Best solder free electrical connection

Page 7 of 13  

"dennis@home" wrote:

Sigh. the Saturn V was a Model A. The V2 was a model T. Both designed in the days of slide rules, and poor metalurgy. Tube electronics and crude plastics. Do you have anything useful to say?

They built bigger engines, typical of Russian designs. Scale up something, then everthing else needed the same.

Proof?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:47:42 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"

Hey - what's the matter with slide rules? I still use mine (fairly) regularly.
--
Frank Erskine

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Frank Erskine wrote:

Good for you, but .1% resistors and 1% capacitors are common these days. I was using them 10 years ago.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You don't know much do you? They actually made smaller engines, it was NASA that scaled them up. The Russians redesigned them to get more thrust from the same size.
They did build a bigger rocket, they could do this as they had more thrust available from their better engines.
Did you know that when the US military launched a shuttle they didn't have boosters with O rings in them? This was because they were better without the O rings but cost more. NASA were cheapskates.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"dennis@home" wrote:

Do you know anything? Have you ever seen their tools, or how about the engines they built for their cargo ships.

Really? Do you always state the ovbvious? Their first rockets were smaller than the US rockets so they didn't need the additional thrust.

NASA had budget restrictions.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Not obvious enough for you to understand it appears.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"dennis@home" wrote:

Yawn.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Where do you get this?
The Saturn was unusual, possibly unique, in that it was (apparently) the only rocket that never failed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/23/2010 4:53 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

I remember reading something about it written by Wernher von Braun. He wrote that they checked and rechecked those rockets over and over again more than they had ever tested any of them before. They wanted zero defects. Apollo 13 was a bit of a fail and the tragic fire on the pad that killed three astronauts led to an extensive redesign and stringent quality control measures for the whole program. Gosh, I have to wonder if we're up to the task to accomplish the same thing today?
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well one of the problems with the big engines NASA was using was getting the fuel in fast enough. They did this by fitting big pumps. Apparently the Russians used a turbine powered by the rocket to achieve it, something NASA said wasn't possible. It saved weight and gave more thrust. What the Russians couldn't do was make stuff well.

It wasn't used much though, other rockets don't have a much worse failure rate, not even the shuttle. They cancelled the last few Apollo missions, partly to avoid an accident, they knew they were pushing their luck.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"dennis@home" wrote:

Sigh. Why do you think NASA wouldn't use that turbine powered pump? The US space program was a lot more safety conscious than Russia's.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

You're being an ignorant asshole, as usual.
Once again, your dumb ass attempt to set Followup-to: alt.flame failed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Because they didn't know how as they didn't invent it and didn't have any good spies. PS they have used them since the Russians "sold" them some engines.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well one of the problems with the big engines NASA was using was getting the fuel in fast enough. They did this by fitting big pumps. Apparently the Russians used a turbine powered by the rocket to achieve it, something NASA said wasn't possible. It saved weight and gave more thrust. What the Russians couldn't do was make stuff well.

It wasn't used much though, other rockets don't have a much worse failure rate, not even the shuttle. They cancelled the last few Apollo missions, partly to avoid an accident, they knew they were pushing their luck.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:52:36 +0100, "dennis@home"

No, it didn't. It didn't have the range originally intended. I believe it was supposed to super-cruise, too, and it didn't.

...and the SST was cancelled when the goal was moved. The Concorde was continued for ego reasons.

It was too expensive when it was DESIGNED.

In your dreams.

Lies.
More bullshit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You don't know much about it do you? It did super cruise. It wouldn't have got halfway across the Atlantic if it had to use the after burners. There wasn't any in flight refuelling for it.

The Concorde was well down the development path when the problems started. The SST wasn't even started until it looked like Concorde was going to take the passengers away.

Are you claiming the shuttle is faster than Apollo then? Apollo was doing about 25,000 mph on re-entry, the shuttle doesn't.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

than 1/4 the lbs of fuel per passenger mile than the concorde could dream of on it's best day
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

And could land at older, landlocked airports. What good does it do to shave a couple hours off a flight, then spend it in heavy traffic to reach their destination?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca scribeth thus

Suppose thats like comparing a London Omnibus with a sports car;?...
--
Tony Sayer


  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.