On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 01:29:32 -0400, oDDEgx?? ?????? ? ??????? ??hJEZrS
wrote:

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

The poor ******* is never allowed out of the Home. He is posting from
the computer in the rec room.








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

On Sun, 03 Sep 2017 21:35:13 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

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?

Do you actually expect an answer from someone who signs
himself "?? ?????? ? ??????? ??" ?
--
Cheers,

Schweik

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

You're going off on a tangent. The New York Times article is identifying a specific Ukrainian cold-war aspect of the current North Korean long range missile program.

wrote on 9/8/2017 7:08 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

You're going off on a tangent. The New York Times article is identifying a specific Ukrainian cold-war aspect of the current North Korean long range missile program.


Rockets all look the same to biased minds and untrained eyes like yours.

The North Korean cannot afford the money to buy so many Ukrainian
rockets to lob into the sea. They manufactured their own.


The smart North Koreans browsed the internet, found the V2 rocket
schematic, banged their heads together, put their minds to it, and came
up with their own modern ICBM after some serious category-5 brainstorming.