Wayne Autrey wrote on 8/27/2017 4:08 PM:
On 8/27/2017 1:04 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 12:52:56 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

over looked it?

The russians had no problem walking in and taking over the parts
they
wanted with no resistance. Any place that wimpy isn't even a
country.


Im not sure if 15 million dead

Bogus.

Yeah, as usually, Gunner is full of ****.

So ****face....provide cites that dispute these numbers. Double dog
dare you.


http://www.dpcamps.org/jewsvsukrainians.html

1. Stalin imposed a famine-genocide, which took 10 million lives in
1932-33.

Not one of your links supports your bull**** 15 million number, you liar.

Yup, lying is what Mark Wieber (Gummer Arse) does best.

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 16:35:25 -0400, kjCizi?? ?????? ? ??????? ??ougTDR
wrote:

Wayne Autrey wrote on 8/27/2017 4:08 PM:
On 8/27/2017 1:04 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 12:52:56 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

over looked it?

The russians had no problem walking in and taking over the parts
they
wanted with no resistance. Any place that wimpy isn't even a
country.


Im not sure if 15 million dead

Bogus.

Yeah, as usually, Gunner is full of ****.

So ****face....provide cites that dispute these numbers. Double dog
dare you.


http://www.dpcamps.org/jewsvsukrainians.html

1. Stalin imposed a famine-genocide, which took 10 million lives in
1932-33.

Not one of your links supports your bull**** 15 million number, you liar.

Yup, lying is what Mark Wieber (Gummer Arse) does best.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 16:35:25 -0400, kjCizi?? ?????? ? ??????? ??ougTDR
wrote:

Wayne Autrey wrote on 8/27/2017 4:08 PM:
On 8/27/2017 1:04 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 12:52:56 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

over looked it?

The russians had no problem walking in and taking over the parts
they
wanted with no resistance. Any place that wimpy isn't even a
country.


Im not sure if 15 million dead

Bogus.

Yeah, as usually, Gunner is full of ****.

So ****face....provide cites that dispute these numbers. Double dog
dare you.


http://www.dpcamps.org/jewsvsukrainians.html

1. Stalin imposed a famine-genocide, which took 10 million lives in
1932-33.

Not one of your links supports your bull**** 15 million number, you liar.

Yup, lying is what Mark Wieber (Gummer Arse) does best.


So you snipped out ALL the cites (which proved you two to be liars of
the worst sort) and then simply suck each others dicks in wild
abandonment....

You both are going to terminated in the next few years..and the world
will be a richer and better place after you are gone.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 8/27/2017 3:26 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 16:35:25 -0400, kjCizi?? ?????? ? ??????? ??ougTDR
wrote:

Wayne Autrey wrote on 8/27/2017 4:08 PM:
On 8/27/2017 1:04 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 12:52:56 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

over looked it?

The russians had no problem walking in and taking over the parts
they
wanted with no resistance. Any place that wimpy isn't even a
country.


Im not sure if 15 million dead

Bogus.

Yeah, as usually, Gunner is full of ****.

So ****face....provide cites that dispute these numbers. Double dog
dare you.


http://www.dpcamps.org/jewsvsukrainians.html

1. Stalin imposed a famine-genocide, which took 10 million lives in
1932-33.

Not one of your links supports your bull**** 15 million number, you liar.

Yup, lying is what Mark Wieber (Gummer Arse) does best.


So you snipped out ALL the cites

*NONE* of the "cites" supported your bull**** 15 million number, Wieber.

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 13:11:46 -0400, iQWfju?? ?????? ? ??????? ??RdJxea
wrote:

wrote on 8/27/2017 8:32 AM:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 03:12:51 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 00:57:40 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 05:42:47 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 01:25:01 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:44:42 -0400, EBsoZZ?? ?????? ? ??????? ??TeRcSC
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote on 8/24/2017 6:42 PM:
If you're interested in this story, it may be in print somewhere, but
it's also in this podcast that you can listen to online, with no
add-on apps:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/p...s-ukraine.html

Hint: They didn't do it themselves.



It is very easy to make a rocket. The difficult part is the flight
control unit that keeps the rocket flying straight and narrow instead of
going in random directions after liftoff and crashing back to earth near
the launchpad.

A modern smartphone has all the sensors required to let the rocket
correct its course and guide itself to its destination.

All you need to do is write an App and send the output to an interface
to control the power of each of the three nozzles (a rocket as no wings
or rudder, so a minimum of three nozzles would be needed to make the
rocket go in any direction you want it to).

North Korea makes smartphones:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/10238617/Kim-Jong-un-visits-North-Korean-smartphone-factory.html

Download this Android App (Sensors Multitool) to read the sensors:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wered.sensorsmultitool&hl=en

This "Sensors Multitool" App can read all the sensors in your Android
smartphone (everything you need to guide a missile to its destination):

GPS
Rotation Vector
Linear Acceleration
Gravity
Gyroscope
Accelerometer
Magnetic
Pressure
Orientation

The story is about the engines. N. Korea couldn't get a mid-range
rocket to fire reliably. All of a sudden, they're building ICBMs that
work.

The analysts recently realized why. The engines are Cold-War-Era
Russian -- possibly made in the old Russian heavy-engine factory in
the Ukraine.

I think you mean mean russia, not ukraine.

The factory is a holdover from the Sobiet days. It's in Ukraine.

there is no ukraine. there is only russia.


Blink blink...huh? Might want to tell that to the Ukrainians


---


The Ukraine only comprises about 603,550 sq km of land.... maybe he
over looked it?

The russians had no problem walking in and taking over the parts they
wanted with no resistance. Any place that wimpy isn't even a country.

Sort of like California where Gunner tells that the Mexicans and the
(what do you call 'em?) White Challenged have taken over and an honest
man can't hardly get on the relief rolls any more?


Mark Wieber doen't need to get on any relief roll. Gunner has a thriving
glory-hole booth business going nicely in Taft.

Gunner is not greedy. At $2 a pop, even the beggar at the street corner
can afford to pay him.

The question now becomes "does The Question Mark Kid" know what he is
talking about? Or not?

Given that the nyme he selects for himself consists largely of
question marks and blank spaces the odds seem to be heavily in favor
of the latter.

Unless, of course, there is sufficient atmosphere at 164,050 feet for
the V2's "wings" to create lift.
--
Cheers,

Schweik

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 13:34:57 -0400, hqZyed?? ?????? ? ??????? ??jGiEOf
wrote:

Wayne Autrey wrote on 8/27/2017 1:31 PM:
On 8/26/2017 11:06 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 03:12:51 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 00:57:40 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 05:42:47 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 01:25:01 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:44:42 -0400, EBsoZZ?? ?????? ? ???????
??TeRcSC
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote on 8/24/2017 6:42 PM:
If you're interested in this story, it may be in print
somewhere, but
it's also in this podcast that you can listen to online, with no
add-on apps:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/p...s-ukraine.html


Hint: They didn't do it themselves.



It is very easy to make a rocket. The difficult part is the
flight
control unit that keeps the rocket flying straight and narrow
instead of
going in random directions after liftoff and crashing back to
earth near
the launchpad.

A modern smartphone has all the sensors required to let the
rocket
correct its course and guide itself to its destination.

All you need to do is write an App and send the output to an
interface
to control the power of each of the three nozzles (a rocket as
no wings
or rudder, so a minimum of three nozzles would be needed to
make the
rocket go in any direction you want it to).

North Korea makes smartphones:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/10238617/Kim-Jong-un-visits-North-Korean-smartphone-factory.html


Download this Android App (Sensors Multitool) to read the
sensors:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wered.sensorsmultitool&hl=en


This "Sensors Multitool" App can read all the sensors in your
Android
smartphone (everything you need to guide a missile to its
destination):

GPS
Rotation Vector
Linear Acceleration
Gravity
Gyroscope
Accelerometer
Magnetic
Pressure
Orientation

The story is about the engines. N. Korea couldn't get a mid-range
rocket to fire reliably. All of a sudden, they're building
ICBMs that
work.

The analysts recently realized why. The engines are Cold-War-Era
Russian -- possibly made in the old Russian heavy-engine
factory in
the Ukraine.

I think you mean mean russia, not ukraine.

The factory is a holdover from the Sobiet days. It's in Ukraine.

there is no ukraine. there is only russia.


Blink blink...huh? Might want to tell that to the Ukrainians


---


The Ukraine only comprises about 603,550 sq km of land.... maybe he
over looked it?

The russians had no problem walking in and taking over the parts they
wanted with no resistance. Any place that wimpy isn't even a country.


Im not sure if 15 million dead

Bogus.

Yeah, as usually, Gunner is full of ****.


When I see a posting from The Question Mark Kid I am reminded of the
report of the little girl who went to school in Kansas City, Mo..
who's mother is irate because everyone is getting her name wrong.

It seems that her birth certificate has her name spelled as "LE-A" and
her mother insists that it is pronounced "Ledasha".
You see, her mother told the school board, "The dash don't be silent".

And obviously neither does the question mark.
--
Cheers,

Schweik

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 3:42:27 PM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
If you're interested in this story, it may be in print somewhere, but
it's also in this podcast that you can listen to online, with no
add-on apps:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/p...s-ukraine.html

Hint: They didn't do it themselves.

--
Ed Huntress

Hi Ed,
It is equally likely that they came from Samara.
They are based on Sergey Korolyov's closed cycle hardware design.
Sixty of them ended up in a warehouse and have been sold off over the years to various interested parties, including the one I saw run at Aerojet in the 90's.
Those were for the N30 done at OKB-1.
RD 180's are the same design.
Bob Ford from Lockheed and Bill Hoffman from Aerojet spent time finding this stuff as part of a team of Americans sent to Russia after the USSR dissolved.
Energomash builds and sells the RD 180 for use in America's heavy lift launch vehicles.
We build the bus but they supply the engines/motors.

Take Care

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 08:41:34 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 3:42:27 PM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
If you're interested in this story, it may be in print somewhere, but
it's also in this podcast that you can listen to online, with no
add-on apps:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/p...s-ukraine.html

Hint: They didn't do it themselves.

--
Ed Huntress

Hi Ed,
It is equally likely that they came from Samara.
They are based on Sergey Korolyov's closed cycle hardware design.
Sixty of them ended up in a warehouse and have been sold off over the years to various interested parties, including the one I saw run at Aerojet in the 90's.
Those were for the N30 done at OKB-1.
RD 180's are the same design.
Bob Ford from Lockheed and Bill Hoffman from Aerojet spent time finding this stuff as part of a team of Americans sent to Russia after the USSR dissolved.
Energomash builds and sells the RD 180 for use in America's heavy lift launch vehicles.
We build the bus but they supply the engines/motors.

Take Care

One way or another, it appears that the North Koreans failed
consistently when they tried to build their own motors, but suddenly
started having success -- with much more challenging rockets -- when
they switched to the Russian design.

--
Ed Huntress

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 9:43:53 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 08:41:34 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 3:42:27 PM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
If you're interested in this story, it may be in print somewhere, but
it's also in this podcast that you can listen to online, with no
add-on apps:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/p...s-ukraine.html

Hint: They didn't do it themselves.

--
Ed Huntress

Hi Ed,
It is equally likely that they came from Samara.
They are based on Sergey Korolyov's closed cycle hardware design.
Sixty of them ended up in a warehouse and have been sold off over the years to various interested parties, including the one I saw run at Aerojet in the 90's.
Those were for the N30 done at OKB-1.
RD 180's are the same design.
Bob Ford from Lockheed and Bill Hoffman from Aerojet spent time finding this stuff as part of a team of Americans sent to Russia after the USSR dissolved.
Energomash builds and sells the RD 180 for use in America's heavy lift launch vehicles.
We build the bus but they supply the engines/motors.

Take Care

One way or another, it appears that the North Koreans failed
consistently when they tried to build their own motors, but suddenly
started having success -- with much more challenging rockets -- when
they switched to the Russian design.

--
Ed Huntress

The Russians had the same experience, Ed.
In fact, failure was part of their process.
They didn't expect to succeed on first attempts at any of this.

In the end, however, they ended up with motors that outperformed anything the US ever built. They had to because they lacked the resources that we had.
It takes a lot to make closed cycle rocket motors work.
We didn't think we could do so and get a man on the moon first.
And we had the money to build an expensive kluge and then did it.

Anyway, I don't think Lil Kim wants to launch anything at anyone.
He just doesn't want to be the next Saddam Hussein...

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:04:40 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 9:43:53 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 08:41:34 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 3:42:27 PM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
If you're interested in this story, it may be in print somewhere, but
it's also in this podcast that you can listen to online, with no
add-on apps:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/p...s-ukraine.html

Hint: They didn't do it themselves.

--
Ed Huntress

Hi Ed,
It is equally likely that they came from Samara.
They are based on Sergey Korolyov's closed cycle hardware design.
Sixty of them ended up in a warehouse and have been sold off over the years to various interested parties, including the one I saw run at Aerojet in the 90's.
Those were for the N30 done at OKB-1.
RD 180's are the same design.
Bob Ford from Lockheed and Bill Hoffman from Aerojet spent time finding this stuff as part of a team of Americans sent to Russia after the USSR dissolved.
Energomash builds and sells the RD 180 for use in America's heavy lift launch vehicles.
We build the bus but they supply the engines/motors.

Take Care

One way or another, it appears that the North Koreans failed
consistently when they tried to build their own motors, but suddenly
started having success -- with much more challenging rockets -- when
they switched to the Russian design.

--
Ed Huntress

The Russians had the same experience, Ed.
In fact, failure was part of their process.

Well, so did we. The thing about the Koreans that's different is that
they were able to leap over a whole string of growing pains (making a
mid-range rocket of their own that was reliable; stepping up to a
full-blown ICBM from a mediocre mid-range rocket, and having success
right from the start), because they just used someone else's motors.

Too bad they were able to get their hands on them.

They didn't expect to succeed on first attempts at any of this.

In the end, however, they ended up with motors that outperformed anything the US ever built. They had to because they lacked the resources that we had.
It takes a lot to make closed cycle rocket motors work.
We didn't think we could do so and get a man on the moon first.
And we had the money to build an expensive kluge and then did it.

Anyway, I don't think Lil Kim wants to launch anything at anyone.
He just doesn't want to be the next Saddam Hussein...

That's a delicious thought....

--
Ed Huntress

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 10:08:57 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:04:40 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 9:43:53 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 08:41:34 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 3:42:27 PM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
If you're interested in this story, it may be in print somewhere, but
it's also in this podcast that you can listen to online, with no
add-on apps:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/p...s-ukraine.html

Hint: They didn't do it themselves.

--
Ed Huntress

Hi Ed,
It is equally likely that they came from Samara.
They are based on Sergey Korolyov's closed cycle hardware design.
Sixty of them ended up in a warehouse and have been sold off over the years to various interested parties, including the one I saw run at Aerojet in the 90's.
Those were for the N30 done at OKB-1.
RD 180's are the same design.
Bob Ford from Lockheed and Bill Hoffman from Aerojet spent time finding this stuff as part of a team of Americans sent to Russia after the USSR dissolved.
Energomash builds and sells the RD 180 for use in America's heavy lift launch vehicles.
We build the bus but they supply the engines/motors.

Take Care

One way or another, it appears that the North Koreans failed
consistently when they tried to build their own motors, but suddenly
started having success -- with much more challenging rockets -- when
they switched to the Russian design.

--
Ed Huntress

The Russians had the same experience, Ed.
In fact, failure was part of their process.

Well, so did we. The thing about the Koreans that's different is that
they were able to leap over a whole string of growing pains (making a
mid-range rocket of their own that was reliable; stepping up to a
full-blown ICBM from a mediocre mid-range rocket, and having success
right from the start), because they just used someone else's motors.

Too bad they were able to get their hands on them.

They didn't expect to succeed on first attempts at any of this.

In the end, however, they ended up with motors that outperformed anything the US ever built. They had to because they lacked the resources that we had.
It takes a lot to make closed cycle rocket motors work.
We didn't think we could do so and get a man on the moon first.
And we had the money to build an expensive kluge and then did it.

Anyway, I don't think Lil Kim wants to launch anything at anyone.
He just doesn't want to be the next Saddam Hussein...

That's a delicious thought....

--
Ed Huntress

Ukraine is the worlds second largest criminal enterprise, Ed.
Preceded by Russia and followed by US Law Enforcement.

I'm not surprised by anything that is undertaken at this point.
Put off/disappointed but not shocked.
Anyway, worked on some of this stuff and knew people.
Met them anyway.

Thinking that any technology can be embargoed on a permanent basis is foolish in the same sense that teaching 15 year olds that abstinence is an effective method of birth control is successful.

Not going to happen.

Catch any fish lately?
Besides here I mean.
LOL

wrote on 8/28/2017 1:29 PM:
On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 10:08:57 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:04:40 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 9:43:53 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 08:41:34 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 3:42:27 PM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
If you're interested in this story, it may be in print somewhere, but
it's also in this podcast that you can listen to online, with no
add-on apps:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/p...s-ukraine.html

Hint: They didn't do it themselves.

--
Ed Huntress

Hi Ed,
It is equally likely that they came from Samara.
They are based on Sergey Korolyov's closed cycle hardware design.
Sixty of them ended up in a warehouse and have been sold off over the years to various interested parties, including the one I saw run at Aerojet in the 90's.
Those were for the N30 done at OKB-1.
RD 180's are the same design.
Bob Ford from Lockheed and Bill Hoffman from Aerojet spent time finding this stuff as part of a team of Americans sent to Russia after the USSR dissolved.
Energomash builds and sells the RD 180 for use in America's heavy lift launch vehicles.
We build the bus but they supply the engines/motors.

Take Care

One way or another, it appears that the North Koreans failed
consistently when they tried to build their own motors, but suddenly
started having success -- with much more challenging rockets -- when
they switched to the Russian design.

--
Ed Huntress

The Russians had the same experience, Ed.
In fact, failure was part of their process.

Well, so did we. The thing about the Koreans that's different is that
they were able to leap over a whole string of growing pains (making a
mid-range rocket of their own that was reliable; stepping up to a
full-blown ICBM from a mediocre mid-range rocket, and having success
right from the start), because they just used someone else's motors.

Too bad they were able to get their hands on them.

They didn't expect to succeed on first attempts at any of this.

In the end, however, they ended up with motors that outperformed anything the US ever built. They had to because they lacked the resources that we had.
It takes a lot to make closed cycle rocket motors work.
We didn't think we could do so and get a man on the moon first.
And we had the money to build an expensive kluge and then did it.

Anyway, I don't think Lil Kim wants to launch anything at anyone.
He just doesn't want to be the next Saddam Hussein...

That's a delicious thought....

--
Ed Huntress

Ukraine is the worlds second largest criminal enterprise, Ed.
Preceded by Russia and followed by US Law Enforcement.

I'm not surprised by anything that is undertaken at this point.
Put off/disappointed but not shocked.
Anyway, worked on some of this stuff and knew people.
Met them anyway.

Thinking that any technology can be embargoed on a permanent basis is foolish in the same sense that teaching 15 year olds that abstinence is an effective method of birth control is successful.

Not going to happen.

I think you've nailed that foolish Ed right in the head.




Catch any fish lately?
Besides here I mean.
LOL

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:29:26 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 10:08:57 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:04:40 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 9:43:53 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 08:41:34 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 3:42:27 PM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
If you're interested in this story, it may be in print somewhere, but
it's also in this podcast that you can listen to online, with no
add-on apps:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/p...s-ukraine.html

Hint: They didn't do it themselves.

--
Ed Huntress

Hi Ed,
It is equally likely that they came from Samara.
They are based on Sergey Korolyov's closed cycle hardware design.
Sixty of them ended up in a warehouse and have been sold off over the years to various interested parties, including the one I saw run at Aerojet in the 90's.
Those were for the N30 done at OKB-1.
RD 180's are the same design.
Bob Ford from Lockheed and Bill Hoffman from Aerojet spent time finding this stuff as part of a team of Americans sent to Russia after the USSR dissolved.
Energomash builds and sells the RD 180 for use in America's heavy lift launch vehicles.
We build the bus but they supply the engines/motors.

Take Care

One way or another, it appears that the North Koreans failed
consistently when they tried to build their own motors, but suddenly
started having success -- with much more challenging rockets -- when
they switched to the Russian design.

--
Ed Huntress

The Russians had the same experience, Ed.
In fact, failure was part of their process.

Well, so did we. The thing about the Koreans that's different is that
they were able to leap over a whole string of growing pains (making a
mid-range rocket of their own that was reliable; stepping up to a
full-blown ICBM from a mediocre mid-range rocket, and having success
right from the start), because they just used someone else's motors.

Too bad they were able to get their hands on them.

They didn't expect to succeed on first attempts at any of this.

In the end, however, they ended up with motors that outperformed anything the US ever built. They had to because they lacked the resources that we had.
It takes a lot to make closed cycle rocket motors work.
We didn't think we could do so and get a man on the moon first.
And we had the money to build an expensive kluge and then did it.

Anyway, I don't think Lil Kim wants to launch anything at anyone.
He just doesn't want to be the next Saddam Hussein...

That's a delicious thought....

--
Ed Huntress

Ukraine is the worlds second largest criminal enterprise, Ed.
Preceded by Russia and followed by US Law Enforcement.

I'm not surprised by anything that is undertaken at this point.
Put off/disappointed but not shocked.
Anyway, worked on some of this stuff and knew people.
Met them anyway.

Thinking that any technology can be embargoed on a permanent basis is foolish in the same sense that teaching 15 year olds that abstinence is an effective method of birth control is successful.

Not going to happen.

I didn't think we'd be able to shut it down, but it's useful to know
they're getting it from the outside. I'd hate to think they could leap
ahead that fast in ICBM technical capability


Catch any fish lately?

Not a big year, but I had some good bluefishing earlier in the summer.
Right now we're expecting the small ones (called "snapper blues") to
give us some fun for the next month or so on fresh-water ultralight
gear.

Besides here I mean.

RCM is not too bad but there are some strange animals showing up in
the cross-postings...

--
Ed Huntress
LOL

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:31:43 -0400, zUFjUv?? ?????? ? ??????? ??JbAGmI
wrote:

wrote on 8/28/2017 1:29 PM:
On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 10:08:57 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:04:40 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 9:43:53 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 08:41:34 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 3:42:27 PM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
If you're interested in this story, it may be in print somewhere, but
it's also in this podcast that you can listen to online, with no
add-on apps:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/p...s-ukraine.html

Hint: They didn't do it themselves.

--
Ed Huntress

Hi Ed,
It is equally likely that they came from Samara.
They are based on Sergey Korolyov's closed cycle hardware design.
Sixty of them ended up in a warehouse and have been sold off over the years to various interested parties, including the one I saw run at Aerojet in the 90's.
Those were for the N30 done at OKB-1.
RD 180's are the same design.
Bob Ford from Lockheed and Bill Hoffman from Aerojet spent time finding this stuff as part of a team of Americans sent to Russia after the USSR dissolved.
Energomash builds and sells the RD 180 for use in America's heavy lift launch vehicles.
We build the bus but they supply the engines/motors.

Take Care

One way or another, it appears that the North Koreans failed
consistently when they tried to build their own motors, but suddenly
started having success -- with much more challenging rockets -- when
they switched to the Russian design.

--
Ed Huntress

The Russians had the same experience, Ed.
In fact, failure was part of their process.

Well, so did we. The thing about the Koreans that's different is that
they were able to leap over a whole string of growing pains (making a
mid-range rocket of their own that was reliable; stepping up to a
full-blown ICBM from a mediocre mid-range rocket, and having success
right from the start), because they just used someone else's motors.

Too bad they were able to get their hands on them.

They didn't expect to succeed on first attempts at any of this.

In the end, however, they ended up with motors that outperformed anything the US ever built. They had to because they lacked the resources that we had.
It takes a lot to make closed cycle rocket motors work.
We didn't think we could do so and get a man on the moon first.
And we had the money to build an expensive kluge and then did it.

Anyway, I don't think Lil Kim wants to launch anything at anyone.
He just doesn't want to be the next Saddam Hussein...

That's a delicious thought....

--
Ed Huntress

Ukraine is the worlds second largest criminal enterprise, Ed.
Preceded by Russia and followed by US Law Enforcement.

I'm not surprised by anything that is undertaken at this point.
Put off/disappointed but not shocked.
Anyway, worked on some of this stuff and knew people.
Met them anyway.

Thinking that any technology can be embargoed on a permanent basis is foolish in the same sense that teaching 15 year olds that abstinence is an effective method of birth control is successful.

Not going to happen.

I think you've nailed that foolish Ed right in the head.

Huh? He's talking about getting the technology from the outside, from
countries who went through the decade or so of failures that we all
went through. You were claiming anybody could make ICBMs from your
cartoon sketches.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote on 8/28/2017 8:42 PM:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:31:43 -0400, zUFjUv?? ?????? ? ??????? ??JbAGmI
wrote:

wrote on 8/28/2017 1:29 PM:
On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 10:08:57 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:04:40 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 9:43:53 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 08:41:34 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 3:42:27 PM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
If you're interested in this story, it may be in print somewhere, but
it's also in this podcast that you can listen to online, with no
add-on apps:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/p...s-ukraine.html

Hint: They didn't do it themselves.

--
Ed Huntress

Hi Ed,
It is equally likely that they came from Samara.
They are based on Sergey Korolyov's closed cycle hardware design.
Sixty of them ended up in a warehouse and have been sold off over the years to various interested parties, including the one I saw run at Aerojet in the 90's.
Those were for the N30 done at OKB-1.
RD 180's are the same design.
Bob Ford from Lockheed and Bill Hoffman from Aerojet spent time finding this stuff as part of a team of Americans sent to Russia after the USSR dissolved.
Energomash builds and sells the RD 180 for use in America's heavy lift launch vehicles.
We build the bus but they supply the engines/motors.

Take Care

One way or another, it appears that the North Koreans failed
consistently when they tried to build their own motors, but suddenly
started having success -- with much more challenging rockets -- when
they switched to the Russian design.

--
Ed Huntress

The Russians had the same experience, Ed.
In fact, failure was part of their process.

Well, so did we. The thing about the Koreans that's different is that
they were able to leap over a whole string of growing pains (making a
mid-range rocket of their own that was reliable; stepping up to a
full-blown ICBM from a mediocre mid-range rocket, and having success
right from the start), because they just used someone else's motors.

Too bad they were able to get their hands on them.

They didn't expect to succeed on first attempts at any of this.

In the end, however, they ended up with motors that outperformed anything the US ever built. They had to because they lacked the resources that we had.
It takes a lot to make closed cycle rocket motors work.
We didn't think we could do so and get a man on the moon first.
And we had the money to build an expensive kluge and then did it.

Anyway, I don't think Lil Kim wants to launch anything at anyone.
He just doesn't want to be the next Saddam Hussein...

That's a delicious thought....

--
Ed Huntress

Ukraine is the worlds second largest criminal enterprise, Ed.
Preceded by Russia and followed by US Law Enforcement.

I'm not surprised by anything that is undertaken at this point.
Put off/disappointed but not shocked.
Anyway, worked on some of this stuff and knew people.
Met them anyway.

Thinking that any technology can be embargoed on a permanent basis is foolish in the same sense that teaching 15 year olds that abstinence is an effective method of birth control is successful.

Not going to happen.

I think you've nailed that foolish Ed right in the head.

Huh? He's talking about getting the technology from the outside, from
countries who went through the decade or so of failures that we all
went through. You were claiming anybody could make ICBMs from your
cartoon sketches.

That was a schematic diagram of a V2 rocket I showed you. That is the
mother of all modern rockets. Before that there was only the gunpowder
rocket invented by the Chinese long time ago.

After WWII the US captured and shanghaied Hitler's rocket scientists to
work for the US. That's how NASA got started.

A rocket has very little moving parts. It is actually easier to make
than a internal combustion engine.

Fat Boi Kim made leaps and bounce after he'd figured it out and then
incorporated all the sensors available in a smartphone to guide his
missiles.

When the U.S. Army Had its Own V-2 Rockets
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a24513/us-army-v-2-rockets/

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 21:55:55 -0400, DdbRuZ?? ?????? ? ??????? ??eLpvTM
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote on 8/28/2017 8:42 PM:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:31:43 -0400, zUFjUv?? ?????? ? ??????? ??JbAGmI
wrote:

wrote on 8/28/2017 1:29 PM:
On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 10:08:57 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:04:40 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 9:43:53 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 08:41:34 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 3:42:27 PM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
If you're interested in this story, it may be in print somewhere, but
it's also in this podcast that you can listen to online, with no
add-on apps:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/p...s-ukraine.html

Hint: They didn't do it themselves.

--
Ed Huntress

Hi Ed,
It is equally likely that they came from Samara.
They are based on Sergey Korolyov's closed cycle hardware design.
Sixty of them ended up in a warehouse and have been sold off over the years to various interested parties, including the one I saw run at Aerojet in the 90's.
Those were for the N30 done at OKB-1.
RD 180's are the same design.
Bob Ford from Lockheed and Bill Hoffman from Aerojet spent time finding this stuff as part of a team of Americans sent to Russia after the USSR dissolved.
Energomash builds and sells the RD 180 for use in America's heavy lift launch vehicles.
We build the bus but they supply the engines/motors.

Take Care

One way or another, it appears that the North Koreans failed
consistently when they tried to build their own motors, but suddenly
started having success -- with much more challenging rockets -- when
they switched to the Russian design.

--
Ed Huntress

The Russians had the same experience, Ed.
In fact, failure was part of their process.

Well, so did we. The thing about the Koreans that's different is that
they were able to leap over a whole string of growing pains (making a
mid-range rocket of their own that was reliable; stepping up to a
full-blown ICBM from a mediocre mid-range rocket, and having success
right from the start), because they just used someone else's motors.

Too bad they were able to get their hands on them.

They didn't expect to succeed on first attempts at any of this.

In the end, however, they ended up with motors that outperformed anything the US ever built. They had to because they lacked the resources that we had.
It takes a lot to make closed cycle rocket motors work.
We didn't think we could do so and get a man on the moon first.
And we had the money to build an expensive kluge and then did it.

Anyway, I don't think Lil Kim wants to launch anything at anyone.
He just doesn't want to be the next Saddam Hussein...

That's a delicious thought....

--
Ed Huntress

Ukraine is the worlds second largest criminal enterprise, Ed.
Preceded by Russia and followed by US Law Enforcement.

I'm not surprised by anything that is undertaken at this point.
Put off/disappointed but not shocked.
Anyway, worked on some of this stuff and knew people.
Met them anyway.

Thinking that any technology can be embargoed on a permanent basis is foolish in the same sense that teaching 15 year olds that abstinence is an effective method of birth control is successful.

Not going to happen.

I think you've nailed that foolish Ed right in the head.

Huh? He's talking about getting the technology from the outside, from
countries who went through the decade or so of failures that we all
went through. You were claiming anybody could make ICBMs from your
cartoon sketches.

That was a schematic diagram of a V2 rocket I showed you. That is the
mother of all modern rockets. Before that there was only the gunpowder
rocket invented by the Chinese long time ago.

And the return of The Question Mark Kid is heralded by his amazing
announcement that "That is the mother of all modern rockets" when the
facts of the matter a

Robert Hutchings Goddard was an American engineer, professor,
physicist, and inventor who is credited with creating and building the
world's first liquid-fueled rocket. Goddard successfully launched his
model on March 16, 1926. He and his team launched 34 rockets between
1926 and 1941.

It might be noted the first successful test flight (of the V-2) was on
3 October 1942, some 16 years after Goddard's first test flight..

In short The "?" Kid displays his superior ignorance yet again.

It might be noted that there is a YouTube movie showing Goddard's
early experiments... you don't even have to be able to read.
--
Cheers,

Schweik

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 5:41:03 PM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:29:26 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 10:08:57 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:04:40 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 9:43:53 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 08:41:34 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 3:42:27 PM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
If you're interested in this story, it may be in print somewhere, but
it's also in this podcast that you can listen to online, with no
add-on apps:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/p...s-ukraine.html

Hint: They didn't do it themselves.

--
Ed Huntress

Hi Ed,
It is equally likely that they came from Samara.
They are based on Sergey Korolyov's closed cycle hardware design.
Sixty of them ended up in a warehouse and have been sold off over the years to various interested parties, including the one I saw run at Aerojet in the 90's.
Those were for the N30 done at OKB-1.
RD 180's are the same design.
Bob Ford from Lockheed and Bill Hoffman from Aerojet spent time finding this stuff as part of a team of Americans sent to Russia after the USSR dissolved.
Energomash builds and sells the RD 180 for use in America's heavy lift launch vehicles.
We build the bus but they supply the engines/motors.

Take Care

One way or another, it appears that the North Koreans failed
consistently when they tried to build their own motors, but suddenly
started having success -- with much more challenging rockets -- when
they switched to the Russian design.

--
Ed Huntress

The Russians had the same experience, Ed.
In fact, failure was part of their process.

Well, so did we. The thing about the Koreans that's different is that
they were able to leap over a whole string of growing pains (making a
mid-range rocket of their own that was reliable; stepping up to a
full-blown ICBM from a mediocre mid-range rocket, and having success
right from the start), because they just used someone else's motors.

Too bad they were able to get their hands on them.

They didn't expect to succeed on first attempts at any of this.

In the end, however, they ended up with motors that outperformed anything the US ever built. They had to because they lacked the resources that we had.
It takes a lot to make closed cycle rocket motors work.
We didn't think we could do so and get a man on the moon first.
And we had the money to build an expensive kluge and then did it.

Anyway, I don't think Lil Kim wants to launch anything at anyone.
He just doesn't want to be the next Saddam Hussein...

That's a delicious thought....

--
Ed Huntress

Ukraine is the worlds second largest criminal enterprise, Ed.
Preceded by Russia and followed by US Law Enforcement.

I'm not surprised by anything that is undertaken at this point.
Put off/disappointed but not shocked.
Anyway, worked on some of this stuff and knew people.
Met them anyway.

Thinking that any technology can be embargoed on a permanent basis is foolish in the same sense that teaching 15 year olds that abstinence is an effective method of birth control is successful.

Not going to happen.

I didn't think we'd be able to shut it down, but it's useful to know
they're getting it from the outside. I'd hate to think they could leap
ahead that fast in ICBM technical capability

The problem with this hasn't changed.
You have to get a million pounds off the ground and going fast.
It's easy as an intellectual exercise but difficult as an engineering task.
The F-1 setup on the Saturn V produced four and a half thousand metric tons of thrust. The Russian N30 even more.

Just designing a structure to withstand that is problematic when you are weight constrained.
It just wouldn't do to have your rocket motor launch itself through the length of the bus.



Catch any fish lately?

Not a big year, but I had some good bluefishing earlier in the summer.
Right now we're expecting the small ones (called "snapper blues") to
give us some fun for the next month or so on fresh-water ultralight
gear.

Are they good eating?
I've had my fill of perch for the year. Maybe the decade.
LOL


Besides here I mean.

RCM is not too bad but there are some strange animals showing up in
the cross-postings...

Some things never change.




Well the biggest threat to the human race has generally been the human race..
It looks like we have finally brought forth something that will do the job and doesn't require anyone to pull the trigger, so to speak.
We are pulling the trigger every day and demanding more and better triggers..
LOL

Asimov, Clarke, Heinlien and Bradbury were prophets I guess.

The most obvious manifestation of what's being done is self driving vehicles and it isn't the self driving aspect. It is the way they actually work and learn.
Computers incorporate experience better than humans and connected over networks, the experience of a single vehicle is learned by all of them nearly simultaneously in real time. They update their own software.
Something less obvious is modern drone technology.
The stuff under the radar and taken for granted is likely to be the most impactful.
Our energy grid is an example.
Were the systems that control our energy grid to fail or be disrupted we literally don't have the ability at this point to restore service.
At all.
The required work force doesn't exist.
I read a white paper published last week by Siemens that estimated a restoration time line of about a month to begin bringing the grid back on line after a successful attack that brought it down and that is only true if someone can collect up the people and figure out a communication network to direct them.

Looks like real trouble though. AI and machine learning might well be the death of the human race.
Sooner or later.

That is my view and I don't worry much about these things because there is nothing that can be done.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 21:55:55 -0400, DdbRuZ?? ?????? ? ??????? ??eLpvTM
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote on 8/28/2017 8:42 PM:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:31:43 -0400, zUFjUv?? ?????? ? ??????? ??JbAGmI
wrote:

wrote on 8/28/2017 1:29 PM:
On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 10:08:57 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:04:40 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 9:43:53 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 08:41:34 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 3:42:27 PM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
If you're interested in this story, it may be in print somewhere, but
it's also in this podcast that you can listen to online, with no
add-on apps:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/p...s-ukraine.html

Hint: They didn't do it themselves.

--
Ed Huntress

Hi Ed,
It is equally likely that they came from Samara.
They are based on Sergey Korolyov's closed cycle hardware design.
Sixty of them ended up in a warehouse and have been sold off over the years to various interested parties, including the one I saw run at Aerojet in the 90's.
Those were for the N30 done at OKB-1.
RD 180's are the same design.
Bob Ford from Lockheed and Bill Hoffman from Aerojet spent time finding this stuff as part of a team of Americans sent to Russia after the USSR dissolved.
Energomash builds and sells the RD 180 for use in America's heavy lift launch vehicles.
We build the bus but they supply the engines/motors.

Take Care

One way or another, it appears that the North Koreans failed
consistently when they tried to build their own motors, but suddenly
started having success -- with much more challenging rockets -- when
they switched to the Russian design.

--
Ed Huntress

The Russians had the same experience, Ed.
In fact, failure was part of their process.

Well, so did we. The thing about the Koreans that's different is that
they were able to leap over a whole string of growing pains (making a
mid-range rocket of their own that was reliable; stepping up to a
full-blown ICBM from a mediocre mid-range rocket, and having success
right from the start), because they just used someone else's motors.

Too bad they were able to get their hands on them.

They didn't expect to succeed on first attempts at any of this.

In the end, however, they ended up with motors that outperformed anything the US ever built. They had to because they lacked the resources that we had.
It takes a lot to make closed cycle rocket motors work.
We didn't think we could do so and get a man on the moon first.
And we had the money to build an expensive kluge and then did it.

Anyway, I don't think Lil Kim wants to launch anything at anyone.
He just doesn't want to be the next Saddam Hussein...

That's a delicious thought....

--
Ed Huntress

Ukraine is the worlds second largest criminal enterprise, Ed.
Preceded by Russia and followed by US Law Enforcement.

I'm not surprised by anything that is undertaken at this point.
Put off/disappointed but not shocked.
Anyway, worked on some of this stuff and knew people.
Met them anyway.

Thinking that any technology can be embargoed on a permanent basis is foolish in the same sense that teaching 15 year olds that abstinence is an effective method of birth control is successful.

Not going to happen.

I think you've nailed that foolish Ed right in the head.

Huh? He's talking about getting the technology from the outside, from
countries who went through the decade or so of failures that we all
went through. You were claiming anybody could make ICBMs from your
cartoon sketches.

That was a schematic diagram of a V2 rocket I showed you. That is the
mother of all modern rockets. Before that there was only the gunpowder
rocket invented by the Chinese long time ago.

After WWII the US captured and shanghaied Hitler's rocket scientists to
work for the US. That's how NASA got started.

A rocket has very little moving parts. It is actually easier to make
than a internal combustion engine.

Fat Boi Kim made leaps and bounce after he'd figured it out and then
incorporated all the sensors available in a smartphone to guide his
missiles.

When the U.S. Army Had its Own V-2 Rockets
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a24513/us-army-v-2-rockets/




Your diatribe is ridiculous. Here are real RD-series rocket motors:

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/38/0e/6b/3...1a2008d66c.jpg

Here's your cartoon "schematic":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_..._(updated).svg

So, you're saying you can use that schematic to build an RD-250, and
you can fuel it with hydrogen and oxygen derived from water.

You are an idiot. The RD-250 is fueled with UDMH and the oxidizer is
dinitrogen tetroxide. Learning to use hydrogen as a fuel took NASA (in
it's earlier NACA incarnation) over a decade:

"Solving all these problems required an enormous amount of technical
expertise in rocket and aircraft fuels cultivated over a decade by
researchers at the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA)
Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory in Cleveland."

https://www.nasa.gov/content/liquid-...ce-exploration

It's not for North Korean neophytes.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Regarding the V2, it had a
range of 200 miles. We're talking here about a range of 5,000 miles.
The technology is vastly advanced from the V2.

The North Koreans showed no signs of being able to accomplish it --
until they got their hands on the Russian-designed RD-250 engines.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 06:02:08 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 5:41:03 PM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:29:26 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 10:08:57 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:04:40 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 9:43:53 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 08:41:34 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 3:42:27 PM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
If you're interested in this story, it may be in print somewhere, but
it's also in this podcast that you can listen to online, with no
add-on apps:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/p...s-ukraine.html

Hint: They didn't do it themselves.

--
Ed Huntress

Hi Ed,
It is equally likely that they came from Samara.
They are based on Sergey Korolyov's closed cycle hardware design.
Sixty of them ended up in a warehouse and have been sold off over the years to various interested parties, including the one I saw run at Aerojet in the 90's.
Those were for the N30 done at OKB-1.
RD 180's are the same design.
Bob Ford from Lockheed and Bill Hoffman from Aerojet spent time finding this stuff as part of a team of Americans sent to Russia after the USSR dissolved.
Energomash builds and sells the RD 180 for use in America's heavy lift launch vehicles.
We build the bus but they supply the engines/motors.

Take Care

One way or another, it appears that the North Koreans failed
consistently when they tried to build their own motors, but suddenly
started having success -- with much more challenging rockets -- when
they switched to the Russian design.

--
Ed Huntress

The Russians had the same experience, Ed.
In fact, failure was part of their process.

Well, so did we. The thing about the Koreans that's different is that
they were able to leap over a whole string of growing pains (making a
mid-range rocket of their own that was reliable; stepping up to a
full-blown ICBM from a mediocre mid-range rocket, and having success
right from the start), because they just used someone else's motors.

Too bad they were able to get their hands on them.

They didn't expect to succeed on first attempts at any of this.

In the end, however, they ended up with motors that outperformed anything the US ever built. They had to because they lacked the resources that we had.
It takes a lot to make closed cycle rocket motors work.
We didn't think we could do so and get a man on the moon first.
And we had the money to build an expensive kluge and then did it.

Anyway, I don't think Lil Kim wants to launch anything at anyone.
He just doesn't want to be the next Saddam Hussein...

That's a delicious thought....

--
Ed Huntress

Ukraine is the worlds second largest criminal enterprise, Ed.
Preceded by Russia and followed by US Law Enforcement.

I'm not surprised by anything that is undertaken at this point.
Put off/disappointed but not shocked.
Anyway, worked on some of this stuff and knew people.
Met them anyway.

Thinking that any technology can be embargoed on a permanent basis is foolish in the same sense that teaching 15 year olds that abstinence is an effective method of birth control is successful.

Not going to happen.

I didn't think we'd be able to shut it down, but it's useful to know
they're getting it from the outside. I'd hate to think they could leap
ahead that fast in ICBM technical capability

The problem with this hasn't changed.
You have to get a million pounds off the ground and going fast.
It's easy as an intellectual exercise but difficult as an engineering task.
The F-1 setup on the Saturn V produced four and a half thousand metric tons of thrust. The Russian N30 even more.

Just designing a structure to withstand that is problematic when you are weight constrained.
It just wouldn't do to have your rocket motor launch itself through the length of the bus.



Catch any fish lately?

Not a big year, but I had some good bluefishing earlier in the summer.
Right now we're expecting the small ones (called "snapper blues") to
give us some fun for the next month or so on fresh-water ultralight
gear.

Are they good eating?

You probably thought that was a simple question. g The short answer
is that they are delicious IF they're caught by someone who knows to
gut them and ice them within 5 minutes (no joke) of bringing them over
the side. Otherwise, they're awful. Don't ever eat one bought in a
fish market.

They have the fastest digestive system of any fish known to science,
and their digestive juices penetrate the digestive-system walls and
attack the flesh in roughly five minutes after death.

I've had my fill of perch for the year. Maybe the decade.

Gee, yellow perch are one of the best-eating freshwater fish. You must
be picky.


LOL


Besides here I mean.

RCM is not too bad but there are some strange animals showing up in
the cross-postings...

Some things never change.




Well the biggest threat to the human race has generally been the human race.
It looks like we have finally brought forth something that will do the job and doesn't require anyone to pull the trigger, so to speak.
We are pulling the trigger every day and demanding more and better triggers.
LOL

Asimov, Clarke, Heinlien and Bradbury were prophets I guess.

The most obvious manifestation of what's being done is self driving vehicles and it isn't the self driving aspect. It is the way they actually work and learn.
Computers incorporate experience better than humans and connected over networks, the experience of a single vehicle is learned by all of them nearly simultaneously in real time. They update their own software.
Something less obvious is modern drone technology.
The stuff under the radar and taken for granted is likely to be the most impactful.
Our energy grid is an example.
Were the systems that control our energy grid to fail or be disrupted we literally don't have the ability at this point to restore service.
At all.
The required work force doesn't exist.
I read a white paper published last week by Siemens that estimated a restoration time line of about a month to begin bringing the grid back on line after a successful attack that brought it down and that is only true if someone can collect up the people and figure out a communication network to direct them.

Looks like real trouble though. AI and machine learning might well be the death of the human race.
Sooner or later.

That is my view and I don't worry much about these things because there is nothing that can be done.

Thanks. I needed some cheering up this morning. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

The first year I was in Erie I hooked up with the local fish monger that supplies a lot of the locals with fresh fish.
And it really is fresh.
Scored Jonah crab claws right off the boat.
U6 shrimp.
15lb lobsters.
All of it same or next day packed and shipped, even to California but also to me in Erie at the time.
He offers Blues in season. I think they come from Maryland.

Something else I came to appreciate was deer meat sticks.
Man they are good but you have to bring your own meat for processing and I could only provide two. One from PA and one from Western New York.
It would almost be worth the trip back to do it again this year and I might.

Anyway, I probably ate fifty pounds of perch a year for several years so I'm just sick of it.
They are pretty good from a fondue pot - sort of like fish potato chips.
LOL


That is my view and I don't worry much about these things because there is nothing that can be done.

Thanks. I needed some cheering up this morning. d8-)

As you know, Ed.
I aim to pee.
LOL

Ed Huntress wrote on 8/29/2017 9:15 AM:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 21:55:55 -0400, DdbRuZ?? ?????? ? ??????? ??eLpvTM
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote on 8/28/2017 8:42 PM:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:31:43 -0400, zUFjUv?? ?????? ? ??????? ??JbAGmI
wrote:

wrote on 8/28/2017 1:29 PM:
On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 10:08:57 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:04:40 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 9:43:53 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 08:41:34 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 3:42:27 PM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
If you're interested in this story, it may be in print somewhere, but
it's also in this podcast that you can listen to online, with no
add-on apps:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/p...s-ukraine.html

Hint: They didn't do it themselves.

--
Ed Huntress

Hi Ed,
It is equally likely that they came from Samara.
They are based on Sergey Korolyov's closed cycle hardware design.

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 16:29:35 -0400, XjJHGD?? ?????? ? ??????? ??OPMFiN
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote on 8/29/2017 9:15 AM:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 21:55:55 -0400, DdbRuZ?? ?????? ? ??????? ??eLpvTM
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote on 8/28/2017 8:42 PM:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:31:43 -0400, zUFjUv?? ?????? ? ??????? ??JbAGmI
wrote:

wrote on 8/28/2017 1:29 PM:
On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 10:08:57 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:04:40 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 9:43:53 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 08:41:34 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 3:42:27 PM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
If you're interested in this story, it may be in print somewhere, but
it's also in this podcast that you can listen to online, with no
add-on apps:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/p...s-ukraine.html

Hint: They didn't do it themselves.

--
Ed Huntress

Hi Ed,
It is equally likely that they came from Samara.
They are based on Sergey Korolyov's closed cycle hardware design.
Sixty of them ended up in a warehouse and have been sold off over the years to various interested parties, including the one I saw run at Aerojet in the 90's.
Those were for the N30 done at OKB-1.
RD 180's are the same design.
Bob Ford from Lockheed and Bill Hoffman from Aerojet spent time finding this stuff as part of a team of Americans sent to Russia after the USSR dissolved.
Energomash builds and sells the RD 180 for use in America's heavy lift launch vehicles.
We build the bus but they supply the engines/motors.

Take Care

One way or another, it appears that the North Koreans failed
consistently when they tried to build their own motors, but suddenly
started having success -- with much more challenging rockets -- when
they switched to the Russian design.

--
Ed Huntress

The Russians had the same experience, Ed.
In fact, failure was part of their process.

Well, so did we. The thing about the Koreans that's different is that
they were able to leap over a whole string of growing pains (making a
mid-range rocket of their own that was reliable; stepping up to a
full-blown ICBM from a mediocre mid-range rocket, and having success
right from the start), because they just used someone else's motors.

Too bad they were able to get their hands on them.

They didn't expect to succeed on first attempts at any of this.

In the end, however, they ended up with motors that outperformed anything the US ever built. They had to because they lacked the resources that we had.
It takes a lot to make closed cycle rocket motors work.
We didn't think we could do so and get a man on the moon first.
And we had the money to build an expensive kluge and then did it.

Anyway, I don't think Lil Kim wants to launch anything at anyone.
He just doesn't want to be the next Saddam Hussein...

That's a delicious thought....

--
Ed Huntress

Ukraine is the worlds second largest criminal enterprise, Ed.
Preceded by Russia and followed by US Law Enforcement.

I'm not surprised by anything that is undertaken at this point.
Put off/disappointed but not shocked.
Anyway, worked on some of this stuff and knew people.
Met them anyway.

Thinking that any technology can be embargoed on a permanent basis is foolish in the same sense that teaching 15 year olds that abstinence is an effective method of birth control is successful.

Not going to happen.

I think you've nailed that foolish Ed right in the head.

Huh? He's talking about getting the technology from the outside, from
countries who went through the decade or so of failures that we all
went through. You were claiming anybody could make ICBMs from your
cartoon sketches.

That was a schematic diagram of a V2 rocket I showed you. That is the
mother of all modern rockets. Before that there was only the gunpowder
rocket invented by the Chinese long time ago.

After WWII the US captured and shanghaied Hitler's rocket scientists to
work for the US. That's how NASA got started.

A rocket has very little moving parts. It is actually easier to make
than a internal combustion engine.

Fat Boi Kim made leaps and bounds after he'd figured it out and then
incorporated all the sensors available in a smartphone to guide his
missiles.

When the U.S. Army Had its Own V-2 Rockets
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a24513/us-army-v-2-rockets/




Your diatribe is ridiculous. Here are real RD-series rocket motors:

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/38/0e/6b/3...1a2008d66c.jpg


A rocket motor is a very simple deign. I can look at the picture and
immediate can identify which part does what.

No you can't.


For you, I might have to hold your hand to point at the parts and
explain to you.

You wouldn't know which end is up.


The problem with you is that your technical know-how goes only as far as
metalworking (hammer, anvil and occasional arc welding) and, like
yourself, those North Korean squint-eyes can't make advanced rockets.
You are wrong.

The problem with you is that you think you can bull**** your way
through this.



Here's your cartoon "schematic":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_..._(updated).svg


The Space Shuttle engine is also very simple, if you know what you are
looking at.

No, it's not.


So, you're saying you can use that schematic to build an RD-250, and
you can fuel it with hydrogen and oxygen derived from water.

Why do you think someone can build an RD-250 with a V2 schematic?

Hey, you said it's all very simple.


A V2 schematic is for building a V2, you idiot!

You couldn't build a V2, either.


I merely demonstrated to you that way back the Nazis made the first
viable modern rocket weapon. Rocket science is not that difficult, Ed,
if you know how.

You don't know how. How many have you built?


Do I have to elaborate on every minute things in every sentence and
treat you like a retard (or a 5-year-old)?

You really ought to give it up. John may decide to blow your doors
off. He actually knows what you're talking about.




You are an idiot. The RD-250 is fueled with UDMH and the oxidizer is
dinitrogen tetroxide.

Of course, because that is RD-250.

But Fat Boi Kim is not building an RD-250, you nutjob!

If you had listened to that podcast, you'd realize that RD-250s are
EXACTLY what the North Koreans are using!

You're an empty bag of wind. Go find out what you're arguing about
before you argue.




Learning to use hydrogen as a fuel took NASA (in
it's earlier NACA incarnation) over a decade:

I believe you. The US shanghaied Hitler's finest German rocket
scientists, but NASA had rough start because the local Yankee rednecks
are slow learners.

As I said, you're an tempty bag of wind.


If you go into Silicon Valley you will see that most of the brains are
immigrants.




"Solving all these problems required an enormous amount of technical
expertise in rocket and aircraft fuels cultivated over a decade by
researchers at the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA)
Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory in Cleveland."

https://www.nasa.gov/content/liquid-...ce-exploration

So you shanghaied the Nazi rocket scientists to the US to get a head start.



It's not for North Korean neophytes.

North Koreans are very smart people. Look at their neighbouring
countries like China, South Korea, and Japan. They are very successful
in science and technology. Why would you think North Koreans are
lowbrows like your own rednecks?



You have no idea what you're talking about. Regarding the V2, it had a
range of 200 miles. We're talking here about a range of 5,000 miles.
The technology is vastly advanced from the V2.

Fat Boi Kim does not need to copy V2. Fat Boi Kim does not need to
shanghai any Nazi rocket scientists.

The US Army shanghaied the Nazi rocket scientists and copied the V2, and
that's how your NASA got started.

When the U.S. Army Had its Own V-2 Rockets:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a24513/us-army-v-2-rockets/



The North Koreans showed no signs of being able to accomplish it --
until they got their hands on the Russian-designed RD-250 engines.

I call that speculative bull****.

All the smart North Koreans banged their heads together, put their minds
to it, and achieved this technological breakthrough.

Remember, genetically North Koreans are very close to Chinese, South
Koreans and Japanese (you can tell they all have squint-eyes). They are
all very smart people.



Quick !!! Come see !!!

Fat Boi Kim is lobbing missiles like there is no tomorrow !!!

Look at how many times Fat Boi Kim had fired off his missiles just this
year alone:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_Korean_missile_tests#Timeline
2017 – North Korea test-fired a Pukguksong-2 missile over the Sea of
Japan. This was the first launch of the new medium-range ballistic
missile (February 11, 2017).

2017 – North Korea launches four ballistic missiles from the
Tongchang-ri launch site in the northwest. Some flew 620 mi (1,000 km)
before falling into the Sea of Japan. (March 6, 2017)

2017 – North Korea test-fired a medium-range ballistic missile from its
eastern port of Sinpo into the Sea of Japan (April 4, 2017)

2017 – North Korea test-fired an unidentified land-based missile from
the naval base in Sinpo but it exploded almost immediately after the
takeoff (April 15, 2017).

2017 - North Korea test-fired an unidentified missile from Pukchang
airfield (April 28,
2017). Missile, believed to be a medium-range KN-17 ballistic missile,
falters and breaks apart minutes after liftoff.

2017 - North Korea test-fired a Hwasong-12 missile from a test site in
the area of Kusong (May 13, 2017). The missile, later revealed to be an
intermediate range ballistic missile, traveled 30 minutes, reached an
altitude of more than 2,111.5 km, and flew a horizontal distance of 789
km (489 miles), before falling into the Sea of Japan. Such a missile
would have a range of at least 4,000, reaching Guam, to 6,000 km.

2017- North Korea test-fired another Pukguksong-2 medium-range ballistic
missile from Pukchang airfield (May 21, 2017), which traveled
approximately 300 miles before falling into the Sea of Japan. The
missile landed about 217 miles from North Korea's east coast.

2017 - North Korea Fired a Short Range Ballistic Missile into the Sea of
Japan (May 29,
2017). It traveled 450 km.

2017 - North Korea fired several missiles into the Sea of Japan (June 8,
2017). They are believed to be anti-ship missiles. The South Korean
military said the launches show the reclusive regime's "precise
targeting capability."

2017 - North Korea tested a new rocket engine that could possibly be
fitted to an intercontinental ballistic missile (June 23, 2017).

2017 – North Korea tested its first intercontinental ballistic missile
(ICBM) named Hwasong-14 on July 4. It launched from the Panghyon
Aircraft Factory 8 km southeast of Panghyon Airport. It was aimed
straight up at a lofted trajectory and reached more than 2,500 km into
space. It landed 37 minutes later, more than 930 km from its launch
site, into Japan's exclusive economic zone. Aiming long, the missile
would have traveled 7,000-8,000 km or more, reaching Alaska, Hawaii, and
maybe Seattle. Its operational range would be farther, bringing a 500 kg
payload to targets in most of the contiguous United States 9,700 km away.

2017- The 14th missile test carried out by North Korea in 2017 was
another ICBM launched at 23:41 North Korea time (15:41 GMT) from Chagang
Province in the north of the country on July 28, 2017. Los Angeles,
Denver, Chicago, Boston, and New York appear to be within range. The
missile's reentry vehicle (RV) was seen by people in Japan as it entered
the atmosphere and landed near the northernmost Japanese island,
Hokkaido. Analysis later revealed that the RV broke up on re-entry;
further testing would be required. The CIA made an assessment expecting
adequate performance of the RV under the different stresses of a
shallower trajectory towards the continental US.

2017: North Korea test fires three short range ballistic missiles from
the Kangwon province on August 26. Two travel approximately 250
kilometers in a northeastern direction and one explodes immediately
after launch.

2017: On August 29, 2017, at 6 AM local time, North Korea launched a
ballistic missile over Northern Japan.

That's what the podcast was about. ALL of those happened in the last
year, after they got their hands on Russian-designed rocket motors.
Before that, it was one failure after another.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote on 8/29/2017 6:05 PM:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 16:29:35 -0400, XjJHGD?? ?????? ? ??????? ??OPMFiN
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote on 8/29/2017 9:15 AM:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 21:55:55 -0400, DdbRuZ?? ?????? ? ??????? ??eLpvTM
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote on 8/28/2017 8:42 PM:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:31:43 -0400, zUFjUv?? ?????? ? ??????? ??JbAGmI
wrote:

wrote on 8/28/2017 1:29 PM:
On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 10:08:57 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:04:40 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 9:43:53 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 08:41:34 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 3:42:27 PM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
If you're interested in this story, it may be in print somewhere, but
it's also in this podcast that you can listen to online, with no
add-on apps:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/p...s-ukraine.html

Hint: They didn't do it themselves.

--
Ed Huntress

Hi Ed,
It is equally likely that they came from Samara.
They are based on Sergey Korolyov's closed cycle hardware design.
Sixty of them ended up in a warehouse and have been sold off over the years to various interested parties, including the one I saw run at Aerojet in the 90's.
Those were for the N30 done at OKB-1.
RD 180's are the same design.
Bob Ford from Lockheed and Bill Hoffman from Aerojet spent time finding this stuff as part of a team of Americans sent to Russia after the USSR dissolved.
Energomash builds and sells the RD 180 for use in America's heavy lift launch vehicles.
We build the bus but they supply the engines/motors.

Take Care

One way or another, it appears that the North Koreans failed
consistently when they tried to build their own motors, but suddenly
started having success -- with much more challenging rockets -- when
they switched to the Russian design.

--
Ed Huntress

The Russians had the same experience, Ed.
In fact, failure was part of their process.

Well, so did we. The thing about the Koreans that's different is that
they were able to leap over a whole string of growing pains (making a
mid-range rocket of their own that was reliable; stepping up to a
full-blown ICBM from a mediocre mid-range rocket, and having success
right from the start), because they just used someone else's motors.

Too bad they were able to get their hands on them.

They didn't expect to succeed on first attempts at any of this.

In the end, however, they ended up with motors that outperformed anything the US ever built. They had to because they lacked the resources that we had.
It takes a lot to make closed cycle rocket motors work.
We didn't think we could do so and get a man on the moon first.
And we had the money to build an expensive kluge and then did it.

In rec.crafts.metalworking,
Martin Eastburn wrote:
If you remember, China was blowing up missiles off the launch pad until
- The then President Clinton gave the Chinese the inertial guidance
system that we the U.S.A. spent millions, hundreds of missiles and lives
to get it right. Now North Korea has one ? And the physical packages
and fuels from the Ukraine now ? This is getting out of hand.

You have a funny way of spelling "Hughes Electronics Corp" when saying
who provided help to the Chinese. On a practical level, have the Chinese
fired any of these rockets at us? Or just launched satelites?

It seems like the Chinese are easier to trust than the North Koreans.
For one thing, they know where their biggest export market is.

Elijah
------
how much do you buy from China?

Eli the Bearded wrote on 8/29/2017 7:27 PM:
In rec.crafts.metalworking,
Martin Eastburn wrote:
If you remember, China was blowing up missiles off the launch pad until
- The then President Clinton gave the Chinese the inertial guidance
system that we the U.S.A. spent millions, hundreds of missiles and lives
to get it right. Now North Korea has one ? And the physical packages
and fuels from the Ukraine now ? This is getting out of hand.

You have a funny way of spelling "Hughes Electronics Corp" when saying
who provided help to the Chinese. On a practical level, have the Chinese
fired any of these rockets at us? Or just launched satelites?

It seems like the Chinese are easier to trust than the North Koreans.
For one thing, they know where their biggest export market is.

Elijah
------
how much do you buy from China?




Only 18% of China's export goes to the US.

https://geopoliticalfutures.com/chinas-exports-to-the-us/

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 16:29:35 -0400, XjJHGD?? ?????? ? ??????? ??OPMFiN
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote on 8/29/2017 9:15 AM:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 21:55:55 -0400, DdbRuZ?? ?????? ? ??????? ??eLpvTM
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote on 8/28/2017 8:42 PM:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:31:43 -0400, zUFjUv?? ?????? ? ??????? ??JbAGmI
wrote:

wrote on 8/28/2017 1:29 PM:
On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 10:08:57 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:04:40 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 9:43:53 AM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 08:41:34 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 3:42:27 PM UTC-7, Ed Huntress wrote:
If you're interested in this story, it may be in print somewhere, but
it's also in this podcast that you can listen to online, with no
add-on apps:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/p...s-ukraine.html

Hint: They didn't do it themselves.

--
Ed Huntress

Hi Ed,
It is equally likely that they came from Samara.
They are based on Sergey Korolyov's closed cycle hardware design.
Sixty of them ended up in a warehouse and have been sold off over the years to various interested parties, including the one I saw run at Aerojet in the 90's.
Those were for the N30 done at OKB-1.
RD 180's are the same design.
Bob Ford from Lockheed and Bill Hoffman from Aerojet spent time finding this stuff as part of a team of Americans sent to Russia after the USSR dissolved.
Energomash builds and sells the RD 180 for use in America's heavy lift launch vehicles.
We build the bus but they supply the engines/motors.

Take Care

One way or another, it appears that the North Koreans failed
consistently when they tried to build their own motors, but suddenly
started having success -- with much more challenging rockets -- when
they switched to the Russian design.

--
Ed Huntress

The Russians had the same experience, Ed.
In fact, failure was part of their process.

Well, so did we. The thing about the Koreans that's different is that
they were able to leap over a whole string of growing pains (making a
mid-range rocket of their own that was reliable; stepping up to a
full-blown ICBM from a mediocre mid-range rocket, and having success
right from the start), because they just used someone else's motors.

Too bad they were able to get their hands on them.

They didn't expect to succeed on first attempts at any of this.

In the end, however, they ended up with motors that outperformed anything the US ever built. They had to because they lacked the resources that we had.
It takes a lot to make closed cycle rocket motors work.
We didn't think we could do so and get a man on the moon first.
And we had the money to build an expensive kluge and then did it.

Anyway, I don't think Lil Kim wants to launch anything at anyone.
He just doesn't want to be the next Saddam Hussein...

That's a delicious thought....

--
Ed Huntress

Ukraine is the worlds second largest criminal enterprise, Ed.
Preceded by Russia and followed by US Law Enforcement.

I'm not surprised by anything that is undertaken at this point.
Put off/disappointed but not shocked.
Anyway, worked on some of this stuff and knew people.
Met them anyway.

Thinking that any technology can be embargoed on a permanent basis is foolish in the same sense that teaching 15 year olds that abstinence is an effective method of birth control is successful.

Not going to happen.

I think you've nailed that foolish Ed right in the head.

Huh? He's talking about getting the technology from the outside, from
countries who went through the decade or so of failures that we all
went through. You were claiming anybody could make ICBMs from your
cartoon sketches.

That was a schematic diagram of a V2 rocket I showed you. That is the
mother of all modern rockets. Before that there was only the gunpowder
rocket invented by the Chinese long time ago.

After WWII the US captured and shanghaied Hitler's rocket scientists to
work for the US. That's how NASA got started.

A rocket has very little moving parts. It is actually easier to make
than a internal combustion engine.

Fat Boi Kim made leaps and bounds after he'd figured it out and then
incorporated all the sensors available in a smartphone to guide his
missiles.

When the U.S. Army Had its Own V-2 Rockets
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a24513/us-army-v-2-rockets/




Your diatribe is ridiculous. Here are real RD-series rocket motors:

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/38/0e/6b/3...1a2008d66c.jpg



A rocket motor is a very simple deign. I can look at the picture and
immediate can identify which part does what.

Your ignorance is amazing. Years ago I was stationed at Edwards AFB
and the shop I worked in did considerable work for the Rocket Test
Center which was located on the other side of the dry lake at the
time.

Yes, you can identify the parts of a rocket motor. "That is the back
end where the fire comes out and that is the other end."

But in actual practice even a solid fuel rocket motor is far more
complex then you can imagine. The angle of the exhaust nozzle has an
effect on the thrust. The size of the combustion chamber has an effect
on the thrust.

If it is a liquid fuel motor then it gets even more complex. Where and
how the fuel is admitted, for example. As many rockets utilize
hypergolic propellants simply spraying the fuel into the combustion
chamber ignites it but the location of the injection nozzles and the
pressure at which the fuel components are injected also effect the
combustion rate and thus the thrust of the motor.

And, of course, if a liquid monopropellant is used it does require an
ignition source.


For you, I might have to hold your hand to point at the parts and
explain to you.

Right. This is the back end where the fire comes out and this is the
other end...

Your knowledge of rocket engines and/or missiles is rudimentary, at
best.

Rather like claiming to be an expert in avian behavior because you
watched a Donald Duck cartoon.

--
Cheers,

Schweik

On 2017-08-25, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 01:25:01 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:44:42 -0400, EBsoZZ?? ?????? ? ??????? ??TeRcSC
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote on 8/24/2017 6:42 PM:
If you're interested in this story, it may be in print somewhere, but
it's also in this podcast that you can listen to online, with no
add-on apps:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/p...s-ukraine.html

Hint: They didn't do it themselves.



It is very easy to make a rocket. The difficult part is the flight
control unit that keeps the rocket flying straight and narrow instead of
going in random directions after liftoff and crashing back to earth near
the launchpad.

A modern smartphone has all the sensors required to let the rocket
correct its course and guide itself to its destination.

All you need to do is write an App and send the output to an interface
to control the power of each of the three nozzles (a rocket as no wings
or rudder, so a minimum of three nozzles would be needed to make the
rocket go in any direction you want it to).

North Korea makes smartphones:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/10238617/Kim-Jong-un-visits-North-Korean-smartphone-factory.html

Download this Android App (Sensors Multitool) to read the sensors:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wered.sensorsmultitool&hl=en

This "Sensors Multitool" App can read all the sensors in your Android
smartphone (everything you need to guide a missile to its destination):

GPS
Rotation Vector
Linear Acceleration
Gravity
Gyroscope
Accelerometer
Magnetic
Pressure
Orientation

The story is about the engines. N. Korea couldn't get a mid-range
rocket to fire reliably. All of a sudden, they're building ICBMs that
work.

The analysts recently realized why. The engines are Cold-War-Era
Russian -- possibly made in the old Russian heavy-engine factory in
the Ukraine.

I think you mean mean russia, not ukraine.

The factory is a holdover from the Sobiet days. It's in Ukraine.

But they say they're not making engines for N. Korea. The CIA probably
knows the answer to this, but it could be that Russian engineers or
unemployed Ukranians are helping N.Korea to build them.

The key point was in realizing what was new about their program. In
roughly one year, they made progress that is widely thought to have
been impossible, or nearly so.


Those engines definitely were made in Ukraine, because no one else
made them. The question is when they were made (now or 30 years ago)
and who sold them, as both Ukraine and Russia have some in stock.

I am sure that making good rocket engines is not as easy as some
people think.

We are in a very interesting new world. For example, countries can
defy the United States and the so called "world order" and get away
with it. This used to be impossible.

i

Ignoramus8901 wrote on 8/29/2017 9:40 PM:
On 2017-08-25, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 01:25:01 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:44:42 -0400, EBsoZZ?? ?????? ? ??????? ??TeRcSC
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote on 8/24/2017 6:42 PM:
If you're interested in this story, it may be in print somewhere, but
it's also in this podcast that you can listen to online, with no
add-on apps:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/p...s-ukraine.html

Hint: They didn't do it themselves.



It is very easy to make a rocket. The difficult part is the flight
control unit that keeps the rocket flying straight and narrow instead of
going in random directions after liftoff and crashing back to earth near
the launchpad.

A modern smartphone has all the sensors required to let the rocket
correct its course and guide itself to its destination.

All you need to do is write an App and send the output to an interface
to control the power of each of the three nozzles (a rocket as no wings
or rudder, so a minimum of three nozzles would be needed to make the
rocket go in any direction you want it to).

North Korea makes smartphones:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/10238617/Kim-Jong-un-visits-North-Korean-smartphone-factory.html

Download this Android App (Sensors Multitool) to read the sensors:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wered.sensorsmultitool&hl=en

This "Sensors Multitool" App can read all the sensors in your Android
smartphone (everything you need to guide a missile to its destination):

GPS
Rotation Vector
Linear Acceleration
Gravity
Gyroscope
Accelerometer
Magnetic
Pressure
Orientation

The story is about the engines. N. Korea couldn't get a mid-range
rocket to fire reliably. All of a sudden, they're building ICBMs that
work.

The analysts recently realized why. The engines are Cold-War-Era
Russian -- possibly made in the old Russian heavy-engine factory in
the Ukraine.

I think you mean mean russia, not ukraine.

The factory is a holdover from the Sobiet days. It's in Ukraine.

But they say they're not making engines for N. Korea. The CIA probably
knows the answer to this, but it could be that Russian engineers or
unemployed Ukranians are helping N.Korea to build them.

The key point was in realizing what was new about their program. In
roughly one year, they made progress that is widely thought to have
been impossible, or nearly so.


Those engines definitely were made in Ukraine, because no one else
made them. The question is when they were made (now or 30 years ago)
and who sold them, as both Ukraine and Russia have some in stock.

I am sure that making good rocket engines is not as easy as some
people think.


It is because you are a blacksmith. It won't fit on your anvil.



We are in a very interesting new world. For example, countries can
defy the United States and the so called "world order" and get away
with it. This used to be impossible.


Empires rise and fall. The Ottoman Empire dissolved in WWI. The sun set
on the British Empire after WWII.

The American Empire rose to the top after WWII but it is now in its
death throes. The Empire is short-lived and crumbling fast. With the
infrastructure decaying and manufacture base disappearing, I am worrying
it may try to start WWIII and go out in a bang (just like a suicide
bomber trying to get 72 virgins in the great beyond).

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 19:47:25 -0400, tMkDaB?? ?????? ? ??????? ??QvjDSR
wrote:

Eli the Bearded wrote on 8/29/2017 7:27 PM:
In rec.crafts.metalworking,
Martin Eastburn wrote:
If you remember, China was blowing up missiles off the launch pad until
- The then President Clinton gave the Chinese the inertial guidance
system that we the U.S.A. spent millions, hundreds of missiles and lives
to get it right. Now North Korea has one ? And the physical packages
and fuels from the Ukraine now ? This is getting out of hand.

You have a funny way of spelling "Hughes Electronics Corp" when saying
who provided help to the Chinese. On a practical level, have the Chinese
fired any of these rockets at us? Or just launched satelites?

It seems like the Chinese are easier to trust than the North Koreans.
For one thing, they know where their biggest export market is.

Elijah
------
how much do you buy from China?




Only 18% of China's export goes to the US.

https://geopoliticalfutures.com/chinas-exports-to-the-us/

And, The U.S. is China's single largest market for the past 15 years,
excepting for 2013.

--
Cheers,

Schweik

"Ignoramus8901" wrote in message
...



We are in a very interesting new world. For example, countries can
defy the United States and the so called "world order" and get away
with it. This used to be impossible.

i

Nukes are the great equilizer, they prevent attempts at regime change
by foreign powers.

Best Regards
Tom.






---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

"Ignoramus8901" wrote in message
...
On 2017-08-25, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 01:25:01 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:44:42 -0400, EBsoZZ?? ?????? ? ???????
??TeRcSC
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote on 8/24/2017 6:42 PM:
If you're interested in this story, it may be in print
somewhere, but
it's also in this podcast that you can listen to online, with
no
add-on apps:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/p...s-ukraine.html

Hint: They didn't do it themselves.



It is very easy to make a rocket. The difficult part is the
flight
control unit that keeps the rocket flying straight and narrow
instead of
going in random directions after liftoff and crashing back to
earth near
the launchpad.

A modern smartphone has all the sensors required to let the
rocket
correct its course and guide itself to its destination.

All you need to do is write an App and send the output to an
interface
to control the power of each of the three nozzles (a rocket as no
wings
or rudder, so a minimum of three nozzles would be needed to make
the
rocket go in any direction you want it to).

North Korea makes smartphones:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/10238617/Kim-Jong-un-visits-North-Korean-smartphone-factory.html

Download this Android App (Sensors Multitool) to read the
sensors:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wered.sensorsmultitool&hl=en

This "Sensors Multitool" App can read all the sensors in your
Android
smartphone (everything you need to guide a missile to its
destination):

GPS
Rotation Vector
Linear Acceleration
Gravity
Gyroscope
Accelerometer
Magnetic
Pressure
Orientation

The story is about the engines. N. Korea couldn't get a mid-range
rocket to fire reliably. All of a sudden, they're building ICBMs
that
work.

The analysts recently realized why. The engines are Cold-War-Era
Russian -- possibly made in the old Russian heavy-engine factory
in
the Ukraine.

I think you mean mean russia, not ukraine.

The factory is a holdover from the Sobiet days. It's in Ukraine.

But they say they're not making engines for N. Korea. The CIA
probably
knows the answer to this, but it could be that Russian engineers or
unemployed Ukranians are helping N.Korea to build them.

The key point was in realizing what was new about their program. In
roughly one year, they made progress that is widely thought to have
been impossible, or nearly so.


Those engines definitely were made in Ukraine, because no one else
made them. The question is when they were made (now or 30 years ago)
and who sold them, as both Ukraine and Russia have some in stock.

I am sure that making good rocket engines is not as easy as some
people think.

We are in a very interesting new world. For example, countries can
defy the United States and the so called "world order" and get away
with it. This used to be impossible.

i

The V-2 engine design group, mainly Walter Thiel, had enormous
difficulty with the seemingly simple nozzles that injected fuel and
oxidizer into the V-2 combustion chamber.
- "The Rocket and the Reich"

http://www.astronautix.com/v/v-2.html
"Eventually, through a seven-year process of trial and error, a
fuel-cooled rocket engine of 1.5 tonnes thrust and a specific impulse
of 215 seconds was perfected. But all attempts to scale this engine up
to the thrust required for the A4 met insurmountable combustion
instability problems. Finally an interim solution was found to produce
engines for test A4 missiles found. This involved clustering 18 of the
1.5 tonne combustion chambers and feeding their exhaust into a common
'mixing chamber'. In fact this immensely complex 'interim' design had
to be pressed into production."

The extra "found" is where the verb would be in German.

"Ignoramus8901" wrote in message
...
...
We are in a very interesting new world. For example, countries can
defy the United States and the so called "world order" and get away
with it. This used to be impossible.

i

Not really. The USA attempted to suppress aggression -between-
countries, especially when it was a proxy for superpower conflicts,
but did relatively little to affect their purely internal affairs,
Albania, Cuba, Syria, Libya and Egypt for example. Of course whether
or not a change in leadership might be sufficient cause for
intervention was a difficult judgement call.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Prague-Spring

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada...Cuba_relations

We didn't care one bit that Yugoslavia was Communist after they ceased
their low level conflict with Italy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triest..._States_Troops

-jsw

Clinton did the exchange agreement. Hughes might have been making them
for the US.

The Koreans get most anything they want from China.

Martin

On 8/29/2017 6:27 PM, Eli the Bearded wrote:
In rec.crafts.metalworking,
Martin Eastburn wrote:
If you remember, China was blowing up missiles off the launch pad until
- The then President Clinton gave the Chinese the inertial guidance
system that we the U.S.A. spent millions, hundreds of missiles and lives
to get it right. Now North Korea has one ? And the physical packages
and fuels from the Ukraine now ? This is getting out of hand.

You have a funny way of spelling "Hughes Electronics Corp" when saying
who provided help to the Chinese. On a practical level, have the Chinese
fired any of these rockets at us? Or just launched satelites?

It seems like the Chinese are easier to trust than the North Koreans.
For one thing, they know where their biggest export market is.

Elijah
------
how much do you buy from China?

tqARiz?? ?????? ? ??????? ??sajKNc wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote on 8/26/2017 11:20 PM:
SBPktv?? ?????? ? ??????? ??EvdiKG wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote on 8/26/2017 1:56 AM:
HtOVBf?? ?????? ? ??????? ??fUEtdX wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote on 8/25/2017 9:21 AM:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
"sTQjSE?? Mighty + Wannabe ??oPFbEi" wrote in
message ...
Martin Eastburn wrote on 8/24/2017 11:12 PM:
If you remember, China was blowing up missiles off the launch pad
until
- The then President Clinton gave the Chinese the inertial guidance
system


Please explain how "inertial guidance system" can mitigate "blowing
up missiles off the launch pad".

Common sense dictates that the guidance system inside a missile has
nothing to do with a missile blowing up off the launch pad.


The Range Safety Officer sends a self-destruct command if the
missile's guidance fails, to prevent it from causing damage wherever
it might otherwise fall.

there are no range safety officers in china.

see for yourself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBJ9ue6GKek


When a rocket launch failed off the launch pad, it was the rocket
propulsion engine that failed, not the 'guidance system'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6qJh9upqW8

None of those 5 rocket failures crashed into a city. Only china could pull
off that trick.


The point I was trying to make is that North Korea's success in new
missiles (not blowing up off the launch pad) has nothing to do with
Clinton giving them the 'guidance system'.

Nobody needs Clinton's 'guidance system'. All the sensors required for
flight control and guidance system are inside modern smartphones (and
China makes almost all the smartphones in the world).

Download this Android App (Sensors Multitool) to read the sensors:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wered.sensorsmultitool&hl=en

how accurate will the readings be when my phone taped to a missile is when
travelling at speeds of 4miles per second. Let me know.


4 miles per second is peanuts.

You failed to answer the question. Try again.

Cydrome Leader wrote on 9/2/2017 5:54 PM:
tqARiz?? ?????? ? ??????? ??sajKNc wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote on 8/26/2017 11:20 PM:
SBPktv?? ?????? ? ??????? ??EvdiKG wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote on 8/26/2017 1:56 AM:
HtOVBf?? ?????? ? ??????? ??fUEtdX wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote on 8/25/2017 9:21 AM:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
"sTQjSE?? Mighty + Wannabe ??oPFbEi" wrote in
message ...
Martin Eastburn wrote on 8/24/2017 11:12 PM:
If you remember, China was blowing up missiles off the launch pad
until
- The then President Clinton gave the Chinese the inertial guidance
system


Please explain how "inertial guidance system" can mitigate "blowing
up missiles off the launch pad".

Common sense dictates that the guidance system inside a missile has
nothing to do with a missile blowing up off the launch pad.


The Range Safety Officer sends a self-destruct command if the
missile's guidance fails, to prevent it from causing damage wherever
it might otherwise fall.

there are no range safety officers in china.

see for yourself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBJ9ue6GKek


When a rocket launch failed off the launch pad, it was the rocket
propulsion engine that failed, not the 'guidance system'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6qJh9upqW8

None of those 5 rocket failures crashed into a city. Only china could pull
off that trick.


The point I was trying to make is that North Korea's success in new
missiles (not blowing up off the launch pad) has nothing to do with
Clinton giving them the 'guidance system'.

Nobody needs Clinton's 'guidance system'. All the sensors required for
flight control and guidance system are inside modern smartphones (and
China makes almost all the smartphones in the world).

Download this Android App (Sensors Multitool) to read the sensors:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wered.sensorsmultitool&hl=en

how accurate will the readings be when my phone taped to a missile is when
travelling at speeds of 4miles per second. Let me know.


4 miles per second is peanuts.

You failed to answer the question. Try again.


Please find someone to explain this to you if you are too stuuuuuupid to
understand the relevance of my answer to your question:

Do you know we are all hurtling in space around the Sun at 18.5 miles
per second, while our Earth is spinning around its own axis at the same
time? Our analog clocks and watches have been very accurate at keeping time.

Have you heard of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and his
thought-experiment of a person inside a moving train, a spaceship, or a
falling elevator?

To answer your question, the sensors in your phone taped to a missile
traveling at speeds of 4 miles per second will be as accurate as when
you are holding it in your hand while walking on the street. The sensors
inside a smartphone will measure the gravity, rotation vector,
acceleration, pressure and orientation just the same.

Here are some more fun facts:

How fast is the Earth spinning?
0.5 km/sec

How fast is the Earth revolving around the Sun?
30 km/sec

How fast is the Solar System moving around the Milky Way Galaxy?
250 km/sec

How fast is our Milky Way Galaxy moving in the Local Group of galaxies?
300 km/sec

lOcjQe?? ?????? ? ??????? ??HCrlbT wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote on 9/2/2017 5:54 PM:
tqARiz?? ?????? ? ??????? ??sajKNc wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote on 8/26/2017 11:20 PM:
SBPktv?? ?????? ? ??????? ??EvdiKG wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote on 8/26/2017 1:56 AM:
HtOVBf?? ?????? ? ??????? ??fUEtdX wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote on 8/25/2017 9:21 AM:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
"sTQjSE?? Mighty + Wannabe ??oPFbEi" wrote in
message ...
Martin Eastburn wrote on 8/24/2017 11:12 PM:
If you remember, China was blowing up missiles off the launch pad
until
- The then President Clinton gave the Chinese the inertial guidance
system


Please explain how "inertial guidance system" can mitigate "blowing
up missiles off the launch pad".

Common sense dictates that the guidance system inside a missile has
nothing to do with a missile blowing up off the launch pad.


The Range Safety Officer sends a self-destruct command if the
missile's guidance fails, to prevent it from causing damage wherever
it might otherwise fall.

there are no range safety officers in china.

see for yourself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBJ9ue6GKek


When a rocket launch failed off the launch pad, it was the rocket
propulsion engine that failed, not the 'guidance system'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6qJh9upqW8

None of those 5 rocket failures crashed into a city. Only china could pull
off that trick.


The point I was trying to make is that North Korea's success in new
missiles (not blowing up off the launch pad) has nothing to do with
Clinton giving them the 'guidance system'.

Nobody needs Clinton's 'guidance system'. All the sensors required for
flight control and guidance system are inside modern smartphones (and
China makes almost all the smartphones in the world).

Download this Android App (Sensors Multitool) to read the sensors:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wered.sensorsmultitool&hl=en

how accurate will the readings be when my phone taped to a missile is when
travelling at speeds of 4miles per second. Let me know.


4 miles per second is peanuts.

You failed to answer the question. Try again.


Please find someone to explain this to you if you are too stuuuuuupid to
understand the relevance of my answer to your question:

Do you know we are all hurtling in space around the Sun at 18.5 miles
per second, while our Earth is spinning around its own axis at the same
time? Our analog clocks and watches have been very accurate at keeping time.

Have you heard of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and his
thought-experiment of a person inside a moving train, a spaceship, or a
falling elevator?

To answer your question, the sensors in your phone taped to a missile
traveling at speeds of 4 miles per second will be as accurate as when
you are holding it in your hand while walking on the street. The sensors
inside a smartphone will measure the gravity, rotation vector,
acceleration, pressure and orientation just the same.

What is the expected pressure reading when reentering the atmosphere?
What is the expected rotation vector when 5 miles above the target?
What is the can you really measure 32 feet per second per second with a
phone?

Cydrome Leader wrote on 9/3/2017 10:03 PM:
lOcjQe?? ?????? ? ??????? ??HCrlbT wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote on 9/2/2017 5:54 PM:
tqARiz?? ?????? ? ??????? ??sajKNc wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote on 8/26/2017 11:20 PM:
SBPktv?? ?????? ? ??????? ??EvdiKG wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote on 8/26/2017 1:56 AM:
HtOVBf?? ?????? ? ??????? ??fUEtdX wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote on 8/25/2017 9:21 AM:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
"sTQjSE?? Mighty + Wannabe ??oPFbEi" wrote in
message ...
Martin Eastburn wrote on 8/24/2017 11:12 PM:
If you remember, China was blowing up missiles off the launch pad
until
- The then President Clinton gave the Chinese the inertial guidance
system


Please explain how "inertial guidance system" can mitigate "blowing
up missiles off the launch pad".

Common sense dictates that the guidance system inside a missile has
nothing to do with a missile blowing up off the launch pad.


The Range Safety Officer sends a self-destruct command if the
missile's guidance fails, to prevent it from causing damage wherever
it might otherwise fall.

there are no range safety officers in china.

see for yourself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBJ9ue6GKek


When a rocket launch failed off the launch pad, it was the rocket
propulsion engine that failed, not the 'guidance system'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6qJh9upqW8

None of those 5 rocket failures crashed into a city. Only china could pull
off that trick.


The point I was trying to make is that North Korea's success in new
missiles (not blowing up off the launch pad) has nothing to do with
Clinton giving them the 'guidance system'.

Nobody needs Clinton's 'guidance system'. All the sensors required for
flight control and guidance system are inside modern smartphones (and
China makes almost all the smartphones in the world).

Download this Android App (Sensors Multitool) to read the sensors:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wered.sensorsmultitool&hl=en

how accurate will the readings be when my phone taped to a missile is when
travelling at speeds of 4miles per second. Let me know.


4 miles per second is peanuts.

You failed to answer the question. Try again.


Please find someone to explain this to you if you are too stuuuuuupid to
understand the relevance of my answer to your question:

Do you know we are all hurtling in space around the Sun at 18.5 miles
per second, while our Earth is spinning around its own axis at the same
time? Our analog clocks and watches have been very accurate at keeping time.

Have you heard of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and his
thought-experiment of a person inside a moving train, a spaceship, or a
falling elevator?

To answer your question, the sensors in your phone taped to a missile
traveling at speeds of 4 miles per second will be as accurate as when
you are holding it in your hand while walking on the street. The sensors
inside a smartphone will measure the gravity, rotation vector,
acceleration, pressure and orientation just the same.

What is the expected pressure reading when reentering the atmosphere?
What is the expected rotation vector when 5 miles above the target?
What is the can you really measure 32 feet per second per second with a
phone?


If you follow the Google Play link to download the app to your
smartphone, then you will be able to answer all your own questions.

There is no rotation vector reading when the phone/missile is not rotating.

The phone will display gravitational acceleration in x-y-z axis. The
missile/phone's acceleration will increase/decrease those reading.

The main function of those sensors are to adjust the thrust in the 3 or
more exhaust nozzles so it will go in the direction you want it to go.

You are too ignorant and too ****ing stupid to talk science. Go away.
Dinner is ready. You mom is telling you to get out of the basement to
eat upstairs.

On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 22:58:38 -0400, FuzOdN?? ?????? ? ??????? ??ieWVhz
wrote:

Cydrome Leader wrote on 9/3/2017 10:03 PM:
lOcjQe?? ?????? ? ??????? ??HCrlbT wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote on 9/2/2017 5:54 PM:
tqARiz?? ?????? ? ??????? ??sajKNc wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote on 8/26/2017 11:20 PM:
SBPktv?? ?????? ? ??????? ??EvdiKG wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote on 8/26/2017 1:56 AM:
HtOVBf?? ?????? ? ??????? ??fUEtdX wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote on 8/25/2017 9:21 AM:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
"sTQjSE?? Mighty + Wannabe ??oPFbEi" wrote in
message ...
Martin Eastburn wrote on 8/24/2017 11:12 PM:
If you remember, China was blowing up missiles off the launch pad
until
- The then President Clinton gave the Chinese the inertial guidance
system


Please explain how "inertial guidance system" can mitigate "blowing
up missiles off the launch pad".

Common sense dictates that the guidance system inside a missile has
nothing to do with a missile blowing up off the launch pad.


The Range Safety Officer sends a self-destruct command if the
missile's guidance fails, to prevent it from causing damage wherever
it might otherwise fall.

there are no range safety officers in china.

see for yourself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBJ9ue6GKek


When a rocket launch failed off the launch pad, it was the rocket
propulsion engine that failed, not the 'guidance system'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6qJh9upqW8

None of those 5 rocket failures crashed into a city. Only china could pull
off that trick.


The point I was trying to make is that North Korea's success in new
missiles (not blowing up off the launch pad) has nothing to do with
Clinton giving them the 'guidance system'.

Nobody needs Clinton's 'guidance system'. All the sensors required for
flight control and guidance system are inside modern smartphones (and
China makes almost all the smartphones in the world).

Download this Android App (Sensors Multitool) to read the sensors:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wered.sensorsmultitool&hl=en

how accurate will the readings be when my phone taped to a missile is when
travelling at speeds of 4miles per second. Let me know.


4 miles per second is peanuts.

You failed to answer the question. Try again.


Please find someone to explain this to you if you are too stuuuuuupid to
understand the relevance of my answer to your question:

Do you know we are all hurtling in space around the Sun at 18.5 miles
per second, while our Earth is spinning around its own axis at the same
time? Our analog clocks and watches have been very accurate at keeping time.

Have you heard of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and his
thought-experiment of a person inside a moving train, a spaceship, or a
falling elevator?

To answer your question, the sensors in your phone taped to a missile
traveling at speeds of 4 miles per second will be as accurate as when
you are holding it in your hand while walking on the street. The sensors
inside a smartphone will measure the gravity, rotation vector,
acceleration, pressure and orientation just the same.

What is the expected pressure reading when reentering the atmosphere?
What is the expected rotation vector when 5 miles above the target?
What is the can you really measure 32 feet per second per second with a
phone?


If you follow the Google Play link to download the app to your
smartphone, then you will be able to answer all your own questions.

There is no rotation vector reading when the phone/missile is not rotating.

The phone will display gravitational acceleration in x-y-z axis. The
missile/phone's acceleration will increase/decrease those reading.

The main function of those sensors are to adjust the thrust in the 3 or
more exhaust nozzles so it will go in the direction you want it to go.

You are too ignorant and too ****ing stupid to talk science. Go away.
Dinner is ready. You mom is telling you to get out of the basement to
eat upstairs.


But does it measure the level of stupidity in a "?? ?????? ? ???????
??" post?
--
Cheers,

Schweik

On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 18:37:04 -0400, lOcjQe?? ?????? ? ??????? ??HCrlbT
wrote:

Cydrome Leader wrote on 9/2/2017 5:54 PM:
tqARiz?? ?????? ? ??????? ??sajKNc wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote on 8/26/2017 11:20 PM:
SBPktv?? ?????? ? ??????? ??EvdiKG wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote on 8/26/2017 1:56 AM:
HtOVBf?? ?????? ? ??????? ??fUEtdX wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote on 8/25/2017 9:21 AM:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
"sTQjSE?? Mighty + Wannabe ??oPFbEi" wrote in
message ...
Martin Eastburn wrote on 8/24/2017 11:12 PM:
If you remember, China was blowing up missiles off the launch pad
until
- The then President Clinton gave the Chinese the inertial guidance
system


Please explain how "inertial guidance system" can mitigate "blowing
up missiles off the launch pad".

Common sense dictates that the guidance system inside a missile has
nothing to do with a missile blowing up off the launch pad.


The Range Safety Officer sends a self-destruct command if the
missile's guidance fails, to prevent it from causing damage wherever
it might otherwise fall.

there are no range safety officers in china.

see for yourself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBJ9ue6GKek


When a rocket launch failed off the launch pad, it was the rocket
propulsion engine that failed, not the 'guidance system'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6qJh9upqW8

None of those 5 rocket failures crashed into a city. Only china could pull
off that trick.


The point I was trying to make is that North Korea's success in new
missiles (not blowing up off the launch pad) has nothing to do with
Clinton giving them the 'guidance system'.

Nobody needs Clinton's 'guidance system'. All the sensors required for
flight control and guidance system are inside modern smartphones (and
China makes almost all the smartphones in the world).

Download this Android App (Sensors Multitool) to read the sensors:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wered.sensorsmultitool&hl=en

how accurate will the readings be when my phone taped to a missile is when
travelling at speeds of 4miles per second. Let me know.


4 miles per second is peanuts.

You failed to answer the question. Try again.


Please find someone to explain this to you if you are too stuuuuuupid to
understand the relevance of my answer to your question:

Do you know we are all hurtling in space around the Sun at 18.5 miles
per second, while our Earth is spinning around its own axis at the same
time? Our analog clocks and watches have been very accurate at keeping time.

Have you heard of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and his
thought-experiment of a person inside a moving train, a spaceship, or a
falling elevator?

To answer your question, the sensors in your phone taped to a missile
traveling at speeds of 4 miles per second will be as accurate as when
you are holding it in your hand while walking on the street. The sensors
inside a smartphone will measure the gravity, rotation vector,
acceleration, pressure and orientation just the same.

Here are some more fun facts:

How fast is the Earth spinning?
0.5 km/sec

How fast is the Earth revolving around the Sun?
30 km/sec

How fast is the Solar System moving around the Milky Way Galaxy?
250 km/sec

How fast is our Milky Way Galaxy moving in the Local Group of galaxies?
300 km/sec



You still havent answered his questions. Why is that?


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

wrote on 9/4/2017 12:24 AM:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 22:58:38 -0400, FuzOdN?? ?????? ? ??????? ??ieWVhz
wrote:

Cydrome Leader wrote on 9/3/2017 10:03 PM:
lOcjQe?? ?????? ? ??????? ??HCrlbT wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote on 9/2/2017 5:54 PM:
tqARiz?? ?????? ? ??????? ??sajKNc wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote on 8/26/2017 11:20 PM:
SBPktv?? ?????? ? ??????? ??EvdiKG wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote on 8/26/2017 1:56 AM:
HtOVBf?? ?????? ? ??????? ??fUEtdX wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote on 8/25/2017 9:21 AM:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
"sTQjSE?? Mighty + Wannabe ??oPFbEi" wrote in
message ...
Martin Eastburn wrote on 8/24/2017 11:12 PM:
If you remember, China was blowing up missiles off the launch pad
until
- The then President Clinton gave the Chinese the inertial guidance
system


Please explain how "inertial guidance system" can mitigate "blowing
up missiles off the launch pad".

Common sense dictates that the guidance system inside a missile has
nothing to do with a missile blowing up off the launch pad.


The Range Safety Officer sends a self-destruct command if the
missile's guidance fails, to prevent it from causing damage wherever
it might otherwise fall.

there are no range safety officers in china.

see for yourself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBJ9ue6GKek


When a rocket launch failed off the launch pad, it was the rocket
propulsion engine that failed, not the 'guidance system'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6qJh9upqW8

None of those 5 rocket failures crashed into a city. Only china could pull
off that trick.


The point I was trying to make is that North Korea's success in new
missiles (not blowing up off the launch pad) has nothing to do with
Clinton giving them the 'guidance system'.

Nobody needs Clinton's 'guidance system'. All the sensors required for
flight control and guidance system are inside modern smartphones (and
China makes almost all the smartphones in the world).

Download this Android App (Sensors Multitool) to read the sensors:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wered.sensorsmultitool&hl=en

how accurate will the readings be when my phone taped to a missile is when
travelling at speeds of 4miles per second. Let me know.


4 miles per second is peanuts.

You failed to answer the question. Try again.


Please find someone to explain this to you if you are too stuuuuuupid to
understand the relevance of my answer to your question:

Do you know we are all hurtling in space around the Sun at 18.5 miles
per second, while our Earth is spinning around its own axis at the same
time? Our analog clocks and watches have been very accurate at keeping time.

Have you heard of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and his
thought-experiment of a person inside a moving train, a spaceship, or a
falling elevator?

To answer your question, the sensors in your phone taped to a missile
traveling at speeds of 4 miles per second will be as accurate as when
you are holding it in your hand while walking on the street. The sensors
inside a smartphone will measure the gravity, rotation vector,
acceleration, pressure and orientation just the same.

What is the expected pressure reading when reentering the atmosphere?
What is the expected rotation vector when 5 miles above the target?
What is the can you really measure 32 feet per second per second with a
phone?


If you follow the Google Play link to download the app to your
smartphone, then you will be able to answer all your own questions.

There is no rotation vector reading when the phone/missile is not rotating.

The phone will display gravitational acceleration in x-y-z axis. The
missile/phone's acceleration will increase/decrease those reading.

The main function of those sensors are to adjust the thrust in the 3 or
more exhaust nozzles so it will go in the direction you want it to go.

You are too ignorant and too ****ing stupid to talk science. Go away.
Dinner is ready. You mom is telling you to get out of the basement to
eat upstairs.


But does it measure the level of stupidity in a "?? ?????? ? ???????
??" post?
--
Cheers,

Schweik



Follow the link. Scroll down and find all my post in this thread,
including this post you are ready now. You will see that those are not
question marks.

How do you get to be so stupid, and yet not run over by a bus?

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.crafts.metalworking/dxNaWIbrUG0%5B1-25%5D