Ideosphere Forum
From owner-fx-discuss@ideosphere.com Tue Mar  9 07:37:26 2021
Received: from ideosphere.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by ideosphere.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 129CbQpv006273
	for <fx-discuss-outgoing@ideosphere.com>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 07:37:26 -0500
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by ideosphere.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id 129CbQtd006272
	for fx-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 07:37:26 -0500
Received: from smtpq1.tb.ukmail.iss.as9143.net (smtpq1.tb.ukmail.iss.as9143.net [212.54.57.96])
	by ideosphere.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 129CbOW8006267
	for <fx-discuss@ideosphere.com>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 07:37:25 -0500
Received: from [212.54.57.81] (helo=smtp2.tb.ukmail.iss.as9143.net)
	by smtpq1.tb.ukmail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2)
	(envelope-from <chrisran.bma@virgin.net>)
	id 1lJbc3-0006Dt-N8
	for fx-discuss@ideosphere.com; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 13:37:23 +0100
Received: from oxbe10.tb.ukmail.iss.as9143.net ([172.25.160.141])
	by smtp2.tb.ukmail.iss.as9143.net with ESMTP
	id Jbc3lH6SEhdRdJbc3lmlUk; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 13:37:23 +0100
X-Env-Mailfrom: chrisran.bma@virgin.net
X-Env-Rcptto: fx-discuss@ideosphere.com
X-SourceIP: 172.25.160.141
X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=MqCXV0We c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=60476c03 cx=a_exe
 a=f70ZRucvQZHi2l2hbwz5vQ==:117 a=44B5fyVvhaIA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10
 a=ZQYrKOW0prsA:10 a=vnREMb7VAAAA:8 a=8RloEfZUAAAA:8 a=qE--QmdWAAAA:8
 a=UlwdNaw4AAAA:8 a=yIhzZtN8AAAA:8 a=gUbaYAUbAAAA:8 a=O0fyZabYAAAA:8
 a=uTvVNNmAAAAA:8 a=dl9L0q95SjWWMEZP5hMA:9 a=ELiwotPTgu8jRRES:21
 a=sgFhXHl4INfSu5FJ:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=gl0in-L7VEcA:10 a=xwf_HIA-ICEA:10
 a=ea-aaFCQWd8KpuIyLtRc:22 a=I2PGoQiqp6YbFRFXNzeg:22 a=pLaE8NZN9k3dY-aE6T6z:22
 a=e_Lbq5fQ3GGal5XcyS-v:22 a=o_SsXM9rHtMelgA_W9NQ:22 a=8x-QwHi1jvnUQvx5mwMP:22
 a=Ry2eTNIdGMwtTGQdmMb7:22 a=BPzZvq435JnGatEyYwdK:22
X-Authenticated-Sender: chrisran.bma@virgin.net
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=virgin.net;
	s=meg.feb2017; t=1615293443;
	bh=xJVRu3mGkFe1a41gKCj+D7ti6YRUvLPwowoKV6Bb1Vg=;
	h=Date:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject;
	b=fQMfkYrtTLk9BVCDRhTvWZX4+OpF9Zocns5fVUlyc67r1XMN+SNHxSYSQe9yvkBE+
	 LxO4amYKaThEdIjb9QTQaXyvdslOpEoH7xUt5z1I6dwxVnkl8cD4NYnVUHIi5+uvQk
	 rA3yVEh7CMQbwT2hYmDU+IzwnJydFrOJmAq5EL+bUOuDkL3qdD+XIG7FSkU6lpIlmT
	 egYEVxwHRZRUkzeK2se6oyA5WlFkgZS/F7ahP6govsTQEcDyViKLYK+nMrDwyLWk03
	 DscVwqL5SmPBpubiFIw7exMl4RKi3HjDHvpv8p8KrRM3xkjLFb/mEQNKvIkA5jxqhj
	 oMWnAuH+14WHQ==
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 12:37:23 +0000 (GMT)
From: "chrisran.bma e-mail" <chrisran.bma@virgin.net>
To: "Michael C. Berch" <mcb@postmodern.com>, fx-discuss@ideosphere.com
Message-ID: <692704458.320599.1615293443588@mail2.virginmedia.com>
In-Reply-To: <1786168770.302248.1615218140095@mail2.virginmedia.com>
References: <63EBC0A8-400B-4C20-8575-85AE2B647799@davidsj.com>
 <19B23CD2-1FF3-4815-9204-72AA1B5DD2D7@gmail.com>
 <1226947339.3667534.1612737496545@mail2.virginmedia.com>
 <CAD=nd8d2Ykv9zH=dyNPfKe4yXvivHcdxTzPtQSfpH9cEM8eW4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACJR2qECYQK_7B=X7w4+3B8Rt_cTb1avgDT6C+Ju=Xw00DJwnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1997944327.1142125.1613404174275@mail2.virginmedia.com>
 <1693388070.282829.1615161179624@mail2.virginmedia.com>
 <6662AD84-020F-4E2C-9AEF-18B5E7874952@postmodern.com>
 <1786168770.302248.1615218140095@mail2.virginmedia.com>
Subject: fx-discuss: Re: Claim Sorb judged false - surely it is true
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Medium
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.8.4-Rev72
X-Originating-IP: 92.3.2.91
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4xfIJSrBBrm81oRns7hUGvdz72v2gIP9MPFCy+ypo8sA2GCoJJ0rrB99/G7Yzk88uTgEjAPvu4+3jPnIe6Wh7eRee9579h+T0n7ow3GRGXfdYK4cOVizwV
 a/ldXt+VjC6ScfWgj9puk0cU3LOog53Q9/I34q36emZpdh+GuPKuqsT7nfloONgZnRS+d/aDNBAqoBTrSJn6Qxtr5otsjim6tKlI5RAU11NdLj9jOt58uKee
 yNbI7QAr6zMPlWoyr00rOA==
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ideosphere.com id 129CbQW8006270
Sender: owner-fx-discuss@ideosphere.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: fx-discuss@ideosphere.com

 
 Hi again,

I should provide an example during 2020.
First likely candidate on Petrobon list looks to be

26 Jan 20  BB IX 36.356UE      Virginia Tech./Geospace (PolarNOx 2)

There is a video of this at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyPYJQQf1Kg&t=8934s

Apogee is reported ~2hr 33min 30 sec into video. I am not quite sure whether the slightly muffled voice says apogee was 260km or 263km or 265km but clearer voices say they were expecting 260km and sounds like very slightly exceeded. The flight is reported to be about 8 minutes. So I make that the average speed is 3900km/h and the fastest half distance will be faster than that.

Regards
Chris
(crandles7886)

> On 08 March 2021 at 15:42 "chrisran.bma e-mail" <chrisran.bma@virgin.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thank you for your comments
> 
> Re "1. Nothing in the claim makes any reference to “paying customers”. There is no reason to believe that military flights would not qualify"
> 
> I asked this on the discussion list. A problem with military flights is we and industry standard surveys are not going to get this information. Supersonic plane can travel faster than mach 2.5 but it is fuel inefficient and if the aim is to rack up sufficient hours how do you know if majority of distance covered is at over mach 2.5? If military flights qualify then do missile tests also qualify because the aim is to move the payload to the target? It doesn't seem to me that should be included as the military are doing it themselves rather than paying a transport company to do it. The claim requires it to be transport and standard industry surveys suggests military doing their own stuff shouldn't qualify.
> 
> As I said the claim creator suggested there had to be a paying customer.
> 
> Re  "2. Sounding rockets are not transportation of passengers, luggage, or cargo from point to point"
> 
> You are using a point to point definition of transport. I don't think that is appropriate. Perhaps an example would be useful:
> 
> Suppose a train operator operates a loop with a single station the track passes through scenic countryside. The passenger purchase tickets for the purpose of seeing the sights rather than for getting from A to B. The passengers are sightseers but the train operator is in my opinion a transport company (there is effectively a contract to move people or cargo). Ok there may be some limits to this if it is a fairground ride I would accept operator is entertainment company not a transport company. If it is a full size train and track doing more than a dozen miles, would a good industry survey of rail transportation passenger miles enquire and include an estimate of the passenger miles in a survey? I think they should. 
> 
> Thus I think a requirement for effectively a contract for movement of cargo or people is a more precise requirement for what is transportation. In my previous email I have simplified down to a requirement for a paying customer and I probably wasn't clear where this came from. Point to point is a common feature with transportation but I suggest it is not a good defining characteristic.
> 
> Re "a publication devoted to sounding rockets has a graph showing speed vs. time of a particular, presumably typical, sounding rocket, and the maximum speed shown in the graph appears to be approximately M1.3."
> 
> Well you seem to be assuming that is typical. Here is another
> https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11103973.pdf
> 
> Graph on page 3 shows: Apogee is 279km and flight lasts ~530 seconds. Assuming no downrange movement that is minimum 558Km distance, likely more, in 530 seconds so an average speed of at least 3790 Km per hour. The fasted half of the distance is obviously faster than that. Some sounding rockets have capability to do apogee of 1000km or more.
> 
> While the aim of the customer is likely "research, experimentation, and atmospheric and weather observation" or similar to achieve that they have to get their payload ie cargo transported and the researchers pay for that transportation service. Is the provider a transportation service? Like with the loop rail example above, I suggest yes it is.
> 
> Re "3. The sense of the claim, created in 1995, is that suborbital transportation of passengers, luggage, or cargo would become of some importance (or even minor importance) over the following 25 years. That completely failed to occur."
> 
> Yes, the situation is very different from increases in speed and cargo that I think are envisaged by the claim. But we still have to consider what the claim required which is in short "Suborbital transportation will exceed high-mach air transportation". In my view, military using own equipment is not transportation and doesn't fit in industry survey type measurement so there is no high-mach air transportation but there is some suborbital transportation. 'Some' does exceeds 'none' so the claim is true.
> 
> With very little around I suggest we should look for potential cases. I did wonder about Falcon 9 first stage. With landing and reuse this is effectively a vehicle in its own right and its flights are less than circumference of earth. I guess most people would dismiss it as part of an orbital flight and therefore doesn't qualify - I would certainly dismiss fairings as just a discarded part and not qualifying as a flight that **carries** cargo but since the first stage seems a vehicle in its own right, does do the work of carrying cargo and its flights are not orbital ... well perhaps open to interpretation in some way even if I can't see where.
>  
> I think there are more suborbital sounding rockets than listed at
> http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/log2020.html#log2
> under "2020 Major suborbital log".
> The falcon IFA in flight abort happened at max Q and I think that is too soon and therefore not fast enough to qualify. I would accept that tests probably carrying operator's test equipment and/or mass simulator probably shouldn't qualify because there isn't a paying customer. (Is that more evidence to support an effective contract for movement of cargo or people being a better requirement for transportation?)
> 
> https://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/ussub-rec.txt has a list of more suborbital flights but those are only US ones, there will be more in other countries. Maybe this isn't quite what was meant by an industry standard survey but even if there isn't an industry standard survey, I still think we should consider the question of whether some suborbital transportation exceed none of the high-mach air transportation. (Or should I start an industry standard survey in order to try to get a true judgement? The claim includes the sentence "The metric for comparison will include passenger, luggage and cargo ton-miles over the entirety of the year 2020 as published in standard industry surveys". I take that as a suggested way the judge might go about answering the question of whether suborbital transportation exceeds high-mach air transportation rather than as a strict requirement for an industry standard survey. Can you really expect an industry standard survey to use the exact same definition of "majority of the distance is covered at a speed of mach 2.5 or greater"? You may well have to consider adjusting figures anyway so why not treat things like https://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/ussub-rec.txt as the sort of survey or list you want to help judge the claim?) 
> 
> Page 13 of https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/srhb.pdf
> seems to explain there are different parties involved with the customer providing the cargo and a different party providing a service which seems like operating the rocket and various other optional services.
> 
> Hope this helps explain why I believe it should be considered true and answers the points you wanted to set out.
> 
> Regards
> Chris
> (crandles 7886)
> 
> 
> > On 08 March 2021 at 08:17 "Michael C. Berch" <mcb@postmodern.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > I did not expect the judgment of Sorb as false to be even remotely controversial.  While I agree that high-mach air transportation is (probably) zero, on the other hand so is high-mach suborbital transportation.  I have not seen *any* reference to high-mach suborbital transportation in any "standard industry surveys”, whether in the aerospace, transport, or economic fields or even in the popular news media.  
> > 
> > A couple of points:  
> > 
> > 1. Nothing in the claim makes any reference to “paying customers”. There is no reason to believe that military flights would not qualify, so long as they meet the other criteria (transport of passengers, luggage or cargo). There are a few active types of fighter jets that are capable of M2.5, and senior officers who are qualified pilots do, in fact, fly from base to base on fighter aircraft on occasion in order to rack up the required number of hours to retain their type qualification. However, supersonic flying is highly restricted within the U.S., and I have seen no evidence that any of the officer-pilot “transport” flights ever exceed M2.5. (I have no information about Russia, China, or any other countries with supersonic aircraft.)
> > 
> > 2. Sounding rockets are not transportation of passengers, luggage, or cargo from point to point, but instead are intended to reach certain altitudes for research, experimentation, and atmospheric and weather observation.  More to the point, the example given in a publication devoted to sounding rockets has a graph showing speed vs. time of a particular, presumably typical, sounding rocket, and the maximum speed shown in the graph appears to be approximately M1.3. 
> > 
> > <https://www.soundingrocket.org/uploads/9/0/6/4/9064598/technical_paper_csula.pdf> PDF, page 4, "Figure 5: Mach number vs. time”
> > 
> > 3. The sense of the claim, created in 1995, is that suborbital transportation of passengers, luggage, or cargo would become of some importance (or even minor importance) over the following 25 years. That completely failed to occur.  
> > 
> > — 
> > Michael C. Berch 
> > FX #74 (niobium)
> > mcb@postmodern.com
> > 
> > 
> > > On Mar 7, 2021, at 3:52 PM, chrisran.bma e-mail <chrisran.bma@virgin.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hi 
> > > 
> > > The claim sorb appears to have been judged as false. I believe it is true.
> > > 
> > > The only flying aircraft that can do mach 2.5 are military and I would suggest not transport as in having a paying customer, which was suggested by claim creator.
> > > 
> > > There are lots of sounding rocket used for research and these often are operated for fee paying researchers. I believe they often meet the required speed and don't use locally available gasses.
> > > 
> > > So some suborbital exceeds zero high-mach air transportation.
> > > 
> > > The claim should be discussed and considered rather than just being judged false.
> > > 
> > > Regards
> > > 
> > > Chris
> > > 
> > > (crandles 7886)
> > > 
> > > disclosure I had over +4000 holding 
> > > 
> > > 
> >


Back to regular message display

All trademarks, copyrights, and messages on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Forum: Copyright (c) 2000-2001 Javien Inc All rights reserved. Distributed under the GPL