Getting more SRB thrust from Ares

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Gernerally speaking the term TRL is used by NASA or the DOD, so is not immediately applicable to a purely commercial venture.&nbsp; On the other hand you were talking about using the technology in lieu of the Ares systems that are under development for NASA, so it is most certainly applicable in that context.&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Actually I was not proposing replacing Ares, just the SRBs</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Finite element analyses and computational fluid dynamics analyses are commonly performed throughout a development program and often afterwards to diagnose and correct issues that arise later.&nbsp; They are often performed very early, during proposal preparation before a contract is even awarded and many times after that during a development program.&nbsp; If all that you have is that sort of analysis that ought to get you to about a TRL of 3.&nbsp; You are a very long way from just an integration effort when the analysis is complete.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Again I will disagree,&nbsp; the LTA component is the only new piece.&nbsp; Everything else comes with an RFI tag and data attached.&nbsp;There will be some ECPs but the intent is to use Off-the-shelf with minimum modifications.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is a lot of testing needed to validate the analysis and more analysis as pieces come together and more testing and more analysis and</DIV></p><p>Much of which can be done on a computer in a simulated environment.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;... Just for your composite parts you will need material testing, under various environments, the so-called hot-wet tests probably being the most critical.</DIV><br />&nbsp; </p><p>Again a mature technology with reams of test data already available&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You will need to test the pieces, the attachment mechanisms, and substructures.&nbsp; Each piece part will have to built and tested. Each test will reqjuire a fnite element analysis and comparison with test data from a large number of strain gauges. Then you need to address the structure to be built of those pieces. You will probably need to perform some sort of modal testing to support the dynamics analysis, and you will likely need quite a bit of destructive testing to validate the structural analysis.&nbsp; And this is only a quick overview of what will probably be a lot more involved analysis and testing. just for the composite framwork.&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />I invite you to go count the number of pieces in the design.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>$100k for this sort of program won't last an hour.Let me give you a yardstick, though perhaps a poor one.&nbsp; A while back I was working on a proposal for moving the manufacture of a rocket motor from one location to another.&nbsp; The design existed.&nbsp; All we had to do was to figure out how to manufacture it in another location, using somewhat different equipment,&nbsp;without changing it too much.&nbsp; We spent about&nbsp;2 months putting that proposal together and were spending well in excess of $20,000 per day.&nbsp; That was just in trying to figure out how to do the job and what it would cost.&nbsp; We didn't actually make anything during that period.&nbsp; This work was quite a bit less complex and less risky than development of a system with an entirely new approach. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Well then I guess getting an entirely new system through what I would call the concept refinement phase of the acquisition life cycle and ready to begin the development phase for $100K represents quite a bargain and justifies NASAs faith in the COTS process. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well then I guess getting an entirely new system through what I would call the concept refinement phase of the acquisition life cycle and ready to begin the development phase for $100K represents quite a bargain and justifies NASAs faith in the COTS process. <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>It's your money and your dream. Go for it.&nbsp;Best of luck.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;It's your money and your dream. Go for it.&nbsp;Best of luck. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Thats what I am here for.&nbsp; Thank you for the kind wishes&nbsp;and thank you for taking your time and providing your talent to review the white paper. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Can the igniter be as long as the top segment? If the top segment would only have a tight hole for the igniter? <br />Posted by Zipi</DIV></p><p>You might be able to do that, but you would have to inhibit the hole that the igniter goes through.&nbsp; I generally don't like inhibitors but they are used.&nbsp; But I don't understand what you gain from that.&nbsp; Why do you want the top segment to be an end burner?&nbsp; There is no particular advantage to it.&nbsp;&nbsp;If the web is the same as the other segments it will burn out at the same time. If it is not then you get a very inefficient pressure-time curve.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Zipi]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You might be able to do that, but you would have to inhibit the hole that the igniter goes through.&nbsp; I generally don't like inhibitors but they are used.&nbsp; But I don't understand what you gain from that.&nbsp; Why do you want the top segment to be an end burner?&nbsp; There is no particular advantage to it.&nbsp;&nbsp;If the web is the same as the other segments it will burn out at the same time. If it is not then you get a very inefficient pressure-time curve.&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Don't ask me what I would gain for that. I was just wondering without better knowledge. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why not get rid of the SRBs alltogether and boost the ares with an LTA (Lighter Than Air) system&nbsp;see thread "Rocket Powered Blimps" in the Space Science and Astronomy section <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I saw a program on the Discovery Channel with secret aircraft flying up to 16x the speed of sound.&nbsp; The idea uses a magnetic field to ionize the electrons in the air, in front of the aircraft.&nbsp; If this can fit into the nose of an aircraft, then it could fit in the escape tower of Ares.&nbsp; This would eliminate the pressure involved in Max Q.&nbsp; Who knows how fast Ares I could fly with this technology?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I see the Ares V SRBs might get even larger.&nbsp; However, couldn't the Ares managers pull a page from the Atlas V and allow the number of SRBs attached to vary depending on needs?&nbsp; I figure an extra SRB would provide more thrust than extra segements. <br /> Posted by willpittenger</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I recently watched one of NASA's new video on moon missions, and it mentioned 5 and a half segments for SRBs for bothe Ares V and I. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;I saw a program on the Discovery Channel with secret aircraft flying up to 16x the speed of sound.&nbsp; The idea uses a magnetic field to ionize the electrons in the air, in front of the aircraft.&nbsp; If this can fit into the nose of an aircraft, then it could fit in the escape tower of Ares.&nbsp; This would eliminate the pressure involved in Max Q.&nbsp; Who knows how fast Ares I could fly with this technology? <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;1.&nbsp; Who says it is real</p><p>2.&nbsp; It has nothing to do with max Q, it has to do with entry heating&nbsp;</p><p>3.&nbsp; Max Q is not a problem that needs a solution, it is just a design parameter</p>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;1.&nbsp; Who says it is real</DIV>&nbsp;</p><p>It's a secret aircraft program which was Russian based, and the documents released were interpreted by western scientists, and was found to be credible.&nbsp; This was&nbsp;either on&nbsp;the Discovery or History Channel, a few weeks ago.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2.&nbsp; It has nothing to do with max Q, it has to do with entry heating</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>It has to do with reducing the air pressure on the aircraft, and reducing the heating (so it's both).</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>3.&nbsp; Max Q is not a problem that needs a solution, it is just a design parameter <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I agree, that it's not a serious problem.&nbsp; However, if a rocket could increase it's speed without increasing the thrust or amount of propellent, why not do it?&nbsp; It would be like eliminating the air in front of the rocket.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;It's a secret aircraft program which was Russian based, and the documents released were interpreted by western scientists, and was found to be credible.&nbsp; This was&nbsp;either on&nbsp;the Discovery or History Channel, a few weeks ago.&nbsp;&nbsp;It has to do with reducing the air pressure on the aircraft, and reducing the heating (so it's both).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I agree, that it's not a serious problem.&nbsp; However, if a rocket could increase it's speed without increasing the thrust or amount of propellent, why not do it?&nbsp; It would be like eliminating the air in front of the rocket. <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;It isn't free, it would need an energy source (i.e. something that weighs a lot )</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Also the Ares spends so little time in the atmosphere, this would reduce peformance&nbsp;</p>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;It isn't free, it would need an energy source (i.e. something that weighs a lot )</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Agreed.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Also the Ares spends so little time in the atmosphere, this would reduce peformance&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>What is the performance of Ares flying in no atmosphere?&nbsp; This would be an analogy.&nbsp; I believe the system could be ejected with the 2nd stage and abort system.&nbsp; And could be recovered later (by parachute and homing device).</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;It's a secret aircraft program which was Russian based, and the documents released were interpreted by western scientists, and was found to be credible.&nbsp; This was&nbsp;either on&nbsp;the Discovery or History Channel, a few weeks ago.<br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV><br /></p><p>Was this show on before or after UFO Hunters?&nbsp; </p><p>I wouldn't trust anything those 2 channels broadcast anymore.&nbsp; They have done nothing but go downhill since their inception and rarely air anything credible.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;It's a secret aircraft program which was Russian based, and the documents released were interpreted by western scientists, and was found to be credible.&nbsp; This was&nbsp;either on&nbsp;the Discovery or History Channel, a few weeks ago.&nbsp;&nbsp;It has to do with reducing the air pressure on the aircraft, and reducing the heating (so it's both).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I agree, that it's not a serious problem.&nbsp; However, if a rocket could increase it's speed without increasing the thrust or amount of propellent, why not do it?&nbsp; It would be like eliminating the air in front of the rocket. <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>Information from the Russian aerospace sector is notoriously unreliable.&nbsp; A few years back they were pushing a chemical called ADN, ammonium di-nitramide. as a high-energy oxidizer for solid rocket propellants.&nbsp; It was reported that it was used in some of their rockets.&nbsp; They claimed great intellectual superiority and very high performance rockets. &nbsp;Here is what we found out:</p><p>1.&nbsp; No one was able to obtain a sample of&nbsp;their material.&nbsp; Not people in the industry.&nbsp; Not&nbsp;the guy&nbsp;specifically given a contract by the U.S. Air Force to interface with the Russians and investigate their new materials.&nbsp; Generally they made big promises but when asked for a small sample did not even reply.</p><p>2.&nbsp; ADN manufactured in the U.S. was found to be&nbsp;rather sensitive to things like moisture, light, ...</p><p>3.&nbsp; ADN was manufactured in a formerly underground facility in the former Soviet Union.&nbsp; It was last seen as a large smoking hole in the ground.</p><p>4.&nbsp; Apparently the Russians had a small accident with a train load of the stuff.&nbsp; They lost the train and a good piece of the surrounding countryside.</p><p>Ionizing air takes a fair amount of energy.&nbsp; It has to come from somewhere.&nbsp;&nbsp;Simply ionizing the air does not immediately reduce drag, although if you heat it to a high enough temperature there ought to be a reduction in density and that would reduce drag proportionally.&nbsp; But are you going to continuously launch a lightning bolt from the nose of the rocket ?&nbsp;&nbsp;And there are easier ways to reduce drag at supersonic speeds.&nbsp; </p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag-resistant_aerospike</p><p>The primary goal of the Discovery and History channels&nbsp;seems to be&nbsp;commercial entertainment.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Agreed.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;What is the performance of Ares flying in no atmosphere?&nbsp; This would be an analogy.&nbsp; I believe the system could be ejected with the 2nd stage and abort system.&nbsp; And could be recovered later (by parachute and homing device). <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Still would be a negative gain. </p>

 

[shuttle_guy]

<p>[The fuel was the same type of fuel used in normal solid fuel rockets, but in pellet form.&nbsp;[/QUOTE]</p><p>Fuel must have an oxidizer to burn.</p><p>What you call "solid fuel" is "solid propellant" which is a mixture of fuel and a oxidizer. (There are solid rocket boosters not solid fuel boosters. If the propellant grain is composed of only fuel a oxidizer must be added. This is done bu injecting a liquid oxidizer. This concept is a hybrid rocket motor)</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Simply ionizing the air does not immediately reduce drag, although if you heat it to a high enough temperature there ought to be a reduction in density and that would reduce drag proportionally.&nbsp; But are you going to continuously launch a lightning bolt from the nose of the rocket ?&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Sure.&nbsp; It would be awesome, having a Tesla ball on top of a rocket:</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tesla_colorado_adjusted.jpg<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Still would be a negative gain. <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>And how did you come to that conclusion?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;And how did you come to that conclusion? <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The amount of energy required and the mechanisms to produce it would out weigh any gain.&nbsp; launch vehicles spend little time in the atmosphere.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>You only see them from afar and think they are smooth like airplanes.&nbsp; they aren't Upclose, they have many protrusions, bolt heads, corrugated metal, rough foam, cork, attach fittings, hinges&nbsp; etc. in the air stream.&nbsp; </p>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;The amount of energy required and the mechanisms to produce it would out weigh any gain.</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>We can't know that for sure, because it was a secret program!&nbsp; It's supposedly already used on jet aircraft, which isn't likely, much larger than the Orion.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp; launch vehicles spend little time in the atmosphere.</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Yes, something on the order of 8 min.&nbsp; With a system like this, maybe even less.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You only see them from afar and think they are smooth like airplanes.&nbsp; they aren't Upclose, they have many protrusions, bolt heads, corrugated metal, rough foam, cork, attach fittings, hinges&nbsp; etc. in the air stream.&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Which is exactly why a rocket can't speed up as fast as it could, through Max Q.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> 1.&nbsp; We can't know that for sure, because it was a secret program!&nbsp; It's supposedly already used on jet aircraft, which isn't likely, much larger than the Orion.&nbsp; 2.&nbsp; Yes, something on the order of 8 min.&nbsp; With a system like this, maybe even less.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 3.&nbsp; Which is exactly why a rocket can't speed up as fast as it could, through Max Q. <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;1.&nbsp; It is the Ares/Orion combination, not just Orion.&nbsp; It is much bigger than an aircraft.&nbsp; Also "supposedly" doesn't mean it is real. &nbsp;</p><p>2.&nbsp; No, that is the total flight duration, it is only in the atmosphere for less than 2 minutes of that.&nbsp; </p><p>3. No, that is not the only reason.&nbsp; Mass&nbsp; and thrust of the rocket is </p><p> Max Q and air drag/resistance are two different things.&nbsp; MaxQ is peak dynamic pressure.&nbsp; How much it is, when and where it happens is different for&nbsp; every launch.&nbsp; It is a concern for&nbsp; loads on the vehicle.&nbsp; No magic device is going to reduce this. All vehicles have to push a mass of air around it.&nbsp; There may be ways of reducing friction but dynamic pressure is always going to be there.</p><p>&nbsp;I am through with this topic, you don't have the background or education to even know the physics involved to even make a legitimate arguement.&nbsp; And stating that I have a "closed" mind won't change the laws of nature.&nbsp; You have the "closed" mind, since you don't know the basic science </p>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;&nbsp;I am through with this topic, you don't have the background or education to even know the physics involved to even make a legitimate arguement.&nbsp; And stating that I have a "closed" mind won't change the laws of nature.&nbsp; You have the "closed" mind, since you don't know the basic science <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>[RANT-ON]</p><p>You're a professional, as is Dr. Rocket - I'm not.&nbsp; This is a forum to ask questions, teach, and learn.&nbsp; I make no apologies for asking questions - even if they're stupid questions.&nbsp; Be-littling me, the Discovery Channel, or History Channel just tells me that "you professionals" use these forums to boost your ego's.&nbsp; Here again, I could care less.&nbsp; My only complaint is that "you professionals" have a teaching problem.&nbsp; Spewing out volumes of technical information with out explaining it in laymans terms (or defining your terms) does nothing to get your point across.&nbsp; It just makes me ask more questions, and upsets you.</p><p>[RANT-OFF]</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>As far as closed mindedness is concerned, I never accused you of that.&nbsp; Maybe you're thinking of someone else.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;[RANT-ON]You're a professional, as is Dr. Rocket - I'm not.&nbsp; This is a forum to ask questions, teach, and learn.&nbsp; I make no apologies for asking questions - even if they're stupid questions.&nbsp; Be-littling me, the Discovery Channel, or History Channel just tells me that "you professionals" use these forums to boost your ego's.&nbsp; Here again, I could care less.&nbsp; My only complaint is that "you professionals" have a teaching problem.&nbsp; Spewing out volumes of technical information with out explaining it in laymans terms (or defining your terms) does nothing to get your point across.&nbsp; It just makes me ask more questions, and upsets you.[RANT-OFF]&nbsp;As far as closed mindedness is concerned, I never accused you of that.&nbsp; Maybe you're thinking of someone else.</p><p>Posted by kyle_baron</DIV><br />He's right.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;[RANT-ON]You're a professional, as is Dr. Rocket - I'm not.&nbsp; This is a forum to ask questions, teach, and learn.&nbsp; I make no apologies for asking questions - even if they're stupid questions.&nbsp; Be-littling me, the Discovery Channel, or History Channel just tells me that "you professionals" use these forums to boost your ego's.&nbsp; Here again, I could care less.&nbsp; My only complaint is that "you professionals" have a teaching problem.&nbsp; Spewing out volumes of technical information with out explaining it in laymans terms (or defining your terms) does nothing to get your point across.&nbsp; It just makes me ask more questions, and upsets you.[RANT-OFF]&nbsp;As far as closed mindedness is concerned, I never accused you of that.&nbsp; Maybe you're thinking of someone else. <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>Now that is the ketttle calling the pot black.&nbsp;&nbsp; It in't the questions, it is comments like these: </p><p>" Maybe that's part of the problem, when you're conditioned to see things one way."</p><p>" Yet, the professionals "have to be told" what to design. "</p><p>*" I think it's one of my better ideas, that flies in the face of "business as usual" or "the status quo"."</p><p>&nbsp;Don't go high and mightly on us about being "belittled" when you plainly show lack of respect in the first place.&nbsp; </p><p>* you have no qualifications to make such a statement, when the physics don't work.&nbsp; Glad I won't be using the elevators in your building. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>As for the Discovery and&nbsp; History Channel, they aren't reliable sources.&nbsp; They use a lot of hype. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>