Hypography Science Forums: Pyrotex - Viewing Profile - Hypography Science Forums

Moderation note: the first 6 post of this thread were moved from the introduction thread prometheuspan and thinkstarship, because they’re a space discussion.

For 25 years, I designed and built complex software systems. Mostly for the Shuttle Simulators (astronaut flight trainers) and the Space Station. Now I invent mathematical models for estimating the reliability of software systems.

I'm not very thrilled with the Constellation Program, starting with the ARES-1. But then, Constellation just got cancelled (mostly) so it's a moot point.

The biggest number-one problem we HAVE to solve is reducing the cost of getting into space. The Saturn booster (Apollo program) could put stuff into orbit at about $5,000 a pound. The Shuttle can do it for about $25,000 a pound. Way too expensive. If we cannot bring the cost down below $5,000 a pound, we won't have a manned space program very much longer.

To lower costs, you make things simple. That doesn't mean you have to go 1970's. If we built a new, improved Saturn booster today, we could make it safer and cheaper, and stronger. If we used Shuttle external tanks and engines and solid rocket boosters, but no Shuttle, we could be even safer and stronger, and much cheaper. The Research and Development (R&D) is the most expensive thing about making a new rocket system.

So, I would vote against space planes and ram rockets. The R&D to make them work safely would be billions and billions of $. Too complicated. Too much to go wrong.

The real trouble is, all the aerospace companies know that R&D is where the profit is. They are gonna want the fanciest, most complicated, sexiest looking rocket plane they can think of. But we taxpayers can't afford that. We can't even afford the Shuttle. Our space program is going nowhere until we reduce the cost of getting into space. And if that means an "ugly" rocket system then so be it.

I came across a new word (phrase) today on the NPR Website.

It is "hapax legomenon" -- or just "hapax" for short. It is: "an expression that only occurs in a single place in the language, like wardrobe malfunction, Corinthian leather or satisfactual."

Wikipedia defines hapax as "is a word which occurs only once in either the written record of a language, the works of an author, or in a single text."

I never heard of hapaxes before. [Is that the correct plural?] But I find the concept fascinating. The NPR article applied this concept to the American Pledge of Allegiance. Two hapaxes occur in the pledge:
"pledge allegiance", and
"under God".

Those two phrases occur in just ONE place in the whole (American) English language--in the Pledge of Allegiance! Wow! Of course, they also occur here in this post because I'm talking about the Pledge of Allegiance, but that doesn't count.

It turns out there are lots of hapaxes in our language. One that occurred to me was the word "lieue". It occurs only in the phrase, "in lieue of", meaning, as a replacement for.

How many hapaxes can we find? That's the purpose of this thread!

Let me hear them hapaxes!

Howdy, science fiction fans,

As of today, December 18, 2009, I have published here a new story for your reading pleasure.
It is in the Short Short Stories thread.

It is entitled "Thistle" .

I hope you like it.

Anybody who has a simple (SIMPLE!!!) question to ask about Hypography or any of its threads, can post it here, and maybe one of us will know the answer.

My question: we used to have a thread all about a physics/mechanics simulator that was available (somewhere) online. We built cars and catapults out of wheels and sticks and tried to get the "payload" into the Pink Zone. Does anyone remember how to find that online simulator?

Hello, space fans, wherever you are.

I am Pyrotex, aka Nelson, and I'm an aerospace engineer working at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas. I've been working on various NASA projects since 1980 --almost thirty years. And I have something to say.

If we are not very careful, we will lose our national space program. That's right, lose it.

Oh, we'll keep launching weather satellites, and military satellites. We'll put up a few probes to Mars, probably.

But our ability to put people into space, to put any LARGE cargo into space (like another Hubble Telescope), to take on any meaningful "manned" exploration of the Moon, other planets, or even low Earth orbit (LEO) will be gone for the foreseeable future.

The Shuttle must be retired soon, and we have NOT prepared for this eventuality. We have NO heavy lifter in the wings to replace the Shuttle. It will be five, some say seven or even nine, years before we can develop a heavy lifter from scratch. (This is called "The Gap".) The factories for building the Titan-3 and Titan-4 are gone. (And besides, the Titans were hideously expensive, designed as they were on military engineering principals.)

The Constellation Program (acronymized as "CxP" within NASA) was thrown together a decade ago by a few companies who obviously and validly did not want to disappear with the Shuttle program. But those engineers aren't around any more, and they have left with us the legacy of a poorly thought-out rocket system: The Ares-1. (Also called "the stick" within NASA.) Going for the Ares-1 will leave us with The Gap, during which we will not be able to make serious use of the International Space Station (ISS). We will lose our 100 Billion $ investment in the ISS.

There are other problems with the Ares-1, but I won't go into that yet. Just take it from me, it's a pitiful attempt to replace the Shuttle.

What we need, to not only replace the Shuttle, but also to close The Gap, was outlined by the Augustine Report. CLICK HERE

That report gave 6 options, but only ONE option replaces the Shuttle to at least some extent, is expandable so that we will eventually get even more bang/$ than the Shuttle, utilizes the best of Shuttle technology, requires only ONE rocket system, will save our aerospace workforce and expertise, AND will CLOSE The Gap.

OPTION 4B.

Here are your orders:
1. Go to that website.
2. Look at the videos.
3. Contact your Congressional Representatives and Senators, and...
4. tell them you want Option 4B, with no compromises.

Don't do this just for me -- I'm retiring in a few years.

Do this for yourselves, your kids, your grandkids, your country.