Proposal for an American Space-Based Economy

[American]

Technocracy that is not fear-based - not spastic - and not
based entirely on the lower needs of the Hierarchy scale[1],
which is the economic enemy of free-market entrepreneuralism,
which is also the enemy of the human race - the enemy of
Solomon's Key to Prosperity - the enemy of the God of Heaven,
and the enemy of the same God of the Universe - has already
prepared for most or all of humankind its place in the
universe as planet earth - and in doing so, has made each
and every one of its humans as created beings, who throughout
all of history have become more and more curious as to our
own origin and purpose in life.

There is one lingering question that still haunts all of
modern humanity: By whose authority does ANY government
represent the interests of an upwardly mobile society of
scientific entrepreneurs, especially when the lines of trade
between prospective orbital, trans-orbital, and earth-based
partners are the only routes of dependency that a privatized
technology must protect?

Of course there are the earth-bound issues which concern
things like the building and maintenance of highway systems,
including the Federal Highway Authority et. al., but do
these things really have anything to do with things like
launch facilities, the AST (Associate Administrator for
Space Transportation) sector of the FAA launch approval
process?

There are extensive environmental impact statements re-
quired to secure launch permission, and even long wait
times to process licenses for launch.

The largest hindrance for private space launches is IMO
the 1998 Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization
Act, which transferred jurisdiction to the State Department
from the Commerce Department.

The right to private property for individuals, i.e.
space entrepreneurs, to utilize their own engineering
R&D through such a thing as "engineering tinkersmanship",
should never be able to include through political
justification, an extension of property rights to those
that would (unproductively) hinder the exploitation of
those rights - in either the exploration or the
aquisition of off-world resources.

"The righteous will flourish like a palm tree, they will
grow like a cedar of Lebanon, planted in the house
of the Lord, they will flourish in the courts of
our God. They will bear fruit in old age, they will
stay fresh and green, proclaiming, "The Lord is upright;
he is my Rock, and there is no wickedness in him."

- Psalm 92: 12 - 15

Instead of H. Clinton permitting an inspection of our
nuclear launch facilities by Soviet inspectors, which
seems more like what Jane Fonda did with N. Vietnam x 10,000,
(in giving in to Communist totalitarianism), and hence all
the current "green" Republicrats and Demicans - with their
Pol-Pots of the world - American private enterprise should be
developing its own technology for the production of
nuclear pulse units - which is not so outlandish as to
presume that with the proper security in place, as well
as the right kind of nuclear pulse inspectors (which can
be agreed upon between local licensing parties of interest)
- to help drive a massive earth-to-orbit technology
for the future of the human race in space[2].

American

[1]

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

[2]

http://finance.google.com/group/google.finance.660479/msg/df734b1fe9ee3

490

"The need established for utilizing asteroid mining as a
profitable venture is based on a new gold standard for the
colonies of the prospective solar system, just like it was
profitable for explorers in the New World in staking their
claim for God and country. America will never become a third
world country, based upon the 'enlightenment' of technological
subversives.

Cheaper earth-to-orbit technology is already here, yet
the forces that control our economy are still just begin-
ning to take notice of the vast resources that space has
to offer: primary and precious metals by the billions
of tons, extraterrestrial lunar ices, non-invasive,
sterile work environments, synthetic aperture radar map-
ping technology, huge non-radioactive nuclear propulsion
systems - all dependent upon cheaper earth-to-orbit and
orbit-to-orbit technology so that components can be modular-
ized on earth, designed, assembled, tested, and marketed
in space.

[3]

The Dangerous Liberty of Engineering vs. Lukewarm Dominionism

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/msg/b5d82fab26537ce0?hl

=en9f81b5c609fe9d6

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/msg/d9c626567f45a605?hl

=en9f81b5c609fe9d6

[American]

A Gamma Ray Imaging Spectrometer (GRIS) is a device for
studying spectrographic images of gamma ray activity
throughout the universe. Since there is such a wide
spectrum of gamma radiation, there needs to be a defined
set of parameters for narrowing the spectrum down to
useable frequency, magnitude, and count that would image
the precious metal content of an Aten asteroid with a
known location and orbit.

First, the energy level in KeV needs to be established for
the atomic transition level of a gold or platinum molecule
in the gamma ray frequency. There are some interesting graphs
related to GRIS used by NASA that are related to GRIS energy
resolution (Fall/1995) that lists the Frequency Wide Harmonic
Magnitude in KeV from 0KeV to 10KeV verses the energy level
from 0 to 8000KeV, or GRIS GAIN energy calibration accuracy
which lists the error in KeV from -1KeV to 1KeV verses the
energy in KeV from 10KeV to 104KeV, or GRIS continuum back-
ground that is the continuum background in counts from
.00001 to 1 cm^-3 sec^-1 MeV^-1 per energy from 10^-2 MeV
to 10 MeV range. The GRIS background spectrumshows counts
from .00001 to 10 cm^ -3 sec^-1 MeV^-1 per energy from 10
KeV to 10,000 KeV range. Thus there are limitations to the
observable gamma field that need to be referenced when
designing narrowband filters for the desired frequency,
magnitude, and count parameters.

Centrifuge Processing of Extraterrestrial Precious Metal

A rotating cylindrical vessel of volume V with incoming
regolith at inlet #1, and hot dilute NaCN and H2O at inlet
#2 is designated as the feed q_j, which is equal to
( q_NaCN + q_regolith ). The inner centrifuge cylinder
is immersed in the outer centrifuge cylinder of annular
volume V_c, which contains recirculated heated machine
oil at temperature T_hf at a flow rate q_h. The outgoing
pipe contains the mixture of products and the remnant
of the reactants at a flowrate of q = q_NaCN + q_regolith
+ q_reactants . Thus the volume V remains constant.

Some Theory on Precious Metal Spectroscopy

Actual atoms scatter, as they absorb, at frequencies
connected with quantum transitions between energy levels.
The spectra resulting from the excitation of inner electrons
provides a connecting link between optical and gamma ray
spectroscopy. Only one electron needs to alter its quantum
numbers in order to reach the excited state from the ground
state. When this happens, a continuous absorption spectrum
joins the series limit just as a normal series, and also
corresponds to ionization leaving not only the outer shell
of the molecule, but also to the excitation of shells lying
still farther in.

Compton scattering causes the scattered X-ray to be a
different wavelength than the incident X-ray. For this
reason, one needs to know the location of the original
X-ray source and the angle of reflection off the surface
of the asteroid, but not necessarily. If an observer had
a known location, and the asteroids position could be
calculated precisely at one time, with scattered wavelengths
observed, and at a later time, both observer and asteroid
were known withscattered wavelengths observed, the
scattered frequencies could be correlated with existing
transition energies and frequencies of the precious metal,
with maximum likelihood of incidental angle. Of course,
this would depend on initial educated guesswork,
involving the exact intensity, frequency, and location
of existing galactic gamma ray source (e.g. from GRB 971214,
12 billion light years away!)

Gamma ray spectroscopy is more suited to locating precious
metal asteroids since gamma rays can penetrate into the
interior of the asteroid unlike infared spectrometers.
The resolution is also much better, with finer spectro-
graphic data being demonstrated much more dramatically
than with the infared type.

The absorption band varies according to how the intensity
of reflection varies with wavelength. For this reason,
we have different states of metals as they would exist
in asteroids.

Check out the NIST Atomic Spectroscopic Database
(Version 1.0) for information on the spectrum of the
different states for each element - There are hundreds
of states for aluminum! Other sources indicate that
spectral emissivity tends to increase with decreasing
wavelength. The normal spectral emissivity for Platinum
at 1 meter wavelength is approximately 0.25 at 1217 degrees
Kelvin.

However, this emissivity is for polished platinum. IMO the
emissivity would be higher (0.05 maximum variation) for
a less smooth surface. Still, a lower surface temperature
(less than 1217 K for platinum) would tend to raise the
spectral emissivity variation a maximum of 0.025. The
total maximum variation in spectral emissivity would
then be about 0.075. Added to the normal spectral
emissivity would equal 0.25 + 0.075 = 0.325.

American

[1]

Space Resources - Breaking the Bonds of Earth by John S. Lewis and
Ruth A. Lewis, Columbia University Press, Copyright 1987

[American]

(from:)

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/Animations/Animations.html

“This animation hitches a ride on the earth and observes its
near-space environment for a period of one year at daily
intervals starting in July 2007. No objects are displayed that
are more than 20 million km from the earth.

Objects within one-third of this distance are colored red,
objects within two-thirds are colored orange, other objects
are green. Objects below the ecliptic plane are shown as
outline circles, objects above as filled circles.

Objects may appear and disappear in seemingly odd
locations, depending on how their orbits intersect the
sphere enclosing the volume of space within 20 million km
of the earth. Notable close approaches during the
period occur on 2007 Sept. 5 (2007 RS1), Oct. 12
(2007 TX22), Oct. 17 (2007 UN12), Oct. 18 (2007 UD6),
Oct. 30 (2007 US51), Nov. 14 (2007 VF189), Dec. 13
(2007 XB23), Dec. 27 (2007 YP56), 2008 Jan. 31
(2008 BC15), Feb. 7 (2008 CT1), Mar. 9 (2008 EZ7),
Mar. 10 (2008 EM68), Mar. 29 (2008 FP), Apr. 3
(2008 GM2), Apr. 7 (2008 GF1) and May 10 (2008 JL24).

Most of the objects depicted in this animation are recent
discoveries. The symbol representing Earth is not to scale:
at the scale of these plots, the earth would be about a
quarter pixel across on the larger plot and
about a tenth of a pixel on the smaller plot.”
NEA animation:

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/Animations/EarthRide2008Small.gif

(larger:)

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/Animations/EarthRide2008.gif

American

[American]

On Apr 19, 7:30 pm, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:

: Rocket engineering is a little more sophistticated, even in
: mthe basics, than you put forth here;

: Check out these articles

: http://www.engineeringatboeing.com/articles/turbopump.htm

Yes, I can see the complexity there, which is why I'm not us-
ing "turbopumps" in the design. There's no "jet" being produced
for "thrust" here - just a magnetohydrodynamic injector for each
pellet blasted into the thrust dome.

No doubt that you've heard of thermoelectric electromagnetic
pumps that pump molten lithium liquid through a heat transport
system. That's the primary heat loop. A virtual slide show of the
heat loop system and control system can be downloaded here:

http://home.comcast.net/~samuel_ransom/pre.zip

INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS:

1) unzip pre.zip file in folder you create as "pre".
2) Go to DOS.
3) Go to /pre folder.
4) Type "PRESENTS".
5) Arrow down to "Display Presentation". Press <ENTER>.
6) Press the <F1> key and select with the arrow keys "T2.pre".
7) Press <ENTER>.
8) Press <ENTER> again and answer "Y" to loop presentation.
9) <ESC> to exit program.
10) After <ESC>, press X to exit back to DOS.

These are heat loops that center on the actual feed lines
that are able to magnetically blast the pellets at a rate of
120 per second into the thruster, where they become ignited
by the lasers (The fusion technology for applying laser ignition
uses 96 lasers per thruster (3 thrusters in all) that are
capable of focusing relativistic electrons with P-b gas into
magnetic confinement.

: http://space.au.af.mil/primer/rocket_theory.pdf

: These are chemical engines, there are similar articles for
: nuclear thermal rockets. Then, there are nuclear pulse rockets,
: where the mechanisms and numbers re way way different.

I believe it's the magnetohydrodynamic effect of the injection
mechanism that you're referring to, w.r.t. the pellet injector
design that uses a magnetic gun for the injectors (3 in all,
that are fed by feed lines, which are themselves charged
by coils. Grouping numbers of charging units into a single
fuel cell would require the length of the fuel cell to be a
multiple of the length of a single charging unit, that contains
a few hundred coils each - 360 to be exact.)

: Basically if you run an engine continuously, you've got to
: inject propellant against the chamber pressure, and that takes
: a certain rather large percentage (around 3% iirc) of the
: power of the jet. Which becomes MONUMENTALLY huge when
: you are talking about very hish performance high thrust engines.

I gave up the idea of arcjet propulsion when I noticed the
dependency on LOX and LH2 systems resplendent with design
problems such as impeller cavitation in the hydrodynamic
bearings, flow rate instabilities, and high temperature
inefficiencies - the SSME utilizes a design based on a 400
bar combustion chamber of the MBB engine CS50K-H, and
I don't believe that the sophistication of these systems is all
that warranted.

: Furthermore, most regeneratively cooled engines, recycle
: about 1% or more of the thermal energy to keep the throat
: from burning out. This doesn't work so well when you move
: beyond nuclear thermal or chemical engines. In fact the throat
: of a nuclear thermal rocket is cooler than a chemical rocket.
: The major improvement in performance comes from the use of
: liquid hydrogen - which is 1/9th the mass of hydrogen enriched
: steam the next highest performing genreally available rocket
: (when you burn hydrogen and oxygen in a 6:1 ratio)

Not much has been researched w.r.t. magnetic entrainment
in conjunction with coil-induced magnetohydrodynamics. This
is a whole different science - we're talking about coil injection
of the nuclear pellets into the combustion chamber, which is
itself open-space propulsion. Sure, there are electromagnetic
disturbances felt over 100 miles away - so by default this type
of propulsion doesn't require a launch zone within or near popu-
lated areas - a much needed safety and security precaution if
you're trying to stay incognito of surveilance by the compe-
tition anyway.

I'm envisioning an independent launch facility stationed com-
pletely outside the continental U.S., but close enough to be
reached by sea - such as an offshore platform - it's only a
matter of minutes before radio communication could be
restored to a rocket of this magnitude.

: When you talk nuclear gas core rockets with a continuous
: burning - fuhgetaboutit. You're just too hot, and too ener-
: getic to use these sorts of deals. That's what makes nuclear
: pulse so cool.

The feed lines of a magnetohydrodynamic injector can support
a ten minute charge or 600 second total specific impulse. This
would require a total of 111,672 inches of feed line packed
with pellets back-to-back. 75 lines @ 1,489 inches/line can
provide a maximum pellet repetition rate of 120 pellets/sec
for a ten minute specific impulse.

: First when you have really really fast pulses of energy in-
: teracting with things, you have very little spread of heat
: energy. The classic example is an ember from a burning fire
: falling on your carpet. You try to pick it up, and you get
: burned. You flick it back into the fire and you are safe.
: Why is that?

: Heat transfer is a diffusive process
: Momentum transfer is not

A device employing the utilization of charge entrainment in
an electrohydrodynamic device such as a magnetic injector
requires that the turbulent flow characteristics are calculated
for the fluid in question. A little research I've done yielded an
excellent mathematical model that described flow rate in terms
of both hydrodynamic viscosity, letter "v" (pronounced 'vue')
and (p - p_c), as the hydrodynamic pressure approached critical,
used an eigenvalue equation to solve for the dimensionless flow
rate at critical pressure.

Most of this stuff never got developed beyond theory - its just
waiting for an entrepreneur to come along and validate what's
never been done before - and that is putting it to practice.

: So, that's the answer to dealing with really really high
: energies - you hit something with energy fast enough, all
: the kinetic stuff takes place before heat gets a chance to
: diffuse away. That's why they can use ultra-fast laser
: pulses to machine C4 and not worry about an explsion

: I've calculated

: http://www.galasers.com/pdf/double_pulse_machining.pdf

So the two halves of a sphere of similar stuff are all that's
needed to "wick" the rest of the pulse unit. The core charges
could be mechanically assembled underground, under the close
inspection of the facility by IAEA inspectors to make their
independent judgements, and/or to install security cameras and
recording devices inside a facility for surveillance purposes.

: There is a cool drawing in my rocket text book back in the day,
: which is in my attic in a box, and I don't want to go find it to
: even check the title - anyway - it is a flow diagram showing
: the percentages of energy that are generated in a thrust
: chamber and how they flow around.

If the energy distribution on the surface of a pellet remains
constant for different size pellets, then 3.6 x 10^6 Joules re-
quires a pellet of radius 0.3265 cm. to achieve an equal energy
distribution of 2.685 x 10^6 J/cm^2. D3_He pellets require an
energy density of 1.847 x 10^9 J/cm^2. This is actually 261
times the energy currently provided by state-of-the-art 'silicon
wedge' lasers. We can increase the power to the pellet by in-
creasing the number of lasers, and increasing the power from
each laser, yielding a minimum power input of 2.25 X 10^13
Joules per second per dome, for three domes total. A 3.94 cm.
diameter pellet @ 250 hz meets the requirement for power input
to achieve subluminal velocity.

: Now, when heat is not being flicked away through ablation,
: or carried away through evaporation, into the vacuum, the only
: thing you've got to cool things down, is radiation. Stephan
: Boltzman is your friend in that case.

: P = 5.67e-8 J/m2/K/s * Area * Temp ^ 4

That's for a constant density profile.

I'm looking at a user guide for modeling a radiative blast
wave in Fortran that differs from the Sedov-Taylor blast wave
because the effects of radiation are included. The evolution
of the blast wave is followed by using an adaptive grid.
The grid parameters mass, density, and radiative energy in
logarithmic, the velocity (1000 km/sec), and other terms
(alpha, radius, and theta) are used to model a blast wave
that reaches a surface in 700 time steps.

: Now, I did a calculation this morning showring that if you
: had a 150 meter diameter plate, you'd have something like
: 35,342 sq m of radiative area (both sides of a circular disc)
: and you absorbed just 1/2 percent 0.5% of the jet energy
: INTO the plate (a really high number btw for nuclear pulse,
: really low number for steady state engines) - you'd have to
: be at the melting point of Boron to radiate away the energy
: produced by a 70,000 metric ton force thrust jet to acceler-
: ate a handy class space freighter (20,000 tons payload and
: 15,000 ton empty vehicle at two gees. So, your plate would
: be tungsten or carbon composite. Thrust to weight would be
: something like 14 to 1.(5,000 ton mass)

I stated earlier that I did a STUDY on ablation. This, I felt
needed to be established in order to prove the validity of
also using a high strength steel for the inside surface to
the ablation material.

The domes I'm using are (3) 100 foot diameter molybdenum -
so I guess for heat and strength purposes, ablation to the pro-
pulsion chamber surface is negligible, considering the fact
that each chamber is large enough in diameter, hemispherically
shaped, and the radiation distribution is handled quite
effectively through the use of the TZM alloy*, using an
ablative surface like carbonized metal or asbestos.

* Saleh, T. "Sputtering of Molybdenum" SNS Tech Note
FE-ME-011, August 1999

The only problem then becomes the heat transfer, which be-
comes readily handled and utilized effectively by the heat
loops - hull-internal steam powered electrical generation, etc.

: Having a large copper body doesn't change this. Look at the
: size of the sun, its the temperature it is at because the
: surface area and energy release are such that it rises to the
: temperature it needs to be for those two things to balance -
: there's also an effect of temperature on the SIZE of the sun
: - which is a whole otehr topic.

: Most nuclear pulse spacecraft coat the active area with mat-
: erial that gets ablated away by the rapid pulse. A flash
: bulb type blast is better than a long duration blast for this
: reason. Not only is ablated stuff potentially higher per-
: forming - more energy per unit mass - but less material car-
: ries away more heat than if you relied on evaporation rather
: than ablation processes. Check it out, flashing a ton of
: water into a ton of steam each second absorbs something
: like: 2.7 billion watts of energy, and flashing a ton of liquid
: ammonia into a ton of gaseous ammonia, absorbs 1.1 billion
: watts of energy. The Handy size ship at 70,000 tons of
: thrust, uses 14,000 kg/sec of propellant (of which 70 grams
: per second is the atomic charge, and the jet generates 17
: TRILLION watts of power and 0.5% of that is 82.5 billion
: watts - which radiated from a 150 meter diameter pusher
: plate heat it up to 2,900 K.

The primary heat loop calculation that I'm looking to engineer
involves the perimeter of the molybdenum dome, where 2297
Rankin converts to 1276 Kelvin, which is about 1700 degrees
colder than your pusher plate design - so according to your
figures, you're running a bit hotter. But I don't see how that
would be a problem, considering melting point of molybdenum
- 2615 centigrade, or 2888 Kelvin, which is just about 2900,
except that we're also coating the surface with a high temper-
ature ablative material with something carbonized, in order to
minimize the melt-out performance of the structure. How the
heat transfer would distribute through the blast surface
depends on the thickness of the metal itself - so IMO there's
nothing much left here, pending any problems with the method
of manufacture, assembly, facilities, etc.

: Like I said I worked it all out in detail, but mu computer
: froze up and I had more important stuff to do until now,
: I'm just recounting the numbers I got - I worked it out
: on a napkin at a coffee shop I had breakfast at, and threw
: the source materials away! lol.

Amazing how the some of the most "potential" issues of the
day get such passing notice, like a whim or afterthought of
something that happened nearly 60 years ago - that being the
magnificent Orion Project of yesteryear...

and later that same year, Mook wrote:

As the U.S. begins to look at the need for a heavier launch
requirement, non-lethal nuclear space propulsion technology
continues to increase in appeal, to all of those looking for
an answer to abundant extraterrestrial resource development.

This is a repost of previous comments made by William Mook,
which have been made to enlighten those with the inadvertant
mental block of special interest requirement, that have sought
to price the spirit of space mining entrepreneurialism out of
the space race, but are now willing to admit that there are
actual benefits for developing resources extraterrestrially.

On Apr 22, 9:16 am, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:

> Uh, therefore we must conclude that there are no semantics
> of physical systems.

: ????? You do NOT want to look at the physics! Why is that?

(We're just blowing smoke here)

I look at the physics that's backed by solid research and solid
development, that I've been doing for over 15 years, with solid
accreditation (3.0+ average, B.S. Engineering w/ Physics I, II,
& III, Masters Level Undergrad @ U. Texas Tyler), in addition to
over 20 years of design and development with various contractors
in and around Houston, Texas, and Atlanta, Georgia.

Currently I'm looking for work doing independent research in
space propulsion and exploration, with a bent toward resource
development.

> No,

: Well, that's the advantage of science isn't it? Reality doesn't
: change because of a definition - you define your terms at the
: outset. You have a specific hypothesis, a specific experimental
: procedure and a specific result - that anyone can replicate
: anywhere in the universe. Pretty much leaves semantics out
: of it doesn't it?

Ah, but they're not MY terms, they're referenced technically,
and if I told you what those references were, then I'd be
starting a whole bunch of confusion on your behalf, which
is why I'm not going there - you do not have the same information
that I do, and even if you did, I doubt that you'd take it to
task what I'm really doing here, or put it to practical use- I'm
dealing at a "gut" level - you're dealing at a "head to heart"
level - we're just opposed in the way that the information gets
disseminated - and I've already stated elsewhere how a right
kind of branded image recognition gets passed on to the public.

: So, if you're used to weaseling your why out of commitments,
: and out of stuff generally by being imprecise and fuzzy - well,
: physics isn't for you! lol.

What "commitment" could you possibly be suggesting that doesn't
already put the cart before the horse? Do you really believe
that whatever the "establishment" can define in its own interest
is in the best interest of the most interested? You're simply
lolly-gagging the efforts of others that you want to dominate -
and that is the characteristic of a control freak - while I'm
presenting my ideas in the market of open and free idea forum
of intellectual capital that money cannot buy.

> But I'll let you hold your own
> water for now...

: Dude - have you ever taken a science course? You know, an
: introductory course to science? Science is greek for know-
: ledge - it is to distinguish it from other sources of knowledge.

More smoke being blown in the direction of mistaken identity.
Do you know more than a knat on a camel's behind? Do you really
believe that you can convince me that the sky is blue when
you've become surrounded by all the crap that your spewing up
constantly? You sound like a tooling troll now!

: The Scientific Method was proposed as a way to observe the
: natural world in order to gain sure knowledge about it. No
: semantics, no variable definition of terms. When you talk to
: a physicist about Newton's laws of motion - Maxwell's laws of
: electromagnetic propagation - he/she knows PRECISELY what

And what is the "what" that you were referring to? Did I miss
some geek-speak here?

You see, Mook, the things I understand most are the units being
used here, and how they connect into a cohesive whole, and these
"units", to me, are the "semantics" that I've been referring to.

You, on the other hand, have mis-diagnosed my interpretation of
"semantic" with your own, not data-sharing w/no credible interlude
of fact to what I've presented with extreme clarity.

You gave me no information as to your reaction with the
presentation animation, pre.zip, because I don't think that you
really even looked at it! I've got a design for a structure that
is based upon the thrust potential of the domes. We are discus-
sing some of the propulsion methods that can be used for
bomblet type propulsion. I'm hoping that we can reach some
plateau of understanding on the level of feasibility with things
like cost and potential marketability.

: you're talking about. No weaseling your way out of things no
: semantics - just a body of experimentally verifie results that
: anyone anywhere anytime can replicate by following the precise
: procedure described in the experimental record.

I will show you that some of the math that I've been using are
straight-forward calculations, that are based upon previous
studies done with ICF systems, with the exception that, I'm
replacing THEIR laser systems with a fully focused (collimated)
system that I've been investigating for FEL's - Free Electron
Lasers.

: So, you might think you're giving me some sort of thing I
: don't deserve by taking a false superior position about seman-
: tics - which is asinine cause it shows you for the absolute
: asshole you are - but remember this - we're not talking about
: philosophy or rhetoric or debate - we're talking about physics
: - which is a different kettle of fish altogether.

Ever heard of scientific intuition? Think about this: If only
engineers were allowed to decide the fate of civilizations,
then ONLY the people with the largest active weaponry would
believe in their survival. Are you one of these people? If you
are, then you cannot be worthy of being an engineer with a creedo
- it's not part of their "creed" to do things that trap and sub-
vert whole markets into submission, yet this is what our govern-
ment has become. THAT is NOT the reason for advancing civiliza-
tions. The reasons that civilizations advance IMO are the result
of extreme exploitations of the knowledge of life-enhancing sys-
tems at work, and of the self-discovery that takes place DURING
the innovation process! A civilization based upon FEAR is one
that is spartanlike, and too much time for doublethink!

: You would do well to read up on it and understand it a
: little bit.

I already have. I'm just re-discovering some things that I
dropped in favor of a more advanced science that no one seems
to be talking about.

: How the hell can you design a rocket and not understand the
: scientific method?

You can design a rocket using "unconventional" means, if you've
got an idea that still has not "come of age". There are
literally thousands of ideas "trapped" on the internet that
will never be able to make their way into some kind of produc-
tion without the help of a few interested entrepreneurs.

: I mentioned the patent office because you did to make a point.
: You foolishly tried to say that because the patent office has
: a different classification for injectors and pumps you calling
: you calling a device that inserts propoellant into an operating
: combustion chamber makes it different than a pump and therefore
: doesn't have the same energy relations as a pump.

I'm quite sure that the properties can be described similarly
for a conventional, turbo-driven "pump" in terms of "flow rate"
for a magnetohydrodynamic device. However, the "flow rate" in
the magnetohydrodynamic device makes use of several other
properties that are not even included in conventional "pumps".

For instance, for the fuel pellet "injector" (there are actually
three) in an SH2 propulsion system, coil windings in the magnetic
"gun" are cooled cryogenically with LH to 20 degrees K. The coil
windings themselves are insulated with lead titanate, which can
sustain a field of over 10^7 volts/meter and dielectric constant
of up to 12,000, but where the velocity of propogation is
equal to: V_p = 100 / E, where V_p= Velocity of propogation in
percentage of the speed of light, and E = dielectric constant
of the insulator. Further, V_p is calculated from relationship:
du/dt = (3 /8(mue)_0)(B_g^2 / r_p (density)),

where

(mue)_0 is self-inductance/meter length = 4*10^-7 henry/meter,
B_g= field strength in Tesla, r_p = radius of fuel pellet, and
(density) = fuel pellet density in kilograms.

Other terms such as magnetic Reynolds number, magnetic diffus-
ivity, magnetic permeability, conductivity, magnetic flux
density, absolute permittivity, relative permittivity, and
dielectric constant have all been explored with this system,
and I have numbers to back all of it up!

: Definitions seem very important to you - and perhaps you also
: foolishly believe words and minds are infinitely plastic. Fact
: is, physics isn't defined by words, or thoughts, its defined by
: natures response to a specific set of experiments. So, whether
: you call something that inserts propellant into an operating
: combustion chamber Aardvark - it doesn't change the fact that
: when you multiply a force times a distance you're going to
: expend work. It doesn't change the pressure on the reaction
: chamber wall no matter what its made of. It doesn't change the
: relationship between exhaust speed of the rocket and the chamber
: pressure - so the scaling laws that apply to all rockets -
: apply to your rocket you freaking moron.

You calling me a Moron? Did someone hit you in the head? I'm in
the process of revealing to you some of the "laws" that I'm
working with here - please be a little more considerate in al-
lowing me the opportunity to share with you some of the theory
that I've encountered. A definition of terms is in order here:

A magnetic Reynolds number is defined as a dimensionless number
used to compare the transport of magnetic lines of force in a
conducting fluid to the leakage of such lines from the fluid,
equal to a characteristic length of the fluid times the fluid
velocity, divided by the magnetic diffusivity. Symbolized R_M.

The magnetic diffusivity is defined as a measure of the tenden-
cy of a magnetic field to diffuse through a conducting medium
at rest; it is equal to the partial derivative of the magnetic
field strength with respect to time divided by the Laplacian
of the magnetic field, or the recipricol of 4 ( p ) ( m ) ( s ),
where ( m ) is the magnetic permeability and ( s ) is the con-
ductivity in electromagnetic units ( see definition for G,
below - these are the same units ). The magnetic permeability
is defined as a factor, characteristic of a material, that is
proportional to the magnetic induction produced in a material
divided by the magnetic field strength; it is a tensor when
these quantities are not parallel. Dimensions are given as
B / H, where B = magnetic flux density in teslas =

d (weber) / dA, where d (weber) is measured in webers or volt-
seconds and is equal to minus ( et ), dA is the crossectional
area, and H is the magnetic field strength in ampere turn per
meter, or A t m^-1. The turn is a numeric, not a unit. The con-
ductivity, or G, is equal to the ratio of electric current
density to the electric field in a material. It is the conduc-
tance between opposite faces of a cube of the material of 1
meter edge. It is also used to calculate the magnetic reynolds
number, or R_M.

For a superconducting medium such as a traveling wave acceler-
ator, the annular space between two coaxial cylinders repre-
sents conductivity, or G, as units that are in (ohm)^-1 m^-1,
where (ohm) = impedence = Z = (R^2 + X^2)^1/2, where R is
equal to electrical resistance = V / I, where V = voltage and
I = current, and X is equal to the reactance = wL, where
w = 2pn radians / sec., with n = number of cycles per second
defined as f where f = frequency of current ( See Note ), and
L = 1 / C, where C = 2p(e_0)(e_R) [ l / ( ln ( r_2 / r_1 ) ]
with e_0 =absolute permittivity =8.85 x 10^-12 ( A s )/( V m ),
where A = tube area (one side), s = second, V = volt, and m =
meter.

e_R = relative permittivity = dielectric constant for super-
fluid He 4 = 1.05, r_2 = radius of outer cylinder, r_1 =
radius of inner cylinder, and l represents the length of the
cylinders.

Note: A frequency was chosen that would not coincide with
either the highest or lowest resonant frequencies of the ex-
citer coils. These frequencies I have listed in further
documentation.

: Now, you don't get that. You want to argue patent law and the
: best way to commercialize intellectual property. You're chang-
: ing the subject. Why? You think you're superior here too your
: freaking jerk!? haha.. how many patents do you own? HJow many
: companies have you started? How many millions have you made
: commercializing your IP?

You don't know me, do you? YOU think that a patent holder
"deserves" greater recognition than the inventor? Really, how
far are you going to get when someone simply copies your patent
and then makes a few changes, or steals a few ideas, and then
markets his own version for millions? Are you that crazy that
you don't believe the Chi-coms and every socialist hack in the
U.S. are in the business of copying these things?

WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM?

<snip marketing and patent drivel>

: Ah, back to rockets and my misguided attempt to educate a
: freaking know it all on the basics. sheez.

hahahahahahaha - that's why you were afraid to think of
these things. They're much too DARING for a person of your
control-freak nature to comprehend - GET REAL.

> : Here is what happens in all rockets;

> : You have a reaction - be it chemical, nuclear, matter-
> : anti-matter annihilation -

> : it is sustained by energetic propellants - chemicals, nuc
> : materials, antiprotons -which are fed into the reaction -
> : takes energy and equipment to achieve.

> : those propellants react to produce reaction products -
> : exert pressure in the reaction volume

> : those reaction products are collimated into a stream -
> : produce thrust in a direction opposite the stream.

> : This is a rocket.- there are variations that are compli-
> : cated than this, but lets get the basics first.

> For neodymium glass, a deuterium-Tritium (DT) fuel pellet w/
> a radius of 0.4mm absorbs 54K joules (in 5 to 10 pulses, with
> each pulse lasting between .05 and 5 nanoseconds). The power
> density per fuel pellet becomes 2.685 x 10^6 J/cm2, which is
> delivered to the pellet by 12 neodymium glass lasers with an
> energy density limit for each laser of 20 x 10^9 J/cm^2.

: Yeah, you got this out of a descriptoin of an inertial con-
: finement fusion mechanism - this has nothing whatever to do
: with pumping propellant into a reaction chamber - you know that
: right? lol. Obviously NOT.

: Also, do you understand that 54 kilojoules - is about 5.4x the
: amount of energy needed when using a Hydrogen/flouride laser
: operating at a different wavelength with a different sort of
: compression mechanism? lol.

You're beginning to sound like a broken record! 54 KJ WAS OUT
OF THE LLNL PROJECT - using a less-focused, less tuned laser of
20 years ago - the dinosaurs are coming after you! Surely you
will have the ability to stop your own madness! THIS IS FOR
COMPARATIVE RESEARCH ONLY!

: I'm trying to make a simple point - which an intelligent person
: would get and concede and end all this baloney you keep trot-
: ting out. you are clearly not an intelligent person.

What a stupid comment to make. Do you know what YOU are talking
about? (You think so) These KF lasers are very highly collimated,
and this does not bode well for things like g-jitter. The FEL's
do a lot better, because they don't require all the equipment
that the flouride lasers do - it's clearly a money pit that you
wish to get involved with here. The FEL's can become extremely
collimated by a self-focusing trick with ionized plasma - you
have clearly missed this point!

> However, for fusion propulsion, a "pellet repetition rate"
> is required to produce a minimum of 3.04 x 10^14 joules/sec per
> thruster.

: Wait a minute, the data reported in the declassified Air force
: document, which describes the physics by the way, uses a hydro-
: gen flouride chemical laser that initiates fusion with 10 kilo-
: joules using a slightly different approach. This releases 112

Look at the KF lasers closer and you'll discover that a cheaper
alternative exists with free-electron lasers that have been
modified for a focusing effect using a stream of positively
charged plasma. This fact helps the laser to achieve much higher
efficiencies!

: gigajoules for the smallest pulse unit I've described - a mul-
: tiplcation of 11 million to 1. NONE of the energy is supplied
: by the reaction - and most importantly - the energy to detonate
: the pulse unit is INDEPENDENT OF THE SIZE OF THE PULSE UNIT!
: That's my whole point bub. If I had to inject or pump propel-
: lant into a reaction volume, I'd have to drive it against the
: pressure within the reaction volume, and that scales with
: the size and power of the engine.

: duh.

What'd ya say Bif?

>Power density for neodymium glass "maxes out" because

: So? You searched up something on inertial confinement fusion
: and trotted it out here because they use sort of the same
: freaking words. I never said one thing about neodymium.
: i said specifically hydrogen flouride chemical lasers and
: gave yo ua pointer to it. Sheez.

Your trying to remain ignorant of my development of thesis; the
neodymium lasers were STUDIED, not implemented! You're making
the broad assumption that I've considered to implement them
into my prototype ignition system, when in fact I'm doing com-
parative research! (Get a grip, man, and wait to see where
I'm going with this).

: Besides, you prove my point. Compressing a deuterium tritium
: pellet until it achieves fusion doesn't change with the size
: of the secondary you ignite with it. Pumping fusor material
: into an active fusion reactor takes energy that scales with
: the size and power of the reactor.

Ergo the pellet momentum delivered to the target with a mass
acceleration of 4,726 cm/sec^2 - that yields
(40.82 grams/pellet)(4,726 cm/sec^2) = 192,915.32 gm-cm/sec^2

The momentum imparted to the 120 pellet bead-chain of spheres
(back-to-back) is 23.606 kg (force) x (15.24 meters, or the dome
radius) = 3,597.55 kg-meter/sec, or 26020.179 ft-lb per second.

> the pellet repetition rate not only exceeds the capacity rate
> of fuel pellet injector for 0.4mm radius pellets - (7,449/sec)
> but falls short of providing the energy required for fusion
> propulsion - (3.04 x 10^14joules/sec).

: Since the pulse unit requires no external power source in my
: design, your comments don't make any sense.

Apparently you don't see how I'm designing the whole "ignition"
concept around the ability of the optic to hold up under a con-
tinuous pulse stream for the sake of cost - you NEED these
optics to guide the laser to the target FOR OTHER FUEL SOURCES
AS WELL - so the question then becomes "how are you going to
adjust the feed through the injector for the maximum energy
that is delivered to the target?"

: So, what the hell are you talking about? You think you can
: pull numbers out of your ass - or the internet - and just copy
: them without any freaking logical connection to what i said?
: You are more than stupid. you are dishonest.

: You have no reference to the physics involved.

Yes, in fact, I do. There's tons of evidence out there that
details what I'm talking about, but you're just too hard-headed
to understand!

: You are quoting figures for a Neodymium laser,
: I'm quoting figures for a hydrogen flouride laser.

I'm simply presenting the STUDY of neodymium lasers in order to
eventually justify the point that the optics for the laser
mirrors used cannot handle higher energies than what I'm
saying they can't - and until you realize this, you can't
build an ignition system that can implode a pellet for fusion
to take place. The hydrogen-fluoride lasers that you are sug-
gesting here have collimation problems that the FEL's DONT -
and I will explain this to you later on...

: You are quoting figures for an open design for an inertial
: confinement fusion program.

: I am quoting figures based on a formerly classified air force
: program.

: You are saying that 54 kJ is needed by your system to initiate
: fusion. I am saying that 10 kJ is needed by my system.

NO I AM NOT. IN FACT, for an efficient 99.5% Penning Trap, I'll
bet that only 15 KJ is enough to maintain the process - WITHOUT
the luxury of using flouride lasers!

: Your system is powered by an external power source and is about
: 0.1% efficient. My system is powered by a supply hydrogen and
: flourine and is 3% efficient.

The self-focusing aspect of the FEL's are what supposedly promises
to increase the efficiency of these lasers - is what no one seems
to be talking about - doesn't this seem to indicate the desire
of ICF people to justify increasing the cost of these programs
for the big tax drain on America? (I think it does)

: Now, in my system 2.25 grams of hydrogen and flourine create
: the 340 kilojoules of optical energy that converts to 10 kilo-
: joules of directed laser energy in the Fabrey perot etalons
: in my laser design.

: This combine with the theta-pinch device - ignites the deu-
: terium tritium primary - which in turn ignites a lithium-5-
: deuterium secondary of arbitrary size - 4.6 grams in this
: instance - producing 112 GJ. - so 2.25 grams of hydrogen
: flouride fuse 4.6 grams of Li6D. since there is no external
: power required, repetition rate is fixed by the physics of
: momentum and heat transfer in the thrust chamber.

The Krypton-Fluoride lasers you're using here require wedge
optics, don't they? Are they direct feed? (Seems like they
could be BOTH, but according to Wikipedia, "This laser has
high beam uniformity, short wavelength, and the ability to
modify the spot size to track an imploding pellet." and also
"Because KrF has a shorter laser wavelength than glass, it
would couple better inside closed cavities."

In the Nike Facility, both discharge and E-beam pumped amp-
lifiers are used to "multiplex" the beam through amplifiers
and are then recombined to the target.

Thus KF lasers are really not "that much better" than the
conventional free electron types, which are much less ex-
pensive and IMO less "jitter-prone" than the KF type.

> However, if the pellet
> size is increased, so must the useable energy that is deliv
> to the target to maintain the power density of 2.685 x 10^6
> J/cm^2. Yet, even if the energy density limit for neodymium
> glass lasers is used to predict pellet size, delivery rate,
> energy delivered to the target, etc.,

: I didn't mention neodymium lasers at all. that comes from a
: specific inertial confinement program. And while what you say
: is true of the system you searched up. It is not true of the
: system I am descrbing. You MUST know this. So, the fact you
: bring it up and make such bogus statements paints you as a
: freaking con artist.

Look Smurf, the neodymium lasers were STUDIED, not implemented!
It just so happens that silica wedge optics OUTPERFORMS neo-
dymium - and that is where the technology is being directed -
NOT NEODYMIUM! (and I'm not no freaking con artist!)

: I gave you pointers to the teller ulam design. i referenced
: that design precisely because of what it says about the size
: of the primary and secondary. . That's WHY you have a secon-
: dary dude. You have a itny primary, and that size stays fixed
: and with it your laser energy.

: The primary sets off the secondary - the secondary can be any
: size in princple. That's what Tsar bomba proved
.

> the absolute limit rep-
> resents only one in 1,270 the energy required for propulsion.

: UIsing a teller ulam two stage design - the amount of energy
: needed to initiate fusion is independent of the size of the
: mfusion blast. This is not true of a pump used to inject pro-
: pellant into the reaction chamber of an operating rocket.

Don't you require implosion to initiate fusion? That is the
whole purpose of using lasers around the circumference of
the ignition ring - to completely surround the ejected pellet
with the compression force of up to 96 FEL's. The implosion
causes fusion, Boron 11 + Hydrogen -> Helium 4

: Its not that hard to get, why are you being so obtuse? Is it
: that important for you to appear to be right? Well, under-
: stand that your efforts to lie, confuse, and cheat your way
: out of this fact are actually doing the opposite. lol.
: its really rather simple. The dynamic pressure on a the wall
: of a reaction chamber goes up with performance - and the amount
: of propellant goes up with thrust. Pumping propellant into a
: reaction chamber against a pressure, takes work. That work
: subtracts from the engine's output. It adds to the weight of
: the engine. this is true no matter what kind of rocket
: you have.

I am aware of these things, actually.

: A pulse detonation system escapes these limitations. You in-
: sert fuel and oxidizer in a reaction chamber when the engine
: is switched off - and then detonate it. This can be something
: simple like a stick of dynamite with a fuse, or something
: complex like a micro-nuke. You are attempting to confuse
: anyone reading this saying that the energy needed to light
: the fuse scales the same as the energy needed to run a pump.
: THAT IS NOT TRUE - why can't you get that? Its really very
: simple. You'd rather rail about supposed inequity in the
: patent system, and talk scathingly about semantics - than
: just get that it takes energy to pump propellant against
: pressure into an operating reaction chamber - while it takes
: nearly no energy to put propellant into a non-working chamber
: - and set it off pulse fashion.

> This factor is reduced by the addition of 8 times the number
> of lasers as in the Livermore experiment to an absolute min-
> imum of one in 159.

: You pretend that you've done some analysis - but you are in
: the end trying to fool a casual reader that the energy it
: takes to light a fuse is the same as the energy it takes to
: pump propellant into a working engine. This is not the case.

By "working engine" don't you mean pellet implosion? IMO THAT
is the workhorse of pelletized fusion energy - it is supposed
to release a considerable amount MORE energy - if done right -
up to 10X the amount delivered to the target.

: As engine size and performance increases, the energy needed
: by the pump - scales with that. The enregy neede to light a
: fuse is independent of the size of the bomb its attached to
: - if you use a bomb to detonate another bomb.

: Notwithstanding that if you put 100 bombs with 100 fuses,
: you'd have to light 100 fuses. So, you're trying to fool
: us in many ways. why is that?

> Therefore, a laser medium needs to be chosen that handles
> a power density 159 times that of neodymium lasers.

: All things being equal - but you have yet to show how this
: system compares to the hydrogen flouride system used by the
: air force - and why you are doing something so stupid as to
: use only a primary when I specifically said, a tiny primary
: will set off a secondary of arbitrary size?

I'll settle for your "trigger" if you can show me how the
components of a bomblet can initiate "fusion" without using
laser "implosion". Are you suggesting that similar thrust can
be achieved without lasers on a secondary?

> Silica
> glass lasers are capable of handling a higher power density

: You understand don't you how the Fabrey Perot etalons work in
: a chemical laser? The laser here self-destructs and is used
: only once.

No, I've never heard of them. I'm going to check into this
further to see how 'cost-effective' your suggestion for using
replacement lasers would be, but I don't think that reusability
even enters into *your* criterion.

> than neodymium because of its' higher melting point - 1600
> degrees C vs. 1010 degrees C for neodymium glass.

: You are assuming the laser system will be used more than once.
: It wil not.

Yes it will, if it's a free electron laser being used over a
Krypton-Fluoride type. Sure, KF lasers can deliver the joules
required, but they also end up distorting the mirrors that
got the beam delivered - & those mirrors are expensive!

> According
> to my sources, 'fused silica wedge optics' can deliver 3.6 x
> 10^6 J per 'mirror' to a target - usually a hohlraum contain-
> ing a frozen pellet of hydrogen - releasing a much larger
> amount of fusion energy. In this state-of-the-art laser op-
> tical medium the energy distribution for an 0.4mm radius DT
> fuel pellet would be 2.685 x 10^6 J/cm^2.

: Again, why are you assuming the survival is of any concern
: after it pumps out its femtosecond pulse of laser energy? It
: doesn't. So, its much easier to design, and quality control
: isn't a problem after firing.

So you MUST think that I'm "scaling" through a particular
"silica wedged" system in order to arrive at some ideal, re-
usable size, such that a single DT pellet will act as the
"fusor" element to the rest in the pulse chain. REMARKABLE!

Then wouldn't your "overdesign" also act as a safety feature
for other, less costly fuels, such as primitively frozen hy-
drogen pellets, extracted from places like the water ices
of Europa? REMARKABLE!

> : Lets look at some examples of your basic rocket...

> : Hydrogen and oxygen combust in a chamber that is then ex-
> : ted through a nozzle to produce a jet of steam and hydrogen
> : to produce thrust.

> : Plutonium fission reactions in a magnetic chamber produce
> : actinide series products which are exhausted through a mag
> : nozzle at high speed.

> : Hydrogen fusion reactions in a more powerful magnetic cham
> : produces helium which is exhausted through a more powerful
> : netic nozzle at higher speed.

> I prefer Boron 11 + Hydrogen -> Helium 4 (3 atoms), using fuel

: This is an interesting reaction. I mentioned it below. The
: specific energy though is 1/3 that of Li6-D - so, exhaust speed
: is 57% - this is the figure of merit.

> density of ~3 x 10^4 gm/cm^3 (upon implosion) yields only 1
> neutron -

: The aneutronic - boron 10 - plus protium - is preferred for this
: reason.

> the most safe of all reactions @ 30% laser efficiency.

: It isn't clear what you're referring to here.

> If we assume that the energy distribution on the surface of
> a pellet remains constant for different size pellets,

: No, are missing the boat. You must achieve Lawson criterion for
: any reaction you contemplate - so this varies.

: D+T - has the lowest set of pressures temperatures and densities
: i.e the lowest energies.

: This sets your energy density across your pellet surface.

: A pellet of boron 10 + protium if you were so foolish as to use
: it in your primary - requires hundreds of times the intensity
: for a given pellet size. And laser energy scales with pellet
: size. this has nothing to do with pump pressure - since you're
: not reacting against a dynamic pressure. this is all just
: initiator physics.

: That's why its damned foolish to use a single primary - that's
: why I use an easy to light primary - of a smaller size - to
: generate VERY VERY INTENSE GAMMA RAYS - that are then directed
: to a secondary - that creates a propagating reaction wave that
: easily meets the Lawson criteria for even hard to fuse elements
: - which can be of ANY SIZE - as the Tsar bomba tests proved.

: The pellet size of the primary is constant. The size of the
: secondary is rather large. since a gamma ray blast from a
: deuterium-tritium fusion is more then sufficient to light off
: any fusor - and the light from THAT fusion can be used to
: propagate into a fusor medium of any size.

I agree with this statement.

> then
> 3.6 x 10^6 Joules requires a pellet of radius 0.3265 cm. to
> achieve an equal energy distribution of 2.685 x 10^6 J/cm^2.

: Totally bogus numbers derived from totally bogus analysis.
: You haven't a clue of the fundamentals. Please understand that
: pushing propellant into a rocket chamber that has a dynamic
: pressure given by that chamber's reaction condition, is quite
: different than lighting a fuse. Now, you are trying to con-
: vince everyone that lighting a fuse is energeetically the
: same as running a pump. this is not the case. you are further
: compounding your error by trying to convince us that the fuse
: scales with the bomb - while it is possible to build fuses
: that way it is not a requirement. finally, you don't seem to
: get that some bomb materials are harder to light off than
: others. think of a match head. you've got an easy to light
: tip, and a harder to light sulfur head. Think of the D+T
: as the tip, the sulfur as the Li6-D and the the laser as
: the striker pad.

The 3.6 x 10^6 was the limitation on the "mirror" that I'm
using to scale for the number of lasers needed to reach fusion.
The DT "trigger" differs from the D3He "trigger" on order of
10^6 joules, hence I'm really using only a single laser for
this type of DT ignition, followed with, if you will, the
"implosion" laser, for the Li6-D.

> D3He pellets require an energy of 1.847 x 10^9 J/cm^2,

: Only for certain sized pellets illuminated by certain colors
: of light. You really are not talking about fundamentals.
: In fact, where are you getting these numbers? You haven't
: given a source, nor have you given a rationale.

I did not mention that this was the energy output for a
*single* laser - and there are 96 lasers per thruster - which
would account for the missing energy input. (See below comment
on Daedalus)

: Now when you take something and squeeze it quickly, its
: temperature and pressure rise according to charles law.
: It takes energy to squeeze an object. You seem to under-
: stand pressure, but you don't seem to understand pressure
: times distance - haha - which is work. And that's why it
: takes 54 kJ in the experiments you cited (without a pointer)

READ MY LAST COMMENT. Why do you keep repeating yourself?
I'm NOT USING 54 KJ as the optic necessary! The 54 KJ was a
figure that I got from very early experiments with Neodymium
lasers. Neodymium lasers are completely outdated for this
system. Silica wedge optics are the much more efficient optic
to use, along with the FEL's. The end optics for the FEL
system I'm using are similar to the end optics of the LLNL
system, with the exception that a type of Blumlein Transmis-
sion line is incorporated into the end optic as well.

: an 10 kJ in the experiments I sited - details count. Coupling
: efficiency, pellet size - fusor medium. these are all
: important factors. To really understand how to do engin-
: eering with this, you must really understand the physics.

: Suffice to say, that an efficient fusion bomblet has a con-
: stant detonation energy independent of the size of the
: secondary the primary lights off. Not so with the pump
: of an active rocket engine.

> which is at least 261 times the energy currently provided by
> state-of-the-art 'silicon wedge' lasers. So, in order to ach-
> ieve minimum ignition conditions for D3He, two possibilities
> become apparent: Either we decrease the pellet size to a
> radius of .0124 cm. along with increasing the pellet repeti-
> tion rate to 6.3046 x 10^6 Hz (This alternative has to be
> thrown out because of the impossibility of designing a pellet
> injector with these performance characterisitics), or we in-
> crease the power to the pellet by increasing the number of
> lasers (and increasing the power from each laser).

: These numbers are all bogus - they don't relate to anything I
: said, and they ignore several key factors that are important
: in a real analysis.

I got much of the data from the Daedalus project - go and
research it for yourself, and you'll find that they're using
1.22 x 10^12 Joules delivered in 5 - 10 pulses, with each
pulse length variable between 0.05 and 5.0 nsec, for a pellet
repetition rate of 250Hz. The figure that I'm using above
(1.847 x 10^9 J/cm^2) is scaled from this system for use in
a 120 Hz, 96 laser system @ 1.847 x 10^9 J/cm^2/laser, for a
3.94 cm. size pellet.

If you do the math, you get (1.847)(96)(10) = 1.77 x 10^12
Joules/cm^2, which exceeds what the Daedalus design had!

: I get the impression you're trying to look to me the way I
: must look to you. You miss a critical factor- you don't know
: what the hell you're talking about - I do.

> If a one millimeter diameter laser compressed sphere of DT
> requires 1.8 x 10^9 J/cm^2, then for generating 10 times
> the energy supplied to the lasers, we're still at 1/2 of
> it that is radiated out into space, yielding a lower "5"
> times the energy supplied for propulsion.

: Again you seem to understand pressure - and you got the size
: down some - but you should really study isentropic flows and
: see that to compress a ball of gas or plasma - to the first
: order - requires a specific amount of energy - to attain a
: specific temperature and pressure called for by lawson.

The "nested well" potential required by Lawson must satisfy
nT > 5H x 10^15 s/cm^3 for a full fusion burn, where nT =
2 x 10^-16 cm^3 / sec for DHe3, where the ion plasma density
must be dependent upon the ability of the FEL to "trap" the
antiprotons and electrons. This is what I'm proposing with
FEL's - self-focusing their beams by using a surrounding
channel of ionic plasma.

: You don't understand this. You read some technical side
: note on a popular science description of an experiment -
: and without any fundamental understanding go running off
: citing numbers out the wazoo because I gave you some real
: freaking numbers. lol.

I don't listen without examining the consequences of what
you're proposing in the first place. You want it your way?
Go right ahead and make my day. You'll find out all too
quickly that your decision to use Hydrogen flouride was both
expensive and time-consuming - I'm just trying to smooth
out the bumps a little before you make expensive nonsense
out of your KF laser concept..

> An electron beam accelerator was developed way back in 1972
> that discharged 20 x 10^9 J pulses longer than 100
> billionths of a second. So, according to the above
> 1.8 x 10^9, which is about equal to fusion for a diameter
> a one millimeter laser compressed sphere, this would amount
> to at least 10 times the area of a larger non-laser com-
> pressed sphere - or 10 cm^2, or about 3.33 cm. diameter,
> which is close to the 3.94 cm. diameter being designed.

: Read up on the farnsworth fusor. you do understand do you not
: that electrons are all negatively charged and tend to repel
: one another? That means in addition to the plasma or gas pres-
: sure of a pellet, you've got to over come this self charge.
: Why don't you work out how that scales to smaller units and
: then tell me what the advantage of using tiny lasers are
: over using tiny electron beams?

: Are you up to that challenge?

Ah, yes, the Farnsworth fusor - that's where the self-focusing
effect of electrons on the "cathode" of a magnetically insula-
ted transmission line will lead the propogation of a beam of
electrons contained within a tubular plasma beam to the target
pellet for fusion. I understand that tabletop fusors are all
the rage of nuclear fusioneers, ref. "The Open Source Fusor
Research Consortium": fusor.net/board/index.php?site=fusor
but this is not quite the same when you're talking about space
propulsion. There is another way to create a beam of highly
charged "positrons" by using one of the decay products of
quartz - that being positronium.

> With a higher quantity of these lasers (10 times the number)
> installed around the perimeter of the blast dome for single
> pellet ignition, you'd end up with 200 x 10^6 J over a ~100
> cm^2 area or 10 cm. dia. sphere. The advantage of laser com-
> pression over ignition is that the energy needed to compress
> hydrogen is only 1% of the energy required to heat DT to
> ignition. Therefore laser implosion offers stellar perfor-
> mance over the other fuel-derived "ignition" methods.

: Making any initator re-usable in a fusion system is asking for
: trouble - since every fusion blast will tend to tear the ini-
: tiator apart. that's why it makes sense to make dispsable
: lasers that are used only once like old time flashbulbs.

> One point though - Since these lasers cost $14.5 million
> back in 1972, they'd probably be closer to $145 million
> today -

: Depends on how much is invested in improving the fundamentals.
: computer power costs less today than it did in 1972- because
: Moore outlined the fundamental cost drivers and everyone fo-
: cused on R&D to lower costs. If the same thing were done for
: lasers, or anything, costs need not be higher today -
: despite inflation.

> so you're multiplying this cost by 10X to get 1.45B.
> IMO, this is not a very "feasible" thing to do.

: You are an idiot. There is no freaking reason to use per-
: manent lasers or ion beams or electon beams wen a small dis-
: posable single use laser is shown to be perfectly adequate.

Want to play the blame game? This is where we separate on
ideas. Silica wedges do not take well to KF lasers. Free elec-
tron lasers *do*. For that reason, I'm hereby endorsing the
use of free electron lasers because of their cheap ability to
manufacture and test, marketwise, and competitive-wise.

> : Hydrogen and anti-hydrogen annihilates in a magnetic chamber
> : and produces gamma rays which are reflected by a powerful
> : mirror to produce thrust.

: Where do you get your gamma mirror? You are totally clueless.

I did not type that comment. Someone else did!

> : Type: Chemical reaction
> : Propellant: Hydrogen and Oxygen
> : Exhaust: Steam and hydrogen
> : Jet Speed: 4.5 km/sec

> : Type: Fission reaction
> : Propellant: Plutonium
> : Exhaust: Actinide Series Products, neutrons, working fluid
> : Jet Speed: 10,000 km/sec - 30,000 km/sec

> : Type: Fusion reaction
> : Propellant Hydrogen
> : Exhaust: Helium, hydrogen, working fluid
> : Jet Speed 30,000 km/sec - 90,000 km/sec

> A actual fusion photograph taken with high speed exposure
> showed the advance of an isotherm of 7.5 micrometers in just
> 4 picoseconds, or .004 nanoseconds, which figures out to be
> 7.5 x 10^-6 meters / 4 x 10^-12 seconds = 1.875 x 10^6 m/sec,
> or 1,875,000 m/sec, or 1875 km/sec.

: You really ought to read with understanding what you search up.
: You understand do you not that the shock wave which is what an
: isotherm is. has little to do with the speed of the reaction
: products?

OMG, yes it does! Ever heard of a "power law atmosphere"? This
is the radiative density as a function of pellet radius:

roe(r) = 10^-6 [(R_i / r) gram/cm^3

The gas is purely absorptive and the mean opacity, or mass
hydrogen density, is taken to be constant and equal to the
Thomson free electron scattering opacity. (The adiabatic index
used for the above formula was equal to 5/3).

I'm not sure about how this would influence the other reaction
products, but I was under the impression that this was how the
core DT reaction took place.

> (I'm thinking here that the
> average velocity is somewhat higher for magnetic confinement -

: Why?

> but there's nothing here to suggest that confinement is being
> included in this particular design.

: Do you even know what you're talking about? I would guess
: obviously not.

*Not* the same "confinement" as conventionally, "non-pulsed"
- but if that's what you meant anyway, so then there's no use
quibbling over the definition of "confinement" defined as
the reduced radius of a laser "compressed" pellet.

: When I light a fuse it burns at a certain rate. when the blast
: cap goes off, the shock wave that sets of the dynamite, travels
: at a certain rate through the dynamite. When the dynamite ex-
: plodes in all directions, the air slows it down, but in vacuum
: it would travel at a speed determined by its specific energy.

: the numbers I gave above are based on specific energy - and a
: range of 10% to 100% of that energy ending up moving the reac-
: tion products. Its damned hard to get that wrong.

: You searched up some reference to a shock wave - what the shock
: wave is, we cannot really tell based on your bogus description
: because you have no rationale for quoting it, nor any logical
: connextion with anything i've said. But please understand,
: that the shock wave speed you cite, has nothing whatever to
: do with the kinetic energy of the reaction products possessed
: by a rocket's exhaust due to the specific energy contained in
: the propellants. sheez.

The "shock wave" you're alluding to is no more a "shock wave"
than it is a radiative "blast" wave. Consider a shell stretching
from an inner radius of the compressed pellet, compressed into
a central light source with luminosity of 10^34 ergs/sec. This
corresponds to a central temperature of 10^9 K, which sets off
the radiative blast wave. This is what happens in the center
of neutron stars with completely ionized hydrogen.

> : Type: Anti-matter annihilation
> : Propellant: Hydrogen anti-hydrogen
> : Exhaust: gamma rays
> : Jet Speed: 300,000 km/sec

> : Now in all cases, you've got to feed the reaction.

> I'm using feed lines that charge in amp-webers, or teslas/m^2,
> with phi = [N(i)(alpha)(mue)] / L, where "phi" is the magnetic
> flux, equal to 48,332.1946(i) webers, or teslas/m^2.

: This is totally meaningless bullshit which hides the fundamental
: physics I'm explaining to you.

No, it's a magnetohydrodynamically driven pellet, using a magnet-
ically charged injector that blasts the pellet into the thrust
dome for ignition by the lasers. The 48,332 value for magnetic
flux is equal to the magnetomotive force divided by reluctance,
and this value has to be divided by the crossectional area
of the pellet, which is 0.0048744 m^2, to get the resultant
235.5909 Tesla/m^2. This value (235.5909T) represents a starting
point for design purposes.

For Li6D, 252.3 million megapascals = 2523 bar = 36,593 psi

The coil must be able to accelerate 120 pellets from the injec-
to the center of the thrust dome, which is at 2523 bar pres-
sure, or 36,593 psi, yielding a force product of 36593psi/2.406
(sq. inches crossection), yields 15209.06 lbs. force on an 0.09
lb. (mass), accelerating at 4,726 cm/sec^2 or 1860.63 in/sec^2
(assuming no friction), so # dynes =

40.82 grams/pellet x 120 pellets = 4898.4 grams, -> yields
9,639,296,240.3 dynes, or 9,639,296,240.3 oersted. For the mag-
netodynamic driving force, this quantity is equal to the afore-
mentioned:

235.5909 Tesla/m^2 x (100,000, which is the multiplication
factor for dynes) x 'mue' (or the magnet's permeability), which
figures out in this case, to be equal to 440.76. Since this is
an extremely high permeability, a design decision must be made
to use something that would provide the necessary magnetic "flux"
that is required in the magnetic injector tube. Therefore the
choice that "superconducting" wire should be used as the "coil"
part of the injector makes sense, (See superconductor info in
ref.#1) where the vacuum permeability m_0 = 4(pi)(10^-7(N)(A)^-2,
where N = # turns, A = amps, and r_0 is the diameter of current
tube, this wire can transmit a current density of 3.7 x 10^4
amps / cm^2, with some additional stats as listed:

B||y = 4.4 Tesla
Dhomo = 0.076 m
W_x = 0.076 m
a = 0.0475 m
s = 0.0095 m
W_y = 0.093081 m
W_conductor = 0.019 m
J = 368569341.897 Am^-2

(ref #1)

: Any reaction in your rocket chamber has a dynamic pressure. Any-
: thing you insert against that pressure requires you use a force
: over some distance - this requires work. that work scales with
: the rate at which you insert propellant (thrust) and with the
: pressure (velocity) - that is with the energy of the engine.

> Magnetic force is measured in Oersteds, so there is some
> popular value of "mue" available for the "Oe" that I've
> decided to use, which amounts to some number in the thousands.

: More meaningless bullshit. You can use magnetic force, electro-
: static force, mechanical force, dynamic force - none of this
: changes the fact that

: W = f x D

: work equals force times distance

: and

: f = 1/2 rho V^2

: where force equals 1/2 density times velocity square.

: and

: Ve = function(V)

I really don't feel like giving you more details than are neces-
sary. I'm using Teslas / m^2 x (100,000) x m_f, for which 100,000
is the multiplication factor for dynes, and m_f is the permea-
bility of the the magnetic inductor, or magnet. The formula
to find the magnetic FORCE in Oersteds, or phi:

(1) phi = [N(i)(100,000)(mue)] = 9,639,296,240.3 Oe

(2) (crossectional area of pellet)(magnetic flux w/supermalloy) =

(3) 235.5909 Tesla / m^2 (or better)

To find the answer to (1), solve first for (2), using the value
of (3) for N(i), in order to obtain "phi" for a popular value
(manufactured already) of "mue". The "100,000" value is the
force conversion factor for newtons to dynes.

: so, when you have a continuous reaction inside some sort of
: chamber that exhausts some sort of stream - to feed the reaction
: takes energy which converts to a power level for a given thrust
: and mass flow rate - that scales with the size of the engine.

: The only way to overcome this is to operate the engine pulse
: fashion and feed it when its not running. That's what pulse
: engines do. Continuous engines don't do that and require more
: powerful pumps as a result.

> : Pump hydrogen and oxygen against the chamber pressure into
> : the reaction chamber to maintain the reaction.

> : Insert plutonium against the pressure inside the magnetic
> : chamber to maintain the reaction.

> : Insert hydrogen against the pressure inside the magnetic
> : chamber to maintain the reaction.

> All of the DT pellets are spherical, self-contained, and laser
> tuned and ignitable frozen "bomblets",

: That's true. Compressing these pellets to ignite them is eqiv-
: alent to lighting a fuse. They do not work until they blow up.
: then they are working only during the time of the blast. After
: the blast you've got to blow up another one. This is known as a
: pulse engine.

: Where are the ookamaks you were talking about before? lol.
: You read an article on 1970s ICF experiments and you lost track
: of tokamaks? lol.

Get a grip - Tokamaks are a different beast - I'm talking about
FREE ELECTRON LASERS.

> that don't get triggered
> until just after leaving the fuel cell and injector.

: that's a good thing otherwise they'll destroy those things.

: Its not clear what the hell you're talking about any more. are
: you saying you now have a design that uses a pulsed detonation?
: In that case you're agreeing with my original point - which you
: originally disagreed with.

No, you're arguing semantics again. YOU are trying to define
a problem that DOESN'T EXIST with your OWN SEMANTICS, while I'm
just presenting some very superficial physics that you've com-
pletely ignored or misinterpreted.

> : Insert anti-matter against the pressure inside the annihil-
> : ation chamber to maintain the reaction.

: Where do you get anti-matter and how much do you need and how
: much can you make and what does it cost?

This was not my comment.

: What the hell do you have against hydrogen and flourine? I'm
: just wondering.

I don't have anything against using KF lasers per se, if the
cost and maintenance weren't a problem (they are IMO) - just
the wedge optic channeling the beam - they're expensive - I've
investigated the FEL's a bit more, and it seems that the tech-
nology for them got underfunded - Silica wedges don't take well
to KF bcause of the higher wattages used - and it's the silica
wedges that can be continuously be used - and NOT for the
sake of scrapping the whole system by making it "single use"
with a KF laser.

Free electron lasers can do the trick by incorporating a design
that uses a "self-focusing" effect of a transmission line to
focus on an anode along the axis where the magnetic field drops
to zero. I've got a diagram posted here:

https://home.comcast.net/~samuel_ransom/pulse_unit.jpg

> : Force times distance equals work. It takes energy to lift
> : water ...

: I made myself clear. You unfortunately have not.

Yes I have also made MYSELF completely clear. You, my friend,
are acting like a behind on any other alternative presented.

American

(ref #1)

from: http://www.risoe.dk/rispubl/AFM/afmpdf/ris-r-1578.pdf :

Example of intersecting circle geometry to create B = 4.4 Tesla
by having a current density of 3.7 x 10^4 amps / cm^2, owing in
the colored regions. The circles have a radius of a = 0.0475m.
Given the opening along the x-axis w_x = 0.076m one can determine
the center displacement of the circles to s = 0.0095 m and
w_y = 0.093m. The thickness of the conductor region becomes
W_conductor = 0.019m. The unit of the figure scale is meters.

"Our blood splashes upward, O gold-heaper,
And your purple shows your path!
But the child's sob in the silence curses deeper
Than the strong man in his wrath."

- Elizabeth Barrett Browning, English poet and champion of
Italian liberty, 1806 - 1861

[American]

> because the effects of ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

http://home.comcast.net/~samuel_ransom/Scanning_Frequencies_of_Metals.htm

More jobs means more family security with less government intrusion.

Even "trading away" our dependency on foreign oil/produced gasoline
for more LOX/kerosene-powered Saturn V's not only replaces 570,000
people from cummuter-based jobs to work in LEO, but decreases roadway
congestion by 0.2%, and lowers the nightmare of pork-barreled projects
to the extreme.

"Gasoline production in the U.S. amounts to 9,233,000
barrels per day, so if we're talking about replacing
the same VALUE of gasoline in kerosene, then in addition
to the current 54,000 barrels used per day, a total of
9,287,000 barrels of kerosene would be required. Since
we're talking RP-1 kerosene, this amounts to 46 launches
per day, or about 1 per state in the country, at 18,250
launches per year.

The amount of mass delivered into space at the rate of
5339 tons per day, or 1,948,839 tons per year into LEO.
This is approximately the equivalent to 19 Nimitz aircraft
carriers, or an entire Navy.

Of course, it doesn't have to happen all at once. A gradual
weening in to the financial markets would be a boon to
most or all U.S. manufacturers. In five years, about
570,000 people could be working in LEO - that's about 0.2
percent of the entire population of the U.S. - simply by
phasing out gasoline and replacing it with kerosene."

Since more and more Americans are becoming frightened enough to deal
with the dollar's demise by buying up gold, why not create an
incentive to get it in NEO?

American

[American]

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Why not ignite ejected bomblets with a Krypton-Flouride
laser? The physics involved would be a lot simpler if
the laser was used in conjunction with a bomblet that
was modified to ignite at a specific frequency and
temperature.

http://images6.theimagehosting.com/frame_1.gif

The above diagram is a schematic of the thrust/ring,
ring/chamber, propulsion chamber, and aft fuselage
framing for loading. Thrust framing for the cargo ves-
sel fuselage, fuel cell assembly, and cryogenic supply
system uses general loading analysis technique for the
thrust axial loading, inertial axial loading, and axial
flux distribution.  A 3-D structural code is construct-
ed for the space frame program in Fortran.  The axial
flux distribution due to thruster loading is dependent
upon the design and stiffness of the thrust ring and
fuel cell structure.  An iteration method for estimat-
ing sizing uses a Fortran space frame analysis.

The number of joints in the space truss will yield 3
times as many equations for each summation of forces in
the x, y, and z directions.  Each element is assumed to
have axial, bending, and torsional stiffness.  The finite
element technique for analysis uses elements pictured in:

http://images6.theimagehosting.com/engr.gif

The thruster framing analysis uses point distribution
loading at each point of intersection between stringers
from a radial direction whose point of origin is the
chamber centerline just outside the outer ignition ring.
Not shown is the ignition ring w/end optics, mid-to-aft
fuselage, fuel cell assembly, bomblet delivery system,
and cryogenic supply system, which I have in schematic:

http://images6.theimagehosting.com/end_beam_1.gif

The laser final optics to the ignition ring pictured
above shows a comparison between free electron ignition
using the blumlein ion particle transmission, and fused
silica wedge optics using high energy focused electron
beams.  For each system, there are a total of 96 end
optics, positioned in a ceramic/steel ring designed to
provide the support structure, electronics, and cool-
ing to the entire ignition ring/thruster interface.

http://images6.theimagehosting.com/coil.gif

A total of 18 coils in the injector provide up to 15
Tesla magnetic induction in order to accelerate each
pellet into the propulsion chamber.  Superconductive
pellets containing bomblet fuel are stored in 5 second
fuel cells @ 23.634m/cell.  Each cell's outside D=7.5cm.
(w/coolant lines).  For a 10 minute specific impulse,
there are a total of 120 cells/thruster.  A 1mm machin-
ed spiral surface contour on the inside and outside
covers to the spiral dielectric and magnetic conductor
provide a "seat" for the 1mm SuperMalloy wire, as well
as a "container" for each set of 18 coils.  A total of
360 coils are required for each 5 second fuel cell.  A
cross section of all fuel cells for each thruster is
approximately 1m2. The charging capacitors are tuned in
order that the self-resonant frequency of each coil's
distributed capacitance does not equal the frequency of
the charging capacitor. Multiples of the resonant fre-
quencies are also discarded from the tuning.

The coil system used for the axial magnetic field uses a
LHe-4 cooling circuit in the complete fuel cell.  Assum-
ing that LHe-4 is a perfect coolant when the LHe-4 reaches
the superconductive state, the coil life expectancy has
to increase in order to withstand a specific impulse of
several minutes.  The ratio of coil spacing to coil ra-
dius is an important factor in determining coil efficiency. 
The minimum coil spacing that would allow rapid acceler-
ation out of the injector and at the same time accept a
17 ft/sec feed rate from the fuel cells has been calcu-
lated according to design specifications for this system.

http://images6.theimagehosting.com/preamp.gif

The above diagram is the preamplifier for the pulse amp:

http://images6.theimagehosting.com/pulse.gif

The pulse power supply generates pulses up to 30 kv. Q1
and Q2 form a multivibrator in conjunction with peri-
pheral components R1 thru R6 and C1, C2, C3, C5, C6,
and D2. R9 adjusts the pulse repetition rate. R2 should
be selected to limit the maximum repetition rate to 20 Hz.
I1 is a type 1156 lamp used as a current limiter. R9 can
be left out and R2 selected to produce a fixed rate, if
desired. Q3 serves as a power amplifier and switch to
drive T1 (magnetic induction coil). NE1 is used as a
pulse indicator and indicates circuit operation. Because
of the high intensity magnetic field generated, a mag-
netoresistive shield is required between the circuit
and coil. (The pulse supply circuitry is protected from
the high energy magnetic field that is induced in the EM
coil and induction tube thru magnetoresistive amorphous
SmFe2 99.26 at. % B 0.74 at. % alloy).

http://images6.theimagehosting.com/Aft1b1.gif

The above diagram shows the 3rd Heat Loop, for which
I have all of the Heat Transfer engineering calculations.

http://images6.theimagehosting.com/Aft1c.gif

The above diagram shows the 3rd heat-loop-to-thruster,
for only 1 thruster pictured.

http://images6.theimagehosting.com/cnduct.gif

Thrust is transmitted through the ring/chamber frame
to the thrust ring framing, and from the thrust ring
framing to the aft fuselage. The initial applied load-
ing from nuke bomblet ignition is directly appled as
shear and axial stress to the ring/chamber frame
connections, and to the aft fuselage framing.

Ablation to the propulsion chamber surface is negligi-
ble, considering the fact that the chamber is large en-
ough in diameter, and the radiation distribution is
handled quite effectively through the use of TZM alloy.

There are three fuel pellet injectors in the bomblet
propulsion system. Coil windings in the magnetic gun are
cooled cryogenically with LH to 20oK. The coil windings

themselves are insulated with lead titanate, which can

sustain a field of over 10**7volts/meter and dielectric

constant of up to 12,000, but where the velocity of

propogation is equal to: Vp = 100 / E, where Vp= Velo-

city of propogation in percentage of the speed of light,
and E = dielectric constant of the insulator. Further,

Vp is calculated from the relationship:

du/dt = (3 /8(mue)_0)(B_g**2/ r_p (density))
where (mue)_0 is the self-inductance per meter length =
4 x 10**-7henry/meter, Bg= field strength in Tesla,

r_p = radius of fuel pellet, and (density) = fuel pellet
density in kilograms.

For the coil injector, One oersted exerts a force of one
dyne, and a force of one dyne acting on a mass of one
gram imparts to it an acceleration of 1 cm / sec2.  Ap-
proximately 981 dynes = 1 gram weight, therefore, 981,000
dynes = 1 kilogram. The field strength for Nb_3,Sn at the
mixed state* at 4.2oK is 221 kg. The current density for
a 3 mil skin depth on a bomblet of is high - approximately
5.745 x 1015 amps per m2. Assuming the pellets are back-
to-back as they enter the injector, a velocity of 4.728
m/s or 472.8 cm/sec is sustained for 120 pellets to enter
the injector after 1 second.  If each pellet weighs
2.26109 grams, then 120 pellets(2.26109) = 271.33 grams
total weight of pellets entering the injector.  The force
propelling the pellets must equal 271.33(472.8) =
128,284.82 dynes, so the magnetic force = 128,284.82
oersted.  The permeability required for a metal used for
coils that can sustain a magnetic force of 128,284.82
oersted has been calculated as mue = 544.523, which is a
popular value for coil permeability.

Each of 360 coils is packed with 120 back-to-back pellets,
and represents a separate charging unit to the pellet in-
jector.  5 charging units (or a single fuel cell) is
switched on every 5 seconds, and this process continues
until all  120 fuel cells are exhausted.  Each cell's
overall diameter is 7.5 cm., and so all 120 cells are
grouped in a cubic arrangement inside a 1m**2 crossection.

During ignition, the density radius product of the implod-
ed pellet is raised beyond a few hundred, with a pellet
density greater than 100,000 times the liquid density. 
X-rays are trapped with laser energy outputs of 104 joules,
at 50% efficiency.  As the pellet becomes imploded tenfold
in radius (1,000 times in volume), the confinement time is
also reduced tenfold, and the burn time is reduced by a
factor of 1,000.  The burn efficiency is therefore in-
creased by a factor of 100 to 10%, yielding 30 times the
laser input energy.  About 50% of the initial fireball ex-
plosion is converted into thrust.  This means that the
actual working thrust amounts to about 15 times the laser
input energy. The pellets themselves are stratified with
Boron 11, so that the reactants are all non-radioactive.
This is a new technology. For earth-to-orbit technology,
scientists are experimenting with the manufacture of Boron
(B-11) plasma w/ hydrogen "backfill" using pulsed lasers.
For orbital construction of interplanetary spacecraft,
Boron-Lithium nanotubes could also be used as an ablation
material to "reduce" radiative effects of fissionables.

Ablation calculation uses the Zeus MP (MagnetoPlasma) code
for calculating the Sedov blastwave. This is accomplished
by modifying a couple of the input parameter files using
the Fortran object files and dependencies of stblast.o and
stblast.F, respectively. The resulting output files consist
of a header display and a logarithmic density of the region
encompassing the outflowing waveform. The design temperature
of the shockwave is approximately 120,000 °F with a 50,000
lb/in2 (340 Mpa) pressure on the ablating surface.

~

American

[American]

1) Need for war/death to enemies
2) Imperialism/Dictatorship

Both of these must exact human life in some way, shape, or form in
order to perpetuate its agenda for (blood or crypt?) superiority.

What is the use of anyone who claims some kind of "space rated"
authority, as some sort of self-righteous intention for space
exploration, if their own righeousness is as filthy rags?

Continued hard work in the application of the physical laws that
support a profoundly cheaper method of space exploration is all that
is required, but every side must claim that *they* are the ones who
are working diligently at providing the best future for anybody
interested in space exploration, and not just for everybody on planet
earth.

Some actually believe that heaven is not "big" enough for most in the
area of actual faith, and so must be content with things like
"international" space stations, orbital satelite technology, and bases
on the moon and mars. Although these are somewhat righteous causes,
the bureaucracy has entrenched itself sooooo far into the procurement
process that any intelligent and wise observer would wonder who was it
that put the halt on the mass marketing of further production, in
short-sighting the future of space exploration.

It turns out to be our own monopolistic bureaucracy as the culprit
that stifles competition by manipulating the approval process - they
do this through vast corporate/state interests and entrenchment in
opposing the technological drive "at the right time".

It is interesting how many of those who would be involved in a
particular approval process for an earth-to-orbit technology would
consider any *alternative* earth-to-orbit process as a threat to their
own, especially when the earth-to-orbit market should seem to be so
broadly based in lobbies for the state-run media complex. Doubtless
this is because the state/media can now command their attack dogs in
the attempt to force things (like aan over 9800 page health care
reform) into the hands of their welfare-state-run captors!

What's to stop them from thinking of themselves as masters of the
universe?

All of this bloodlust rages and portends the ultimate victim as Christ
and the prophets, even though prophecy has already ordained YHWH as
the ultimate victor in the end.

American

- The god of time was Chium in Egypt, or Saturn in the greek world.
Chium is the same as Cain.

[Uncle Al]

American wrote:
[snip crap]

> All of this bloodlust rages and portends the ultimate victim as Christ
> and the prophets,

[snip rest of crap]

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/jessy.jpg

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

[American]

On Nov 2, 6:47 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> [snip crap]
>

< snip crony [snip crap] indignation at the mention of anything
"religious" >

love http://www.williamhenry.net/stargateCruci.htm

That's your problem, not mine...

American

"Anything else non-interstellar just makes a stuffed-pig-in-progress
a whole lot fatter."

[American]

What this is about:

Brainstorming or offering a proposal to design and engineer an
extraterrestrial resource development facility for the purpose of
establishing a permanent presence in space for private enterprise
worldwide:

This article provides a record of a prospective cost analysis in order
to establish performance parameters.

Projective Expenses

With respect to asteroid mining, the cost of delivering a robotic
spacecraft to rendezvous, mine, and return to an orbital docking
facility with scanned soil samples depends upon the technological
commitment to remote operation, simulation, and the interpretation of
real component descriptors affecting allowable performance
parameters.

The following article lists costs / 7 year interval to build, operate,
and maintain components of a remote mining system. It is assumed that
a power satellite construction center has already been developed in
order to facilitate a cargo vessel launch and GAMS tracking system.
(GAMS referring to here as a Geosynchronous Asteroid Mining Satelite).

Articles for Development:

Cargo Vessel Propulsion System, Navigation System, and Structural
Shell from the years 2010 – 2017 represent a projected cost in
millions from $235M - $375M.

Mechanical Head Boring Tool, Hydraulics, Power Supply, and
Instrumentation represent a projected cost in millions from $25M -
$115M.

Tray Dump Handling System (Retractable Rail, Hydraulics, Cars &
Canopy, Equipment, Power Supplies, Instrumentation) represent a
projected cost in millions from $30M - $92M.

Regolith Processing (Centrifuge, piping, storage tanks, pumps, ROV’s,
instrumentation, electrical)
represent a projected cost in millions from $12M - $58M.

Geosynchronous Asteroid Mapping Satellite incl. SAR instrumentation,
Booster, ROV mechanical, R&D represent a projected cost in millions
from $21M - $52M.

The TOTAL COSTS incurred for all phases of development represent a
projected cost in millions from $323M - $692 M.

The RETURN ON INVESTMENT (ROI) represents a DECREASE IN PERCENTAGE
from 1500% - 1170%!

As one can plainly conclude, the proposed R.O.I. for a precious metal
mining mission far outpaces the mission costs. It should be noted,
however, that with the current I.S.S. (that actually negates the SLI
by its NASA constituents, the earth-to-orbit costs for delivering
modules for construction would offset an R.O.I. by as much as 20%, in
addition to the costs of operating and maintaining a Power Satellite
Construction Center, described in a previous post.

Much of what has been proposed in the world 2009 I.S.S. budget (~50B –
100B) is STILL horribly nebulous in cost compared to the net profits
of a precious metal mining mission to the Asteroids.

American

[Uncle Al]

American wrote:
>
> What this is about:
>
> Brainstorming or offering a proposal to design and engineer an
> extraterrestrial resource development facility for the purpose of
> establishing a permanent presence in space for private enterprise
> worldwide:

1) You can't visit the asteroid belt and not get fried by
radiation.
2) You can't grab a NEO without getting similarly fried.
3) Robotics suck. You will have no real time control. AI will be
a disaster.
4) The solar system is a dusty place to land. Ceramic
microspherules are fantastic for ruining seals and eroding moving
parts in contact. Lunar astronauht lungs took a beating, too.
5) 99942 Apophis will be within 15,000 miles of Earth's surface on
13 April 2029. Go grab that.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apophis_pass.svg>

4) There's nothing there when you get there. How much asteroid
dirt must you e-Bay to cover your Accounts Payables?

> This article provides a record of a prospective cost analysis in order
> to establish performance parameters.
>
> Projective Expenses
>
> With respect to asteroid mining, the cost of delivering a robotic
> spacecraft to rendezvous, mine, and return to an orbital docking
> facility with scanned soil samples depends upon the technological
> commitment to remote operation, simulation, and the interpretation of
> real component descriptors affecting allowable performance
> parameters.

Translation: It will dig a huge red ragged hole brimming with red
ink.

> The following article lists costs / 7 year interval to build, operate,
> and maintain components of a remote mining system. It is assumed that
> a power satellite construction center has already been developed in
> order to facilitate a cargo vessel launch and GAMS tracking system.
> (GAMS referring to here as a Geosynchronous Asteroid Mining Satelite).
>
> Articles for Development:
>
> Cargo Vessel Propulsion System, Navigation System, and Structural
> Shell from the years 2010 � 2017 represent a projected cost in
> millions from $235M - $375M.

That's not an estimate, that's a hallucinatory delusion. Your costs
are short by an order of magnitude.

> Mechanical Head Boring Tool, Hydraulics, Power Supply, and
> Instrumentation represent a projected cost in millions from $25M -
> $115M.
>
> Tray Dump Handling System (Retractable Rail, Hydraulics, Cars &
> Canopy, Equipment, Power Supplies, Instrumentation) represent a
> projected cost in millions from $30M - $92M.
>
> Regolith Processing (Centrifuge, piping, storage tanks, pumps, ROV�s,
> instrumentation, electrical)
> represent a projected cost in millions from $12M - $58M.
>
> Geosynchronous Asteroid Mapping Satellite incl. SAR instrumentation,
> Booster, ROV mechanical, R&D represent a projected cost in millions
> from $21M - $52M.
>
> The TOTAL COSTS incurred for all phases of development represent a
> projected cost in millions from $323M - $692 M.

$8 billion easy - If NASA doesn't explode it at launch. Put in for a
TARP.

> The RETURN ON INVESTMENT (ROI) represents a DECREASE IN PERCENTAGE
> from 1500% - 1170%!
>
> As one can plainly conclude, the proposed R.O.I. for a precious metal
> mining mission far outpaces the mission costs.

Got your eye on a solid iridium asteroid, chump? All the stuff out
there is undifferentiated. If you brought a tonne of precious metal
its value would plummet.

> It should be noted,
> however, that with the current I.S.S. (that actually negates the SLI
> by its NASA constituents, the earth-to-orbit costs for delivering
> modules for construction would offset an R.O.I. by as much as 20%, in
> addition to the costs of operating and maintaining a Power Satellite
> Construction Center, described in a previous post.

[snip rest]

Uncle Al apologizes. You are not hallucinating, you are lying.

[American]

On Nov 5, 7:26 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> American wrote:
>
> > What this is about:
>
> > Brainstorming or offering a proposal to design and engineer an
> > extraterrestrial resource development facility for the purpose of
> > establishing a permanent presence in space for private enterprise
> > worldwide:
>
>    1) You can't visit the asteroid belt and not get fried by
> radiation.

I don't believe that that's true.

From an earlier post:

"The low density gases of space consist of hydrogen, helium, protons,
and alpha particles. The gas pressure of interplanetary space is
10**-18 Newtons/meter2, while interstellar space is 10**-27
Newtons/meter2. Space radiation includes cosmic rays,
electromagnetic,
Van Allen Belt, auroral particles, and solar flare particles.
Hypercharged "killer" electrons radiate from the Sun, as well as from
Jupiter @ 22.2 Mhz, 300Mhz, and 3 Ghz in the decimeter wavelength
(10 cm. and more), especially during *lower* sunspot activity. The
Van
Allen Belts, which consist of the action of charged subatomic parti-
cles, like solar electrons and protons, on the earth's magnetic
field,
produce X rays, UV, and Gamma rays. Particulate radiation consists of
electrons, protons, neutrons, alpha particles, and others. The energy
in the Van Allen Belt normally reaches 1eV, with a density of 10
particles/cm3. Solar activity that induces magnetic storms on the
earth have been known to cause high energy radiation of 10 to 20 keV,
which in turn can induce arc discharges on dielectric surfaces.

In order for a continued presence to be maintained, how do important
people shield themselves? There was an interesting article in the
March '06 issue of Astronomy, which offered a few interesting points:

1) Reinforced polyethelyne 10 times stronger than aluminum
2) Carbon composite structures
3) Plastics (already on ISS)
4) Electric fields
5) Lighter, more flexible space suits
6) Aerogel
7) Dietary supplements

The Jovian environment is one of the richest in heavy ions. Voyager
observations have led to the identification of three sources
for Jupiter's energetic particles: the Sun, the Jovian ionosphere,
and the Jovian moons.

Radio and Plasma wave data were obtained on 12/3/2000 by the
Cassini Radio and Plasma Wave (RPWS) investigation from a
distance of just over 27 million kilometers from Jupiter: During this
time period, the RPWS captured radio emissions generated in the
vicinity of Jupiter. These emissions included decametric radio
emissions originating in the auroral regions of Jupiter.
(Decametric refers to approximate wavelength of radio emissions
(10 meters). At somewhat lower frequencies, near 1 megahertz, the
hectometric radiation, around 100 meters, is generated as a part
of the auroral process at Jupiter. Lower in frequency, near 100
kilohertz, are examples of two types of kilometric radiation.
(Kilometric refers to wavelengths around 1 kilometer or 1000
meters.) Even though these two types of emissions are centered at
about the same frequency, they are thought to originate in totally
different locations and by totally different mechanisms. The
broadband kilometric radiation near the center of the display is
again believed to be generated on field lines associated with the
aurora and probably generated by the same or similar mechanism as
the decametric and hectometric radiation. The narrowband kilometric
radiation is generated near the outer edge of the Io torus, which
remains on a different orbital path than Europa. Data on Quasi-
periodic bursts below about 10 kilohertz consist of brief bursts
and sometimes occur at about 15-minute spacing, and sometimes at
about 40-minute spacing. Even though these emissions were discov-
ered by Voyager and studied by Ulysses and Galileo. Very little is
known about where and how they are generated.

(From: http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/messenger/oldmess/Ion.html):

On Jupiter's moon, Io, volcanoes constantly erupt, spewing forth
oxygen and sulphur, which then settle on Io's surface. The inter-
action of Io with Jupiter's magnetosphere strips the oxygen and
sulphur from Io's surface at the rate of 900 kg (1 ton) per second,
tearing these particles from Io's gravitational influence and expel-
ling them into Jupiter's magnetosphere. These particles become elec-
trically charged and many diffuse outward to 1.5 to 3.6 million
kilometers (0.9 to 2.2 million miles) from Jupiter, where they are
accelerated by an interaction with the massive Jovian magnetic
field. Ed explains, "About 0.2% of the original particles, now
highly energized, diffuse back toward Jupiter. The ions may have
left Io at one-thousandth the speed of light. By the time they have
returned to within 700,000 kilometers (420,000 miles) of the planet
(near Europa's orbit), these ions have accelerated to one-tenth
the speed of light (about 30,000 kilometers/second (18,000 miles per
hour))!" Some of these ions travel along Jupiter's magnetic field
lines and spiral into the planet's polar region. In fact, these
heavy ions falling into Jupiter's atmosphere may be the single
largest contributor to Jupiter's auroras."

Radiation proof polymer fabric interwoven into an intelligent
fabric system has the ability to screen out the harmful
frequency range of color force. Intelligent fabric not only
has the ability to protect, but can also become programmed
to enhance the gene expression in terms of response time to
conscious/explicit/dopamine and unconscious/implicit/seratonin
salient signal triggers in a memory enhancing mechanism that
can be worn for incoming hostile environmental sources as
well as outgoing, programmed environmental response signals
from the fabric itself.

Imagine a foil-like suit that is programmed to absorb a certain
bandwidth of frequencies and then reflect a response signal back
to the environment. There are radiation shield polymers that
are absorbent that can be combined with a sensate type liner
that is used to detect and systematically react to the incoming
EMR with a resonant, phase conjugated dispersion source, e.g. in
the yellow spectrum of 5750 - 5850 A. The EMR is thus eliminated
and 'tagged' by visual inspection. The sensate liner simultan-
eously programs the amplification of gene expression in the
carbon-coated rhenium in response for DNA enhancement of the
chromosphere.

A few interesting links:

http://www.lightparty.com/Peace/MiracleInTheVoid.html

which states:

Perhaps the most astonishing finding from cold fusion
research is the apparent observation of radioactivity
reduction in the process! CETI, one of the first cold
fusion companies, recently announced it had been
awarded a US patent on an electrolytic process for
reducing the radioactivity of thorium and uranium. The
company claims its process can reduce the radioactivity
of *radioactive materials* by over 90 per cent in periods
less than 24 hours - compressing into hours what nature
takes billions of years to do. A demonstration of this
seemingly successful process was included in the same
Good Morning America story which described Patterson's
prototype water heater.

Here is a process of extracting Be-7 for the
purpose of Neutron reflecting:

www.ipm.virginia.edu/people/dam2j/MurdickAU1999.pdf

Interesting, but Be-7 is slightly radioactive, and
must be handled w/ extreme care.

So, if a radiation absorbing medium can be made to be
"appreciably thick", perhaps some of the harmful rad-
iation can be "drained off" using the above methods
w/o any harmful exposure effects.

Another link for gamma radiation-proof solvents:

http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/ChemScience/Volume/2006/07/nuclear_indu...

Maybe some kind of "solvent duct" between shell housings
is the application needed for protection.

Here's a link for a radiation proof polymer:

http://www.hnswp.com/pdfs/polymer_leaflet.pdf

(I like the part "Electronic equipment protection from
electromagnetic
pulses, radio wave effects, and solar
radiation interference when directly applied to the
electronic equipment or component").

Protected body suits, gloves, and boots with Demron:

http://www.radshield.com/

"Radiation Shield Technologies (RST) is proud to offer
DemronTM : the new standard in personal radiation pro-
tection. This revolutionary technology is currently
produced as full body suits, gloves and boots. DemronTM
not only protects against particle ionizing/nuclear
radiation (such as Beta and Alpha), but does what NO
OTHER full body radiation protection can do: shield
against X-ray and low-energy Gamma emissions. DemronTM
is non-toxic and completely Lead-free.

DemronTM suits are constructed from a unique nanotech-
nology that far surpasses the effectiveness (or inef-
fectiveness) of current nuclear-biological-chemical
(NBC) suits that only protect against radioactive
particulate sources."

>    2) You can't grab a NEO without getting similarly fried.

[Research above with projected expenses described in last post].

>    3) Robotics suck.  You will have no real time control.  AI will be
> a disaster.

Not ENTIRELY robotic, given the radiative protection described, and w/
human assist (ref. below:)

"This is where the telerobotics operation comes in. Sensor-
derived, teleoperated "mannequins" can perform operations
on the asteroid that are remotely activated and controlled by
the motion and nerve sensors within a teleoperated "suit",
within the confines of the vessel. This is synonymous with
remote control over the internet.

Objects are "felt" by miniature, inflatable bladders within
each suit - no need for AI - its already "built in" as a
working extension of the teleoperator himself.

What makes this system work even better is the ease of
connecting modules of a mining facility with the teleoperated
"mannequins" assisting the field technicians - shift
work can be rotated on/off the surface for continuous
monitoring of all the production systems."

>    4) The solar system is a dusty place to land.  Ceramic
> microspherules are fantastic for ruining seals and eroding moving
> parts in contact.  Lunar astronauht lungs took a beating, too.

Inflatable systems were proposed, and as far as I can tell, there is
absolutely nothing wrong with using a ceramic/steel core, unless of
course you want to introduce moving parts into a completely solid
connection:

"The "Center" would be a place developed from LEO from the inside out
where much of the actual construction of an Asteroid cargo vessel
takes place, with some provision for human living quarters, or
"habitcons" available, so that the first ten people that arrive
must be able to work inside an inflatable "bubble" with ceramic/
steel framing surrounding the core. The core "bubble with
ceramic/steel frame" should be assembled, with fully functional
core "habitcons" in under 100 man hours time. The core consists
of an inflatable toroidal bladder that is restrained against ex-
pansion by a web of straps. The straps are attached to a rigid
ceramic/steel frame using clevice/pin(s) on the internal circum-
ference. Eight men, with rotating crews of four, and the remain-
ing two on standby, each working 25 hours in a weeks time, should
have the core project completed and ready for expansion into the
construction center. Once the core is complete, additional modules
for construction are "unpacked" and assembled on to the core by a
crew of four men. The expanded core now includes a cargo bay
storage area with a cryogenic welding supply system in place, as
well as the habitcons with (20) potable water temperature con-
trolled stowages (one for each man). Now the center becomes a
self-sustaining life support area w/ replenishment food, water,
and air, as well as additional modules for construction for the
space station, as well as for the cargo vessel fuselage,
fuel cells, etc."

>    5) 99942 Apophis will be within 15,000 miles of Earth's surface on
> 13 April 2029.  Go grab that.
>

You're already dead with that. Why not get out of earth orbit while
there's still time to prepare to go interstellar?

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apophis_pass.svg>
>
>    4) There's nothing there when you get there.  How much asteroid
> dirt must you e-Bay to cover your Accounts Payables?
>

Ever heard of SAR technology? (Nope) I've described in an earlier post
how delta-V's could be arranged to rendezvous between stops on places
like Phobos or Europa, which are far enough away from the most harmful
radiation to be unaffordable, yet within 'slingshot' distance of a
metal-rich NEA. This is an entirely reasonable prospect, given the
orbits and delta-V windows of opportunity that exist.

> > This article provides a record of a prospective cost analysis in order
> > to establish  performance parameters.
>
> > Projective Expenses
>
> > With respect to asteroid mining, the cost of delivering a robotic
> > spacecraft to rendezvous, mine, and return to an orbital docking
> > facility with scanned soil samples depends upon the technological
> > commitment to remote operation, simulation, and the interpretation of
> > real component descriptors affecting allowable performance
> > parameters.
>
> Translation:  It will dig a huge red ragged hole brimming with red
> ink.

How often does a society revolt in order to ensure the survival of its
own sovereignity using commercial viability? There are literally
legions of legalist TORT aggrandizers - invalidators of free market
enterprise - who need to speak with their invalidating constituents
about what is prospectively "invalid", than prospectively a rich
enterprise such as this.

These "invalidators" do this so as to not upset too many of their
trial lawyer friends with their own asses in a sling.

There's your huckleberry, pilgrim.

>
> > The following article lists costs / 7 year interval to build, operate,
> > and maintain components of a remote mining system.  It is assumed that
> > a power satellite construction center has already been developed in
> > order to facilitate a cargo vessel launch and GAMS tracking system.
> > (GAMS referring to here as a Geosynchronous Asteroid Mining Satelite).
>
> > Articles for Development:
>
> > Cargo Vessel Propulsion System, Navigation System, and Structural
> > Shell from the years 2010 – 2017 represent a projected cost in
> > millions from $235M - $375M.
>
> That's not an estimate, that's a hallucinatory delusion.  Your costs
> are short by an order of magnitude.
>

Sure, barring any involvement from beltway rot, which seems to be
perpetrating worldwide by the minute. Care to relocate to Antarctica?
(didn't think so).

Like I said earlier, all prospects for proposals like these get
underfunded and overlicensed on purpose - too many TORT interests that
want to bring society back into the control of the puppetmasters, so
they will seek at all costs to marginalize any attempt to bring the
spirit of entrepreneurialism into the market.

>
> > Mechanical Head Boring Tool, Hydraulics, Power Supply, and
> > Instrumentation represent a projected cost in millions from $25M -
> > $115M.
>
> > Tray Dump Handling System (Retractable Rail, Hydraulics, Cars &
> > Canopy, Equipment, Power Supplies, Instrumentation) represent a
> > projected cost in millions from $30M - $92M.
>
> > Regolith Processing (Centrifuge, piping, storage tanks, pumps, ROV’s,
> > instrumentation, electrical)
> > represent a projected cost in millions from $12M - $58M.
>
> > Geosynchronous Asteroid Mapping Satellite incl. SAR instrumentation,
> > Booster, ROV mechanical, R&D represent a projected cost in millions
> > from $21M - $52M.
>
> > The TOTAL COSTS incurred for all phases of development represent a
> > projected cost in millions from $323M - $692 M.
>
> $8 billion easy - If NASA doesn't explode it at launch.  Put in for a
> TARP.
>

There would be better brains at NASA if their shackles to intuition
were removed and they didn't have so many self-righteous bureaucrats
looking over their shoulder - and that's putting it lightly!

> > The RETURN ON INVESTMENT (ROI) represents a DECREASE IN PERCENTAGE
> > from 1500% - 1170%!
>
> > As one can plainly conclude, the proposed R.O.I.  for a precious metal
> > mining mission far outpaces the mission costs.
>
> Got your eye on a solid iridium asteroid, chump?  All the stuff out
> there is undifferentiated.  If you brought a tonne of precious metal
> its value would plummet.
>

Again, from an earlier post:

The feasibility of mining an asteroid is multi: First of all,
we need a way to react quickly to an incoming asteroid if the
need arises. For that to happen, we need nuclear space propulsion
systems "on" and "outside" of high earth orbit for the Hohmann
transfer, as well for establishing a base on the surface of
an asteroid.

Secondly, regarding the exploitation of mineral resources, that
if there was more of a need for macroeconomic ripples, you are
allowed to disagree if you believe that the Federal Reserve sets
the rates for platinum, which it would not if the privateers are
the ones who set the price in the first place. Just because there
is "policing" or "fear" that greed will run amok on earth is no
reason to believe that the privateers are a bunch of pirates,
either. You can arbitrarily set the price of platinum as low as
you want, so the resource for platinum will then just "dry up"
without replenishment." All this means is that outside of earth
orbit, there are advantages to being closer to where the mining
takes place."

Space is a completely different country. We really don't need
globalist invalidators to dictate how to spend our own, and rightfully
deserved standard of trade - that being just one of the fringe
benefits of a more massive earth-to-orbit infrastructure.

> >  It should be noted,
> > however, that with the current I.S.S. (that actually negates the SLI
> > by its NASA constituents, the earth-to-orbit costs for delivering
> > modules for construction would offset an R.O.I. by as much as 20%, in
> > addition to the costs of operating and maintaining a Power Satellite
> > Construction Center, described in a previous post.
>
> [snip rest]
>
> Uncle Al apologizes.  You are not hallucinating, you are lying.
>

No need to apologize - you're WAY TO wrong anyway - the I.S.S. for
America is a whole waste of taxpayer's money - just look at the
equipment racks - they're WAY TOO small to do anything really
INDUSTRIAL - like assembling modules for construction in zero gravity!

What HAS the I.S.S. done to contribute to our overall advancing as a
society? (The state-run media complex sure wouldn't report on anything
technologically advantageous & practically free, now would they?

> --
> Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
>  (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

American

[American]

The story begins with how the U.S. government became blindfolded with
fear instead of intuitively seeking atomic security regarding the
original Orion Project, which became, by the late 50's, WAY over-
rhetoricized, and carried down through the years, even to the point of
naming a contemporary program after it - ORION (back to the moon
program).

The lack of large stores of weapons material between the superpowers
does not mean that civilian material might be diverted for
centrifuging into weapons-grade - that is the reason for
organizations supporting:

The Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA), the International Committee for Radiation Protection
(ICRP), Institute for Nucclear Power Operations (INPO), members of the
Initiative for Propliferation Prevention (IPP), Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC), Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), United States
Enrichment Corporation (USEC), United Nations Scientific Committee on
the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), the United States
Binational Commission (USRBC), Committee on International Security and
Arms Control (CISAC), and the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC).

No problem.

There's nothing like a non-lethal pulse unit to begin with.

It would seem to indicate that for the original Orion program, even
the safe use of nuclear pulse units as "bomblets" gets over-
politicized.

American

[William Mook]

The problem of space-travel is not a technical problem. It used to be
a problem of will. Today, it is a problem of ability to raise and
spend the money needed to lead in space.

What are you looking for?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKqdePEwEkc

The USA since 1900 has spent $15 trillion on military infrastructure.
$14 trillion of this has been since 1966. The USA is also running $14
trillion in public debt, mostly to foreign interests. In 1980 the USA
saved 10% of its income, and owed 60% of its income in debt, and owned
90% of all the assets in America. In 2000AD the USA didn't save at
all! On average people borrowed 4% of their income, owed 160% of
their annual income as debt and owned only 30% of all the assets in
America.

How did this happen?

The USA had policies in place that promoted this transfer of wealth,
primarily so it could outspend all other countries combined in the
nuclear age, so as to avoid a nuclear war.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCJl-ZbHOYc

What can we do about this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYuK0iJqpNA

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I81ogcX3ONY

[American]

On Dec 1, 6:15 pm, William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem of space-travel is not a technical problem.  It used to be
> a problem of will.  Today, it is a problem of ability to raise and
> spend the money needed to lead in space.
>

> What are you looking for?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKqdePEwEkc

>
> The USA since 1900 has spent $15 trillion on military infrastructure.
> $14 trillion of this has been since 1966.  The USA is also running $14
> trillion in public debt, mostly to foreign interests.  In 1980 the USA
> saved 10% of its income, and owed 60% of its income in debt, and owned
> 90% of all the assets in America.  In 2000AD the USA didn't save at
> all!  On average people borrowed 4% of their income, owed 160% of
> their annual income as debt and owned only 30% of all the assets in
> America.
>
> How did this happen?
>
> The USA had policies in place that promoted this transfer of wealth,
> primarily so it could outspend all other countries combined in the
> nuclear age, so as to avoid a nuclear war.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCJl-ZbHOYc
>
> What can we do about this?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYuK0iJqpNA
>
> and
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I81ogcX3ONY

Mook wrote:

“The problem of space-travel is not a technical problem.

It used to be a problem of will. Today, it is a problem of

ability to raise and spend the money needed to lead in space.”

Gold is at an all time high.

Does the outspent bureaucracy have the ability to purchase
gold with its stash of cash?

No, it doesn’t.

Therefore, only those purchasing gold could afford the money-
changing cash that would be required for leadership in space –
but it’s beginning to sound like, at least in the short term, the
only thing that will protect GOLD worldwide will be a nuclear
defense mechanism – wanna bet?

Will it be with the love of GOLD that will eventually (a) condemn
those who are opposed to space exploration, or will it (b) support?

The awlful answer IMO is (a), because just as soon as an earth-like
w/moon planetary system becomes discovered, the entire world’s
monetary systems will collapse, and the only thing left that will
be worth anything is (a) a new golden “space standard” and
(b) the brains and where-with-all that will set the stage for
a new kind of propulsion technology to take hold – not
excluding anything resembling a human/A.I. interface.

Truthfully though, is not the mountain of our opposition in all
of this at least metaphorically, a “carbon copy” of the same mountain
that Moses’ Jews circled for over forty years before deciding to
leave with Caleb and the ten?

If not, then what will it be that replaces the GOLD that is used
to mass-populate another earth-like planet extraterrestrially?

Based upon this assumption, we’re also attempting to forever
condemn any use of nukes not only in this country, but
worldwide as well – the offer is a wise one, but it then
shifts the emphasis on what the purpose would become –
NOT for nations that must never go to war – but for nations
that must forever decide to abundantly and intelligently
lead by example – or even by delegating the authority for
the responsible use of nuclear energy – possibly using smaller
devices or units such as Orion, for example, in order to
incrementally replace the gold standard with a more widely
and abundant use of extraterrestrial resources as the new
golden space-standard.

This, unfortunately, puts an undue pressure on international
authorities, primarily because IMO there is more evil in the world
than not – evil that will attempt at all costs to snatch defeat from
the jaws of victory – the success of a project of this sort has to
deal to the international community an element of surprise –
with a minimum of progress reports issued to the
drooling-at-large.

American

[William Mook]

Take the Space Shuttle External Tank. It masses 26.5 metric tons
empty and 760.0 metric tons filled. Equipped with a 19.6 foot
diameter propulsive end cap made of a MEMs based propulsive skin that
weighed 1 ton and produced 1,080 tons thrust, the revised tank would
lift off with 1.4 gees. A thermal protection system adds 7.9 tons to
the overall mass. This brings the total to 768.9 metric tons for a
revised launcher that is fully reusable and lofts 78.1 metric tons
into LEO - located in an extended inter-tank region made to house the
payload pod.

Six ETs modified in a similar way, operate as a two stage to orbit
vehicle treating a centrally situated seventh ET as a cargo only
system. Looking down from above the tanks are situated as follows;

(1)(2)
(3)(4)(5)
(6)(7)

1 and 6 feed 3
2 and 7 feed 5

So, 1,2,6,7 drain as the first stage
3 and 5 are the second stage after the first 4 fall away.

The central ET is ALL payload. It carries a total of 575 metric
tons. 500 tons of that is useful, the rest is the ET and associated
hardware!

If the central ET is the system described at first, with the 78.1
metric tons payload in the interank region, the first 2 stages add 7.8
km per sec to the speed while the third stage now is capable of adding
9.2 km per second more!! With air drag and gravity losses, this is
still enough to send the 78.1 metric ton payload to the moon or
mars.

V^2 = mu * ((2/r) - (1/a))

V= velocity of an orbiting body
mu = gravitational parameter 891.9 AU * km2/sec2 for the sun
r= radius
a=semi-major axis.

Earth is in a circular orbit 1.00 AU
Ceres is in roughly a circular orbit that is 2.76 AU in radius.

A minimum energy transfer orbit has a semi-major axis of (2.76 + 1)/2
= 1.88 AU

So, the orbital velocity of Earth is 29.9 km/sec
The orbital velocity of Ceres is 17.9 km/sec

An object at Earth orbit (1 AU) that has an apohelion at Ceres orbit
(2.76 AU) has a speed of 36.2 km/sec. So, subtracting 29.9 km/sec
from this speed, this means that an object must be projected from
Earth with a hyperbolic excess velocity of 36.2-29.9 = 6.3 km/sec.

When the object reaches Ceres it is travelling at 13.1 km/sec. Ceres
is travelling at 17.9 km/sec. So, 17.9 - 13.1 =4.8 km/sec must be
added to the speed of the vehicle to circularize the orbit at Ceres.

The total delta vee budget therefore is 11.1 km/sec. Reducing the
payload mass from 78.1 metric tons to 22.0 metric tons - allows us to
land softly on Ceres.

Once on Ceres with an appropriate payload, we can imagine building a
solar powered rail gun from local materials using some variant of nano-
technology, and sending materials back to Earth equipped with solar
sails to slow down at Earth and enter Earth orbit. There, we send up
500 ton manufacturing 'blocks' to process the incoming raw materials
into additional space based hardware, and a wide range of consumer
products that are then deorbited directly to users on the ground.

The single ET lofting 78 tons to LEO is useful for creating a
telecommunications infrastructure capable of earning hundreds of
billions of dollars profit each year in the communications business.

The multiple ET vehicle lofting 500 tons to LEO is useful for placing
low-mass solar pumped lasers on orbit, earning trillions of dollars
profit each year in the energy business.

These profits are sufficient to develop payloads that operate at Ceres
to send back a steady and growing stream of raw materials, and develop
automated and remotely operated factories on orbit that process those
materials into significant infrastructure on orbit, and deliver food,
wood, and goods to everyone at very low cost and tremendous profit.
(Everyone consuming at the average US per capita rate of $50,000 per
year creates a world that produces 8 billion x $50 thousand = $400
trillion per year - all without producing any pollution within Earth's
biosphere. The Earth is a residential park supported by an orbiting
industrial infrastructure.

Laser propelled vehicles, with laser energy beamed from space, are the
next step that make instantaneous travel anywhere on Earth in minutes
possible. A quick step from that to orbit, and orbiting space homes.
Moving Earth orbiting powersats to orbit around the Sun, close in,
increases energy levels, to allow mobile space homes that span the
solar system, and growth of that system allows interstellar space
homes using laser light sails.

SPACE SHUTTLE EXTERNAL TANK SPECS

SLWT Specifications
Length: 153.8 ft (46.9 m)
Diameter: 27.6 ft (8.4 m)
Empty Weight: 58,500 lb (26,500 kg)
Gross Liftoff Weight: 1,680,000 lb (760,000 kg)
LOX tank
Length: 54.6 ft (16.6 m)
Diameter: 27.6 ft (8.4 m)
Volume (at 22 psig): 19,541.66 cu ft (146,181.8 US gal; 553,358 l)
LOX mass (at 22 psig): 1,387,457 lb (629,340 kg)
Operation Pressure: 20-22 psi (140-150 kPa) (gauge)
Intertank
Length: 22.6 ft (6.9 m)
Diameter: 27.6 ft (8.4 m)
LH2 tank
Length: 97.0 ft (29.6 m)
Diameter: 27.6 ft (8.4 m)
Volume (at 29.3 psig): 52,881.61 cu ft (395,581.9 US gal; 1,497,440 l)
LH2 mass (at 29.3 psig): 234,265 lb (106,261 kg)
Operation Pressure: 32-34 psi (220-230 kPa) (absolute)
Operation Temperature: -423 °F (-252.8 °C)[3]

[BradGuth]

You are nearly 100% correct.

The love of gold and other precious elements (especially radium) as
well as those nifty tonnes of 3He and quite possibly tonnes of
carbonado is going to drive the what-if future of anything related to
our moon or other off-world explorations that'll have to pay for
themselves, that is unless we can perpetrate yet another bogus cold-
war in order to trick the public into funding those continued losses
as demonstrated by our DARPA and NASA.

~ BG

[William Mook]

A rail gun on Ceres imparts 4 km/sec to materials sent to Earth rising
to 6 km/sec over the course of 6 months or so. Material initially
falls directly to Earth. Later, the addition of solar sails allows
the stream of material to enter Earth orbit.

Two tons of raw materials per person per year, for eight billion
people represents sixteen billion tons of materials per year. That's
507 metric tons per second. To eject material at this rate from Ceres
with sufficient speed to make it to Earth requires 6.3 trilion watts
of solar energy. This is collected by solar panels that form a region
187 kilometers wide at Ceres. A rail gun covering the width of these
panels fires a 37,000 ton payload every 72 seconds - accelerating it
at 6.8 gees to maintain this rate.

This is all built with a 20 ton 'seed' payload from raw materials
found at the site.

[William Mook]

Power = 1/2 * mdot * Ve^2
= 0.5 * 507,000 kg/sec * (5,000 m/sec)^2
= 6,337.5 billion watts

182 watts per square meter of sunlight at Ceres is far less than the
1,380 watts per square meter at Earth. At 40% efficiency this
requires 86,824 square kilometers of solar collector area. This is
most easily achieved with thin film PET focusing light to industrial
levels where small ultra-high-intensity PV converts it efficiently to
usable power.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20024019/White-Paper-to-Mok-FINAL-1

An 8 micron thick sheet of reflective PET (fabricated as a GBO film)
stabilized by low pressure gas and bonded to a transparent sheet of
PET of similar thickness, lets us 'cover' 10 square kilometers per ton
of material. So, 8,682.4 tons of material are needed. At 5,000x
concentration (more at Ceres) means that the mass budget is dominated
by film and gas. At 22 tons per flight - as described previously - a
total of 394 flights are needed to transport a CPV array to Ceres
sufficient to power up a transport system to send stuff back to Earth
in quantities that will make a difference to everyone!

The films if deployed in transit as solar sails, would require fewer
than 100 flights.

The films if deployed in LEO (low earth orbit) means 500 tons per
flight could be orbited - and if possible to use as solar sails to
LEAVE LEO then only 18 flights would be needed to erect the power
system described.

[American]

There should be a very large group of scientists/engineers
who would be interested in the exploration/extraction of
primary and/or precious metal content of a given supply
of the extraterrestrial resources that you describe are
on *Ceres*. The link

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n4/abs/ngeo478.html

states: …”we show that the spectral features of Ceres can be
attributed to the presence of the hydroxide brucite, magnesium
carbonates and serpentines, a mineralogy consistent with
the aqueous alteration of olivine-rich materials. We therefore
suggest that the thermal and aqueous alteration history of
Ceres is different from that recorded by carbonaceous
meteorites, and that samples from Ceres are not represented
in existing meteorite collections.”

Which suggests that the Martian planetoid doesn’t really
have too much promise in comparison to the more metal-
rich types (NEA inner belt Atens, IMO).

However, your example in presenting the calculations for
the necessary delta-V’s should also be able to envelope
more of the NEA’s as viable candidates for remote mapping,
followed by drilling, sifting/signaturing, and centrifuging –
at least for the first stage in a refining process – but I am
inclined to believe that even before going in for the drill –
and one just can’t arbitrarily select a single locale en total,
for an immediate railgun shipment – one has to carefully map
the terrain using a flyby exploration vehicle that orbits the
said asteroid - the Japanese are planning the same thing
with the proposed Hayabusa II asteroid explorer spacecraft:

“<Exploration and Collection of Surface Material>
Once Hayabusa-2 arrives at the asteroid 1999 JU3, it will
first characterize the body thoroughly. As Hayabusa did, it
is important to know about the asteroid as much as possible.
Then, it will correct material from the surface. Collecting
method is touch-and-go, same as that of Hayabusa mission.”

ref: http://www.jspec.jaxa.jp/e/activity/hayabusa2.html

One must study some of the communication uplinks that
would become implemented after establishing a typical
delta_V “window of opportunity” and during
transfer trajectory:

1) Additional command sequences are uplinked and loaded
aboard for execution, to replace the command sequence
exercised during orbital launch. These take the spacecraft
through its routine cruise operations, such as tracking Earth
with its HGA and monitoring celestial references for attitude
control. Safing using FP (Fault Protection) algorithms that
request the CDS (Command and Data Subsystem) to help
re-establish Earth-pointing and regain communications in
case of malfunction. (e.g. CLT (Command Loss Timer) fault
protection response issues commands for actions such as
swapping to redundant hardware in an attempt to re-establish
the ability to receive commands.

Raw data is dependent upon the tuning of sensor electronics
used to establish range, trajectory, orientation, and tracking
of the spacecraft. Typical inputs to the DFP, (e.g. Romotar,
tracker, and ranging system) are in ascii code that is read
from artificial input for diagnostic testing and software
analysis of the teleoperated system.

2) SAR (Synthetic Aperature Radar) signal processing of
radar-pulse data from up to three of four polarizations
(HH, HV, VH, and VV) to produce the output images,
including:

a) PRI detection - start of pulse data and the extraction of ancillary
navigation and radar data
b) Video-to-baseband I/Q Conversion - modulation of input samples by
(-1)n followed by finite impulse response (FIR) filtering
c) Range compression - vector multiplication, Discrete Fourier
Transform (DFT), and vector multiplication
d) Azimuth compression - DFT, vector multiplication, and inverse DFT.

IMO one has to continually research the necessary electronics that
would be involved in a setup of this venture – and IMO inclined to
believe that there should be multiple “test runs”
with both software/hardware requirements for establishing a simulated
“geocircular (NOT geosynchronous) asteroid mapping satellite” (dubbed
GAMS) encounter with this type of tele-operation – that’s just my take
on some of the technics involved.

Why do all of these things? Well, because of things like interpreting
the data sets, one IMO also has to take into
account the orbital perturbations of the asteroids, i.e. the
wandering of its axis of rotation, and for the “Flora family
type” of asteroid being investigated (since the NEA’s of the proposed
metal-rich Floras are closer to the Sun):

(i) maximum value of the spin precession rate due to the
solar torque (i.e. at zero obliquity)
(ii) proper inclination, and
(iii) fundamental (free) frequency by which the node precesses
(representing thus orbital-plane perturbation in space.

These things complicate whatever final geo-orbital SAR
map actually reads – and this is therefore a whole new
science of data-interpretation in the making. (there are already
integrated circuits out there that can perform some of these
operations so the results are pretty much dependent on what
the EE’s say they are).

~

[BradGuth]

Our NASA and William Mook can't seem to honestly review or
constructively interpret anything about or associated of our moon or
Venus, much less Ceres.

~ BG

[American]

>  ~ BG- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Brad, I think that the key word here is *interface* of the various
technologies involved - and there are a whole slew of them!

I'm in no way trying to outdo Mr. Mook's proposal - just pointing out
where some other problem areas might lie - and to assume that there
are absolutely no problems in each one of these areas mentioned -
either by Mook or anyone else - means that either (a) the proposal is
not worth investigating, or (b) there may be too much of "robbing
Peter to pay Paul" w.r.t. ANY space initiative sponsored by the
federal government, SPACE INITIATIVE that results in the spinning off
of private industry - which I'm tending to believe is nearly 100% the
case - with all of this congress, this state-controlled media, and
this administration - THERE's THE BLAME GAME, HUCKLEBERRY - (go
figure....)

Despite all of these shenanigans by yourself and others involved with
the BLAME GAME, the science stands nonetheless...

~

[William Mook]

To speak persuasively about our materials needs it might help if you
actually knew what our materials needs are as a nation, and what the
world would have to produce to sustain industry at a level necessary
for everyone on Earth to live as US levels of consumption, or better
yet, US millionaire levels of consumption.

Here's the mineral data
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/

Here's the list of things that are critical to expansion of industry
(other than energy)

antimony
beryllium
cadmium
chromium
cobalt
columbium
germanium
hafnium
indium
lithium
manganeses
mercury
molybdenum
nickel
platinum
rhenium
selenium
tantalum
tellurium
titanium
tungsten
vanadium
zirconium

Bottom line, about two tons of materials are needed for every man
woman and child on the planet each year, broken down into some
fraction dedicated to each of the materials listed above, along with
iron and so forth.

6.4 trillion watts of solar power collected at the asteroid belt, is
sufficient to project material at an annual rate sufficient to meet
the needs outlined here. It takes only a very small fraction of these
materials to erect a system capable of transferring materials at the
rate needed.

Of course there are other inputs, time and talent, which also must be
organized to use this vast flood of materials - that is also well
within our capacity to achieve.

[BradGuth]

Yes, deductively connecting those spendy public funded dots shouldn't
be postponed any longer.

>
> I'm in no way trying to outdo Mr. Mook's proposal - just pointing out
> where some other problem areas might lie - and to assume that there
> are absolutely no problems in each one of these areas mentioned -
> either by Mook or anyone else - means that either (a) the proposal is
> not worth investigating, or (b)  there may be too much of "robbing
> Peter to pay Paul" w.r.t. ANY space initiative sponsored by the
> federal government, SPACE INITIATIVE that results in the spinning off
> of private industry - which I'm tending to believe is nearly 100% the
> case - with all of this congress, this state-controlled media, and
> this administration - THERE's THE BLAME GAME, HUCKLEBERRY - (go
> figure....)
>
> Despite all of these shenanigans by yourself and others involved with
> the BLAME GAME, the science stands nonetheless...
>
> ~

The William Mooks of these Usenet/newsgroups are what's most standing
in the way of progress, because they each insist upon never revising
history (anything older than 24 hours becomes a forever done deal), as
well as never doing anything that might cause history to be revised,
and they usually insist upon being 100% in control and otherwise in
charge of everything (or else).

In other words, if it's not entirely their idea to begin with, it's a
bad idea.

On the other hand, myself and Steven Chu think nearly exactly alike
with regard to terrestrial energy matters, and several open-minded
individuals think like myself when it comes down to realistic off-
world matters that are most likely to return more viable benefit than
it'll cost. (in other words, we're talking of investment profit at an
acceptable risk)

Some of what Mook has to offer has been reasonably sound and should
have been acted upon decades ago. However, it's his very own
unwillingness to revise history and/or towards policing of his own
kind that has our Mook and others of his all-knowing kind screwed into
that proverbial corner.

With such supposed expertise of what Mook represents, as unable to
move without causing more status quo harm than good, we're kind of
like a canoe without paddles.

I have a few open plans of fixing some of this mess, as I'm certain
you also have notions and viable ideas that should be explored.
However, unlike Mook, at least I don't have to be in charge of
everything.

~ BG

[American]

On Dec 9, 4:54 pm, William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To speak persuasively about our materials needs it might help if you
> actually knew what our materials needs are as a nation, and what the
> world would have to produce to sustain industry at a level necessary
> for everyone on Earth to live as US levels of consumption, or better
> yet, US millionaire levels of consumption.
>

> Here's the mineral datahttp://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/

You want spectrographic signatures for all of that?

To me, it sounds like in your opinion, it’s an all-or-nothing
move to replace, or at least complement the mineral deposits
that already exist here – by developing the technology for
acquiring those deposits transorbitally.

There seem to be some questions that arise according to this
line of thinking:

a) If joined with the interest for (aa) orbital adventure cruises,
any person involving themselves with trans-orbital R&D ends up either
slave to those interested in (aa), or master (bb) of their own,
completely privatized, free-market enterprise at some fair expense to
(aa).
b) An (aa) partaker has to decide if he or she is willing to either
completely separate him/herself from the transnationalist-entrenched
financial world of heavily manipulated earth-bound mineralogy, or
align himself with a completely separated system (bb) of economics –
economics that may or may not end up being *interplanetary* in
nature.
c) Since the *interplanetary* system of economics must never become
connected to the earth-bound infrastructure, not only because of the
present near-impossibility of detecting incoming transports, but also
because transports would have the tendency to “dump” either precious
metals or rare minerals on the market – thus devaluing the price of
gold within the international markets – causing world havoc – so there
should be established some kind of standard or trade association
between the earth-bound and transorbital market infrastructure – that
could regulate the amount of “traffic” entering or leaving orbit.
d) If (c) is not achievable in either 5 or 10 years from now, then
there would seem to be a conflict with either (a) or (b) – meaning
that there is a present move to either rob, kill, or destroy the “high
horse” that space advocates of this type seem to be touting, in favor
of a retreat to the colonialism of the past, which IMHO, is a
prescription for world disaster, and pretty much an end to at least
50% of those who won’t agree with the way that NWO advocacy is the
same as HR3962 as a welfare state in disguise.

~

[William Mook]

They are already available.

http://isis.hampshire.edu/seminars/

> To me, it sounds like in your opinion, it’s an all-or-nothing
> move to replace, or at least complement the mineral deposits
> that already exist here – by developing the technology for
> acquiring those deposits transorbitally.

We either make the investments to lower the cost of things going
forward, and make life better for everyone, or we do not, and work out
ways to allocate the shortages, pain and hard work needed to maintain
a deteriorating living standard.

Either we make the investment needed, or we do not.

We know the amounts, we know the technique, we know the costs that
must be achieved, from this we can organize the scale of effort its
nature and scope. The good news is we have the resources to do it.
Its less than that of a world war, more than that of a regional war.
The bad news is we don't have a broad appreciation of what's needed,
the scale of the effort, or the will to carry such an effort forward.
Which is crazy given the amounts of money humanity spends on non-
productive efforts like warfare.

> There seem to be some questions that arise according to this
> line of thinking:
>
> a)      If joined with the interest for (aa) orbital adventure cruises,

The total amounts spent on high-end experiential travel is as nothing
when compared to the total amounts spent on raw materials, especially
when compared the amounts that *could* be spent if everyone consumed
at the level of today's millionaires.

> any  person involving themselves with trans-orbital R&D ends up either
> slave to those interested in (aa), or master (bb) of their own,
> completely privatized, free-market enterprise at some fair expense to
> (aa).

You are rehearsing our prejudices and really contributing nothing of
value to what is needed since you are blinded by those prejudices.
Free-markets mean nothing if there are no property rights. There are
no property rights in space. So, first and foremost, we need to have
property rights extended to space based assets the same as they are
present on Earth. Second, we need to have a way of recording,
allocating and adjudicating those rights among individuals,
corporations, and public entities. Once this is in place, then we can
talk about how to organize financing, allocate risks, and administer
public interest. At this point part of the $40 trillion in liquid
assets held among the world's 10.1 million millionaires on this planet
will flow into the development of space based assets.

We have the rules we have, and promote the attitudes we have, in the
mistaken notion that we are protecting the world from missile
proliferation. If we can cheaply and routinely transport materiel
from the asteroids to any spot on Earth, then we can transport bombs
from anywhere on Earth to anywhere else on Earth, and that is
considered too risky to allow.

[American]

Same thing - Yours is based on fear - mine's based on - what'd you say
- "prejudice" - except yours is more fundamentally "prison planet" w/o
even the SYMPTOM of prejudice - that's pretty well DAMNED and HARD,
IMO, and ultimately based on the deliverence of someone (or something)
else's system of barter or exchange.

Why not make it easier for those with NO TRANSNATIONAL INCENTIVE to go
TRANSNATIONALLY ORBITAL, or even TRANSORBITAL for that matter, in
order to (obliterate) the dependency on TRANSNATIONALIST
MONEYCHANGING??

Sure its a revolt, but like our free-market capitalist framers said -
SHOW ME THE MONEY OR ELSE (metaphorically speaking) and "Over the
course of human events..."

THIS IS A REVOLT - NOT ANY ATTEMPT TO PLAY INTO THE HANDS OF WORLD-
CLASS SOCIALISTS OR GREEN NAZI DEINDUSTRIALISTS.

IT IS A PASSION OF MEN TO BE FREE OF WORLD CLASS TYRANNY - NEVER TO
BOW TO EITHER HUMANIST LEADERS OR GOLDEN CALVES!

THEIR TIME HAS ARRIVED!

Don't you see?

(NOT OURS)

That being said, it is infared spectrographic signatures that only
reveal the wavelengths of mostly reflected light - NOT good enough for
discerning the individual mineral molecules (has to be done at "flyby,
ayuger-electron heights" rather than long distance, reflectance
spectras)

Gamma ray spectometry is the preferred technology, but the observation
has to be made in close proximitry - much like Hayabusa et al, except
with the gamma.

American

"Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it"

[BradGuth]

William Mook would love nothing less than a prison planet, whereas
99.9% of us get a 0% slice of that future pie that we (the lower
99.9%) always get to pay for.

>
> Why not make it easier for those with NO TRANSNATIONAL INCENTIVE to go
> TRANSNATIONALLY ORBITAL, or even TRANSORBITAL for that matter, in
> order to (obliterate) the dependency on TRANSNATIONALIST
> MONEYCHANGING??
>
> Sure its a revolt, but like our free-market capitalist framers said -
> SHOW ME THE MONEY OR ELSE (metaphorically speaking) and "Over the
> course of human events..."
>
> THIS IS A REVOLT - NOT ANY ATTEMPT TO PLAY INTO THE HANDS OF WORLD-
> CLASS SOCIALISTS OR GREEN NAZI DEINDUSTRIALISTS.
>
> IT IS A PASSION OF MEN TO BE FREE OF WORLD CLASS TYRANNY - NEVER TO
> BOW TO EITHER HUMANIST LEADERS OR GOLDEN CALVES!
>
> THEIR TIME HAS ARRIVED!
>
> Don't you see?
>
> (NOT OURS)
>
> That being said, it is infared spectrographic signatures that only
> reveal the wavelengths of mostly reflected light - NOT good enough for
> discerning the individual mineral molecules (has to be done at "flyby,
> ayuger-electron heights" rather than long distance, reflectance
> spectras)
>
> Gamma ray spectometry is the preferred technology, but the observation
> has to be made in close proximitry - much like Hayabusa et al, except
> with the gamma.
>
> American
>
> "Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it"

We have loads of spendy gamma ray spectometry about our unusually
mineral saturated moon that's so naked and physically dark, as well as
a good source of it's own secondary/recoil gamma. The only problem
being that it's still all pretty much need-to-know or taboo/
nondisclosure data.

William Mook doesn't think we should go anywhere near our moon, its
L1, or Venus for that matter, but thinks Mars and even Ceres are
easily doable as is.

Max Planck once said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by
convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather
because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up
that is familiar with it."

”Whoever controls the past, controls the future” / George Orwell

“We're ignorant of life in the universe. We only have one planet that
serves as an example and in science it's not good to derive
information from a sample size of one.” / David Grinspoon

Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

[American]

On Dec 11, 6:12 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> William Mook would love nothing less than a prison planet, whereas
> 99.9% of us get a 0% slice of that future pie that we (the lower
> 99.9%) always get to pay for.
>

Let me straighten something out that was said earlier in reference to
those who “bow to humanist leaders or golden calves”.

This was an awkward statement to make about being “their time” and not
“ours”.

What I meant to say is that at the “right time” a coordinated effort
must be mobilized in order to put an end to anything that would trap
an investor through either bribery, extortion, or conflicts of
interest that end up becoming TORT-infected in the long run.

Is it possible that NASA can produce the kind of leadership that would
be required for a spin-off technology to further the necessary earth-
to-orbit infrastructure required, so as to remain focused on just a
few massively coordinated projects for mining the asteroids?

Most NWO specialists IMO are driven through bribery. Why? Because the
drive to socialize every aspect of people’s lives through
microscopically managing them with bureaucratic protocol throughout
the society is an agreed-upon principle for punishing the achievers as
well as keeping those with potential from reaching their dreams, and
ultimately preventing the entire economic vision for advancing the
species of humanity as a whole – all for the sake of diluting the best
incentive in order to equalize the private wealth of individuals and
maximize profit to those that work for every micromanaging office in
the state.

The U.S. IMO is in the last stage of micromanagement being just
“symptomatic” in its problem for pioneering independence as a way
from breaking the financial shackles that the NWO offers in one of the
largest “blame games” in history.

The real problem lies in the perception of what “independence” should
be world-wide – NOT that the cup of independence is becoming “HALF
EMPTY” but that it is BECOMING “HALF FULL”. It is the way that the
state-controlled mass-media consistently marginalizes the spin on the
revolutionary spirit of substantive achievement throughout the nation
– as well as throughout the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

Interestingly, The Outer Space Treaty lets nations do their own
governing regarding space mining activities, because territorial
sovereignty is prohibited by Article II. Any construction activity in
a non-geosynchronous orbit may be regarded as outside the territorial
sovereignty of any country. Private ownership is therefore provided
under the natural law theory of property rights. Under Article VIII,
property rights are conferred and recognized by any country outside of
territorial sovereignty. These rights include the following:

1) The right to exclude others from space facilities and safety
zones,
2) The right to be free of interference from others,
3) The right to control the activities of all natural persons and
legal entities within the owner's space facility and and safety
zone(s),
4) The right to direct the activities of space vehicles and persons
inside those vehicles while the vehicle is in the space facility and
its related safety zone, and
5) The exclusive right to appropriate resources within the space
facility and its related safety zone, and
6) The right to sell property rights.

Under the Outer Space Treaty, property rights are subject to the
following limitations:

1) if the owner of the space facility or safety zone(s) stops using
his property for peaceful purposes, the rights shall immediately
terminate;
2) if the owner of the space facility or safety zone(s) abandons the
property for a period of two years or more, the rights shall
terminate;
3) If the owner of an orbital facility deviates from the registered
orbital parameters by more than [a percentage to be defined when the
treaty is negotiated], for a period of one month or more, then rights
shall immediately terminate;
4) owners may not establish property rights that would prevent others
from having free access to outer space and celestial bodies;
5) owners shall have the right to direct the activities of space
vehicles on the registry of other states, and the persons inside those
vehicles, only to the extent necessary to protect the safety of other
space objects and persons within the owner(s) space facility and
safety zone(s);
6) owners shall not have the right to exclude persons who come to
inspect the owner's space facility, on the basis of reciprrocity,
pursuant to article XII of the Outer Space Treaty.

Regarding prospecting for precious metals and the like, the doctrine
of pedis possessio says that occupation of a territory (i.e.,
asteroid) for the purpose of mining is treated as a licensee or tenant
at will; of course, radiometric detection of precious metals using
synthetic aperture radar does not require terrestrial mining because
erosion does not take place on an asteroid. The location and
recording of data regarding surface scans of an asteroid would be
difficult to ascertain without first retrieving a sample extraction
for proof of telepresence. Thus remote sensing and telerobotics are
vital to securing pedis possessio under the General Mining Law.

That’s why IMO one must seriously research and develop the use of
gamma ray spectroscopy – particularly as it applies to primary and
precious metal remote mapping and telepresence in a “flyby” of sorts
before the asteroid is even considered as a candidate for further
mining.

~

[William Mook]

You haven't a clue about what you're talking about. I am.

> Why not make it easier for those with NO TRANSNATIONAL INCENTIVE to go
> TRANSNATIONALLY ORBITAL, or even TRANSORBITAL for that matter, in
> order to (obliterate) the dependency on TRANSNATIONALIST
> MONEYCHANGING??

This statement makes absolutely no sense whatever.

I spoke about

1) the mass flow rate from the asteroids needed to sustain high
living standard
2) the energy needed to sustain that rate along Hohmann transfer
orbits
3) the level of effort needed to achieve this end
4) compared and contrasted it with comparable levels ie warfare
5) spoke specifically to the elements in short supply on Earth
6) pointed to spectrographic database for detailed analysis

You speak in vague generalities about hot button words that have no
meaning whatever.

> Sure its a revolt, but like our free-market capitalist framers said -
> SHOW ME THE MONEY OR ELSE (metaphorically speaking) and "Over the
> course of human events..."

Bullshit

> THIS IS A REVOLT - NOT ANY ATTEMPT TO PLAY INTO THE HANDS OF WORLD-
> CLASS SOCIALISTS OR GREEN NAZI DEINDUSTRIALISTS.

More bullshit

> IT IS A PASSION OF MEN TO BE FREE OF WORLD CLASS TYRANNY - NEVER TO
> BOW TO EITHER HUMANIST LEADERS OR GOLDEN CALVES!
>
> THEIR TIME HAS ARRIVED!
>
> Don't you see?

Perfectly. You are spouting bullshit about words that are important
to you on an emotional level while ignoring any real or relevant
technical discussion.

The reality is there are no property rights beyond the land masses of
Earth, and most of those don't have property rights either. This is
the first issue - property rights off-world. The second, is
administering those rights. The third is creating investment vehicles
to develop off-world property rights. The fourth is addressing
legitimate third party issues (safety, security, etc.)

The easiest part is detailing the technologies required. There are a
variety that will work. Next easiest is detailing the benefits of
addressing these issues.

The nations of Earth have common problems and common opportunities
when it comes to space travel. These problems and opportunities will
be addressed jointly.

Since Arrow has proven that governments and markets do not work as we
used to believe they did (and the majority still wrongly believe they
do) your commentary about governments versus markets is not even
wrong. Its like talking about what high altitude flights means to the
flat Earth. haha - you can't be wrong when your presumptions are
clueless.

> (NOT OURS)
>
> That being said, it is infared spectrographic signatures that only
> reveal the wavelengths of mostly reflected light - NOT good enough for
> discerning the individual mineral molecules (has to be done at "flyby,
> ayuger-electron heights" rather than long distance, reflectance
> spectras)

More clueless drivel.

> Gamma ray spectometry is the preferred technology,

bullshit.

> but the observation
> has to be made in close proximitry - much like Hayabusa et al, except
> with the gamma.

more bullshit.

> American
>
> "Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it"

Those who are clueless in the present are condemned to be powerless in
a world they do not understand.

[William Mook]

This has nothing whatever to do with a space based economy.

More germane is this

http://marinebiztv.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/world-shipping-tonnage-capacity-hits-112-billion-deadweight/

World shipping industry consists of a 'lift' capacity of 1.12 billion
deadweight tons. With 'cycle times' of 90 days, this represents 4.5
billion tons. Fifty percent of this shipping capacity serves the
richest 1.1 billion people in the world. Americas, Europe, Asian
Tigers. This is 2 tons per person per year. To achieve this flow of
raw material for 8 billion people means increasing processing capacity
to 16 billion tons per year. To meet the needs of 8 billion
millionaires - through other analysis - shows that something on the
order of 25 billion tons per year would be needed.

To achieve these ends, with existing technologies, and existing free
capital (there are 10.1 million millionaires who control $40 trillion
in liquid wealth today - which vastly exceeds ALL the world's
governments combined (total liquid wealth in the world is $58 trillion
with $12 trillion controlled by governments and $6 trillion for
everyone else (and $40 trillion the millionaires)))

Getting things started with say 10% of this total, $4 trillion, and
growing internally from profits earned, is where public policy should
start.

Stated previously, there are no property rights off-world, no means of
administering property rights off-world, no way to invest in
developing properties off-world, etc.

This is quite separate from the issues surrounding the shortcomings of
present forms of government and business as a way to organize human
affairs rationally.

It is also quite separate from issues surrounding the technical
challenges of meeting the needs of human industry using off-world
assets and resources.

The point is,

1) we have the technical means and have had the technical means for
the past fifty years to do whatever we wanted in the solar system;

2) the solar system has sufficient resources to meet all human
industrial needs while reducing the impact of human industry on the
Earth's biosphere

3) the world's richest people have more than enough liquid assets to
develop the technical means to develop off-world resources

4) the world's most powerful governments have gone out of their way to
remove the technical means from the industrial sector to develop
offworld resources out of a mistaken notion of national security and
global security.

5) this has created an artificial scarcity of resources that has
created a real challenge to national security and global security.

[American]

So what you’re saying is that these millionaires are too valuable in
the financial world to be any more viable than those who, in your
opinion, would have to subject themselves to the human/AI interface,
while all of the time you’re using your most important technology in
order to place trans-orbital personnel at the mercy of every tool,
instrument, and module they should be using (e.g. robotics or
telepresence followed up by remote drilling) given

(1) WHO gets the data first of e.g. a huge deposit of precious metal,
and
(2) How many of the “quick and dirty” technologies will be ready to
maximize profits once the “deliversbles have been achieved.

IMO you’re still getting stuffed by a good taxidermist in a game of
foul play of who’s who that really doesn’t know what’s what.

Don’t millionaires collude and compete with each other while trying to
keep things like the IRS off their backs? Who will be there to
advance the cause of freedom in order to open up the market thousands
of times more widely than it initially “pans out”?

The cause of freedom and the establishment will always be in
competition with each other, and so the King Midas that you seek won’t
ever be fought for, but will end up being a free-for-all after-the-
fact IMO.

The standard apology for not being able to lend those interested any
capital is that its being tied up in currency (haha) and its anyones
guess as to who’s money is being preyed upon – right down to the short
end of the stick.

Given the market for something like this is of such a tightwad nature,
there would have to be drops of blood before the money gets to flow in
the right direction IMO – I’ll take my chances keeping secrets until
it’s the right time for putting them into practice.

My question to you is what is the concentration of transition
frequencies for the precious metals from the gamma ray spectrum?

The ANGIE 64 channel pixel readout chip technology might have been a
precursor to Photobit's pixel processor. However, for X-ray imaging
at 100 frames per second with 64 cells per frame equalling 6400 cells
per second (12 bits/cell), the ANGIE 64 channel pixel processor
presently remains one of the most viable candidates for pixel
processing. Problem is, with pixels, you've just got to be there to
view, so where in the circuitry does teleoperation take place?

There’s the human/AI interface huckleberry, go figure…

American