Hey, Chris. I don't post often either, but you've inspired me to add my
voice to a call for the moderators to step in.
-Allen
On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 11:40 AM Christopher Burnside <
christopher.g.burnside@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I've had enough of this guy.
I've been on this list for 10+ years. In that time I have posted once or
twice. Actually, I think the post yesterday was the third time. I mostly
like to see what other folks are working on with their hobbies. I've
enjoyed the commentary. Sometimes it borders on ridiculous. Sometimes
folks are just plain wrong. Others have arguments with others who are
being jerks. It's basically a normal amount of what one can expect from an
open forum on the internet. Except here we discuss rockets.
With that said though, I think it is worth pointing out that this guy is
practicing religious fanaticism to the most extreme with his self important
knowledge about launch vehicles and propulsion. Under no circumstances
should anyone hold onto particular ideas so much. Everything we do in
engineering is trade between something else. Forcing a particular
technology because it is your favorite is dangerous. Just like when he
told college folks to go ahead and use liquid hydrogen. You do us all a
disservice with your unwillingness to be a normal rational person.
Absolutely, you can use hydrogen safety. That isn't the point. Stating
that it is the only way to do rockets is a lie. A lie you willingly tell
over and over and over. And not just on hydrogen, but just about
everything else you repeat over and over again.
A lot of times over the years, I have watched people make fools of
themselves on here. People can be that way, but this guy just doesn't seem
to listen. Nor does he care. At one point someone asked him to tone it
down. He didn't. This an indication of being an asshole or worse. He may
have a mental disorder.
I've gathered enough to know that he used to work for NASA in some
capacity. I'm not sure, I haven't researched his credentials enough to
know his story (beyond the description he has just supplied us). But
considering how utterly wrong he is in armchair engineering (take the post
he put out about eliminating the sound barrier using what is essentially
pseudo-scientific engineering language), I have to question how long he
worked for NASA and how his departure from the agency unfolded.
You may very well be a guidance genius. Someone might have stolen your
BIG idea and used it. Or you are someone who was on the periphery of a
group of people working and you are trying to claim some ownership of it
here because you think none of us can go and find the real story about it.
I don't know. I do know though that you are far from a capable engineer in
other aspects of propulsion. You prove that with your lack of fundamentals
in engineering analysis.
Do the moderators have a method for removing people from the list who are
actively being a problem? Most of the things he says are so far off from
reality that it is mostly comical, but he does represent a danger to folks
who are still learning how this stuff works.
On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 6:48 AM Craig Fink <webegood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You could just ask, oh, I guess you just did?
I'm the guy who just told everyone in this group of Rocket Enthusiast how
to eliminate 93% of a Rocket's Ascent Drag and Wind loads, while at the
same time removing the Sound Barrier, using a mono-propellant Hydrogen
Rocket Engine, similar to Robert Goddard's First Engine. No need to call
out "Max Q" anymore.
I'm the guy who wrote the Guidance Algorithm called Boost Iterative
Guidance (BIG), someone posted to this group of Rocket Enthusiast that they
put my algorithm onboard Orion. Now I feel partially responsible for this
disaster waiting to happen, thanks. :-(
I'm the Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) guy who just gave
NASA's Orion Capsule a Failed to meet minimum standards to be "Human
Rated", due to subsonic aerodynamic instability. It's a Capsule, it's not
hard to design a stable capsule. Heck, the thing had great stability right
up to the point that beautiful aerodynamic Tail broke off under the loads
of the landing rocket. Next time, NASA forgets to put Parachutes onboard,
have the Simulated Astronaut throw the pyro separation breaker to prevent
the beautifully aerodynamic Tail from falling off and use the last solid
rocket burn to soften the landing impact. Maybe, NASA accidentally sized
the motor correctly for a landing burn. I'm about as Independent as it gets.
I'm the Guidance Support guy in the backroom during the Challenger
Disaster who still feels the pain of that day every Jan 28th.
--
Craig Fink
WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 7:40 PM <christopher.g.burnside@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Does anyone know what this guys qualifications are?
On Jul 6, 2019, at 3:22 PM, Craig Fink <webegood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
https://youtu.be/zrq71ocWMcg?t=7
"1 A crew module sized and weighted to represent Orion will ..."
So, the Boilerplate is an accurate representation size, shape, weight
and center of gravity and therefore should fly the same as the real thing.
Orion, unstable in SubSonic Flight, will spin so fast that it will
incapacitate the Crew preventing them from taking any actions to save their
own lives.
--
Craig Fink
WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx <WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx>
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 9:30 AM Craig Fink <webegood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
PS
The smoke trail says it all,
https://youtu.be/2RbbSGrO_tY?t=247
Mickey Mouse has big balls if he is going to ride in this "unstable"
death trap.
Back in the Day, the Space Shuttle was designed to withstand two
failures. A concept of Fail Operational, Fail Safe. First Failure causes
an abort, ok, good. Second Failure no parachutes, ok, good.
I would have expected to see a nice STABLE Capsule smash into the
ground, giving the Astronaut plenty of time to "Work the Problem", fix the
Parachute or Blow the Hatch and jump out . Instead, I was treated to a
high RPM gyro ride that Disneyland wouldn't touch. The Simulated
Astronauts may have even died before hitting the ground. There was no
"Manual Override" even possible, no Bailing out with a Personal Parachute,
no saying goodbyes.
It's NOT hard to build a Stable Capsule, just look at a Soyuz Capsule.
Stable in hypersonic flight. Stable in supersonic flight. Stable in
transsonic flight. Stable in subsonic flight.
Comparing the changes made to Orion from the original Apollo design,
the "shape" changes would tend to make it more unstable. Orion may even be
more stable upside down, flying heat shield up.
https://spacenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/orion-em1-feb18.jpg
Those High Temperature Tile are a great idea for a capsule that is more
stable Up-side-Down.
The Operation was a great success, but the Patient died.
PPSS
Assuming the Boilerplate had the correct shape, weight and cg.
--
Craig Fink
WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx <WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx>
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 9:34 PM Craig Fink <webegood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Chuck,
Still not Human Rated! The Simulated Astronauts Died. Abort Test
Grade: Failed. That is unacceptable behavior for a SubSonic Capsule ...
the
rest of my words are redacted. Redacted, REDACTED. redacted.
https://youtu.be/2RbbSGrO_tY?t=200
"...And it would Appear, that,, the,,, test is complete."
--
Craig Fink
WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx <WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx>
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 12:34 PM Redacted sender crogers168 for DMARC <
dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Craig:
It was a boilerplate crew module, without a parachute recovery
system. Once the crew module separated and was out of the near-field
flow
field behind the launch abort system, the test was over.
The flight data was telemetered to the ground. As a back-up,
ejectable data recorders were used as a second means to get the flight
data
if there was a telemetry system failure. The ejectable data recorders
were
ejected after crew module separation.
After reentry from orbit, or after an abort, drogue parachutes are
deployed. (There are modes where you go direct to the main parachutes.)
As the boilerplate crew module had no parachute system, it had no drogue
parachutes.
The crew module has to be stable after separation from the launch
abort system for a short period of time before deployment of the drogue
parachutes. (Or for the short period of time before you go direct to the
main parachutes.) The crew module was stable for this short period of
time.
Tumbling later in the flight shows why drogue parachutes are used.
Drogue parachutes are lighter than other options of reconfiguration of
the
outer mold line, Center of Gravity (CG) shift beyond what is built into
the
capsule for a small Lift-over-Drag (L/D) ratio during hypersonic reentry,
or other options.
As I noted; after the crew module separated from the launch abort
system, the test was over.
Charles E. (Chuck) Rogers
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Fink <webegood@xxxxxxxxx>
To: arocket <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Fri, Jul 5, 2019 7:56 am
Subject: [AR] Orion Abort Test Failure...
...Not Human Rated. Orion Abort Test was a complete and utter
failure, yet NASA calls it a success?
I can make some assumptions about what they did, like. The shape of
the Orion Capsule is correct. The Center of Gravity (CG) is correct.
Given
these two assumptions, this Orion Capsule test was a complete and utter
failure. Back to the drawing board and re-design the entire Capsule,
it's
not Human Rated.
NASA showed this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rfsDMGplZU
Yet, here is what the Orion Capsule flying through the atmosphere.
https://youtu.be/2RbbSGrO_tY?t=170
I would hardly call this "Stable" flight. Exactly how many RPM do
NASA Astronauts like to be spinning at, when they impact the water? Gees,
can you imagine what it would be like to "Work the Problem" tumbling at
that rate?
The Orion Capsule is unstable.
--
Craig Fink
WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx <WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx>
