (SME) shall itself be designated SME.

From the annex we we see that controlled rocket technology is defined as solid or liquid propellant rocket engines, having a total impulse capacity of 1.1 x 10 N-sec (2.5 x 10 lb-sec), as well as rocket systems capable of delivering at least a 500 kg payload to a range of at least 300 km:

Quote
Missile Technology Control Regime Annex.

    Some of the items on the Missile Technology Control Regime Annex are controlled by both the Department of Commerce on the Commodity Control List and by the Department of State on the United States Munitions List. To the extent an article is on the United States Munitions List, a reference appears in parentheses listing the U.S. Munitions List category in which it appears. The following items constitute all items on the Missile Technology Control Regime Annex which are covered by the U.S. Munitions List:

Item 1-Category I

    Complete rocket systems (including ballistic missile systems, space launch vehicles, and sounding rockets (see § 121.1, Cat. IV(a) and (b)) and unmanned air vehicle systems (including cruise missile systems see § 121.1, Cat. VIII (a), target drones and reconnaisance drones (see § 121.1, Cat. VIII (a)) capable of delivering at least a 500 kg payload to a range of at least 300 km.

Item 2-Cateogry I

    Complete subsystems usable in the systems in Item 1 as follows:

   (a) Individual rocket stages (see § 121.1, Cat. IV(h));

   (b) Reentry vehicles (see § 121.1, Cat. IV(g)), and equipment designed or modified therefor, as follows, except as provided in Note (1) below for those designed for non-weapon payloads;

   (1) Heat shields and components thereof fabricated of ceramic or ablative materials (see § 121.1, Cat. IV(f));

   (2) Heat sinks and components thereof fabricated of light-weight, high heat capacity materials;

   (3) Electronic equipment specially designed for reentry vehicles (see § 121.1, Cat. XI(a)(7));

   (c) Solid or liquid propellant rocket engines, having a total impulse capacity of 1.1 x 10 N-sec (2.5 x 10 lb-sec) or greater (see § 121.1, Cat. IV, (h)).

   (d) "Guidance sets" capable of achieving system accuracy of 3.33 percent or less of the range (e.g., a CEP of 1 j,. or less at a range of 300 km), except as provided in Note (1) below for those designed for missiles with a range under 300 km or manned aircraft (see § 121.1, Cat. XII(d));

   (e) Thrust vector control sub-systems, except as provided in Note (1) below for those designed for rocket systems that do not exceed the range/payload capability of Item 1 (see § 121.1, Cat. IV);

   (f) Warhead safing, arming, fuzing, and firing mechanisms, except as provided in Note (1) below for those designed for systems other than those in Item 1 (see § 121.1, Cat. IV(h)).

Many propellants are also declared as controlled weapons:

Quote
Propellants and constituent chemicals for propellants as follows: (see § 121.1, Cat. V(c) and § 121.12 and § 121.14).

   (a) Propulsive substances:

   (1 ) Hydrazine with a concentration of more than 70 percent and its derivatives including monomethylhydrazine (MMH) (see § 121.12(a)(22));

   (2 ) Unsymmetric dimethylhydrazine (UDHM) (see § 121.12(a)(22));

   (3 ) Ammonium perchlorate (see § 121.12(a)(23));

   (4 ) Spherical aluminum powder with particle of uniform diameter of less than 500 x 10-m (500 micrometer) and an aluminum content of 97 percent or greater (see § 121.12(a)(1));

   (5 ) Metal fuels in particle sizes less than 500 x 10-m (500 Microns), whether spherical, atomized, spheroidal, flaked or ground, consisting of 97 percent or more of any of the following: zirconium, beryllium, boron, magnesium, zinc, and alloys of these (see § 121.12(a)(2));

   (6 ) Nitro-amines (cyclotetramethylene-tetranitramene (HMX) (see § 121.12(a)(11)), cyclotrimethylene-trinitramine (RDX)) (see 121.12(a)(35));

   (7 ) Perchlorates, chlorates or chromates mixed with powdered metals or other high energy fuel components (see § 121.12(a)(4);

   (8 ) Carboranes, decaboranes, pentaboranes and derivatives thereof (see § 121.12(a)(10);

   (9 ) Liquid oxidizers, as follows:

   (i) Nitrogen dioxide/dinitrogen tetroxide (see § 121.14.(g));

   (ii) Inhibited Red Fuming Nitric Acid (IRFNA) (see § 121.12(f)(1);

   (iii) Compounds composed of flourine and one or more of other halogens, oxygen or nitrogen (see § 121.12(a)(9).

   (b) Polymeric substances:

   (2) Hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB) (see § 121.12(a)(38);

   (3) Glycidyl azide polymer (GAP) (see § 121.12(b)(1)).

   (c) Other high energy density propellants such as, Boron Slurry, having an energy density of 40 x 10 joules/kg or greater (see § 121.12(a)(3)).

   (d) Other propellant additives and agents:

   (1) Bonding agents as follows:

   (i) tris(1-(2-methyl)aziridinyl phosphine oxide (MAPO) (see § 121.12(b)(17));

   (ii) trimesol-1(2-ethyl)aziridine (HX-868, BITA) (see § 121.12(b)(13));

   (iii) "Tepanol" (HX-878), reaction product of tetraethylenepentamine, acrylonitrile and glycidol (see § 121.12.(b)(11));

   (iv) "Tepan" (HX-879), Reaction product of tet enepentamine and acrylonitrile (see § 121.12(b)(11));

   (v) Polyfunctional aziridene amides with isophthalic, trimesic, isocyanuric, or trimethyladipic backbone also having a 2-methyl or 2-ethyl aziridine group (HX-752, HX-872 and HX-877). (see § 121.12(b)(13)).

   (2) Curing agents and catalysts as follows:

   (i) Triphenyl bismuth (TPB) (see § 121.12(b)(23));

   (3) Burning rate modifiers as follows:

   (i) Catocene (see § 121.12(b)(5));

   (ii) N-butyl-ferrocene (see § 121.12(b)(5));

   (iii) Other ferrocene derivatives (see § 121.12(b)).

   (4) Nitrate esters and nitrato plasticizers as follows:

   (i) 1,2,4-butanetriol trinitrate (BTTN) (see § 121.12(b)(3));

   (5) Stabilizers as follows:

   (i) N-methyl-p-nitroaniline (see § 121.12(d)(1)).

Structural materials for rockets in Item 1 are also controlled:

Quote
Structural materials usable in the systems in Item 1, as follows:

   (a) Composite structures, laminates, and manufactures thereof, including resin impregnated fibre prepregs and metal coated fibre preforms therefor, specially designed for use in the systems in Item 1 and the subsystems in Item 2 made either with organix matrix or metal matrix utilizing fibrous or filamentary reinforcements having a specific tensile strength greater than 7.62 x 10 4 m (3 x 10 6 inches) and a specific modules greater than 3.18 x 10 6 m (1.25 x 10 8 inches), (see § 121.1, Category IV (f), and Category XIII (d));

   (b) Resaturated pyrolized (i.e. carbon-carbon) materials designed for rocket systems, (see § 121.1 Category IV (f));

   (c) Fine grain recrystallized bulk graphites (with a bulk density of at least 1.72 g/cc measured at 15 degrees C), pyrolytic, or fibrous reinforced graphites useable for rocket nozzles and reentry vehicle nose tips (see § 121.1, Category IV (f) and Category XIII;

   (d) Ceramic composites materials (dielectric constant less than 6 at frequencies from 100 Hz to 10,000 MHz) for use in missile radomes, and bulk machinable silicon-carbide reinforced unfired ceramic useable for nose tips (see § 121.1, Category IV (f));
« Last Edit: December 15, 2013, 08:41:46 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6510
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #52 on: December 15, 2013, 08:00:25 AM »
Also controlled technologies:

Quote
(c) Global Positioning System (GPS) receiving equipment specifically designed, modified or configured for military use; or GPS receiving equipment with any of the following characteristics:

   (1) Designed for encryption or decryption (e.g., Y-Code) of GPS precise positioning service (PPS) signals;

   (2) Designed for producing navigation results above 60,000 feet altitude and at 1,000 knots velocity or greater;

Quote
Avionics equipment, "technology" and components as follows; designed or modified for use in the systems in Item 1, and specially designed software therefor

...

(ii) At altitudes in excess of 18 km (60,000 feet), (see § 121.1, Category XV(d)(2)

Quote
Analog computers, digital computers, or digital differential analyzers designed or modified for use in the systems in Item 1 (see § 121.1, Category XI (a)(6), having either of the following characteristics:

   (a) Rated for continuous operation at temperature from below minus 45 degrees C to above plus 55 degrees C; or

   (b) Designed as ruggedized or "radiation hardened".
« Last Edit: December 15, 2013, 08:42:27 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline spank86

  • *
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #53 on: December 15, 2013, 10:56:31 AM »
Quote
Analog computers, digital computers, or digital differential analyzers designed or modified for use in the systems in Item 1 (see § 121.1, Category XI (a)(6), having either of the following characteristics:

   (a) Rated for continuous operation at temperature from below minus 45 degrees C to above plus 55 degrees C; or

   (b) Designed as ruggedized or "radiation hardened".

shoulda quit while you were "ahead", controlled NOT banned.

As evidence by the fact that many companies including British Telecom (used to anyway, they were a bit crap) use military laptops for their workforce.

Offline spank86

  • *
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #54 on: December 15, 2013, 11:00:21 AM »
The analogy is apt for several reasons. As admitted, a car engine cannot simply be "scaled up" to reach 800mph. This makes the argument that rocket technology is already available to the public invalid. It necessarily does not follow that because small rockets are possible and exist, that a large one weighing hundreds of tons could exceed the speeds necessary to get into space or achieve escape velocity.

the difference is that no "car" can go 800mph.

It's not an engine issue, rockets however can go that fast when scaled up.

the only "cars" that do get into the region of 800mph are not in fact cars, they are rockets and other aircraft with unpowered wheels bolted on. You might as well use the fact that you cant scale a car engine up to allow a car to fly as evidence that car engines can't power planes.

Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #55 on: December 15, 2013, 02:43:01 PM »
The analogy is apt for several reasons. As admitted, a car engine cannot simply be "scaled up" to reach 800mph. This makes the argument that rocket technology is already available to the public invalid. It necessarily does not follow that because small rockets are possible and exist, that a large one weighing hundreds of tons could exceed the speeds necessary to get into space or achieve escape velocity.


Way to move the goal posts.  You claim was reach between 400 and 800mph.  We showed you that internal combustion engines have reached that range. 

Also, it doesn't matter one bit if a car can't reach a certain speed or not.

Your argument of
Car engines can't reach a speed of 800mph has no correlation whatsoever to rocket technology and what a rocket can achieve.

Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #56 on: December 15, 2013, 03:38:31 PM »
The analogy is apt for several reasons. As admitted, a car engine cannot simply be "scaled up" to reach 800mph. This makes the argument that rocket technology is already available to the public invalid. It necessarily does not follow that because small rockets are possible and exist, that a large one weighing hundreds of tons could exceed the speeds necessary to get into space or achieve escape velocity.

Markjo and I both provided you with schematics and technical documents for the F-1 engine used in the Saturn V launch vehicle.  Your analogy is less persuasive than direct evidence of the thing you say can't exist.  It exists.  I put it right in front of your face.

SpaceX is allowed to build space rockets because they are in league with NASA and the government they have complied with government regulation and oversight. They have facilities at government military and research bases and launch from government launch pads, for crying out loud.

A space program I start in my basement is not allowed to build space rockets because not only is FAA and military clearance required, space rockets are regulated as weapons I haven't done any of those things.

Fixed.

I notice that SpaceX is now simply in league with NASA and not just a front for them.  Again, you're just saying that SpaceX is heavily regulated.  Indeed.  So is Chrysler.

There's also nothing odd about launching your vehicle from a NASA launch pad, especially if NASA is one of your customers.  1) They're already set up to do that sort of thing.  2) It's cheaper than building your own launch pad.  3) What are they supposed to do, fire the thing off in the middle of LA?

You're not grasping my point: all of this 'evidence' is exactly what we would expect from a legitimate, private aerospace firm.

According to ITAR and the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, both Launch Vehicles and Rockets are weapons. Even meteorological and sounding rockets are weapons:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/itar/p121.htm
https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/documents/official_itar/ITAR_Part_121.pdf

ITAR regulates exports.  That's it.  Every regulation you listed pertains to the export of those technologies and materials from US citizens to non-US citizens.  It doesn't prohibit the development or creation of rocket engines in the US.

That document does not prohibit a US citizen from starting a private aerospace firm.

And again, no one is arguing that SpaceX exists in a legal vacuum, exempted from all US laws and regulations.  SpaceX is heavily regulated.  Just like everyone else.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2013, 03:43:28 PM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6510
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #57 on: December 15, 2013, 03:53:32 PM »
Quote
Analog computers, digital computers, or digital differential analyzers designed or modified for use in the systems in Item 1 (see § 121.1, Category XI (a)(6), having either of the following characteristics:

   (a) Rated for continuous operation at temperature from below minus 45 degrees C to above plus 55 degrees C; or

   (b) Designed as ruggedized or "radiation hardened".

shoulda quit while you were "ahead", controlled NOT banned.

As evidence by the fact that many companies including British Telecom (used to anyway, they were a bit crap) use military laptops for their workforce.

Firstly, British regulations are different than American regulations, and hardened computer chips may be free to everyone there. 'Military spec' there may also be different from military spec here.

Secondly, telecoms are all government contractors, and may have access to that sort of thing. I know that AT&T, at least, has significant business with the government.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2013, 02:54:00 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6510
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #58 on: December 15, 2013, 04:22:41 PM »
The analogy is apt for several reasons. As admitted, a car engine cannot simply be "scaled up" to reach 800mph. This makes the argument that rocket technology is already available to the public invalid. It necessarily does not follow that because small rockets are possible and exist, that a large one weighing hundreds of tons could exceed the speeds necessary to get into space or achieve escape velocity.

the difference is that no "car" can go 800mph.

It's not an engine issue, rockets however can go that fast when scaled up.

the only "cars" that do get into the region of 800mph are not in fact cars, they are rockets and other aircraft with unpowered wheels bolted on. You might as well use the fact that you cant scale a car engine up to allow a car to fly as evidence that car engines can't power planes.

What if a company claimed to have invented a car which could go 800 mph, but the technology was conveniently proprietary or out of reach fro others to reproduce?

Moller International has been claiming to have a working sky car for many years now, and is only waiting on a few more big investments before they can begin production.

If the technology cannot be reproduced by others freely, and is controlled, then the claims that such things have been built, or can be built, are dubious.

SpaceX, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and other rocket designers are all government contractors, operating under government regulation, with facilities on government bases, under direct supervision of government managers. There is no implicit trust of transparency or independence.

In fact, the government uses most of these contracting companies as temp agencies. While you might work for Lockheed Martin by name, the actual work you do for, say the Department of Defense, is done on DOD facilities and under the direct supervision of the government manager. There may be a small Lockheed Martin structure, where you report to your Lockheed Martin supervisor, who then reports to the government manager, but the environment is the same. The government calls the shots, not your contracting company.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2013, 04:24:40 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6510
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #59 on: December 15, 2013, 04:29:19 PM »
For an example that these private rocket companies are operating on government bases, look no further than the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, where the Atlas, Delta, and Saturn class rockets were built by Rocketdyne and other 'private' companies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Susana_Field_Laboratory

Quote
SSFL was slated as a United States government facility dedicated to the development and testing of nuclear reactors, powerful rockets such as the Delta II, and the systems that powered the Apollo missions.

Quote
Rocket engine development

North American Aviation (NAA) began its development of liquid propellant rocket engines after the end of WWII. The Rocketdyne division of NAA, which came into being under its own name in the mid-1950s,[citation needed] designed and tested several rocket engines at the facility. They included engines for the Army's Redstone (an advanced short-range version of the German V-2), and the Army Jupiter intermediate range ballistic missile (IRBM) as well as the Air Force's counterpart IRBM, the Thor.[citation needed] Also included were engines for the Atlas Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), as well as the twin combustion chamber alcohol/liquid oxygen booster engine for the NAVAHO, a large, intercontinental cruise missile that never became operational. Later, Rocketdyne designed and tested the huge F-1 engine that was eventually used as one of a cluster of engines powering the Apollo booster, as well as the J-2 liquid oxygen/hydrogen upper stage engine also used on the Project Apollo spacecraft.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2013, 04:34:52 PM by Tom Bishop »