When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
That's the entrance to Orbital Sciences Corp in Northern VA. I worked there for 13 years and ran a launch vehicle program for 7. Company founder Dave Thompson had that new entrance named Warp Drive when they redid it a few years ago. I ran the development and operation of a launch vehicle called Taurus. It was the muscle car of launch vehicles - 0 to 60 in 1.3 seconds... STRAIGHT UP! 0 to Mach 1 in about 12 seconds. Our Taurus could just about put a Ford Taurus into orbit.
0 to 60 in 1.3 seconds is an acceleration of some 2.1 G's, if I get my numbers right. That's pretty hoss. The jerk (or whatever the derivative of acceleration with respect to time is; think it's jerk) ought to be insane at the start.
0 to 60 in 1.3 seconds is an acceleration of some 2.1 G's, if I get my numbers right. That's pretty hoss. The jerk (or whatever the derivative of acceleration with respect to time is; think it's jerk) ought to be insane at the start.
The acceleration must be enough to get it to just over 25,000 mph within the distance encompassing the frictionally relevant portion of the Earth's atmosphere, so that it can keep going without being dragged back to a slower speed by friction, if I'm not mistaken. I'm sure Joe can give you the relevant numbers and formulae in his sleep.
0 to 60 in 1.3 seconds is an acceleration of some 2.1 G's, if I get my numbers right. That's pretty hoss. The jerk (or whatever the derivative of acceleration with respect to time is; think it's jerk) ought to be insane at the start.
Weight of the vehicle at ignition was 160,000 lbs. Thrust quickly ramped up after ignition to 500,000 lbs. This was the quickest-accelerating vehicle to ever put a satellite into orbit. Most launch vehicles have a thrust-to-weight of around 1.2 to 1.6 at liftoff. The thrust curve of our solid propellant motors was fixed, and that first stage was designed for a heavier vehicle (kinda like putting the engine from a large car into a midsize ). It looked like an Estes rocket at launch, not the space shuttle.
The acceleration must be enough to get it to just over 25,000 mph within the distance encompassing the frictionally relevant portion of the Earth's atmosphere, so that it can keep going without being dragged back to a slower speed by friction, if I'm not mistaken. I'm sure Joe can give you the relevant numbers and formulae in his sleep.
- Eric
Actually, 25,000 mph is escape velocity if you were going to the moon. Low earth orbit only requires about 17,000 mph. The aerodynamic loads were the biggest problem, since by the time you get 100 miles up, you need to be travelling at that speed while parallel to the earth's surface. Turning 90 degrees as you accelerate through the atmosphere puts big aero loads on the vehicle. We pretty much had to slam the nozzle hard to the stops for the first five seconds to pitch over before velocity built up, then flew at essentially zero angle of attack until the first stage burned out. It was not efficient and we lost some performance as compared to theoretical, but ya gotta do what ya gotta do.
I saw the movie in 3D and it was very good. The new series misses the Gene Roddenberry optimistic future themes but they are just good movies. I also miss the long Kirk speeches that saved the day in the original series and also the ship was like a character on the original series and is just a useful machine now. Spock & McCoy are cast perfectly, real good!
I saw the movie in 3D and it was very good. The new series misses the Gene Roddenberry optimistic future themes but they are just good movies. I also miss the long Kirk speeches that saved the day in the original series and also the ship was like a character on the original series and is just a useful machine now. Spock & McCoy are cast perfectly, real good!
I have to disagree. The whole point of the original Star Trek TV series was that it dealt with the social issues of the 1960s - racism, nuclear war, Vietnam, the Cold War (hint: the Klingons were the Soviet Union and the Romulans were Communist China), fanaticism, feminism, etc. The shows made you think. The reboot movies are just a bunch of CGI chases and fight scenes strung together with no real plot or message (kind of like the Daniel Craig 007 movies). The new movies may be mindless entertainment in the vein of Indiana Jones, but they don't make you think like the original series did.
The new movies may be mindless entertainment in the vein of Indiana Jones, but they don't make you think like the original series did.
Who doesn't like Indiana Jones? Apparently Joe Padavano.
FWIW, since Star Trek Beyond is an odd numbered movie (#13) it's a scientifically proven fact that it will be a bad movie. I still want to see it though.
Who doesn't like Indiana Jones? Apparently Joe Padavano.
And I said that where, exactly?
My words were "mindless entertainment", though, yeah, the later Indy movies do drag. There's only so many CGI chases you can endure. Big difference from a movie or show that makes you think about your beliefs. Yeah, there's room for both types, but frankly the non-stop fantasy fight scenes get old after the first 20 minutes. It's a poor excuse for not having a plot.
... the non-stop fantasy fight scenes get old after the first 20 minutes. It's a poor excuse for not having a plot.
Amen.
Just saw the new Jason Bourne movie last night.
The previous ones had some plot, some dialogue, some local scenery, something to ground you in reality. This one is essentially a non-stop CGI-enhanced fight and chase scene.
Now, don't get me wrong, I love car chases, but I like REAL car chases, like in The Blues Brothers, where they actually bought fifty cars and wrecked them, not like they do now, where they buy one car and then mimeograph it.
My comment was that there was enough action in there for two movies, but it was compressed into one.
Not sure what you disagree with Joe, that the new Star Trek was a good movie? I agree with your analysis completely on movies that make you think vs the new mindless action movies. I guess when it comes to Star Trek, even a bad movie is good to me
Meh... Sometimes mindless entertainment is good, vs the politically correct, liberal innuendo, forcing social issues into movies and tv shows.
And sometimes actually using your mind is even better. Unfortunately, that's the most underused muscle in the body...
On the other hand, I'm all for using CGI to avoid killing even more old cars for the sake of Fast and Furious movies, or Dukes of Hazard commercials.
Heck, how many Imperials gave their lives for the Green Hornet movie? Seems like every new movie has to destroy old cars. If I put my tinfoil hat on, seems like THAT'S the tree-hugging Hollywood mafia in action.
Not sure what you disagree with Joe, that the new Star Trek was a good movie? I agree with your analysis completely on movies that make you think vs the new mindless action movies. I guess when it comes to Star Trek, even a bad movie is good to me
OK, so full disclosure, I'm predisposed to hate any Star Trek reboot with new actors. I grew up with the original and that show is at least partly responsible for my career choice. These twelve year old actors in the new one just don't cut it.
The whole alternate reality thing bothers me too. I get it - it frees the writers from fifty years of Star Trek franchise "history". I don't have to like it. Heck, Next Gen was bad enough.
As for the movie itself, frankly, I was bored by both the first and the second. Too much gratuitous CGI, not enough plot. Sorry, but I want to watch a movie for grown ups, not for the all-important adolescent male demographic.
OK, so full disclosure, I'm predisposed to hate any Star Trek reboot with new actors. I grew up with the original and that show is at least partly responsible for my career choice. These twelve year old actors in the new one just don't cut it.
The whole alternate reality thing bothers me too. I get it - it frees the writers from fifty years of Star Trek franchise "history". I don't have to like it. Heck, Next Gen was bad enough.
As for the movie itself, frankly, I was bored by both the first and the second. Too much gratuitous CGI, not enough plot. Sorry, but I want to watch a movie for grown ups, not for the all-important adolescent male demographic.
What a grumpy olds man You missed the whole thing about Star Trek.No Russia,China no anything of the sort. Capt Kirk was a space gansta type guy who killed all the bad guys. There was no rules. Do what is required to win. I have all the Star Trek movies and the series.
I think someone should use their imagination ( if they call themselves directors or writers ) to make new movies instead of remaking old ones to death. They even "politically correct " ruin them with characters that don't even fit the original casting. JMO
My words were "mindless entertainment", though, yeah, the later Indy movies do drag. There's only so many CGI chases you can endure. Big difference from a movie or show that makes you think about your beliefs. Yeah, there's room for both types, but frankly the non-stop fantasy fight scenes get old after the first 20 minutes. It's a poor excuse for not having a plot.
True science fiction engages the brain. It takes a modern day issue, repackages it so that it gets around your biases, entertains you with a story, and then, at the end, it hits you with the brick and you Learn Something.
Techno-thrillers just entertain, and that is what the new Star Trek is. The old ones made you think and grow.
It can be overdone. I'm a fan of the Phillip K. Dick and Richard Matheson style of writing, along with Heinlein. Less is more. I wrote a short story for my weekly submission to a news and editorial site I write for as a hobby, and it was one of the few things I've had rejected, as it was deemed not having enough of an ending; but that's the whole point of good sci-fi, it's what you think that's important.
Joe P i will agree with you on the next generation it plain sucked. Picard was plainly a bad capt. I like Janeway much better. Deep space nine was okay.
I'm old school myself and I have to agree that most new movies just lack any substance at all. Explosions, car chases and fight scenes (A la JJ Abrams) do not make a movie, story does. Hollywood is so shallow lately they've forgotten completely what it means to make a great movie. We're inundated with bad remakes and even worse CGI.
My Star Trek geekiness has a order goes like this:
1) TOS - As stated above, thought provoking stories and good ones at that.
2) Deep Space 9 - Little slow in the first couple years but ramped up considerably the last few with the Dominion War, etc. The whole Emissary plot I could have done without.
3) Enterprise - Filled in all the questions from TOS and explained them nicely. The whole Xindi arc was great. Showed the forming of the Federation.
4) Voyager - Was a little fanciful and lacking. Janeway by far was the worst captain. She always had all the answers and rarely sought help from fellow officers, she did it all as a one man team. Not realistic at all, the world just doesn't work that way. There's a reason you have a crew and specialists on board. 7 of 9 was a major plus though.
5) Star Trek TNG - More fanciful and unrealistic in the beginning. At least Picard acted like a captain but the goofy aliens killed me. Don't get me started about Q, just plain annoying.
Last edited by TripDeuces; August 11th, 2016 at 06:48 AM.
True science fiction engages the brain. It takes a modern day issue, repackages it so that it gets around your biases, entertains you with a story, and then, at the end, it hits you with the brick and you Learn Something.
Techno-thrillers just entertain, and that is what the new Star Trek is. The old ones made you think and grow.
It can be overdone. I'm a fan of the Phillip K. Dick and Richard Matheson style of writing, along with Heinlein. Less is more. I wrote a short story for my weekly submission to a news and editorial site I write for as a hobby, and it was one of the few things I've had rejected, as it was deemed not having enough of an ending; but that's the whole point of good sci-fi, it's what you think that's important.
I would love to read your short story, is in online anywhere?
August 9th, 2016, 07:17 PM
). It looked like an Estes rocket at launch, not the space shuttle.
Who doesn't like Indiana Jones? Apparently Joe Padavano. 
