Ideosphere Forum

Re: fx-discuss: Re: Claim Sorb judged false - surely it is true

Author: James Bowery
Conversation: fx-discuss: Claim Sorb judged false - surely it is true ( prev | next ) reply!
Topic: fx-discuss ( prev | next )
In-Reply-To: Michael C. Berch's post
Followed-Up-By: Sam Fentress's post
Date: Mon Mar 08, 2021 10:03 am
Michael C. Berch
James Bowery
Sam Fentresschrisran.bma e-mail



Having originated the claim I concur with the judgement of false as aligned
with my original intent of the claim although it may be off by only a
couple of years given what Musk is up to nowadays. This is the kind of
thing that demonstrates a serious weakness in FX.

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 2:18 AM 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
> >
> >
>
>
>

source



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