[AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?
- From: roxanna Mason <rocketmaster.ken@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 21:14:24 -0700
Yes, and why the "manned" emphasis.
Solids are without doubt best suited for sub launched missiles, which the
Russians learned the hard way.
Ken
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 9:09 PM Troy Prideaux <troy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
ICBMs and large missiles will typically be solid in all likelihood though.
Troy
*From:* arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On
Behalf Of *roxanna Mason
*Sent:* Friday, April 28, 2023 1:56 PM
*To:* arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?
Maybe it's just wishful thinking but if level heads prevail and push
politics aside, eventually all large boosters will be liquid,
at least for man rated vehicles..
Ken
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 8:25 PM Troy Prideaux <troy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Yeah, much has changed *in general industry* since then with static mixing
becoming more and more common. It might be only a matter of time before the
technology works through to the larger solids although it's far from a
given.
Troy
Other related posts:
- » [AR] APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- Terry McCreary
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- roxanna Mason
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- kevin ward
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- kevin ward
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- kevin ward
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- Terry McCreary
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- John DeMar
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- David Summers
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- kevin ward
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- kevin ward
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- kevin ward
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- kevin ward
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- kevin ward
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- kevin ward
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- kevin ward
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- Matthew JL
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- George Herbert
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- kevin ward
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- kevin ward
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- roxanna Mason
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- jake
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- roxanna Mason
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- Henry Spencer
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- Henry Spencer
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- Troy Prideaux
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- John Dom
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- roxanna Mason
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- roxanna Mason
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- Henry Spencer
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- Henry Spencer
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- Henry Spencer
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- Troy Prideaux
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- roxanna Mason
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- roxanna Mason
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- Troy Prideaux
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- Henry Spencer
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort? - roxanna Mason
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- roxanna Mason
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- Troy Prideaux
- » [AR] Re: APCP properties, was Re: Re: starship abort?- Ben Brockert