39-day trip to Mars
Mike Jr
http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/VF200
is planned for 2012 or early 2013.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/288181
Also here: http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/missions
Crisis => danger + opportunity, very true in NASA's case.
--Mike Jr.
Raymond Yohros
> This story is getting some buzz. Flight test of a 200 Kw versionhttp://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/VF200
> is planned for 2012 or early 2013.
>
> http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/288181
>
> Also here:http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/missions
>
> Crisis => danger + opportunity, very true in NASA's case.
>
> --Mike Jr.
>
ionic engines
exponential axeleration
i heard of this technology a long time ago.
why did it take so long to come out?
r.y
$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto
> This story is getting some buzz. Flight test of a 200 Kw versionhttp://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/VF200
> is planned for 2012 or early 2013.
>
> http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/288181
>
> Also here:http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/missions
>
> Crisis => danger + opportunity, very true in NASA's case.
>
> --Mike Jr.
BFD. How about 1 week? This would have gone into production in 1965
if not for IDIOT JFK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29
All ya need is love
AXELERATION??? LOL
"Raymond Yohros" <b...@birdband.net> wrote in message
news:39efad96-7762-4293...@e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
Mike Jr
Let the first to never post a typo throw the first stone.
Want to take that post back?
--Mike Jr.
All ya need is love
"$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c4738c58-6090-4d21...@y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
All ya need is love
"Mike Jr" <n00...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:44565d2e-41e4-4b4d...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Mike Jr
I don't know for sure, I can only guess.. Maybe NASA is now in a
position where they have to look at outside ideas. Maybe Charles
Bolden is leading. Maybe entrepreneurialism is once more leading the
way. Maybe all of them.
--Mike Jr.
Uncle Al
>
> This story is getting some buzz. Flight test of a 200 Kw version
> http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/VF200
> is planned for 2012 or early 2013.
Controlled nuclear fusion is ten years in the future - always was,
always will be. NASA - given a 40-year old answer and huge budget -
could not get back to the moon. You go to Mars and a ballistic
burial.
> http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/288181
>
> Also here: http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/missions
Did you run some numbers? It's crap. Orbit is about change in
momentum, /_\mv. Energy is (mv^2)/2. Shooting out an accelerated ion
beam plus charge-compensating electrons is a profligate waste of
energy. Mars' mean insolation is 44% of that at Earth orbit.
Whatcha gonna shoot out its butt? The more massive the ion the more
efficient the thruster (momentum). NASA-ballyhooed mercury ion
thrusters were incredible disasters. Slop in the gears condensed
mercury on the spacecraft. All electrical connections shorted.
Copper and aluminum dissolved.
Xenon thrusters? Price ten tonnes of xenon.
"The VF-200 will use electrical power from the ISS to charge a large
battery pack capable of powering the thruster for approximately 15
minutes at full power." HA HA HA.
BTW, the sun has awakened, the solar minimum has ended. Go to Mars
and get fried.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Mike Jr
> NO
Well then I think less of you and will point out that it is far easier
to be a troll than to contribute something meaningful to the
discussion.
bert
To Ya All Deep space has no meaning to Mafia NASA Its deep pockets
is what it relates with. Its money all the way down,and it comes in
from shuttles going round and round 200 miles up for the last 40
years,.Need I mention $25,000,000 toilets or 3 billion stolen by NASA
in 20002. NASA should be taken to justice,but there is no justice for
big bucks Mafia identities. Trebert
Androcles
"All ya need is love" <lo...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Rxein.69488$PH1.15300@edtnps82...
>
> AXELERATION??? LOL
>
eric gisse
> This story is getting some buzz. Flight test of a 200 Kw version
> http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/VF200
> is planned for 2012 or early 2013.
An ion drive does not have the delta-v to do a 39 day straight shot to Mars.
I don't care how much you scale it up - the numbers DO NOT WORK until you
are putting the output of a small reactor (not an RTG) into the acceleration
potential.
A Hohhman transfer orbit maybe, but still probably not enough and it will
still take you years.
Marvin the Martian
> r.yB
Because the thrust from such systems are very small, due to the heat of
the gases involved. For practical purposes, the only way to power such a
device is nuclear power as photovoltaics give such little energy that
they're not worth the extra mass, and if you were going to use nuclear,
may as well use a nuclear rocket engine and be done with it.
Marvin the Martian
That particular technology has flaws. However, there have been other
nuclear rockets that have had remarkable IPs and could have provided
humans with not only single state to orbit capability, but single stage
to Mars.
Thank Phobos that Humans scared themselves out of that technology or my
planet would be overrun with you ape-folk by now.
Sam Wormley
>
> ionic engines
> exponential axeleration
> i heard of this technology a long time ago.
> why did it take so long to come out?
>
Try doing the force calculations.
Sam Wormley
Most of my posts have missing letters or have typos. When I
re-read before sending the post, the text reads fine to me.
Good thing most of us can infer what the poster meant to say!
Sam Wormley
Please enjoy The Mechanical Universe series.
http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html
Episode 24 - Navigating in Space
> Lesson 24: Navigating in Space
>
> Getting from here to there. Voyages to other planets require enormous expenditures of energy. However, the amount of energy expended can be minimized by using the same principles that guide planets around the solar system.
>
> Text Assignment: Chapter 28 (Advanced Text -- Chapter 18)
>
> Instructional Objectives
>
> Explain how the force of gravity is used in interplanetary travel.
> Discuss the relationship of launch opportunities to planet orbit geometry.
> Distinguish between launch windows to inner and outer planets.
> Be able to calculate periods and velocities for transfer orbits between planets.
> Justify the use of transfer orbits.
> Describe the influence of gravity boosts on a satellite and on the boosting planet.
Mike Jr
> Mike Jr wrote:
>
> > This story is getting some buzz. Flight test of a 200 Kw version
> >http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/VF200
> > is planned for 2012 or early 2013.
>
> Controlled nuclear fusion is ten years in the future - always was,
> always will be. NASA - given a 40-year old answer and huge budget -
> could not get back to the moon. You go to Mars and a ballistic
> burial.
>
> >http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/288181
>
> > Also here:http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/missions
>
> Did you run some numbers? It's crap. Orbit is about change in
> momentum, /_\mv. Energy is (mv^2)/2. Shooting out an accelerated ion
> beam plus charge-compensating electrons is a profligate waste of
> energy. Mars' mean insolation is 44% of that at Earth orbit.
>
> Whatcha gonna shoot out its butt? The more massive the ion the more
> efficient the thruster (momentum). NASA-ballyhooed mercury ion
> thrusters were incredible disasters. Slop in the gears condensed
> mercury on the spacecraft. All electrical connections shorted.
> Copper and aluminum dissolved.
>
> Xenon thrusters? Price ten tonnes of xenon.
>
> "The VF-200 will use electrical power from the ISS to charge a large
> battery pack capable of powering the thruster for approximately 15
> minutes at full power." HA HA HA.
>
*> and get fried.
I agree with this. Until we can figure out shielding a trip to Mars
does seem one way.
>
> --
> Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
Mike Jr
Actually, your posts are impeccability written but I agree, and often
depend upon the sentiment that you expressed. :-)
Bottom-line: I throw no bricks.
--Mike Jr.
Yousuf Khan
> ionic engines
> exponential axeleration
> i heard of this technology a long time ago.
> why did it take so long to come out?
This isn't an ionic engine, this is known as the VASIMR engine, which is
basically the same thing as a rocket, with the exhaust gas accelerated
by a magnetic field. Ionic engines are only good for small spacecraft,
and they are already using ionic engines on various satellite space probes.
Yousuf Khan
Sam Wormley
Published test data on VASIMR engine model VX50 showed it to be capable
of 0.5-newton (0.1 lbf) thrust.
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Specific_Impulse_Magnetoplasma_Rocket
Quadibloc
> That particular technology has flaws. However, there have been other
> nuclear rockets that have had remarkable IPs and could have provided
> humans with not only single state to orbit capability, but single stage
> to Mars.
Even the traditional nuclear rocket concepts probably would have
required a chemical first stage for a better thrust to mass ratio, or
for legitimate (rather than hysterically overblown) concerns about
radioactive contamination.
Single-stage to Mars performance... would mean spacecraft with
operational characteristics right out of such places as the Buck
Rogers comic strip. Would even fusion power allow that?
John Savard
Rich
@hate.spam.net:
> Mike Jr wrote:
>>
>> This story is getting some buzz. Flight test of a 200 Kw version
>> http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/VF200
>> is planned for 2012 or early 2013.
>
> Controlled nuclear fusion is ten years in the future - always was,
> always will be. NASA - given a 40-year old answer and huge budget -
> could not get back to the moon. You go to Mars and a ballistic
> burial.
>
>
NO ONE is going to MARS in F------ chemical rockets barely more advanced
than 13th century fireworks.
Martin Brown
> Mike Jr wrote:
>> This story is getting some buzz. Flight test of a 200 Kw version
>> http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/VF200
>> is planned for 2012 or early 2013.
>
> Controlled nuclear fusion is ten years in the future - always was,
> always will be. NASA - given a 40-year old answer and huge budget -
> could not get back to the moon.
More a sort of bin there done that mentality. The public is no longer
interested in lunar exploration. Maybe when the Chinese go there again
people will pay more attention.
> You go to Mars and a ballistic
> burial.
Even if you get a soft landing with the likely journey time of the
existing propulsion methods they will need robotic assistance to adjust
to even the feeble gravity of Mars. Ballistic burials only occur when
thrust is specified in ft lbs and delivered in Newtons or vice versa.
>
>> http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/288181
>>
>> Also here: http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/missions
>
>
> Did you run some numbers? It's crap. Orbit is about change in
> momentum, /_\mv. Energy is (mv^2)/2. Shooting out an accelerated ion
> beam plus charge-compensating electrons is a profligate waste of
> energy. Mars' mean insolation is 44% of that at Earth orbit.
>
> Whatcha gonna shoot out its butt? The more massive the ion the more
> efficient the thruster (momentum). NASA-ballyhooed mercury ion
> thrusters were incredible disasters. Slop in the gears condensed
> mercury on the spacecraft. All electrical connections shorted.
> Copper and aluminum dissolved.
I can't imagine this engine lasting very long with a "cool" 9000K plasma
followed by the heater stage to 10^6. Magnetic bottle only works so long
as the magnets stay superconducting and when they quench...
Still I suppose it is one way to solve the ISS boondoggle problem.
>
> Xenon thrusters? Price ten tonnes of xenon.
ROFL
>
> "The VF-200 will use electrical power from the ISS to charge a large
> battery pack capable of powering the thruster for approximately 15
> minutes at full power." HA HA HA.
Assuming they use Li-ion or NiMH and allowing for inefficiencies it will
require around 1kg of rechargeable battery for every second that it
runs. And will take the ISS solar panels quite a while to charge them up
again.
>
> BTW, the sun has awakened, the solar minimum has ended. Go to Mars
> and get fried.
A manned trip to Mars with current technology would be like "Big
Brother" with teeth. Best to wait another 11 years or multiple thereof.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Raymond Yohros
thanks Yousuf
it has a litl bit the kik of chemical + the duration of ionic
but i know you know this is not good enough to go to mars
r.y
William Mook
A laser powered rocket has the ability to produce exhausts in excess
of 50 km/sec. This is 5,000 sec Isp. This lets you calculate the
propellant requirements to attain escape velocity (12 km/sec with
gravity and air drag losses)
http://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw21.html
u = 1 - 1/exp(Vf/Ve) = 1 - 1/exp(12/50) = 0.213372 ~ 21.4%
propellant mass
The thrust is related to power by observing these two simple
relations;
F = ma = mdot * Ve ---> mdot = F/Ve
and
E = 1/2 * m * Ve^2 ---> W = 1/2 * mdot * Ve^2 ---> W = 1/2 * F *
Ve
So, the power (W) in watts, is equal to 1/2 times the Force (in
Newtons) times the exhaust velocity (in meters per second)
Now, generally speaking lift off thrust should equal about 1.4x take
off weight for a vertically ascending rocket. To prove this requires
Calculus of Variations - which is beyond a single post to prove.
Basically, we can figure out power requirements based on Take off
weight
F = 9.802 * 1.4 * TOW
W = 6.8614 * TOW * Ve = 343,070 Watts / kg of take off weight.
And 21.4% of the take off weight is propellant. If we assume 8.6%
of the the vehicle is structure, and the balance (70%) is payload,
then we can rewrite the equation to read;
W = 490,100 Watts/kg
I have posted elsewhere how to deploy a satellite orbiting within 3.5
million km of the sun that beams 60,000 MW of laser energy across the
solar system using a space shuttle or Proton or Ariane booster.
With this satellite it should be possible to loft 120 metric tons of
payload off Earth on a regular basis.
Once on orbit the 60,000 MW beam produces considerable light pressure
- 41.1 metric tons of force. Temperature considerations and
reflector efficiencies along with divergence of finite diameter beams
mean that the 120 metric ton payload would need to deploy a 2 ton
light sail about 1,500 feet in diameter. This light sail carried
furled inside the ship during lift off, when illuminated by a 60,000
MW beam of laser energy would accelerate the spacecraft without any
further use of fuel at 1/3 gee - through space.
At 1/3 gee the spacecraft would traverse 50 million km distance (half
accelerating half slowing down) in 9 days 10 hours. It would
travel 25 million km (half accelerating half slowing) in 3 days 8
hours. The spacecraft would fly to the moon in 10 hours.
A laser light sail has the ability to propel a vehicle with zero fuel
use.
Quadibloc
> And 21.4% of the take off weight is propellant. If we assume 8.6%
> of the the vehicle is structure, and the balance (70%) is payload,
> then we can rewrite the equation to read;
>
> W = 490,100 Watts/kg
>
> I have posted elsewhere how to deploy a satellite orbiting within 3.5
> million km of the sun that beams 60,000 MW of laser energy across the
> solar system using a space shuttle or Proton or Ariane booster.
I was thinking in terms of vehicles which were entirely self-contained
for energy as well as propellant. It is indeed true that if you let
the heavy power source remain immobile, then you can use lots of
energy to accelerate a small amount of propellant to a very high
velocity, and obtain appreciable thrust that way. Capturing the
energy, and directing it to the right spot, are the potential
challenges.
John Savard
Jonathan
"William Mook" <mokme...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c033372f-4d0b-49ef...@a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> A laser powered rocket has the ability to produce exhausts in excess
> of 50 km/sec. This is 5,000 sec Isp. This lets you calculate the
> propellant requirements to attain escape velocity (12 km/sec with
> gravity and air drag losses)
Maybe someday NASA will actively pursue that kind of technology.
Oh wait, before George Bush, NASA was officially instructed by
Congress to....
"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Space Solar
Power (SSP) Exploratory Research and Technology (SERT) program
was charged to develop technologies needed to provide cost-competitive
ground baseload electrical power from space-based solar energy
converters. In addition, during its 2-year tenure, the SERT program
was also expected to provide a roadmap of research and technology
investment to enhance other space, military, and commercial applications
such as satellites operating with improved power supplies, free-flying
technology platforms, space propulsion technology, and techniques
for planetary surface exploration."
Given that some speculate now that laser transmission of power between
points in space might be the future, all kinds of advances in that
area would probably come along. If only we could go 'back to the future'
policy wise, and return to the late nineties direction, when the policy
included this as well....
" LEO-to-GEO transportation has little funding in other parts of NASA,
so it has been included as part of the SERT program. Chemical, electric,
and hybrid propulsion systems are under consideration. In-space
transportation is a critical technology that should receive significant
investment." "Recommendation: The NASA SSP program should
invest most heavily in the following key enabling technologies, mainly t
through high-payoff, high-risk approaches: 1) solar power generation
.....5) in-space transportation. "
http://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw21.html
Now that President Bush's idiotic policy is dead and gone, why not just
start over...from scratch. Gee I wonder why a President that was a
Texas oilman ax a solar power program??? And VP Cheney, I don't
recall, was he in tight with Big Energy? Maybe it was someone else
that let the Oil Companies write our energy policy. Huh, the reason
the SERT program vanished off the face of the Earth, every bit as
completely as a good ol' Soviet purge, is just so mysterious~
I insist we simply go back to a policy that had the future, not Big Aero
in mind.
Jonathan
s
Jonathan
"Jonathan" <Ho...@Again.net> wrote in message
news:U5WdnX4ERcsrnRLW...@giganews.com...
This is the correct link.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1
William Mook
Then you need lots of energy contained in small masses. This is
either fission fuel, fusion fuel or anti-matter. The best approach
using near-term technology is to use small quantities of anti-protons
in a penning trap to increase neutron yield in a small amount of
highly enriched fission fuel so that it is detonated in small
quantities using theta-pinch technology. The tiny fission explosion
is then used to spark a larger (arbitirary size) fusion explosion
using aneutronic fusion fuel. Examples Lithium-6 and Deuterium or
Boron-10.
15 kg to 70 kg of HEP or HEU are needed to achieve criticality without
compression. Plastic explosives compressing the right geometry of
these materials can reduce this to 1 kg to 5 kg. Theta pinch
compressing the right geometry of these materials can reduce this to
10 grams to 50 grams. Adding anti-proton boosting during compression
reduces this to milligram levels. The entire system reduced to a MEMS
device that would fit inside a matchbox - to ignite a baseball sized
fusion bomblet that produces an intense pulse of energetic alpha
particles. These bomblets can be used in a variety of ways to produce
thrust.
(1) heating propellant - 20 km/sec to 100 km/sec
(2) direct mechanical pulse -
(a) pusher plate - 20 km/sec to 500 km/sec
(b) magnetic nozzle - 1,000 km/sec to 20,000 km/sec
(c) plasma sail - 3,000 km/sec to 30,000 km/sec
The amount of energy that can be applied for a given mass of hardware
determines thrust to weight.
Lets look at what a constant boost spaceship could do;
In going from Earth to Mars, we first observe that Earth is in an
orbit that's 150 million km in radius and Mars is in an orbit that's
228 million km in radius. So, distances range from approximately 77
million km to 377 million km - depending on the time of year you
launch from or to Earth.
At a constant gee you'd accelerate halfway, and flip over slowing down
to achieve zero speed (relative to your destination) at zero
altitude. If you did things rightly you'd feel constant gee all the
way - which would drop to 1/3 gee at Mars when you turned your engines
off on the Mars surface. Arriving at Earth you'd boost to slightly
higher gee to maneuver in Earth's gravity field a few minutes before
landing and drop to 1 gee when the engines switched off at Earth's
surface.
It would take 2 days to travel 77 million km at 1 gee and 4.5 days to
travel 377 million km at 1 gee. So, this is what it would take to
travel between Earth and Mars.
D = 1/2 * a * t^2 ---> t = sqrt(2*D/a)
The delta vee needed is the acceleration times time. So, 2 days is
177,263 seconds and 4.5 days is 392,233 seconds. Boosting at 1 gee
for this length of time attains a total delta vee of 1,737.6 km/sec
for the 2 day trip and 3,844.7 km/sec for the 4.5 day trip.
Vf = a * t
A 20,000 km/sec exhaust speed along with this information gives us the
propellant needed which needed 8.4% to 17.5% of the total mass of the
vehicle.
u = 1 - 1/exp(Vf/Ve)
The total amount of energy needed is given by the jet energy and the
efficiency of the rocket system. Which is 400 quadrillion joules per
ton of propellant accelerated to 20,000 km/sec with 50% efficiency.
E = 1/2 * m * Ve^2
Knowing that a kilogram of fusion fuel contains 0.645 quadrillion
joules of energy means 620 kilograms of fusion fuel are needed per ton
of propellant - at 50% jet efficiency. (only 310 kg of fusion fuel
are needed with 100% jet efficiency)
In this case, I'm assuming a magnetic nozzle that confines and directs
the alpha particle stream into a jet to produce propulsive effect.
Let's look at the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser. The "inverted-figure-8"
doubledeck fuselage design provided 187 m³ of interior space where the
lower deck had a smaller diameter than the upper deck. Sleeping berths
for up to 28 berthed and five seated passengers were offered, which is
an interesting design starting point for a 2 day to 5 day spaceship.
BOEING 377 STRATOCRUISER - Typical
Length: 33.63 m
Height: 11.66 m
Empty weight: 37,876 kg
Max takeoff weight: 67,133 kg
Payload: 6,700 kg
Fuel: 10,600 kg
A fusion rocket massing 37.8 tonnes empty, with a 67.1 tonne take off
weight - and 12.1 tonnes of propulsive bomblets, carrying 7.2 tonnes
of payload - has 10.0 tonnes of surplus capacity - which can be used
for return propellant.
So, we have an idea of what a 67.1 tonne ship looks like mass-wise.
Multiply thrust to get 2 gees at lift off - which is 1.4 Mega-Newtons
- and with a 20,000 km/sec exhaust speed - we have enough information
to figure mass flow rate of 65 grams per second;
mdot = F / Ve
Knowing the energy used to energize each tonne of propellant (400
quadrillion joules) we can figure the power level of 26.3 trillion
watts!
W = 1/2 * mdot * Ve^2
Let's say we detonate 600 pulses per second - the rate of an internal
combustion engine - each pulse unit is 108 milligrams. About the
size of an aspirin tablet - within a MEMS shell massing 2 milligrams
each.
12 million units each way - 24 million units in all. massing a little
less than 27 tonnes.
This is what a constant gee fusion powered spaceship would look like
generally.
What it would look like depends on the 'deck plan' you choose
Here are some historically interesting deck plans
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3p.html
I tend to favor - for this type of vehicle - a disc shape - like the
C57-D from the sci-fi movie FORBIDDEN PLANET
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-57D
http://www.entertainmentearth.com/images/%5CAUTOIMAGES%5CRT812lg.jpg
Recall, that we assumed an interior volume of 187 m³ of interior space
and a 2.5 meter height we end up with a habitable disk 9.76 meters in
diameter and 2.67 sq m floor space per person for 28. With berths
typical of first class today
http://www.singaporeair.com/saa/en_UK/content/exp/new/firstclass/index.jsp
We have plenty of space for socializing in a ship of this size, and 28
passengers and 5 crew.
Recall, we assume constant boost at 1 gee throughout the trip so,
unless there is a desire for the passengers to experience zero gee for
entertainment purposes - there is no real reason to have zero gee
throughout the trip. Keeping the engine on during the roll over
maneuver - and then correcting for any sideways motion this introduces
allows the passengers to feel continuous gee force all the way through
the flight.
William Mook
maintain 1.0 gee excess acceleration throughout its ascent, the
following table may be constructed for take off from Earth
0 km alt 0.0 minutes 2.00 gee
500 km alt 16.7 minutes 1.86 gee
1,000 km alt 23.6 minutes 1.75 gee
1,500 km alt 28.9 minutes 1.65 gee
2,000 km alt 33.3 minutes 1.58 gee
2,500 km alt 37.3 minutes 1.52 gee
3,000 km alt 40.8 minutes 1.46 gee
3,500 km alt 44.1 minutes 1.42 gee
4,000 km alt 47.2 minutes 1.38 gee
5,000 km alt 50.0 minutes 1.34 gee
5,500 km alt 52.7 minutes 1.31 gee
6,000 km alt 57.8 minutes 1.29 gee
6,500 km alt 60.1 minutes 1.27 gee
So, folks would be asked to stay in their seats for the first 50
minutes of flight and then would be free to walk around the cabin -
that's the same gee force the ship will feel when it touches down on
Mars.
After two hours of take off using this approach the ship is 25,950 km
from Earth and pulling 1.04 gees which is equivalent to a 16 degree
roll in a banked turn of an aircraft.
Four hours after take off the ship is 103,800 km from Earth, nearly
half way to the moon, and pulling 1.00 gees at that time.
The ship passes the orbit of the moon after 17 hours of flight - still
pulling 1 gee.
1 million km from Earth at 31 hours into the flight.
And that's maintained throughout the journey, until Mars is approached
where gee forces rise again to bring the ship in for a landing.
Brad Guth
> "Jonathan" <H...@Again.net> wrote in message
>
> news:U5WdnX4ERcsrnRLW...@giganews.com...
>
> This is the correct link.http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1
Put Mook in charge of SERT and perhaps something good will happen
before it's too late. OOPS! it's already too late.
~ BG
Marvin the Martian
> Now that President Bush's idiotic policy is dead and gone,
Bush's plan was absurd; a return to the moon was not just pointless, but
sure to be unpopular when the American public once again saw that the end
result was bag of rocks.
> why not just start over...from scratch.
Actually, the Obama policy is no space program. Maybe you didn't notice,
but he scrapped it and now we have no heavy lift capability and none
planned.
Obama's space policy is no space policy.
> Gee I wonder why a President that was a Texas
> oilman ax a solar power program???
Because solar power about 30 times cheaper alternatives like coal,
natural gas or even biomass. Thus, it is a poor choice and a waste of
money.
< snip communist rant >
Gets old. Take it to a political news group.
Brad Guth
For the moment and at least the next thousand years, failsafe thorium
reactors could provide terawatts of spare/surplus energy that's
squeaky clean as well as reliably safe and relatively dirt cheap as
is, plus there's always terawatts of geothermal worth tapping into
(just ask Steven Chu).
With reliable energy almost all problems tend to go away, because
hardly anything is insurmountable when you've got energy to burn, so
to speak.
~ BG
hal...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yep failsafe sounds wonderful. Havent I heard that before?
Oh yeah my entire life, and yet I watched 3 mile island and chernobyl:
(
heres some info on what parts of our country could look like:(
http://www.nuclearflower.com/page.htm its fascinating........
and before someone spouts containment lets think of the UNhardened,
waste core storage pools at all operating reactors and some closed
ones...
A terrorist could easily fly a small plane loaded with regular bombs
and turn your home area into another chernobyl:(
incidently theres no insurance that covers that
the waste core storage pools are regular metal non hardened buildings
requiring cooled water 100% of the time keeping the old cores from
overheating and catching on fire
Brad Guth
>
> and before someone spouts containment lets think of the UNhardened,
> waste core storage pools at all operating reactors and some closed
> ones...
>
> A terrorist could easily fly a small plane loaded with regular bombs
> and turn your home area into another chernobyl:(
>
> incidently theres no insurance that covers that
>
> the waste core storage pools are regular metal non hardened buildings
> requiring cooled water 100% of the time keeping the old cores from
> overheating and catching on fire
You really need to get yourself and that shadow of yours that you're
so scared to death about, past that 4th grade education level.
~ BG
William Mook
> Gee, why not just teleport?
How would that work Fred?
> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :If the vehicle takes off at 2.0 gees and drops acceleration to
William Mook
Gravity boost is an interesting possibility. We have already used
gravity boost of Jupiter in its motion around the sun to send payloads
out beyond Jupiter and out of the solar system. So, Jupiter is the
gateway to high energy orbits for that reason - using very modest
boosters that we already have in inventory.
How does gravity boost work? I mean, when an object falls around a
planet like Jupiter, it has the same speed at the same altitude, as it
did coming in. The answer is, it doesn't have the same speed relative
to the sun! The way to think about this is to consider a baseball and
a baseball bat. If you throw a baseball at a stationary bat, it will
bounce off with less speed than it hit the bat with. This is always
true with respect to the center of the bat - just as its true with the
center of a planet. Move the bat, and the ball can be driven at a
very high speed down the field! Same with a planet. You can add the
speed of a moving planet to a spacecraft with gravity boost, and the
spacecraft is moving with more speed - or less - just like a baseball
player can drive a ball out of the park, or bunt it to fall nearby -
by controlling the speed of the bat - as the ball bounces off of it.
This can work with ANY gravitationally bound structure.
Imagine somehow that we can make large collections of very tiny black
holes. (black hole dusts) that we form into rings. We can drop
something through the center of this ring, and it can accelerate at a
very high speed, and come out the other side, slowing down, just the
same way a baseball bounces off a bat, or a satellite rounds a planet
at hyperbolic speed. This special kind of linear orbit is called a
Hook orbit. Now, imagine the ring that you're falling through is also
falling through a larger ring- now, we have a situation where we have
a gravity cannon! We can pick something up near one end of the cannon
and shoot it out at the other end. In fact, if we had something
really really dense - like black hole dusts -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole
and could form them into rings of the type just described - which
would stably operate through their mutual gravitation - we could
arrange for them to fall through one another in the way just
described, and approach the speed of light as the passed one another.
The cool thing is, that just like a baseball bat can impart
significant speed to a baseball by swinging the bat and letting the
ball bounce off of it, so too can an object falling through a ring
system like the one just described could nearly instantly accelerate
an object to near light-speed while the object itself was in free-fall
through the ring system.
Another cool thing is that a second set of rings synchronized with the
first, could capture that object moving near light speed and instantly
slow it down - again while the object itself was in free-fall as it
passed through the system.
In this way two pairs of rings of large collections of micro-
blackholes separated by some distance, appropriately oriented an
synchronized - can send an object at near light speed betwen the two
ring pairs.
Yet another cool thing is that the kinetic energy in the moving free-
falling object, is retrieved by the receiving ring system, and may be
used to return the object back to where it came.
Such a system if it were capable of accelerating a person to 99.99999%
the speed of light would dilate time 707 times. So, a person falling
through such a system at Earth directed at Mars say 80 million km away
would arrive at Mars less than 5 minutes later, but the dilated time
for the traveler would be only 377 milliseconds!!! Not enough time
to even take a breath! Which really simplifies things for moving
between worlds!
It would operate very much like the system shown in the movie Galaxy
Quest (see 1:12 to 1:18 here)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6hlTb7AUj8
Such a transporter system would likely be powered by zero point energy
extracted by the foliated interaction of trillions of micro-blackholes
and the subsequent radiation of energy as jets from the black holes to
accelerate the black holes into desired trajectories to achieve the
results required.
On the first order however, the system would use zero energy as long
as mass was flowing through the system equally along all paths.
So, it would take 1/3 second subjective time - 4.45 minutes star time
- to travel from Earth to Mars this way. It would take 1.6
microseconds subjective time or 1.2 seconds star time to travel from
Earth to the Moon in this way. Thousands of cycles per second, so
thousands of people travel continuously (in one direction) from one
set to the other each second. Another ring pair forming a link
pointing the other way bringing back people and products at the same
rate - sort of like an escalator with stairs moving in both directions
side by side. Energy is exchanged between side by side pairs to
maintain efficient operation.
300 million km take 1,000 seconds star time to traverse - 16 and 2/3
minutes star time but at a 707 to 1 time dilation subjective time for
the traveler is less than 1.5 seconds.
So, this system provides nearly instantaneous transport around the
solar system.
Traversing to nearby stars requires something more substantial. A 707
to 1 time dilation - (one part per million less than light speed)
traverses to Alpha Centauri in 4.3 years star time, but only 2.2 days
subjective time to reach the target star. So, this requires some sort
of capsule or spacesuit. Accelerating to one part per billion less
than the speed of light increases time dilation to 22,360 to 1 - star
time remains relatively unchanged, 4.3 years while subjective time
shortens to 1.7 hours - at these speeds traversing to the planets
occur instantly by human standards. Travel to the nearby stars occur
at 62 light years per day using this technique.
It takes a year at one gee to accelerate to near light speed. This
makes the distance about 1/2 light year at 1 gee. This sizes
things. One quadrillion gees accelerates things to nearly light speed
in 30 nanoseconds in 5 meters distance. Surface gravities of the
microscopic black hole arrays have to be tremendous - but they ARE
tremendous - trillions of micro-blackholes operating together should
be able to achieve this - and pick up and project things at nearly
light speed. Receivers set up to 'bunt' the incoming objects to zero
speed dropping them off into a conveyer where they can continue on
their way at more normal speeds.
What about exploration of new systems that don't have receivers? Is
there a way to send payloads there (and back?)
Yes.
By sending a payload to a distant star system, and then sending an
oscillating pair of rings after the payload, delayed by an engineered
amount of time, yet, flying at slightly higher speed than the payload,
and with oscillation of the rings times rightly, the projected rings
will catch up to the payload, and draw it to a stop, while continuing
onward at a slightly higher speed. You throw away the energy and the
mass of the ring system, but you are brought to rest nearly instantly
in the target star system. If you have a pair of rings in a tube -
not oscillating - but ready to be set free when established at the
target star - then, you have a means to return (and a means to bring
additional payloads to the target star system, and return them to
Earth.
So, that's how you set up the system.
Send out a person with an inoperative ring pair (a pillar holding the
rings separated and not oscillating while they travel) and then right
after at a slightly higher speed, an operating ring pair - that
catches up with the payload and inoperative ring - slowing it at the
target star. The pillar is then removed from the inoperative ring-
starting it up - and the payload enters to return the other way. The
ring pair remains behind slowing incoming payloads after synchronizing
with signals from the 'transmitting' system.
There are many variations - but this gives the basic idea how this
technology can be used to travel 65 light years per day. For example,
two inoperative ring pairs are sent with the payload - and the second
ring pair along with the payload are ejected by the first ring pair
when the destination is reached by removing the pillar in one of the
ring pairs.
Micro-blackhole arrays may be formed into plates and launched - like
pigs in a pipeline - to 'clear' a path between transmitter and
receiver - and maintain them free of intervening materials. Once a
'lane' is setup - it forms a constant stream of material travelling at
nearly light speed. Raw material comes flying back the same way.
Travelling within 1 trillionth the speed of light increases time
dilation to 707,000 to one. That is 1 second is equal to 8.18 days.
This means that 1 day a person travels 1,937 light years. 15 days to
reach the center of the galaxy.
At 10 gees the distance is 1/20th light year (48 billion km) At 100
gees 480 million km. At 1 kilo-gee distance is 1/2 millionth of a
light year - 4.8 million km. At
William Mook
> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :On Mar 6, 5:11 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> Gee, why not just teleport?
> :
> :How would that work Fred?
>
> Why, the same way your fantasies work, Mookie. Handwavium. High
> speed scanning at this end and matter transmutation at the other end.
> Oh, the 'you' arriving isn't the same as the one 'departing', but you
> wouldn't know that nor be able to tell the difference.
>
> There, I have a (Mookie Level) design. All the rest is mere
> engineering detail and will be virtually free.
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
this is not responsive to the question
William Mook
And sunlight focused on to chemical reactors that convert water to
hydrogen and oxygen with 60% efficiency.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14570581
With 1,000 watts of solar energy per square meter
a system that has 60% conversion efficiency
produces 600 watts when the sun shines.
The primary cost is the PET plastic.
PET plastic costs $2 per kg.
17 sq meters are covered per kg of film
That's $0.12 per square meter
Which is 5,000 watts per dollar of capital.
In Ohio there are 1,310 hours of insolation per year.
So each dollar of Capital produces 6.55 million watt-hours per year -
or 131 million watt-hours over the life of the equipment 3,300 tons
of hydrogen for $1
A ton of hydrogen may be burned instead of 6.2 tons of coal or 1,000
gallons of gasoline, or 2.6 tons of natural gas.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25174645/Mokenergy-Brochure-2
Which is a game changer
Brad Guth
> Thin films of PET plastic may be formed into efficient concentrators.
>
>
> And sunlight focused on to chemical reactors that convert water to
> hydrogen and oxygen with 60% efficiency.
>
> http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14570581
>
> With 1,000 watts of solar energy per square meter
> a system that has 60% conversion efficiency
> produces 600 watts when the sun shines.
>
> The primary cost is the PET plastic.
>
> PET plastic costs $2 per kg.
> 17 sq meters are covered per kg of film
> That's $0.12 per square meter
> Which is 5,000 watts per dollar of capital.
>
> In Ohio there are 1,310 hours of insolation per year.
> So each dollar of Capital produces 6.55 million watt-hours per year -
> or 131 million watt-hours over the life of the equipment 3,300 tons
> of hydrogen for $1
>
> A ton of hydrogen may be burned instead of 6.2 tons of coal or 1,000
> gallons of gasoline, or 2.6 tons of natural gas.
>
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/25174645/Mokenergy-Brochure-2
>
> Which is a game changer
Correct, we need to utilize all of that solar energy, and as much of
your green hydrogen as you can manage.
Where's our Steven Chu (our energy and technology Czar) on any of
this?
~ BG
Marvin the Martian
> William Mook <mokme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <spam containing Mookie's self-promotion elided>
>
> Yet nobody is rushing to do it, Mookie. That should tell you
> something....
It says that McCall is affectionate of the bandwagon fallacy.
William Mook
> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :holes. (black hole dusts) that we form into rings. We can drop
> :something through the center of this ring, and it can accelerate at a
> :very high speed, and come out the other side, slowing down, just the
> :same way a baseball bounces off a bat, or a satellite rounds a planet
> :at hyperbolic speed.
>
> Doesn't work.
Really? I guess somebody ought to tell NASA they're crazy then.
Right Freddie? I nominate you! lol.
http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/basics/grav/primer.php
> You get no net gain in velocity at all.
Relative to the center of gravity of the planet you're using - you do
not. Relative to the center of gravity of the Sun - you do. That's
the point. You're taking energy from the motion of the planet and
adding it to the spacecraft. When a baseball bounces off a baseball
bat its the same thing. Relative to the center of the bat, no net
gain of speed or energy. Relative to the baseball field, energy is
transferred from the bat to the ball very efficiently. Same here.
> Remember, the
> boost in velocity from a 'gravity boost' comes from the objects
> velocity around the Sun, not from the gravity of the object used to
> 'boost' by.
I have said that three times now. haha..
> While the object you boost by must certainly have some
> minimum amount of gravity (else it won't drag you up to its speed),
> anything over that is pretty superfluous. You're going to lose the
> acceleration into the object on the way out.
If the bat is moving relative to the field when the ball hits it, the
ball can move very fast relative to the field even if its moving
slower relative to the bat after it hits the bat.
> It's the velocity of the
> object that gets you more velocity of your own.
You are confused if you think you are saying something relevant.
> [Remainder elided as just more of the same that doesn't work.]
Riiight - so, according to Freddie two intensely strong gravity fields
moving relative to one another have NO capacity whatever to accelerate
a third object to very high speeds. haha - despite the fact they
do! lol.
Fred, you're just plain wrong. Its really very simple. Think of two
massive bodies orbiting one another. You can drop a third body into
the orbital plane and get it to accelerate and eject at an appreciable
fraction of the orbital speeds involved by interacting with the two
bodies - extracting some of the orbital energy out of the system in
the process. In a similar way a fast moving object can be slowed -
like bunting a fast ball - and the kinetic energy added to the
system. The only difference between this system and the one I've
described with the rings, is that the 'orbits' are lines - and the
objects can fall straight throught the centers with minimal tidal
effects - which is useful for a compact accelerator.
> --
> "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
> truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
> -- Thomas Jefferson
Freddie, you're revealing yourself to be an ignorant pig.
William Mook
> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> :
> :> :Imagine somehow that we can make large collections of very tiny black
> :> :holes. (black hole dusts) that we form into rings. We can drop
> :> :something through the center of this ring, and it can accelerate at a
> :> :very high speed, and come out the other side, slowing down, just the
> :> :same way a baseball bounces off a bat, or a satellite rounds a planet
> :> :at hyperbolic speed.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Doesn't work.
> :
> :Really? I guess somebody ought to tell NASA they're crazy then.
> :Right Freddie? I nominate you! lol.
> :
> :http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/basics/grav/primer.php
>
> Note that this has nothing to do with your silly 'ring of black holes'
> idea, Mookie.
>
> :
> :>
> :> You get no net gain in velocity at all.
> :>
> :
> :Relative to the center of gravity of the planet you're using - you do
> :not. Relative to the center of gravity of the Sun - you do. That's
> :the point. You're taking energy from the motion of the planet and
> :adding it to the spacecraft. When a baseball bounces off a baseball
> :bat its the same thing. Relative to the center of the bat, no net
> :gain of speed or energy. Relative to the baseball field, energy is
> :transferred from the bat to the ball very efficiently. Same here.
>
> And firing something through the center of a ring made up of black
> holes gives you?
>
> As I said, Mookie, it won't work.
>
> :> Remember, the
> :> boost in velocity from a 'gravity boost' comes from the objects
> :> velocity around the Sun, not from the gravity of the object used to
> :> 'boost' by.
> :
> :I have said that three times now. haha..
>
> And then you contradicted it with your stupidly ignorant idea about a
> 'gravity cannon' made up of rings of black holes that you were going
> to toss something through the middle of. haha..
>
> :> While the object you boost by must certainly have some
> :> minimum amount of gravity (else it won't drag you up to its speed),
> :> anything over that is pretty superfluous. You're going to lose the
> :> acceleration into the object on the way out.
> :
> :If the bat is moving relative to the field when the ball hits it, the
> :ball can move very fast relative to the field even if its moving
> :slower relative to the bat after it hits the bat.
>
> This has nothing to do with your magical gravity assist cannon,
> Mookie.
>
> :> It's the velocity of the
> :> object that gets you more velocity of your own.
> :
> :You are confused if you think you are saying something relevant.
>
> You are lying if you now want to deny your silly 'gravity cannon made
> of two concentric rings of black holes' idea.
>
> <remaining fuckwittery elided>
>
> Buy a frigging clue, Mookie.
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
You are wrong throughout Freddie. Nothing else needs be said. Being
a foul mouthed bastard Freddie doesn't make you right.
haha-
Freddie said that two massive bodies orbiting in a plane - like the
Sun and Jupiter - that accelerate a third body - like the Voyager
spacecraft - have nothing to do with the system of compact super-
massive rings I've described earlier.
To anyone tempted to believe Freddie I would ask them to look at the
system along the edge of the orbital plane. The objects are moving in
the plane, and the projection of that plane is a line. Jupiter swings
to one side of this line to the other through the Sun every 11 years.
The spacecraft is launched at the right time and place so that after
interacting with Jupiter is flies outward with tremendous velocity.
Does this projection have anything at all to do with reality? Yes!
It's easy to see that all the gravity forces act radially, so if we
were to reduce the velocities in one dimension to zero, this would be
a special case with the objects falling along a line, rather than
executing an orbit and the vectors would all add the same way they do
in the 2D orbit case. This type of orbit even has a special name -
Hookean orbit. Anyone who took advanced physics is familiar with this
treatment of orbits.
Of course if we eliminated one element of Jupiter's velocity vector
around the Sun, it would fall THROUGH the Sun at some point - and that
would end the experiment. Which is why I mentioned the use of rings.
Anyone who has read the chapter on potential energy in thir advanced
physics course knows that the gravity potential of a shell is exactly
the same as the gravity potential of a solid sphere outside the
surface of the shell. (moment of Inertia is different but that's
another chapter) The same can be said in the special case of a disk
versus a ring. So, if we are to build compact accelerators using
Hookean orbits and intense gravity boost, one way to do it would be to
make highly dense rings of micro-black holes orbiting in rings around
their mutual center. Since this sort of setup is not particularly
stable, we'd also need to charge the black holes and apply
electromagnetic restoring forces to maintain precise operation. This
is actually beneficial since operation of the accelerator would
require minute adjustments to keep it synchronized with the companion
accelerator some distance away.
William Mook
> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
> :
> :> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> <spam containing Mookie's self-promotion elided>
> :>
> :> Yet nobody is rushing to do it, Mookie. That should tell you
> :> something....
> :
> :It says that McCall is affectionate of the bandwagon fallacy.
>
> Sock puppet.
>
> If it's such a great idea that offers so much, SOMEONE would be doing
> it. Economics drives such things. Obviously, all the folks with
> money know something that Mookie Monkeys and sock puppets don't.
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
Yes, and nobody knows more than the great Fred J. McCall ruler of
usenet! hahahahahahahahaha - idiot.
William Mook
> Mike Jr wrote:
>
> > This story is getting some buzz. Flight test of a 200 Kw version
> >http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/VF200
> > is planned for 2012 or early 2013.
>
> Controlled nuclear fusion is ten years in the future - always was,
> always will be. NASA - given a 40-year old answer and huge budget -
> could not get back to the moon. You go to Mars and a ballistic
> burial.
>
> >http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/288181
>
> > Also here:http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/missions
>
> Did you run some numbers? It's crap. Orbit is about change in
> momentum, /_\mv. Energy is (mv^2)/2. Shooting out an accelerated ion
> beam plus charge-compensating electrons is a profligate waste of
> energy. Mars' mean insolation is 44% of that at Earth orbit.
>
> Whatcha gonna shoot out its butt? The more massive the ion the more
> efficient the thruster (momentum). NASA-ballyhooed mercury ion
> thrusters were incredible disasters. Slop in the gears condensed
> mercury on the spacecraft. All electrical connections shorted.
> Copper and aluminum dissolved.
>
> Xenon thrusters? Price ten tonnes of xenon.
>
> "The VF-200 will use electrical power from the ISS to charge a large
> battery pack capable of powering the thruster for approximately 15
> minutes at full power." HA HA HA.
>
> BTW, the sun has awakened, the solar minimum has ended. Go to Mars
> and get fried.
>
> --
> Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Lawson criterion tells you what is needed for fusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion
All you need is a trigger in the right aneutronic fusion fuel - like
Lithium-6 Deuteride or Boron 10.
We studied anti-proton boosted micro-fission as possible triggers back
in the 1980s under Dr. Peter Turchi at the Ohio State University. We
compressed depleted uranium in a theta-pinch apparatus at OSU's
hypersonic research lab to get the equation of state of the metal
which we figured would close enought to engineer reactors for the
fissile stuff. We built tiny little wires of depleted uranium using
CVD processes from the electronics labs - carefully crafted tiny
little pieces of depleted uranium foil into beautiful shapes indicated
by our computer models. Then, compressed them with banks of
capacitors while accelerating anti-protons captured at CERN and placed
into Penning traps - released again in a Columbus cornfield at the
right temperatures - to get the cross-sections right for the real
deal. We wrote computer programs to optimize the reaction
conditions.
The project was funded by the USAF and U of Penn. That stuff, all of
it, disappeared - as if it never happened after a few papers.
Dr. Turchi now works at USAF Phillips lab in New Mexico. I don't know
what he's doing these days. I don't know what happened to the other
grad students who worked on that program.
My sense is that the weapons program managers release just enough
information to excite the population just enough so really sharp
excitable and capable people self identify and they sweep those folks
into various black programs. After all, these programs need people
too, and if you suppress critical information how do you identify
develop and train the talent you need to sustain your program? The
answer is to talk excitededly about the future - give out just enough
information to excite bright capable people - and give them just
enough work to prove themselves - before sweeping the whole thing into
your ongoing program.
Bottom line, we knew how to do fusion the moment we detonated the
first hydrogen bomb. All we lack is the will to make use of that know-
how for anything but strategic nuclear weapons. Which is too damned
bad.
I mentioned a rocket engine that would carry 100 tonnes across the
solar system at 1 gee. A grounded version of that engine - similar to
aeroderivative jet engines - could form a very interesting MHD
generator. The intensely energetic alpha particle beam would make a
generator that produced 20 trillion watts continuously. Humanity
uses 17 trillion watts today - in all forms. So, we'd need just one
of these engines tied to the various power networks we have - to run
all industry on our planet.
Which proves that our problems are self induced - the result of our
abject lack of imagination.
Once you get fissile detonation you can easily reach Lawson criterion
for fusion reactions. Once you reach break-even in a chunk of fusion
fuel you can shape the detonation wave so that you consume the entire
chunk pretty efficiently.
Anti-proton boosted micro-fission is a pretty efficient way to reach
the Lawson criterion.
Brad Guth
Would you rather be up against the likes of Fred, or myself?
At least I'd go 50/50 on some of your ideas, whereas Fred and others
of his kind wouldn't provide zilch.
~ BG
William Mook
> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Poor, pathetic Mookie. THIS is the best you can do?
>
> :
> :Freddie said that two massive bodies orbiting in a plane - like the
> :Sun and Jupiter - that accelerate a third body - like the Voyager
> :spacecraft - have nothing to do with the system of compact super-
> :massive rings I've described earlier.
>
> They don't, the way you described it.
>
> :
> :To anyone tempted to believe Freddie I would ask them to look at the
>
> None of the preceding has anything to do with what you described. You
> describe a ring of super massive objects and launching something
> THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THEM. You then went on to describe a concentric
> ring that you would launch the original ring through the middle of to
> make a 'cannon'.
>
> Sorry, but that won't work and has nothing to do with the
> 'counterexamples' you keep putting together.
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
I described two rings in hookean orbit around one another and
launching a third object into them. You really should try to keep up
Freddie.
William Mook
> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :On Mar 8, 9:52 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> :>
> :> :On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:29:38 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :> :
> :> :> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :> <spam containing Mookie's self-promotion elided>
> :> :>
> :> :> Yet nobody is rushing to do it, Mookie. That should tell you
> :> :> something....
> :> :
> :> :It says that McCall is affectionate of the bandwagon fallacy.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Sock puppet.
> :>
> :> If it's such a great idea that offers so much, SOMEONE would be doing
> :> it. Economics drives such things. Obviously, all the folks with
> :> money know something that Mookie Monkeys and sock puppets don't.
> :
> :Yes, and nobody knows more than the great Fred J. McCall ruler of
> :usenet! hahahahahahahahaha - idiot.
> :
>
> In other words, the facts have let you down and once again all you
> have left is lame shit like the preceding.
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
Riight - as the king of foul mouthed name calling when revealed to be
a clueless idiot - you certainly would be the expert in that.
Brad Guth
Fred has a job to do, and right now that job has to do with topic/
author stalking, traumatizing and discrediting the likes of yourself.
Bet you can't prove that I'm wrong about this.
~ BG
William Mook
Bradley, I said before and will say again, there is no argument from
me saying that Freddie spends a helluva lot of time attempting to bury
what I say under a load of BS he generates. No one can say for
certain why he does this. It is most likely he got caught making a
foolish statement and doesn't want to be wrong. Lots of people do
that. Its unfortunate in this case since there's no way to make wrong
statements right.
William Mook
It bears repeating, that we have the capability of creating a
satellite and launching it from Earth that navigates to 3 million km
from the sun. These satellites hover above the sun and beam 40
billion watts and more of useable laser energy anywhere we like it in
the inner solar system. This much collimated laser energy is
sufficient to retrieve 1.2 million tons per year from the asteroid
belt and deliver it safely to Earth orbit. Its also sufficient to
loft 100 ton payloads from Earth to Mars and back at 1/3 gee in one to
three weeks depending on the position of the planets involved booting
off Earth and Mars with laser powered rockets and boosting between
worlds with laser light sails using methods first described by Bob
Forward.
This same technology can be deployed around nearby stars using staged
laser light sails. Once counter-propagating laser beams are
established around distant stars, regular transport between those star
systems at 1/3 gee is possible.
Brad Guth
GW Bush and Dick Cheney did it all the time, and thus far it has only
cost well over a million lives and other collateral damage worth
trillions.
Look at how mainstream religions cover their butts, going to whatever
extremes necessary in order to save face.
Fred J. McCall is doing exactly what he and others of his 'mainstream
or bust' kind are getting paid to do. It's as plain and clear as day
as is who is really in charge of interpreting the past, present and
this in control of our future. Pretending that no one powerful
individual or those of their political or any faith-based group/cabal
is really in charge of anything, is simply foolish thinking on your
part.
If you were a Rothschild and as such collectively worth 100+ trillion,
wouldn't you be in charge of most everything that matters?
~ BG
Brad Guth
How about getting China or India on your side? (obviously nothing
American gives a puck)
~ BG
William Mook
When I was a graduate student at the Ohio State University, Chen Wen-
Tsuen from National Tsinghua University. Chen was Dean of the College
of Electrical Engineering , National Chair of the Republic of China,
IEEE Fellow, IEEE Technical Achievement Award winner. Chen regarded
Kraus very highly. He visited Columbus, Ohio when John Kraus arranged
to give an award to Grote Reber, creator of the world's first Radio
Telescope.
Chen toured the OSU 'Big Ear' and hung out at Kraus' farm. Chen was
enamoured of the achievements of Kraus who wrote Electromagnetics and
Antennas and Radio Astronomy - classic definitive volumes on these
subjects whose text was the core of the curriculum of many courses at
Tsinghua University.
During our extended visits I had the opportunity to 'brainstorm' with
Chen and we formed a friendship. When he left Ohio I gave him a copy
of O'Neill's HIGH FRONTIER and a copy of NASA's Summer Study results
on Space Colonization. Something I prized highly and felt would be
useful to him. He eagerly accepted them, and actually used them to
teach a few courses in advanced engineering at Tsinghua.
http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/CoEvolutionBook/index.html
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8559198175987443259#
So, I think the ideas are out there, and gestating. The Chinese, like
the Americans, have to process the opportunities and understand fully
their importance and utility. Engineering leadership in this field
hasn't done well. It seems that the very moment of their greatest
achievement, the greatest proponents of real progress in space are cut
down. Which is unfortunate. Leo Szilard, JFK, Krolev, vonBraun,
O'Neill all could have done far more than they did, but were hobbled
by bureaucratic concerns or died at the moment of their greatest
power.
Someone or more likely, several people, in China and India, Pakistan
or Iran are reading and re-reading the studies and technical documents
available to them regarding space travel, and using their own skills
and knowledge and contributing their own idea. These people will
emerge and lead their nation and the world into a new age- barring any
unfortunate misfortune.
Brad Guth
>
> So, I think the ideas are out there, and gestating. The Chinese, like
> the Americans, have to process the opportunities and understand fully
> their importance and utility. Engineering leadership in this field
> hasn't done well. It seems that the very moment of their greatest
> achievement, the greatest proponents of real progress in space are cut
> down. Which is unfortunate. Leo Szilard, JFK, Krolev, vonBraun,
> O'Neill all could have done far more than they did, but were hobbled
> by bureaucratic concerns or died at the moment of their greatest
> power.
>
> Someone or more likely, several people, in China and India, Pakistan
> or Iran are reading and re-reading the studies and technical documents
> available to them regarding space travel, and using their own skills
> and knowledge and contributing their own idea. These people will
> emerge and lead their nation and the world into a new age- barring any
> unfortunate misfortune.
We'll likely accuse them of having WMD and hiding OBL, giving us
enough false justifications to nuke them, supposedly before they nuke
us.
Meanwhile, even though we really can't afford squat, it seems we're
planning on putting our biggest and best WMD (meaning nukes) into LEO.
At the bankrupt and anything but failsafe rate we're going, and with
nothing of any real energy technology breakthroughs making us any
better off or even as good as anyone else, it seems going with China
or India can't be half bad.
India just gave their fly-by-rocket and related technology wizards a
38% boost in public funding, not to mention whatever private industry
that's going to slide their way. Our public finding of NASA and DARPA
isn't hardly covering their annual COL and retirement perks.
~ BG
William Mook
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOZ7Cpnq-Gw
I like the verse below - it says a lot, and how intense personal
relationships trump the larger things that are happening in the world-
i was thrown before the court of canes
tossed my soul to the furnace flames
where all my heros had been slain, exiled, or put in prison
because they rose above the mess
and because their power posed a threat
and because they spoke of something else
when everybody else didn't
the music fills the space between
the deities and the prophecies
of our bodies pressed endlessly
silent in the sand
she looks at me so fearlessly
and i take it all too seriously
but it all becomes so clear to me
and makes me understand
Brad Guth
So you understand that we're being systematically screwed over, but it
seems your quality of life is sufficiently protected and otherwise
prepared to live with this form of anti-technology domination that's
enforced by those of Big Energy and their puppets in public office.
I'm not sure that's a good plan, unless you plan on out-living most
everyone that's getting in your way.
How about your going directly to Steven Chu and our DoE with at least
one of your best thought-out and prototyped plans of providing us with
your green hydrogen, plus offering whatever spare electrons that can
help feed our inadequate national power grids at the least possible
cost?
With a relatively cheap supply of Mook hydrogen that most everyone
could use, or even hydrogen peroxide that's also in high global
demand, what could possibly go wrong?
~ BG
Brad Guth
> On Feb 27, 5:12 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
> > That particular technology has flaws. However, there have been other
> > nuclear rockets that have had remarkable IPs and could have provided
> > humans with not only single state to orbit capability, but single stage
> > to Mars.
>
> Even the traditional nuclear rocket concepts probably would have
> required a chemical first stage for a better thrust to mass ratio, or
> for legitimate (rather than hysterically overblown) concerns about
> radioactive contamination.
>
> Single-stage to Mars performance... would mean spacecraft with
> operational characteristics right out of such places as the Buck
> Rogers comic strip. Would even fusion power allow that?
>
> John Savard
Using our icy moon and it’s nifty zero delta-V L1 for getting us to/
from Mars and other places that should include the planet Venus, is
not something we can afford to ignore.
Moon water/ice is worth <$1,600,000 trillion as is:
Obviously not as any product that’s delivered to us from the moon, but
instead that’s what it’s worth to us for simply existing there as is,
because that means we don't have to pay anything or further delay
anything because of water shortage.
Our moon is very much like an asteroid, whereas solid or not, such
asteroids of rare elements are extremely interesting to William Mook
and many if us (including myself), except for that part of us each
being a century dead before the first of any other asteroid is ever
artificially captured in a polar LEO, systematically taken apart and
its supposed good stuff delivered to Earth, at perhaps being worth as
little as $1M/ kg.
On the other hand, what can be realistically accomplished with our
moon(Selene) and within this decade (on loot that's borrowed from
China none the less)?
Seems getting whatever to/from the zero delta-V of our Selene L1, as
such is by far the most efficient orbital logistics option, as well as
one that we can all directly keep our eyes on whatever is robotic or
humanly taking place. Considering the greater mass and already in a
stable orbit as is, as well as having such a usable L1 that’s mutually
gateway beneficial (especially once there’s a lunar space elevator
established) is perhaps going to be worthy of exporting valuable
enough materials costing us less than $1000/kg, and eventually as
little as $10/kg.
According to everything from our NASA/Apollo era and their supposed
expertise, there's hardly ever any solar or cosmic radiation to fret
over, the moon itself is nothing but an inert pastel gray and
otherwise entirely passive(non-reactive), whereas hardly anything gets
electrostatic charged, as well as rogue meteors and whatever other
passing debris are a non-issue, and loads of hot sodium that's
surrounding our moon isn't even a problem worth mentioning, and
apparently it's even icy cold while working that trek between Earth
and our moon (checkout Apollo 13 for that science of being fully solar
illuminated yet somehow freezing their butts off). So what could
possibly be more ideal than that? (unlimited hot sunlight that's
mostly passive, plus loads of secondary IR from the moon as well as
coming off Earth, and otherwise it’s more than freezing cold for
everything else, is nothing but super terrific thermodynamic physics
on steroids)
Now it seems we're being further informed by our NASA approved
infomercial science that 40 of those Northern polar craters upon of
our moon have hidden 600 million cubic meters worth of raw surface ice
that's immune to the laws of physics, as extremely frozen h2o
coexisting at an extreme vacuum of 3e-15 bar none the less, and yet
there has never been any previously observed hint of such h2o vapors,
as for suggesting at any thin atmosphere evolving as ever escaping or
emerging out of any of those craters, though at the same time and as
of more than a decade before we've extensively documented the
saturation of sodium vapor that's venting or evaporating and thus
extensively surrounding and comet like trailing away from our moon,
with not a hint of any h2o or other trace indicators within any of
that.
Perhaps there's considerably greater atmospheric pressure within those
polar craters, such as liquid nitrogen, co2 or perhaps even liquid
hydrogen acting as a cap or lid, and yet apparently our considerably
more spendy and technologically advanced LRO mission can't seem to
replicate squat on behalf of any of that supposed discovery of such
volumes of lunar ice. So here we go again, with the usual 'on again -
off again' science of our NASA that gets to use those conditional laws
of physics and obfuscate as to whatever they don't like, and otherwise
always receiving as much public funded mainstream hype on demand as
they need.
Considering those much greater South polar craters and their equally
shaded depths that’ll offer the same 25 K cryogenic environment,
whereas perhaps there's at least another billion cubic meters worth of
such hocus-pocus hidden ice within those craters as well. That's
actually still not very much ice, but at the real cost of perhaps $1M/
kg as safely fly-by-rocket imported from Earth and otherwise safely
stored on the moon for future use, whereas that 1.6 billion tonnes of
existing ice becomes worth $1.6 million trillion (not to mention the
human safety advantages of our not having to manage any of the complex
and risky fly-by-rocket performed logistics of getting ourselves to/
from that naked surface in order to transfer and build up whatever
cache of water/ice).
Even when it’s robotic-ally accomplished for getting such water
delivered to our moon, at the very least it would still be worth
$10,000/kg, making that existing 1.6 billion tonnes worth $16,000
trillion as is. As otherwise water extracted from vaporizing basalt
would also be relatively spendy unless it were a byproduct of going
after something else like 3He and those valuable isotope/radioactive
elements.
BradGuth Blog and Google document pages:
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj
Brad Guth
> William Mook wrote:
>
> > Relative to the center of gravity of the planet you're using - you do
> > not. Relative to the center of gravity of the Sun - you do. That's
> > the point. You're taking energy from the motion of the planet and
> > adding it to the spacecraft. When a baseball bounces off a baseball
> > bat its the same thing. Relative to the center of the bat, no net
> > gain of speed or energy. Relative to the baseball field, energy is
> > transferred from the bat to the ball very efficiently. Same here.
>
> to a sizable fraction of C to launch it on an interstellar mission -
>
> Conservation of momentum says your lens mechanism ends up with the same
> momentum going in the opposite direction. Unless you shoot missions in
> an alternating pattern to cancel that out your lens is eventually going
> to leave the system.
>
> If you have a fusion drive or better it's not so bad. The lens
> mechanism would need to be very high mass or shooting a spacecraft out
> on an interstellar mission would also shoot the lens out on an
> interstellar mission. So if it's big then mount some powerful fusion
> rockets on it for station keeping. Launch a spacecraft then spend a few
> weeks, months or years thrusting back to station.
>
> Here's another problem with using a gravity lens -
>
> Tides. When a spacecraft is put through the lens each atom gets
> accelerated at a slightly different time. Since the spacecraft ends up
> at a sizable fraction of C it is actually turned into a blast of
> molecules or atoms in a long stream. Double-plus-ungood for the people
> on that spacecraft to get atomized and stay that way for a couple of
> decades before they get reassembled at the other end of the trip. The
> cloud will dispurse and there will be no spacecraft to reassemble a few
> decades later.
>
> Making a gravity lens large enough to work would take a lot of mass.
> Not just Jupiters' worth but Suns' worth. Making the device would
> include triggering a synthetic supernova. Spectacular but the best way
> to watch such an event is through a telescope many lightyears away.
You need to think like an immortal "sean", whereas everything becomes
doable and user friendly. Mook as our resident nuclear boosted fly-by-
rocket wizard of Oz is just expressing advanced concepts here, that
only an open mindset that can still deductively think for itself can
ever appreciate.
~ BG
William Mook
Your quality of life is determined by the quality of the people in it,
not the quality of things. So, yeah, I have a very good quality of
life. Who plans to die? I don't.
Brad Guth
You and those immortal seans must get along quite nicely.
So, why can't you directly chat or at least remote think-tank with
Steven Chu?
Should I make an introduction on your behalf?
~ BG
William Mook
I have said for nearly 20 years now, and continue to say, the less you
have to post in response to what I say, the better off we'll all be.
Brad Guth
Then you have 10 years advantage on whatever I've contributed. So,
how many decades of unobstructed R&D and media hype does Mook require?
Why are you avoiding Steven Chu? (he reads as being a very nice and
intelligent sort of person that shouldn't have any problems
understanding what you have to sell, and he's even well connected to
the guy most in charge of our NASA, namely President BHO)
~ BG
Brad Guth
> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
> :
> :I have said for nearly 20 years now, and continue to say, the less you
> :have to post in response to what I say, the better off we'll all be.
>
> That thought can be simplified to "The less you post (either of you),
> the better off we'll all be."
>
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
In other words, you're either a Rothschild, Jewish or at least Semite
worthy.
What's your best alternative for getting us safely to/from Mars?
~ BG
William Mook
> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
> :
> :I have said for nearly 20 years now, and continue to say, the less you
> :have to post in response to what I say, the better off we'll all be.
>
> That thought can be simplified to "The less you post (either of you),
>
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
I don't care how much Brad posts, I just wish he'd stop cock blocking
me.
William Mook
In 1944 Stanislaw Ulam said he could build an engine that not only
could destroy downtown Chicago, but he could also build an engine that
could transport downtown Chicago safely to the surface of Mars.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/xeni/272457786/
An 8 million ton ship is quite capable of carrying 1 million people
and requires 3,000 tons of bombs. Fusion bombs, triggered by nuclear
triggers permits our current inventory of weapons grade fissile
material to support the operation of 10,000 such ships with a total of
10 billion berths throughout the solar system. At $0.50 per kg (the
price of steel in quantity) these ships cost $4 billion each so 10,000
cost $40 trillion - about 9 months worth of global production - and
equal to what we've spent on warfare in the 20th century.
Brad Guth
You mean there's any other person or group on Usenet that'll bother to
openly support you as half or even a tenth as well as I have?
I've offered <50/50 matching funds for promoting some but not all of
your ideas. Has anyone else offered anything better than squat?
How much public support has Fred J. McCall offered, if he were in
charge?
~ BG
Brad Guth
According to "The Onion", Americans spent, wasted and/or having blown
roughly $14 trillion trying to look and act cool each year.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-14-trillion-spent-annually-on-trying-to-loo,17125/
Btw; what's so great about Mars, other than currently there's not
another human or any other form of any soul upon that inert and mostly
cold planet?
~ BG
Brad Guth
> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> :On Mar 23, 1:23 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> <snip>
> :>
> :> :
> :> :I have said for nearly 20 years now, and continue to say, the less you
> :> :have to post in response to what I say, the better off we'll all be.
> :> :
> :>
> :> That thought can be simplified to "The less you post (either of you),
> :> the better off we'll all be."
> :
> :I don't care how much Brad posts, I just wish he'd stop cock blocking
> :me.
> :
>
> I didn't say YOU cared, Mookie. I said that all of us would better
> off if BOTH of you STFU.
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
Why are you devout Semites getting so poofed up and snotty over this
topic?
~ BG
William Mook
>
> Btw; what's so great about Mars, other than currently there's not
> another human or any other form of any soul upon that inert and mostly
> cold planet?
>
> ~ BG
Robert Zubrin recounts the advantages of settling Mars with current
technology in his book CASE FOR MARS.
William Mook
Brad, if you would care to wire transfer any amount of money over
$100,000 into my bank account, I will match whatever actual money you
transfer in with my own money, and set up a company to develop MEMS
rocket engines, arrange a take-over of Boeing and all the rest.
Cheers
William
William Mook
> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> :On Mar 23, 1:23 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> <snip>
> :>
> :> :
> :> :I have said for nearly 20 years now, and continue to say, the less you
> :> :have to post in response to what I say, the better off we'll all be.
> :> :
> :>
> :> That thought can be simplified to "The less you post (either of you),
> :> the better off we'll all be."
> :
> :I don't care how much Brad posts, I just wish he'd stop cock blocking
> :me.
> :
>
> I didn't say YOU cared, Mookie. I said that all of us would better
> off if BOTH of you STFU.
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
I disagree with that. We all have the right to our opinions and to
air them publicly if we wish.
William Mook
The use of the term 'semite' in this context is un-warranted.
William Mook
> Raymond Yohros wrote:
> > ionic engines
> > exponential axeleration
> > i heard of this technology a long time ago.
> > why did it take so long to come out?
>
> This isn't an ionic engine, this is known as the VASIMR engine, which is
> basically the same thing as a rocket, with the exhaust gas accelerated
> by a magnetic field. Ionic engines are only good for small spacecraft,
> and they are already using ionic engines on various satellite space probes.
>
> Yousuf Khan
Vasimir is an electromagnetic thruster developed by Astronaut/
Scientist Franklin Chang-Diaz. It has variable specific impulse which
allows it to vary its thrust for a given power rating. Ion engines
use ionic charges to accelerate charged particles. Vasimir is an
electrodeless plasma thruster. Also known as microwave arcjet.
Vasimir is quite efficient since it uses some of the loss mechanisms
of older designs (cyclotron resonance) to heat the plasma before
ejecting it.
Both traditional ion engines and Vasimir engines are a form of
electric thruster which has low thrust to weight because of low power
to weight of the engine.
The 200 kilo-watt Vasimir weighs only 300 kg (without power supply)
and produces 5 Newtons of thrust with an exhaust speed of 50 km/sec.
System efficiency is 65%
1,000 of these engines would weigh 300 tonnes and produce 5 Mega-
Newtons of thrust (without power supply) which is equivalent to 0.5092
metric tons of force. This allows less than 1/589th meter per second
or 1/6,000th gee acceleration!
In contrast, Laser Sustained Detonation (LSD) is capable of lifting
payloads at greater than 1 gee - allowing their use to lift payloads
off Earth - and their system efficiencies are higher. That's because
their heavy parts stay at home, while their thrust producing parts
consist of a target to be illuminated by the laser beam.
http://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw21.html
The exhaust speeds are the same for the LSD rocket, but higher mass
flow rates of propellant translate to higher power requirements.
Newton's laws of motion, along with a little calculus tell us why;
F = m * a
= mdot * Ve
Where
F = force (Newtons) 9.802 Newtons = 1.000 kg-force
m = mass (kg)
a = acceleration (m/sec/sec)
mdot = mass flow rate (kg/sec)
Ve = exhaust velocity (m/sec)
and
E = 1/2 * m * V^2
so
W = 1/2 * mdot * Ve^2
E = Energy (watt-seconds = Joules)
W= power (watts)
mdot = mass flow rate (kg/sec)
Ve = exhaust velocity
Now,
F/Ve = mdot
in a rocket engine so
W = 1/2 * F/Ve * Ve^2 = F * Ve / 2
So, here we have the relation between power in watts thrust in newtons
and exhaust speed in m/sec
Solving for Thrust;
F = 2 * W / Ve
So, Vasimir with an exhaust speed of 50,000 m/sec and a power level of
200,000 Watts should be able to produce a thrust of
F = 2 * 200,000 / 50,000 = 8 Newtons
But actual testing shows it to be only a little more than 5 Newtons
which means its only a little more than 62.5% efficient
A gigawatt scale laser producing the same exhaust speed with similar
efficiencies (hot exhaust carries energy away) produces
F = 2* 1,000,000,000 / 50,000 = 40,000 Newtons
Which is about 4 metric tons of thrust. At 65% efficiency this is
reduces to 2.5 tonnes of thrust.
400 GW laser beams would be capable of generating 1,000 ton lift
enough to send 600 tons across the solar system.
In all cases using rocket action requires the use of propellant. The
Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation gives the relation of propellant fraction
(u) and Exhaust speed (Ve) and final speed (Vf)
Vf = Ve * ln(1/(1-u))
re-arranging for u
u = 1 - 1/exp(Vf/Ve)
So, Vf=10 km/sec gives good capabilities to orbit Earth, Ve=50 km/sec
as we've said so
u = 1 - 1/exp(10/50) = 0.1812
or 18.12% of the total lift off weight is propellant. Now, assuming a
structural fraction of 20% for the stuff of the ship itself, this
leaves 61.88% for payload that gets lifted. So, to lift 1,000 kg (1
metric ton) into LEO (through the delta vee of 10 km/sec) requires
1,000 / 0.6188 = 1,616 kg
vehicle lift off weight.
A take off thrust of 2 gees - used throughout the ascent - requires no
more than 3,232 kgf of thrust. This is equal to 31,680 Newtons of
thrust. (1 kg = 9.802 Newtons) At 50,000 m/sec exhaust speed this
requires 633.6 MW of exhaust energy - and at 63% efficienty, requires
1,000 MW of laser energy.
The vehicle consists of 323 kg of structure and at $10,000 per kg
which is typical for aerospace structures, this is $3.2 million. Used
1,000 times, this is $3,200 per launch. 393 kg of propellant, which
in Jordin Kare's design is a high polymer plastic, which costs about
$2 per kg - or $800 per launch.
Mass flow rate of the engine is 0.6336 kg/sec at full thrust.
Assuming we run full thrust until empty, we have 509.7 seconds of
operation. So, this is a total of 509.7 GJ or 141,608 kWh of
electricity to run the laser. At $0.12 per kWh this is $17,000
electric bill.
Adding the $3,200 rental fee for the spacecraft, and $800 for the
propellant, we have a total cost so far of $21,000 to launch a metric
ton into LEO. ($21 per kg ~ $10 per pound)
The laser system is another interesting feature, but can be covered in
the power cost, if done appropriately - that's a totally different
topic.
Laser light sails use NO propellant.
This is a huge advantage.
These produce thrust by bouncing light off of a thin film. At the
intensity of light at Earth orbit (1,370 W/m2) we have 9.2 micro-
Newtons per square meter. A power level of 1.46 mega-watts per
square meter produce 1 kgf per square meter (9.802 pascals).
Sail materials used in yachting mass about 50 grams per square meter.
GBO materials are 99.99999% efficient. (1 part in 10 million) So,
assuming we can get highly reflective materials to be as strong as
yacht sails, power levels of 73 kW per square meter can cause a film
to float freely. Power levels of 5.1 MW per square meter produce
thrust to weight ratios of 70 to 1 - that of today's chemical engines
at pressures of 3.5 kgf per square meter.
A 1,250 kg vehicle (250 kg vehicle and 1,000 kg payload - NO
PROPELLANT) would require a 714 sq meter sail (a disc 30 meters in
diameter) and 3.6 GW laser energy to illuminate it to lift off the
Earth at 2 gee and accelerate across space with no propellant
whatever.
If only 1 part in 10 million is absorbed by the system, this means
that 360 Watts of heat energy must be dissipated. Stephan boltzmann
tells us what temperature is needed to radiate this away across 714 sq
meter sail. This is 1/2 watt per square meter.
0.5 = 5.67e-8 * T^4 --> (0.5/5.67e-8)^(1/4) = 54.5 K
which is less than room temperature. Cryogenic levels. No
appreciable heating at all at these levels.
Same power level, but if as much as 1 part in 10,000 is absorbed by
the system, this means that 360,000 watts of heat energy must be
dissipated over the same area. Divide by the area of 714 sq meter to
obtain 500 watts per square meter.
500 = 5.67e-8 * T^4 --> (500/5.67e-8)^(1/4) = 306.4 K
Which is room temperature. Well within the operating range of the
plastics used in GBO manufacture.
Reducing the cost of energy to 1/100th cent per kWh, (possible with
sun orbiting power sat) and increasing energy use rates to 4x that
needed for the 50 km/sec laser detonation - we have costs of about
$100 per ton (5 cents per pound) to transport across the solar
system. Increasing use rates to that of aircraft (100,000 flight
cycles) reduces equipment charges to $33 per ton per flight cycle.
Brad Guth
I and most others don't agree with Robert Zubrin.
It's not that unlimited public loot backing such a private hobby can't
be accomplished the way Zubrin and yourself seem to think. It's just
that so far there's not even a 0.1% payback for all the investment and
the all-inclusive risk involved, unless you guys are talking one-way
tickets.
Any microbes or spores that could have survived Mars should be next to
impossible to keep from taking over Earth. That's why I'd proposed my
LSE-CM/ISS as yet providing another good failsafe logistical reason
for its investment, so that interplanetary treks never brought back
such unknowns into our frail environment that's on its last leg as is,
at least not until sufficient evidence proved there was no added risk
from whatever ET biodiversity.
~ BG
Brad Guth
I'll see what I can do. Don't hold your breath, because GW Bush and
Dick Cheney took most of my spare loot, and they could just as easily
have taken my life if I were in the wrong place as of 9/11, TWA flight
800 and a few other unfortunate times and places that our government
of that era failed us.
Otherwise, I'll gladly support your run for the head of NASA, DARPA or
even DoE. Don't fail us now, because we need your leadership and
talent more than ever. We also need your cheaper, cleaner and
renewable energy as of yesterday, even if it means liquefying our
national coal reserves into synfuel within as little as a century (at
most two centuries).
I have a client that told me scary things about our Alaska oil fields
that are drying up as fast or faster then they can drill new ones.
They are using pretty much every known trick in the book to get that
oil as is at $51/barrel.
They need your hydrogen injections, because right now they pump those
nasty wellhead gasses along with certain other spendy chemicals at
3500 psi back into the ground in order to extract that high sulfur oil
out of extremely deep pockets. In other words, they are running out
of viable technology, as well as unlikely to ever get that natural gas
pipeline, and they still refuse to utilize any existing Canadian
pipeline. This means the all-inclusive energy applied for getting
that $51/barrel oil is likely similar to the energy worth of that oil.
~ BG
Brad Guth
Then by all means we could use MIB from Mars (Mars Atheist or perhaps
even Venus Muslims none the less).
It seems whenever shit is hitting our public funded fan, as we slide
backwards and downhill, devout Semitic types that are usually in
charge had not a clue and supposedly having nothing whatsoever to do
with whatever screw-ups or debauchery, so instead they get promoted.
~ BG
Brad Guth
I'll let your Laser Sustained Detonation (LSD) get off the ground,
because it kicks serious rocket butt. We could all use such bigger
and better rockets, because we need a cheaper and more reliable way of
getting those 1000 tonne payloads into LEO, and better yet into the
Earth-moon L1 where another pulse laser cannon of 100 GW (1 GW CW)
could do wonders.
~ BG
Brad Guth
> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 'Nigeria scam', anyone? I guess that's about what's to be expected
> here...
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
Mook isn't from Nigeria, and he's not even a black dude.
~ BG
Brad Guth
> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> :On Mar 30, 8:40 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> :> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :> :On Mar 23, 1:23 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :> <snip>
> :> :>
> :> :> :
> :> :> :I have said for nearly 20 years now, and continue to say, the less you
> :> :> :have to post in response to what I say, the better off we'll all be.
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> That thought can be simplified to "The less you post (either of you),
> :> :> the better off we'll all be."
> :> :>
> :> :
> :> :I don't care how much Brad posts, I just wish he'd stop cock blocking
> :> :me.
> :> :
> :>
> :> I didn't say YOU cared, Mookie. I said that all of us would better
> :> off if BOTH of you STFU.
> :
> :I disagree with that. We all have the right to our opinions and to
> :air them publicly if we wish.
>
> Quite right. And that's about the only thing I've ever seen you be
> right on.
>
> Mookie, any time you find that the only person conversing with you is
> someone like The Guthball, you should twig to the fact that you're a
> fuckwit loon.
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
Don't come down on yourself so hard.
~ BG
Brad Guth
> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :> On Mar 31, 7:58 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> >
> :> > William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> >
> :> > :On Mar 30, 8:40 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> > :> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> > :>
> :> > :> :On Mar 23, 1:23 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> > :>
> :> > :> <snip>
> :> > :>
> :> > :> :
> :> > :> :I have said for nearly 20 years now, and continue to say, the less you
> :> > :> :have to post in response to what I say, the better off we'll all be.
> :> > :> :
> :> > :>
> :> > :> That thought can be simplified to "The less you post (either of you),
> :> > :> the better off we'll all be."
> :> > :>
> :> > :
> :> > :I don't care how much Brad posts, I just wish he'd stop cock blocking
> :> > :me.
> :> > :
> :> >
> :> > I didn't say YOU cared, Mookie. I said that all of us would better
> :> > off if BOTH of you STFU.
> :>
> :> Why are you devout Semites getting so poofed up and snotty over this
> :> topic?
> :>
> :
> :The use of the term 'semite' in this context is un-warranted.
> :
>
> Also stupidly inaccurate, but then, that's The Guthball for you.
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
What do you have against corrupt Semites? (obviously nothing)
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Brad Guth
> On Mar 30, 8:40 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > <snip>
>
> > :
> > :I have said for nearly 20 years now, and continue to say, the less you
> > :have to post in response to what I say, the better off we'll all be.
> > :
>
> > That thought can be simplified to "The less you post (either of you),
> > the better off we'll all be."
>
> > --
> > "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> > only stupid."
> > -- Heinrich Heine
>
> me.
Actually, most here in Usenet/newsgroups never post what they honestly
think, whereas instead they post whatever others expect of them.
~ BG
hal...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I just post what I believe, many dont like my opinions but I dont
care.......
Brad Guth
> On Apr 4, 1:59 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 31, 3:40 pm, William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 30, 8:40 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > :On Mar 23, 1:23 am, BradGuth<bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > <snip>
>
> > > > :
> > > > :I have said for nearly 20 years now, and continue to say, the less you
> > > > :have to post in response to what I say, the better off we'll all be.
> > > > :
>
> > > > That thought can be simplified to "The less you post (either of you),
> > > > the better off we'll all be."
>
> > > > --
> > > > "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> > > > only stupid."
> > > > -- Heinrich Heine
>
> > > me.
>
> > Actually, most here in Usenet/newsgroups never post what they honestly
> > think, whereas instead they post whatever others expect of them.
>
> > ~ BG- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I just post what I believe, many dont like my opinions but I dont
> care.......
Good for you, because that's exactly the sort of open mindset we need
around here, even if we don't happen to agree with it, just like I
don't agree with everything Mook has to say.
~ BG