Google Tech Talk, at last
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Charles
May 28, 2009, 9:32:53 PM5/28/09
to N-Prize
About 10 weeks late, a Google Tech Talk, given March 3 went up last
night. As of an hour ago, seen 236 times
Am dissapointed with how tired I looked, bad lighting, inaudible
questions, etc, but for first time got to "make the case" The role of
N Prize is gone into about 1/2 way in. It is about an hour long with
questions for a total of 1 hr 11 min.
With help, in furure I will get some 10 min segments up on Youtube,
with updates, better lighting, production.
Something bad is happening at Google, and the Tech Talk preparations
suddenly got backed up--it normally was to take around 2 weeks to
prepare. It was 12 weeks...
So, in this topic, I'll answer some questions, mainly on the aspects
relating to N Prize and how it is now part of my Microlauncher plans.
night. As of an hour ago, seen 236 times
Am dissapointed with how tired I looked, bad lighting, inaudible
questions, etc, but for first time got to "make the case" The role of
N Prize is gone into about 1/2 way in. It is about an hour long with
questions for a total of 1 hr 11 min.
With help, in furure I will get some 10 min segments up on Youtube,
with updates, better lighting, production.
Something bad is happening at Google, and the Tech Talk preparations
suddenly got backed up--it normally was to take around 2 weeks to
prepare. It was 12 weeks...
So, in this topic, I'll answer some questions, mainly on the aspects
relating to N Prize and how it is now part of my Microlauncher plans.
Charles
May 28, 2009, 11:07:44 PM5/28/09
to N-Prize
Pete
May 29, 2009, 3:53:55 AM5/29/09
to N-Prize
Seeing the Altair 8800 again brought a lot of nostalgia. Its a little
sad and quite frightening when you take a trip to the science museum
with the kids and daddy had to explain that the bits of kit inside the
glass cases were what he used to use. Sniff.
That was a nice, and thoughtfully presented video. How many were in
the audience, were there any external experts in the field there or
was it all Google employees?
Best
Pete
sad and quite frightening when you take a trip to the science museum
with the kids and daddy had to explain that the bits of kit inside the
glass cases were what he used to use. Sniff.
That was a nice, and thoughtfully presented video. How many were in
the audience, were there any external experts in the field there or
was it all Google employees?
Best
Pete
MisterQED
May 29, 2009, 10:01:54 AM5/29/09
to N-Prize
Fantastic video, but it leaves me with many questions.
As I'd like to be one of the 1-in-10000, who helps this evolution,
what pieces are missing?
The video makes it sound like you have already designed and built a
suitable engine or was it not efficient enough and needs the turbopump
you are working on?
You mentioned you don't want to go into details of the guidance
system, but is that complete?
I've come to many of the same conclusions that you have but believe
passionately in one that you didn't mention.
I assume that since you have not already taken Paul's money or started
taking ashes to space, that there are missing pieces to this puzzle.
This entire challenge is extremely challenging for any one person or
small group as it requires a breadth of knowledge that few attain.
However individual components may require only single field knowledge
which is easier to achieve.
The internet provides a mechanism that was unavailable to the builders
of early computers.
If the missing pieces needed for small scale space exploration were
quantized, then distributed out as individual interest groups, then
solutions would come quickly.
I believe in the need for the protection of intellectual property, but
do you believe there is room for quantized "challenges" to say for
example:
Build a twin pump system able to provide (P)psi at volumes ranging
from (X1)ml/sec to (X2)ml/sec for the first and (Y1)ml/sec to (Y2)ml/
sec for the second which weighs less than (M)kg including power source
to pump a total volume of (V1)liters of the first fluid and (V2)
liters of the second fluid.
The idea is to actually create valuable intellectual property that
could be traded with others, but informing specialists of the problems
that need solutions. Then connect the motor group with the guidance
group with the communications group with the other groups to create
the rocket. Many of your solutions seem to be available from micro-
airplane interests, maybe others from micro-processor interests, etc.
Maybe all the problems are solved but you haven't talked to the right
people?
I just mention this as if there is any small criticism I would make of
the video, it would be that some people may be left with the feeling
that what is needed is money, which they may not want to part with and
loose interest, but at these scales, solutions could come from getting
people to volunteer their hobby time to participate in a grand
adventure. So ask a home machinist if he can make a rocket that can
orbit the Earth and they will probably say no, but ask them to make a
tiny close tolerance pump that can work on cryogenic liquids and they
may say, sure, that's easy, way easier than the 2 inch long working
V12 gas engine I made last year...
Congratulations, and I hope it is the first of many,
I know I'll be watching this one several more times and look forward
to any more.
MisterQED
Team Daedalus
On May 29, 3:53 am, Pete <garf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Seeing the Altair 8800 again brought a lot of nostalgia. Its a little
> sad and quite frightening when you take a trip to the science museum
> with the kids and daddy had to explain that the bits of kit inside the
> glass cases were what he used to use. Sniff.
>
> That was a nice, and thoughtfully presented video. How many were in
> the audience, were there any external experts in the field there or
> was it all Google employees
>
As I'd like to be one of the 1-in-10000, who helps this evolution,
what pieces are missing?
The video makes it sound like you have already designed and built a
suitable engine or was it not efficient enough and needs the turbopump
you are working on?
You mentioned you don't want to go into details of the guidance
system, but is that complete?
I've come to many of the same conclusions that you have but believe
passionately in one that you didn't mention.
I assume that since you have not already taken Paul's money or started
taking ashes to space, that there are missing pieces to this puzzle.
This entire challenge is extremely challenging for any one person or
small group as it requires a breadth of knowledge that few attain.
However individual components may require only single field knowledge
which is easier to achieve.
The internet provides a mechanism that was unavailable to the builders
of early computers.
If the missing pieces needed for small scale space exploration were
quantized, then distributed out as individual interest groups, then
solutions would come quickly.
I believe in the need for the protection of intellectual property, but
do you believe there is room for quantized "challenges" to say for
example:
Build a twin pump system able to provide (P)psi at volumes ranging
from (X1)ml/sec to (X2)ml/sec for the first and (Y1)ml/sec to (Y2)ml/
sec for the second which weighs less than (M)kg including power source
to pump a total volume of (V1)liters of the first fluid and (V2)
liters of the second fluid.
The idea is to actually create valuable intellectual property that
could be traded with others, but informing specialists of the problems
that need solutions. Then connect the motor group with the guidance
group with the communications group with the other groups to create
the rocket. Many of your solutions seem to be available from micro-
airplane interests, maybe others from micro-processor interests, etc.
Maybe all the problems are solved but you haven't talked to the right
people?
I just mention this as if there is any small criticism I would make of
the video, it would be that some people may be left with the feeling
that what is needed is money, which they may not want to part with and
loose interest, but at these scales, solutions could come from getting
people to volunteer their hobby time to participate in a grand
adventure. So ask a home machinist if he can make a rocket that can
orbit the Earth and they will probably say no, but ask them to make a
tiny close tolerance pump that can work on cryogenic liquids and they
may say, sure, that's easy, way easier than the 2 inch long working
V12 gas engine I made last year...
Congratulations, and I hope it is the first of many,
I know I'll be watching this one several more times and look forward
to any more.
MisterQED
Team Daedalus
On May 29, 3:53 am, Pete <garf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Seeing the Altair 8800 again brought a lot of nostalgia. Its a little
> sad and quite frightening when you take a trip to the science museum
> with the kids and daddy had to explain that the bits of kit inside the
> glass cases were what he used to use. Sniff.
>
> That was a nice, and thoughtfully presented video. How many were in
> the audience, were there any external experts in the field there or
> was it all Google employees
>
N-prize
May 29, 2009, 12:04:56 PM5/29/09
to n-p...@googlegroups.com
Yay Charles - Made it at last! Looking forward to watching it this evening.
Paul
=======================
Paul H. Dear,
Chief Optimist.
The N-Prize,
PO Box 1133,
Sawston,
Cambridge CB22 3WB
England.
=======================
Charles
May 29, 2009, 12:32:37 PM5/29/09
to N-Prize
Have to run, but quick partial reply now:
1. 1/10,000 refers to notion that some tiny fraction of those who hear
of Microlaunchers will like it enough to want to get involved. In
this context, join witgh my entry, more generally, join with my effort
to make flying hardware.
2. Engine types designed in outline form, ready to fab/test when shop
location if set up, not in California.
3. Guidance and other details will be published in more detail than
already in my site. It's called Defensive Publication.
4. Create IP to trade... Yes, upon finding a financial partner, IP
publication may stop or become less technical. Till then, publishing
is a way to seek out potential partneers
5. I can more easily answeer posts if nthey are not so long. And
numbering questions can help if they aqre separate, specific.
6. Isn't your entry #10? If so, why not listed yet?
1. 1/10,000 refers to notion that some tiny fraction of those who hear
of Microlaunchers will like it enough to want to get involved. In
this context, join witgh my entry, more generally, join with my effort
to make flying hardware.
2. Engine types designed in outline form, ready to fab/test when shop
location if set up, not in California.
3. Guidance and other details will be published in more detail than
already in my site. It's called Defensive Publication.
4. Create IP to trade... Yes, upon finding a financial partner, IP
publication may stop or become less technical. Till then, publishing
is a way to seek out potential partneers
5. I can more easily answeer posts if nthey are not so long. And
numbering questions can help if they aqre separate, specific.
6. Isn't your entry #10? If so, why not listed yet?
MisterQED
May 30, 2009, 12:24:13 AM5/30/09
to N-Prize
1. Yes, I know, I'd like to get involved.
2. Why do "you" have to make the engine? If you don't have your own
shop wouldn't it make sense to farm it out to someone who does? Or
spec parts and ask people to make them. Contact a Home Shop Machinist
group.
3. OK, so it is not a missing piece or do you know the hardware
necessary and need programming to complete?
4. I understand, you mentioned that in another discussion, mentioning
something so as to set a date of inception which gived you time to
apply for the patent.
5. OK, I'll try to be brief.
6. We/I are Team #17, and listed as Team #16 on the main site because
Team #10 is missing paperwork or something.
So to be brief I will only ask one question, you are obvious very
serious and very knowledgeable and are looking for funding, so why
don't you create the rocket engine and create nice YouTube videos of
working rockets in test stands listing efficiencies achieved as I
think that would garner more attention and belief in your investment
possibility than anything else. That is why I am doing a high
altitude balloon launch.
MisterQED
Team Daedalus
2. Why do "you" have to make the engine? If you don't have your own
shop wouldn't it make sense to farm it out to someone who does? Or
spec parts and ask people to make them. Contact a Home Shop Machinist
group.
3. OK, so it is not a missing piece or do you know the hardware
necessary and need programming to complete?
4. I understand, you mentioned that in another discussion, mentioning
something so as to set a date of inception which gived you time to
apply for the patent.
5. OK, I'll try to be brief.
6. We/I are Team #17, and listed as Team #16 on the main site because
Team #10 is missing paperwork or something.
So to be brief I will only ask one question, you are obvious very
serious and very knowledgeable and are looking for funding, so why
don't you create the rocket engine and create nice YouTube videos of
working rockets in test stands listing efficiencies achieved as I
think that would garner more attention and belief in your investment
possibility than anything else. That is why I am doing a high
altitude balloon launch.
MisterQED
Team Daedalus
Message has been deleted
Charles
May 30, 2009, 3:22:04 PM5/30/09
to N-Prize
I'll try to answer this, and Monroe's that followed your post and is
similar in ways.
I have to make the engine. It cannot be farmed out because doing that
required a much better level of drawings, multi-steps in the design-
get parts-wait till fabricated on someone else's schedule-recieve and
check for needed changes-sending back if changes needed-and one more
thing: paying for it
The work has to be "in house" that's how the Wright brothers did it;
how Goddard did it; and how most projects like buildonmg a land speed
car project etc. In house has the work "under our nose", with
informal drawings, fab and tryal intimately mixed...
The shop groups is an idea that can be explored when Location-1 is
established (may be Henderson NV). There is no such thing near Mojave
CA. Proximaty is a must. Can't do it with shipping parts from far
away for reasons just given.
Your point #4 re patents: US patents have evolved in the last several
decades. Getting one requires assuming an obligation to defend it--I
know of one who lost his house from trying to sue an infringer and
losing. Also patents are expensive. Best use of a patent is for it
to be a component of a negotiated forming of a business. In mid-80's
I got and owned a patent for a video matrix display and licensing the
patent broght me in as a full partner instead of as an employee.
Since I can't now afford that, I've been, and will til some investor
wants me to stop, use "defensive publication". In us, if I publish
something I have a year to file (no such grace period in other
countries). If the time runs out, it becomes public domain. I can't
patent it, but no one can either. So, for free I have some
protection. This is done a lot.
So far, the turbopump engine design, the mouse optics for a lander,
the tow back recovery in SA-05, the laser data link in the Spacecraft
Desigh part of my site, and in the N Prize presentation the guidance
device, and other things soon.
Team # I now get the confusion re there not yet being a no 10 (except
where the PM lives).
Following that you ask why I don't just build the engine and make
videos of that. I must first acquire the means to do that--setting up
"Location-1".
I do presently plan to make, test the stage 3 engine first, as it will
be the least efficient because of small size and low chamber pressure
and that will fix the sise of the launcher. Based on an estimate of
250 sec Isp and 50 gram weight for a 15 N thrust in vacuum, the GLOW
comes up about 60 Kg, small enough for the components to be tested as
amateur rockets--an important factor with the US regulatory system.
Recruiting help: I am looking for some--maybe only one or two to work
with me at "Location-1". Monroe's question in his most recent post re
"letting" people work with me--I am looking for partners, both in the
direct building and financial. I am getting some help from a guy in a
town 80 miles from here with running the spreadsheet trajectory
calculations, some diagrams and soon other things. But the acutal
fabrication must be with help of 1 or 2 living near "Location-1" which
may be Henderson NV, or some other if a financial partner or investor
has a plan to locate elsewhere. Just anywhere in US except CA--regs
and bad business envirenment preclude that.
I really intend to build this (and Microlaunchers) as soon as it
becomes possible.
Charles Pooley
similar in ways.
I have to make the engine. It cannot be farmed out because doing that
required a much better level of drawings, multi-steps in the design-
get parts-wait till fabricated on someone else's schedule-recieve and
check for needed changes-sending back if changes needed-and one more
thing: paying for it
The work has to be "in house" that's how the Wright brothers did it;
how Goddard did it; and how most projects like buildonmg a land speed
car project etc. In house has the work "under our nose", with
informal drawings, fab and tryal intimately mixed...
The shop groups is an idea that can be explored when Location-1 is
established (may be Henderson NV). There is no such thing near Mojave
CA. Proximaty is a must. Can't do it with shipping parts from far
away for reasons just given.
Your point #4 re patents: US patents have evolved in the last several
decades. Getting one requires assuming an obligation to defend it--I
know of one who lost his house from trying to sue an infringer and
losing. Also patents are expensive. Best use of a patent is for it
to be a component of a negotiated forming of a business. In mid-80's
I got and owned a patent for a video matrix display and licensing the
patent broght me in as a full partner instead of as an employee.
Since I can't now afford that, I've been, and will til some investor
wants me to stop, use "defensive publication". In us, if I publish
something I have a year to file (no such grace period in other
countries). If the time runs out, it becomes public domain. I can't
patent it, but no one can either. So, for free I have some
protection. This is done a lot.
So far, the turbopump engine design, the mouse optics for a lander,
the tow back recovery in SA-05, the laser data link in the Spacecraft
Desigh part of my site, and in the N Prize presentation the guidance
device, and other things soon.
Team # I now get the confusion re there not yet being a no 10 (except
where the PM lives).
Following that you ask why I don't just build the engine and make
videos of that. I must first acquire the means to do that--setting up
"Location-1".
I do presently plan to make, test the stage 3 engine first, as it will
be the least efficient because of small size and low chamber pressure
and that will fix the sise of the launcher. Based on an estimate of
250 sec Isp and 50 gram weight for a 15 N thrust in vacuum, the GLOW
comes up about 60 Kg, small enough for the components to be tested as
amateur rockets--an important factor with the US regulatory system.
Recruiting help: I am looking for some--maybe only one or two to work
with me at "Location-1". Monroe's question in his most recent post re
"letting" people work with me--I am looking for partners, both in the
direct building and financial. I am getting some help from a guy in a
town 80 miles from here with running the spreadsheet trajectory
calculations, some diagrams and soon other things. But the acutal
fabrication must be with help of 1 or 2 living near "Location-1" which
may be Henderson NV, or some other if a financial partner or investor
has a plan to locate elsewhere. Just anywhere in US except CA--regs
and bad business envirenment preclude that.
I really intend to build this (and Microlaunchers) as soon as it
becomes possible.
Charles Pooley
Sage (LMR)
May 31, 2009, 12:09:51 AM5/31/09
to N-Prize
Charles, Monroe, and QED,
A)
Monroe and QED,
You guys need to understand that some of us actually do have the
capability to achieve this "by ourselves" (if such was opted for).
I'm one of those people, and for me, the main allure of the N-Prize is
the extreme challenge.
Certainly, a few people (or a small team) who share in a process can
make for a really fun experience, but what fun is it to take on a
“personal” challenge (such as this) and then have *everyone* else do
it for you?
On a side note, most of the great inventions were created by
individuals or small teams. And today, we benefit from the work of
such others through their products and innovations. So, even when
working "alone" we are not really working "alone" - we are just
working "by ourselves."
B)
Charles,
Overall presentation content was reasonable, but your delivery was
rougher than what you're probably capable of. I do have a bunch of
comments, but not enough time to get to all of them right now.
Anyway, I ran some of the numbers from your presentation. Most work
out fine but there are a few comments/issues (again, more than I can
cover right now)...
1)
Photon estimates appear reasonable (close enough to my own
calculations), but your aperture and/or beam divergence is
optimistic. To get that 7cm aperture you've probably assumed the
beamwidth approximates wavelength/aperture (~6.5cm in your case).
But, even with an ideal gaussian beam, assuming the divergence is
small and the beam waist is the same as the aperture, you'll get 1.27
x wavelength/aperture, or about 8.25cm.
Not a show-stopper as there's probably enough photons received at the
smaller size, but realize that such a laser would need to exhibit
close to the ideal behavior(some don't do this), or otherwise the
aperture is going to grow (or the devices made more sensitive, etc).
Anyway, you'll need to investigate more when going this route, but
it's certainly viable (when I was working with JPL, there was quite a
bit of attention there being placed on this type of communication for
spacecraft). I looked into this some time ago and real world concerns
(these and others) certainly play into the equation.
2)
Also on the optical link...
You didn't mention point ahead (due to finite light time); maybe you
think it's unnecessary in this case or otherwise simple to implement.
Assuming the 2arcsec (~10 urad), if the relative angular velocity
between the communication points exceeds ~1500 m/s (angle = ~(2*Vr)/
c), your point ahead will actually exceed the beamwidth (and this can
be true in two dimensions). You'll need either less than half this
relative velocity or some point ahead compensation. And, since
relative angular velocity can change, such would require active
compensation (2-axis).
Maybe it can be done in special cases without point ahead, but
probably not in a general sense for general spacecraft.
3)
The hypothetical reaction wheel assembly (at least way it was
presented) could create a torque couple to both the articulated
section and attachment axis, which could pose some problems.
Anyway, I've gotta go... I have more comments about the presentation
and there is also something in your above post which I'm skeptical
about but I'll have to address it later...
~Sage
www.littlemonsterrocket.com
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
A)
Monroe and QED,
You guys need to understand that some of us actually do have the
capability to achieve this "by ourselves" (if such was opted for).
I'm one of those people, and for me, the main allure of the N-Prize is
the extreme challenge.
Certainly, a few people (or a small team) who share in a process can
make for a really fun experience, but what fun is it to take on a
“personal” challenge (such as this) and then have *everyone* else do
it for you?
On a side note, most of the great inventions were created by
individuals or small teams. And today, we benefit from the work of
such others through their products and innovations. So, even when
working "alone" we are not really working "alone" - we are just
working "by ourselves."
B)
Charles,
Overall presentation content was reasonable, but your delivery was
rougher than what you're probably capable of. I do have a bunch of
comments, but not enough time to get to all of them right now.
Anyway, I ran some of the numbers from your presentation. Most work
out fine but there are a few comments/issues (again, more than I can
cover right now)...
1)
Photon estimates appear reasonable (close enough to my own
calculations), but your aperture and/or beam divergence is
optimistic. To get that 7cm aperture you've probably assumed the
beamwidth approximates wavelength/aperture (~6.5cm in your case).
But, even with an ideal gaussian beam, assuming the divergence is
small and the beam waist is the same as the aperture, you'll get 1.27
x wavelength/aperture, or about 8.25cm.
Not a show-stopper as there's probably enough photons received at the
smaller size, but realize that such a laser would need to exhibit
close to the ideal behavior(some don't do this), or otherwise the
aperture is going to grow (or the devices made more sensitive, etc).
Anyway, you'll need to investigate more when going this route, but
it's certainly viable (when I was working with JPL, there was quite a
bit of attention there being placed on this type of communication for
spacecraft). I looked into this some time ago and real world concerns
(these and others) certainly play into the equation.
2)
Also on the optical link...
You didn't mention point ahead (due to finite light time); maybe you
think it's unnecessary in this case or otherwise simple to implement.
Assuming the 2arcsec (~10 urad), if the relative angular velocity
between the communication points exceeds ~1500 m/s (angle = ~(2*Vr)/
c), your point ahead will actually exceed the beamwidth (and this can
be true in two dimensions). You'll need either less than half this
relative velocity or some point ahead compensation. And, since
relative angular velocity can change, such would require active
compensation (2-axis).
Maybe it can be done in special cases without point ahead, but
probably not in a general sense for general spacecraft.
3)
The hypothetical reaction wheel assembly (at least way it was
presented) could create a torque couple to both the articulated
section and attachment axis, which could pose some problems.
Anyway, I've gotta go... I have more comments about the presentation
and there is also something in your above post which I'm skeptical
about but I'll have to address it later...
~Sage
www.littlemonsterrocket.com
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pete
May 31, 2009, 6:22:51 AM5/31/09
to N-Prize
Hi Sage
Good to talk to you again, and I'm torn as to whether to debate with
you a little about your first point.
I am almost completely with you about the personal challenge - its the
only reason I'm here (possibly the only reason most of us are here),
but there is a balance to be struck when enlisting external help.
To take an example, I've been building the parts for a single engine
of my own design which has been very workshop intensive - milling and
forming every aluminium, copper and steel part. I have eight of these
to build - all identical - and it would be soul-destroying to find
that the complete engine failed because an accumulation of tolerances
that my little workshop could not avoid.
It makes sense to design and build the prototype, and then farm off
the component parts to get the remaining and manifold identical bits
back as near to perfect as possible. I don't regard this as failure -
merely common sense.
Re-reading your post, you seem to be making points both against and
accepting this viewpoint, so this post may be nugatory.
I guess all I'm saying is that if an individual or small team can
muster enough effort to complete the challenge, then they are entirely
worthy.
Best
Pete
> ...
>
> read more »
Good to talk to you again, and I'm torn as to whether to debate with
you a little about your first point.
I am almost completely with you about the personal challenge - its the
only reason I'm here (possibly the only reason most of us are here),
but there is a balance to be struck when enlisting external help.
To take an example, I've been building the parts for a single engine
of my own design which has been very workshop intensive - milling and
forming every aluminium, copper and steel part. I have eight of these
to build - all identical - and it would be soul-destroying to find
that the complete engine failed because an accumulation of tolerances
that my little workshop could not avoid.
It makes sense to design and build the prototype, and then farm off
the component parts to get the remaining and manifold identical bits
back as near to perfect as possible. I don't regard this as failure -
merely common sense.
Re-reading your post, you seem to be making points both against and
accepting this viewpoint, so this post may be nugatory.
I guess all I'm saying is that if an individual or small team can
muster enough effort to complete the challenge, then they are entirely
worthy.
Best
Pete
>
> read more »
Maxwell
May 31, 2009, 6:45:04 AM5/31/09
to N-Prize
Hi all,
I just watched the Google talk, and congratulations to Charles -
well done mate! Yes, there are certainly points to discuss over the
technical details and over the balance between planning and doing, but
the talk itself was good (at least, from my perspective) and anything
that helps to get the message across is a Very Good Thing. Certainly,
I'm painfully aware that I ought to be doing more to publicize the N-
Prize for the benefit of the many teams who are doing all the hard
work, and for that reason I'm very grateful to Charles and others who
help get the idea out there.
It was (as has been mentioned) disappointing that Google didn't mike
the questions clearly; they are just about audible if you crank the
volume right up. I wonder if there's any way to subtitle or
paraphrase the questions on-screen on a copy of the video?
On another note, I think a bonus point has to go to Peter for his use
of the word "nugatory" in the foregoing annotation.
Charles - well done. May your rivets always fly in formation.
Paul
> ...
>
> read more »
I just watched the Google talk, and congratulations to Charles -
well done mate! Yes, there are certainly points to discuss over the
technical details and over the balance between planning and doing, but
the talk itself was good (at least, from my perspective) and anything
that helps to get the message across is a Very Good Thing. Certainly,
I'm painfully aware that I ought to be doing more to publicize the N-
Prize for the benefit of the many teams who are doing all the hard
work, and for that reason I'm very grateful to Charles and others who
help get the idea out there.
It was (as has been mentioned) disappointing that Google didn't mike
the questions clearly; they are just about audible if you crank the
volume right up. I wonder if there's any way to subtitle or
paraphrase the questions on-screen on a copy of the video?
On another note, I think a bonus point has to go to Peter for his use
of the word "nugatory" in the foregoing annotation.
Charles - well done. May your rivets always fly in formation.
Paul
>
> read more »
Charles
May 31, 2009, 1:53:14 PM5/31/09
to N-Prize
Sage:
The laser link questions relate only to the escape velocity
Microlaunchers and not to N Prize. But to briefly answer:
You have pointed out to me before my very rough beam width estimate.
It differs from yours by less than a factor of 2 in signal strength.
At this point, it's nit picking. Also, the requirement for data rate
is to be well above zero, and have an evolutionary pathway (remewmbeer
the 1st microcomputers had 4 kbytes or RAM, etc), and frequent
opportunity for people--not just me--to launch improvements.
Point-ahead: Yes, required but of 1st order, very small, and slowly
varying in a predictable way. At 0.1 AU, the round trip time for
ligfht is 100 sec, and if the transverse velocity is 1 km/s (will
usually be less), the look ahead is 100 km. No problem.
Reaction wheel: For telescope deploy and changes in telescope to
spacecraft axis angle. Only during the once only deploy will it be
"fast" and of large magnitude. There is no other net angular momentum
issues to deal with that the solar radiation panels cannot handle.
Again, all this pertains only to escape flights, and the near term is
for N Prize to be the lower threshold path to a launcher as a fact.
There are small hints of the strategy for that in the Space Access
Society presentation.
Tech Talk: yes, much to improve in presentation. I have had very few
opportunities to present, and with more, will improve. The Tech Talk
was given March 3 2009, the one previous was September 2007. Also,
something catastrophic must have happened within Google at the time it
was to be prepared. The usual 2 weeks to format, post ran to 12
weeks. They had dismissed all the outsorces AV people who were doing
these, and 200 or so direct Google people let go. Also, the questions
could not be heard. The questioners were not miked (I should have
thought of that and asked for it)--the questions were of high quality
because of the type of people in the audience--getting the concepts
and asking good questions that showed that. That was why I so badly
wanted a Google Tech Talk.
Live and learn. I may be, with help, making a series of less than 10
minute Youtube videos in house which can be edited, lit properly etc.
Each will be on some narrow topic. Could be like the serialized
version of the Flash Gordon movies.
Charles Pooley
> ...
>
> read more »
The laser link questions relate only to the escape velocity
Microlaunchers and not to N Prize. But to briefly answer:
You have pointed out to me before my very rough beam width estimate.
It differs from yours by less than a factor of 2 in signal strength.
At this point, it's nit picking. Also, the requirement for data rate
is to be well above zero, and have an evolutionary pathway (remewmbeer
the 1st microcomputers had 4 kbytes or RAM, etc), and frequent
opportunity for people--not just me--to launch improvements.
Point-ahead: Yes, required but of 1st order, very small, and slowly
varying in a predictable way. At 0.1 AU, the round trip time for
ligfht is 100 sec, and if the transverse velocity is 1 km/s (will
usually be less), the look ahead is 100 km. No problem.
Reaction wheel: For telescope deploy and changes in telescope to
spacecraft axis angle. Only during the once only deploy will it be
"fast" and of large magnitude. There is no other net angular momentum
issues to deal with that the solar radiation panels cannot handle.
Again, all this pertains only to escape flights, and the near term is
for N Prize to be the lower threshold path to a launcher as a fact.
There are small hints of the strategy for that in the Space Access
Society presentation.
Tech Talk: yes, much to improve in presentation. I have had very few
opportunities to present, and with more, will improve. The Tech Talk
was given March 3 2009, the one previous was September 2007. Also,
something catastrophic must have happened within Google at the time it
was to be prepared. The usual 2 weeks to format, post ran to 12
weeks. They had dismissed all the outsorces AV people who were doing
these, and 200 or so direct Google people let go. Also, the questions
could not be heard. The questioners were not miked (I should have
thought of that and asked for it)--the questions were of high quality
because of the type of people in the audience--getting the concepts
and asking good questions that showed that. That was why I so badly
wanted a Google Tech Talk.
Live and learn. I may be, with help, making a series of less than 10
minute Youtube videos in house which can be edited, lit properly etc.
Each will be on some narrow topic. Could be like the serialized
version of the Flash Gordon movies.
Charles Pooley
>
> read more »
Sage (LMR)
May 31, 2009, 3:00:27 PM5/31/09
to N-Prize
Hi Pete,
Good to talk with you again! I noticed you're making good progress,
looking forward to seeing your engine fired up!
On your response to my earlier post -- yes, I concur with that
assessment... I just wanted to note that some of us here (you and I
for instance, and I'm sure several others) have taken this up as the
"kung fu challenge" – who's got the best kung fu... We have the
capability to do it ourselves. It's not that we couldn't put together
a huge team or farm everything out, it's just that we have chosen not
to because it doesn't fit within the nature of our own reasonings for
taking the challenge in the first place.
On the other hand, even if we work "by ourselves" we can never work
"alone." We can't separate the immense contributions of others
throughout the ages. We use tools, computers, the internet, research
studies, commodity components, etc., and the list goes on and on. So,
each of us has to be comfortable as to what fulfills our own personal
goals, and where we want to take that. And, there are certain guiding
principles present within the gestalt.
Personally, I'm interested in the aspects of the system that haven't
been done (or integrated as such) -- the required innovations to make
this happen. And, this effort is chock full of them; many people
don't even think it's possible. But (for example) I'll be using
commercial electronics components; I could certainly fabricate my own,
but to make a competitive micro-controller from ground zero is more
difficult (in certain respects) than the N-Prize itself. It's not my
goal to do the same thing that's been done, and those components are
already up to the task.
So, noting your example within my context... It wouldn't matter that
much if I fabricated an engine or farmed it out, so long as system
wise, it's my innovations and designs; such fabrication is a well
established trade. However, it would be quicker and easier if I built
the prototypes because there are certain aspects to engine
construction that come from experience in building them. On the other
hand, if I had a special material or engine construction technique,
then I might want to fabricate myself.
In your case you've opted for differential throttling; you feel it's
overall advantageous (at least for your system) to build and manifold
eight engines rather than use gimbals or other methods; that's a
design choice and perhaps it's better for your overall design. As
such, you'll build the engine get it working properly, maybe build few
more and refine them if needed, and then once it meets your criteria,
send the design to a machinist for high-tolerance replication. That
makes sense to me and it's probably the same thing I would do.
On your last point, I would say that any individual or group (whether
small or large) who completes (or even makes a credible attempt) at
this challenge is quite worthy since the challenge is (by design) open
to any such groups. So, we may be competing against larger teams, but
that's fully within the context of which we took the challenge (and
for me, such adds to the allure of it -- I like the idea of having
huge teams trying to compete against one or a few people, it just
makes it that much more interesting).
So don't get me wrong, I (and I don't think many others for that
matter) would say that someone (or some group) 'failed' because they
tapped into existing commodity, knowledge, or infrastructure. On the
contrary, that's exactly what makes all of this realistically
possible! But, all the novel things that make this actually work, the
intricacies in the designs, the mechanical, the electrical, and
software engineering, the physics, certain levels of fabrication, all
of those things and much more... Well, that's the essence of the
challenge itself. For me personally, to split those unique aspects
among tons of specialists is not so much fun, and certainly not
correlative with my reasons for taking this challenge.
Anyway, this is getting really long winded... But, I do want to
comment on some of your (very interesting) work; possibly a bit later
today...
~Sage
www.littlemonsterrocket.com
Good to talk with you again! I noticed you're making good progress,
looking forward to seeing your engine fired up!
On your response to my earlier post -- yes, I concur with that
assessment... I just wanted to note that some of us here (you and I
for instance, and I'm sure several others) have taken this up as the
"kung fu challenge" – who's got the best kung fu... We have the
capability to do it ourselves. It's not that we couldn't put together
a huge team or farm everything out, it's just that we have chosen not
to because it doesn't fit within the nature of our own reasonings for
taking the challenge in the first place.
On the other hand, even if we work "by ourselves" we can never work
"alone." We can't separate the immense contributions of others
throughout the ages. We use tools, computers, the internet, research
studies, commodity components, etc., and the list goes on and on. So,
each of us has to be comfortable as to what fulfills our own personal
goals, and where we want to take that. And, there are certain guiding
principles present within the gestalt.
Personally, I'm interested in the aspects of the system that haven't
been done (or integrated as such) -- the required innovations to make
this happen. And, this effort is chock full of them; many people
don't even think it's possible. But (for example) I'll be using
commercial electronics components; I could certainly fabricate my own,
but to make a competitive micro-controller from ground zero is more
difficult (in certain respects) than the N-Prize itself. It's not my
goal to do the same thing that's been done, and those components are
already up to the task.
So, noting your example within my context... It wouldn't matter that
much if I fabricated an engine or farmed it out, so long as system
wise, it's my innovations and designs; such fabrication is a well
established trade. However, it would be quicker and easier if I built
the prototypes because there are certain aspects to engine
construction that come from experience in building them. On the other
hand, if I had a special material or engine construction technique,
then I might want to fabricate myself.
In your case you've opted for differential throttling; you feel it's
overall advantageous (at least for your system) to build and manifold
eight engines rather than use gimbals or other methods; that's a
design choice and perhaps it's better for your overall design. As
such, you'll build the engine get it working properly, maybe build few
more and refine them if needed, and then once it meets your criteria,
send the design to a machinist for high-tolerance replication. That
makes sense to me and it's probably the same thing I would do.
On your last point, I would say that any individual or group (whether
small or large) who completes (or even makes a credible attempt) at
this challenge is quite worthy since the challenge is (by design) open
to any such groups. So, we may be competing against larger teams, but
that's fully within the context of which we took the challenge (and
for me, such adds to the allure of it -- I like the idea of having
huge teams trying to compete against one or a few people, it just
makes it that much more interesting).
So don't get me wrong, I (and I don't think many others for that
matter) would say that someone (or some group) 'failed' because they
tapped into existing commodity, knowledge, or infrastructure. On the
contrary, that's exactly what makes all of this realistically
possible! But, all the novel things that make this actually work, the
intricacies in the designs, the mechanical, the electrical, and
software engineering, the physics, certain levels of fabrication, all
of those things and much more... Well, that's the essence of the
challenge itself. For me personally, to split those unique aspects
among tons of specialists is not so much fun, and certainly not
correlative with my reasons for taking this challenge.
Anyway, this is getting really long winded... But, I do want to
comment on some of your (very interesting) work; possibly a bit later
today...
~Sage
www.littlemonsterrocket.com
Pete
May 31, 2009, 3:13:38 PM5/31/09
to N-Prize
Hi Sage
Yes, I got the impression we were both of a like mind regards
manufacture. I used to be of the 'build-the-electronics-out-of-a-
bucket-of-sand' persuasion until I got older and less patient.
If you want to talk about my work and where its going then it'd be my
pleasure (although I may have to hold back on one or two details
depending on whether its currently vapourware or not!)
Best
Pete
> ...
>
> read more »
Yes, I got the impression we were both of a like mind regards
manufacture. I used to be of the 'build-the-electronics-out-of-a-
bucket-of-sand' persuasion until I got older and less patient.
If you want to talk about my work and where its going then it'd be my
pleasure (although I may have to hold back on one or two details
depending on whether its currently vapourware or not!)
Best
Pete
>
> read more »
Pete
May 31, 2009, 3:20:53 PM5/31/09
to N-Prize
Just one more thing, there are aspects of the engine design that I
believe are new, unique and bear protecting for the time being. As
soon as I can get the modelling together to post on the website so
that I can demonstrate prior-art, then I'll be more free to talk about
them publicly - otherwise all other aspects are open for discussion.
Best
Pete
> ...
>
> read more »
believe are new, unique and bear protecting for the time being. As
soon as I can get the modelling together to post on the website so
that I can demonstrate prior-art, then I'll be more free to talk about
them publicly - otherwise all other aspects are open for discussion.
Best
Pete
>
> read more »
MisterQED
Jun 1, 2009, 2:29:28 AM6/1/09
to N-Prize
//You guys need to understand that some of us actually do have the
capability to achieve this "by ourselves"//
Really? I mean Peter has his whole family helping him. :-) Peter,
how old are your kids? Yes, there may be people who could do this
“alone”, (standing on the shoulders of giants) if the legalities can
be conquered or worked around. That is why I said “a breadth of
knowledge that few attain”, and I will stand behind those words. But
maybe I read something into the video that was not there, but I got
the idea that this was more than about winning a contest, but about
changing the “main frame” path to space that everyone has been
following and to create the “fact” of a low cost access to space that
is available to a wider audience. Maybe it’s just me, as that is what
I want to come out of this contest, and I don’t care who does it. My
only fear is that the winner will take a path that is unrepeatable or
unattainable for non-millionaires, i.e. “my first stage is a
proprietary scram jet launch plane which was a offshoot of some
studies my company has been doing…”
Also there are those of us, like me, who at present lack the knowledge
to complete this challenge. Wait, now that I think about it, till
someone does it, we all lack some knowledge that will be needed to
complete this challenge, but I’m sure my lack is greater than most.
Charles does not seem to be lacking in the knowledge department and
has been at this for several years, yet doesn’t seem close to
conclusion. Please, I mean no offense, I am a fan, I mention this as
the reason I offered what I thought were viable ideas to aid his case
and to hear opinions on the path I hope to take.
To me someone has to steer the boat. That person may also cook the
meals, they may not, but they should know that someone is handling the
meals and know what to do if the cook quits. So if you can do it all,
great! Peter seems to be a fine example, but there are other ways.
And yes, many great inventions were created by individuals, but how
many great inventions will be needed to complete this challenge?
Maybe one person invents the perfect guidance system, another the
perfect rocket engine and another the perfect satellite. Each is a
formidable task. As Peter said, you probably won’t be starting with
sand, this is a hard challenge, there is no reason to make it harder.
// but what fun is it to take on a “personal” challenge (such as this)
and then have *everyone* else do it for you?/
The fun of living and knowing that my life had meaning, but hey,
that’s just me. :-) Do it for whatever reason you like. Is this a
“personal” challenge? That’s news to me, but maybe I missed the
memo. I think this is what most things are, they are what you make
them. If this is a personal challenge for you, great!
MisterQED
Team Daedalus
"making wings so everyone can fly"
> ...
>
> read more »
capability to achieve this "by ourselves"//
Really? I mean Peter has his whole family helping him. :-) Peter,
how old are your kids? Yes, there may be people who could do this
“alone”, (standing on the shoulders of giants) if the legalities can
be conquered or worked around. That is why I said “a breadth of
knowledge that few attain”, and I will stand behind those words. But
maybe I read something into the video that was not there, but I got
the idea that this was more than about winning a contest, but about
changing the “main frame” path to space that everyone has been
following and to create the “fact” of a low cost access to space that
is available to a wider audience. Maybe it’s just me, as that is what
I want to come out of this contest, and I don’t care who does it. My
only fear is that the winner will take a path that is unrepeatable or
unattainable for non-millionaires, i.e. “my first stage is a
proprietary scram jet launch plane which was a offshoot of some
studies my company has been doing…”
Also there are those of us, like me, who at present lack the knowledge
to complete this challenge. Wait, now that I think about it, till
someone does it, we all lack some knowledge that will be needed to
complete this challenge, but I’m sure my lack is greater than most.
Charles does not seem to be lacking in the knowledge department and
has been at this for several years, yet doesn’t seem close to
conclusion. Please, I mean no offense, I am a fan, I mention this as
the reason I offered what I thought were viable ideas to aid his case
and to hear opinions on the path I hope to take.
To me someone has to steer the boat. That person may also cook the
meals, they may not, but they should know that someone is handling the
meals and know what to do if the cook quits. So if you can do it all,
great! Peter seems to be a fine example, but there are other ways.
And yes, many great inventions were created by individuals, but how
many great inventions will be needed to complete this challenge?
Maybe one person invents the perfect guidance system, another the
perfect rocket engine and another the perfect satellite. Each is a
formidable task. As Peter said, you probably won’t be starting with
sand, this is a hard challenge, there is no reason to make it harder.
// but what fun is it to take on a “personal” challenge (such as this)
and then have *everyone* else do it for you?/
The fun of living and knowing that my life had meaning, but hey,
that’s just me. :-) Do it for whatever reason you like. Is this a
“personal” challenge? That’s news to me, but maybe I missed the
memo. I think this is what most things are, they are what you make
them. If this is a personal challenge for you, great!
MisterQED
Team Daedalus
"making wings so everyone can fly"
>
> read more »
Pete
Jun 1, 2009, 4:36:02 AM6/1/09
to N-Prize
QED,
7 and 6 - thanks for asking. I think its close to the best age for
this kind of thing (or 43 is - whatever).
Best
Pete
> ...
>
> read more »
7 and 6 - thanks for asking. I think its close to the best age for
this kind of thing (or 43 is - whatever).
Best
Pete
>
> read more »
Message has been deleted
MisterQED
Jun 1, 2009, 10:34:30 AM6/1/09
to N-Prize
Hmmm, 7 and 6, so what is that 1st and 2nd grade? No, probably
different since you are in England, though all I know about English
schools are what I learned from JK Rowling, so that may not apply to
your kids. But I am sure they are enormous help, or at least they are
there asking why dad said he was building a rocket but built a lawn
sprinkler. I guess I'm just a little older than you as I will be
turning 44 this week and my daughter will be 2 by the end of the
month, so I can't remember what I was reading back then, but maybe
Verne's "From Earth to the Moon" or Heinlein's "Have Spacesuit - Will
Travel" might be good suggestions.
Even if you know everything about rocketry, I'd be amazed if we don't
need a lawyer... or at least a florist to compensate the wife for time
away...
MisterQED
Team Daedalus
On Jun 1, 9:35 am, Monroe <monroel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hummm
> I find the idea of doing this alone interesting but unrealistic.
> You never know though.
> It will take brains and brawn as I see it. And guts. And scrafice.
> and it still might be heartake
> But she sure is a hot date.
> I hope she goes all the way.
different since you are in England, though all I know about English
schools are what I learned from JK Rowling, so that may not apply to
your kids. But I am sure they are enormous help, or at least they are
there asking why dad said he was building a rocket but built a lawn
sprinkler. I guess I'm just a little older than you as I will be
turning 44 this week and my daughter will be 2 by the end of the
month, so I can't remember what I was reading back then, but maybe
Verne's "From Earth to the Moon" or Heinlein's "Have Spacesuit - Will
Travel" might be good suggestions.
Even if you know everything about rocketry, I'd be amazed if we don't
need a lawyer... or at least a florist to compensate the wife for time
away...
MisterQED
Team Daedalus
On Jun 1, 9:35 am, Monroe <monroel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hummm
> I find the idea of doing this alone interesting but unrealistic.
> You never know though.
> It will take brains and brawn as I see it. And guts. And scrafice.
> and it still might be heartake
> But she sure is a hot date.
> I hope she goes all the way.
Pete
Jun 1, 2009, 11:08:02 AM6/1/09
to N-Prize
Monroe
You silver-tongued devil you.
MisterQED
From what I've been able to find out it looks as though our CAA is a
little easier to deal with than your FAA. I've chatted with them a
number of times and they've always gone out of their way to help with
what's needed for various types of launch, radio licensing etc. If I
keep smiling, keep friendly and keep sending in the right paperwork I
reckon I can get away without subsidising some lawyer's opulent life.
Best
Pete
You silver-tongued devil you.
MisterQED
From what I've been able to find out it looks as though our CAA is a
little easier to deal with than your FAA. I've chatted with them a
number of times and they've always gone out of their way to help with
what's needed for various types of launch, radio licensing etc. If I
keep smiling, keep friendly and keep sending in the right paperwork I
reckon I can get away without subsidising some lawyer's opulent life.
Best
Pete
Monroe
Jun 1, 2009, 12:46:14 PM6/1/09
to N-Prize
Pete
That is good news! About the CAA.
I so far am doing the same here with the FAA and so far I get the same
result. I'll bet more paperwork though:)
Also so far nothing is really flying! We did get our first Real note
when we launched the first near space expedition so we are offically
in the books now for one launch.
Charles
Check this link out! The Laserfire@ system is what I'm refering too.
http://www.spacephotonics.com/pdf_files/SPI%20Capabilities%20Summary.pdf
Monroe
That is good news! About the CAA.
I so far am doing the same here with the FAA and so far I get the same
result. I'll bet more paperwork though:)
Also so far nothing is really flying! We did get our first Real note
when we launched the first near space expedition so we are offically
in the books now for one launch.
Charles
Check this link out! The Laserfire@ system is what I'm refering too.
http://www.spacephotonics.com/pdf_files/SPI%20Capabilities%20Summary.pdf
Monroe
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Monroe
Jun 1, 2009, 4:40:02 PM6/1/09
to N-Prize
Sage
Hey, lighten up dude, what do I know anyway?
Good Luck.
Hell, I admit I may be the least qualified person here.
You guy's are proably all smarter than me, I don't care.
Hey, lighten up dude, what do I know anyway?
Good Luck.
Hell, I admit I may be the least qualified person here.
You guy's are proably all smarter than me, I don't care.
N-prize
Jun 1, 2009, 6:21:33 PM6/1/09
to n-p...@googlegroups.com
Hey all,
Just a reminder....we're all trying to do something impossible here (actually, that's not true - I have the easy job, and it's all of you who are doing something impossible). There is only one best way to do the possible, but many ways to do the impossible. I'm sure that's a solid basis for some kind of philosophy or another.
Best to all,
P
On 1 Jun 2009, at 19:28, Sage (LMR) wrote:
Monroe and QED,I'll repeat myself here: you guys need to understand that some of usactually do have the capability to achieve this "by ourselves.”Simply put, if you are incapable of achieving this, please don'tproject that lack of capability on others, especially people you don'tknow.And QED... to your comment: “So if you can do it all, great!”Thanks! But, such doesn't mean that I'll 'choose' to do it that way.Perhaps it might be difficult for you to accept, but some of us (andI'm mainly speaking for myself but I'm sure there are others) do havethat “breadth of knowledge” you keep emphasizing.~Sage
...read more »- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
=======================
Paul H. Dear,
Chief Optimist.
The N-Prize,
PO Box 1133,
Sawston,
Cambridge CB22 3WB
England.
The sender of this email is not responsible.
=======================
Sage (LMR)
Jun 1, 2009, 6:28:38 PM6/1/09
to N-Prize
Monroe and QED,
Let me try putting it this way instead...
I will say that for me, this is a personal challenge; that was one of
the reasons I entered it. You guys have your own reasons (as we all
do), and the challenge for me includes doing it a particular way.
Like solving a Rubik's Cube, I'm interested in 'actually' solving it,
not simply pulling it apart and putting it back together “solved.”
Both achieve the same conclusion, but they are certainly not equal.
I'm interested in solving those multitudes of diverse challenges
required for this prize – that's what I'm interested in. Having a ton
of specialists solve each part is simply uninteresting (at least for
me), given this particular contest.
I tend to have strong opposition towards those who project their own
deficiencies onto other people. For instance, thinking that if they
can't do it, then others can't do it – or, because they lack the
knowledge, others must also lack the knowledge. Or if they don't know
how it can be done, then they proclaim it can't be done. Or the
concept that people must “specialize” in a particular field, thereby
limiting other's scopes of knowledge. There are specialists,
generalists, and those who are both of these to various extents. And
yes, the latter group is more rare, but quite existent.
In any case, whatever the path, the development effort will
(eventually) have to speak for itself. And, I'm interested in
demonstrating that this challenge can be met by an individual or small
group; to me that aspect is one of the most important.
Let me try putting it this way instead...
I will say that for me, this is a personal challenge; that was one of
the reasons I entered it. You guys have your own reasons (as we all
do), and the challenge for me includes doing it a particular way.
Like solving a Rubik's Cube, I'm interested in 'actually' solving it,
not simply pulling it apart and putting it back together “solved.”
Both achieve the same conclusion, but they are certainly not equal.
I'm interested in solving those multitudes of diverse challenges
required for this prize – that's what I'm interested in. Having a ton
of specialists solve each part is simply uninteresting (at least for
me), given this particular contest.
I tend to have strong opposition towards those who project their own
deficiencies onto other people. For instance, thinking that if they
can't do it, then others can't do it – or, because they lack the
knowledge, others must also lack the knowledge. Or if they don't know
how it can be done, then they proclaim it can't be done. Or the
concept that people must “specialize” in a particular field, thereby
limiting other's scopes of knowledge. There are specialists,
generalists, and those who are both of these to various extents. And
yes, the latter group is more rare, but quite existent.
In any case, whatever the path, the development effort will
(eventually) have to speak for itself. And, I'm interested in
demonstrating that this challenge can be met by an individual or small
group; to me that aspect is one of the most important.
Monroe
Jun 1, 2009, 7:18:54 PM6/1/09
to N-Prize
Sage
What it appears to me is you keep talking (a lot) about "deficiencies"
that others may have.
That doesn’t change what I said. If you get right down to it you don’t
Know yet, you may be able
But until you do it you don't know for sure and it doesn’t take an
intellectual giant to figure that out.
You may feel like you can but feeling's are not facts. The whole world
practically thinks your nuts
For being involved in this so convince them, you’re preaching to the
choir here.
Monroe
What it appears to me is you keep talking (a lot) about "deficiencies"
that others may have.
That doesn’t change what I said. If you get right down to it you don’t
Know yet, you may be able
But until you do it you don't know for sure and it doesn’t take an
intellectual giant to figure that out.
You may feel like you can but feeling's are not facts. The whole world
practically thinks your nuts
For being involved in this so convince them, you’re preaching to the
choir here.
Monroe
Sage (LMR)
Jun 1, 2009, 8:43:53 PM6/1/09
to N-Prize
Monroe,
1)
Your first comment is incorrect. I'm not talking about deficiencies
others may have, I am talking about people projecting their own
deficiencies onto others, which I have strong opposition to (as noted
in my earlier post).
2)
Regarding your next comment about “not knowing” it until it's done...
If that were true, then 'nothing' would be 'known' until it was
already done; this hiccup in thought is a big reason why many people
think various things are “impossible” when they're not. Because
something hasn't already been done (and/or people simply lack the
understanding to realize how to do it) does not make such impossible.
This whole line of thought is contrary to the way science and
engineering works – we work within reason and consider probabilities.
For instance, before I build something, I generally design it first
and analyze my design. I know within a reasonable doubt what my
design should do based on my knowledge of physics and engineering (it
was 'designed' that way). The scientific oddity would be the opposite
– that is, if I built something and such “didn't” behave within the
realm of science and engineering (and then I'd really have
something!). In other words, it should behave as expected or science
would become somewhat meaningless as a tool.
Granted, nothing is ever absolutely 100% certain in all contexts, the
Earth might be destroyed by an asteroid before the N-Prize even comes
to fruition. But, barring such extreme circumstances, there is no
significant probability which says I cannot do it. This it is not
confined to a “feeling,” it's physics and engineering.
3)
If I'm preaching to the choir when talking with you it means you're in
agreement (which is great!). As far as “everyone else,” I'm willing
to “convince” anyone who opts to listen. Like I said earlier,
eventually the development effort will need to speak for itself
(hence, the challenge).
~Sage
www.littlemonsterrocket.com
1)
Your first comment is incorrect. I'm not talking about deficiencies
others may have, I am talking about people projecting their own
deficiencies onto others, which I have strong opposition to (as noted
in my earlier post).
2)
Regarding your next comment about “not knowing” it until it's done...
If that were true, then 'nothing' would be 'known' until it was
already done; this hiccup in thought is a big reason why many people
think various things are “impossible” when they're not. Because
something hasn't already been done (and/or people simply lack the
understanding to realize how to do it) does not make such impossible.
This whole line of thought is contrary to the way science and
engineering works – we work within reason and consider probabilities.
For instance, before I build something, I generally design it first
and analyze my design. I know within a reasonable doubt what my
design should do based on my knowledge of physics and engineering (it
was 'designed' that way). The scientific oddity would be the opposite
– that is, if I built something and such “didn't” behave within the
realm of science and engineering (and then I'd really have
something!). In other words, it should behave as expected or science
would become somewhat meaningless as a tool.
Granted, nothing is ever absolutely 100% certain in all contexts, the
Earth might be destroyed by an asteroid before the N-Prize even comes
to fruition. But, barring such extreme circumstances, there is no
significant probability which says I cannot do it. This it is not
confined to a “feeling,” it's physics and engineering.
3)
If I'm preaching to the choir when talking with you it means you're in
agreement (which is great!). As far as “everyone else,” I'm willing
to “convince” anyone who opts to listen. Like I said earlier,
eventually the development effort will need to speak for itself
(hence, the challenge).
~Sage
www.littlemonsterrocket.com
Sage (LMR)
Jun 1, 2009, 9:25:18 PM6/1/09
to N-Prize
Hi Pete,
That would be great, and as soon as I can get another break in the
action we'll talk... My limited time on here sometimes gets poured
into tangential philosophies (that I'm not sure are appreciated
anyway). In any case, I would love to hear more of what you're doing,
it seems very ambitious (and it's quite intriguing).
I understand there are details you may want to hold close (whether for
vaporware or IP reasons). I've developed plenty of novel technologies
both for this effort and others (some of which I've applied for
patents on), so I'm with you there...
~Sage
www.littlemonsterrocket.com
That would be great, and as soon as I can get another break in the
action we'll talk... My limited time on here sometimes gets poured
into tangential philosophies (that I'm not sure are appreciated
anyway). In any case, I would love to hear more of what you're doing,
it seems very ambitious (and it's quite intriguing).
I understand there are details you may want to hold close (whether for
vaporware or IP reasons). I've developed plenty of novel technologies
both for this effort and others (some of which I've applied for
patents on), so I'm with you there...
~Sage
www.littlemonsterrocket.com
Message has been deleted
Pete (Nebula)
Jun 2, 2009, 4:05:00 AM6/2/09
to N-Prize
Hi Sage
Ambitious is right, but as I say on the website if I can't do it at
least I'll know why I can't do it - upsetting though it may be. In the
end, I'm not sure that it matters for this particular competition
since I'm pretty sure one of the other competitors has only a few
steps to go before being almost there. When you're ready it might be
best to open a new thread so that its purely technical, otherwise do
please feel free to PM me - I'd welcome the informed chat.
Best
Pete
> ...
>
> read more »
Ambitious is right, but as I say on the website if I can't do it at
least I'll know why I can't do it - upsetting though it may be. In the
end, I'm not sure that it matters for this particular competition
since I'm pretty sure one of the other competitors has only a few
steps to go before being almost there. When you're ready it might be
best to open a new thread so that its purely technical, otherwise do
please feel free to PM me - I'd welcome the informed chat.
Best
Pete
>
> read more »
Sage (LMR)
Jun 2, 2009, 1:44:23 PM6/2/09
to N-Prize
Monroe,
Why not give yourself a medal and a crown while you're at it.
~Sage
www.littlemonsterrocket.com
> You are incorrect on all counts now.
> So now I'm sure I'm not the least qualified.
>
> Monroe
Why not give yourself a medal and a crown while you're at it.
~Sage
www.littlemonsterrocket.com
> You are incorrect on all counts now.
> So now I'm sure I'm not the least qualified.
>
> Monroe
N-prize
Jun 2, 2009, 1:54:14 PM6/2/09
to n-p...@googlegroups.com
Hey guys,
We are, more or less by definition, a rare group of weird people (and I mean that in a nice way). Of all the people in the world, about 99.999998% are not N-Prize entrants, which makes each you exceptional. So, let's cool it.
Best,
Paul
MisterQED
Jun 2, 2009, 2:11:17 PM6/2/09
to N-Prize
You seemed to have deleted your even more ignorant post so I shall
respond to this one, oh Lone Wolf McSage. First if you are going to
respond to posts, you should READ them. I would think that someone
who has earned your nickname would have figured that out, but
obviously the chip on your shoulder has grown to the point where it is
obscuring part of your vision.
This started when I tried to offer supportive suggestions to Charles,
who created a learned Google video from which I surmised that despite
several years of effort, his task seems unfinished, not due to lack of
knowledge, but probably lack of investment. To expedite his quest I
suggested farming out part of the work to the point where videos could
be created that would interest investors in his worthy ideas. I also
mentioned that since he seemed to be looking for a sea change in the
path the world has been following to get to space, he might enlist
outside interests or even hobbyists to build small parts of his
designs as they may volunteer their services and lower his front end
costs to give his venture momentum. Create basic mechanisms where his
real innovations can be showcased. Even if early hobbyist attempts
launch, but fail to reach final goals, as they probably will,
investors may start to see that this task is not impossible but just
needs several innovations which people like Charles can provide.
These are just my opinions and they may be wrong, but
No one projected their own deficiencies on anyone. I mention my own
deficiencies in knowledge as a counter balance to show my statements
are opinions and as a point of self deprecation so I don’t come off as
a know-it-all, for as Socrates stated, “the only true wisdom is in
knowing you know nothing.” Which is not to state that we know nothing
or that nothing is knowable, but that even in topics where you are
near omniscient, there is still more to be learned and accepting that
is part of the path to knowledge.
//Like solving a Rubik's Cube, I'm interested in 'actually' solving
So you are saying, that not only do you consider this an individual
challenge, but that we should also because if not we are cheating? At
this point even you must realize the insanity of this statement, but
if not let me just ask just how “individually” are you completing this
challenge? Are you now or have you worked in the Aerospace field?
Does this or did this provide you with tools that are better or
cheaper than the ones available to other entrants? i.e. Simulation
software, specialize hardware, knowledge unavailable to the general
public, access to specialists in this field who would not answer the
phone for the rest of us? Peter does and I’m sure many of the other
teams do also. I don’t begrudge them it at all, but get off your soap
box. We are trying to do something very hard and everyone needs to
use any and all tools at their command. I think the laws of
chemistry, physics and the Paul's cost constraints of this contest
will keep us enough in line.
MisterQED
Team Daedalus
respond to this one, oh Lone Wolf McSage. First if you are going to
respond to posts, you should READ them. I would think that someone
who has earned your nickname would have figured that out, but
obviously the chip on your shoulder has grown to the point where it is
obscuring part of your vision.
This started when I tried to offer supportive suggestions to Charles,
who created a learned Google video from which I surmised that despite
several years of effort, his task seems unfinished, not due to lack of
knowledge, but probably lack of investment. To expedite his quest I
suggested farming out part of the work to the point where videos could
be created that would interest investors in his worthy ideas. I also
mentioned that since he seemed to be looking for a sea change in the
path the world has been following to get to space, he might enlist
outside interests or even hobbyists to build small parts of his
designs as they may volunteer their services and lower his front end
costs to give his venture momentum. Create basic mechanisms where his
real innovations can be showcased. Even if early hobbyist attempts
launch, but fail to reach final goals, as they probably will,
investors may start to see that this task is not impossible but just
needs several innovations which people like Charles can provide.
These are just my opinions and they may be wrong, but
No one projected their own deficiencies on anyone. I mention my own
deficiencies in knowledge as a counter balance to show my statements
are opinions and as a point of self deprecation so I don’t come off as
a know-it-all, for as Socrates stated, “the only true wisdom is in
knowing you know nothing.” Which is not to state that we know nothing
or that nothing is knowable, but that even in topics where you are
near omniscient, there is still more to be learned and accepting that
is part of the path to knowledge.
//Like solving a Rubik's Cube, I'm interested in 'actually' solving
it, not simply pulling it apart and putting it back together
“solved.”//
So you are saying, that not only do you consider this an individual
challenge, but that we should also because if not we are cheating? At
this point even you must realize the insanity of this statement, but
if not let me just ask just how “individually” are you completing this
challenge? Are you now or have you worked in the Aerospace field?
Does this or did this provide you with tools that are better or
cheaper than the ones available to other entrants? i.e. Simulation
software, specialize hardware, knowledge unavailable to the general
public, access to specialists in this field who would not answer the
phone for the rest of us? Peter does and I’m sure many of the other
teams do also. I don’t begrudge them it at all, but get off your soap
box. We are trying to do something very hard and everyone needs to
use any and all tools at their command. I think the laws of
chemistry, physics and the Paul's cost constraints of this contest
will keep us enough in line.
MisterQED
Team Daedalus
Message has been deleted
Sage (LMR)
Jun 2, 2009, 3:34:06 PM6/2/09
to N-Prize
QED,
You clearly didn't understand (or properly read) my posts. As I
mentioned, one cannot work “alone” just “by themselves” -- if they so
choose. Seems as though you don't understand the concept I was trying
to convey.
Actually, I've spent time giving you informed advice among other
things, but as I mentioned before, it's basically a waste as it's not
appreciated.
Anyway, I think that the tone of communication often gets lost here;
but there's no doubt you're being inflammatory (and if I'm on a soap
box you're screaming from a mountain).
It's not your suggestions I was commenting on, it was the prevailing
attitude.
You can treat this challenge however you like; each of us has our own
way of viewing it. I didn't say anything about cheating; it's up to
you how you go about doing this challenge and/or how it interests
you. My analogy on the Rubik's Cube was a more general one. If the
task itself is simply putting the Cube back to the solved condition,
one does not have to actually “solve” the puzzle to get there. It
depends on if they are interested in the puzzle challenge or the
goal. Again, you need to read what was written.
As far as your comments regarding “individual” challenge. I've
already expressed my views several times and you can go back and re-
read them to understand the differences that I'm talking about. In
short, we generally cannot separate societal influence from ourselves,
hence we cannot work “alone,” however we can work “by ourselves” if we
so choose. But, as I earlier noted, working in small teams can be a
lot of fun and very rewarding, and I think an important part of this
challenge is that it is met by an individual or a small team.
Please try to understand what is being said before condemning it.
~Sage
www.littlemonsterrocket.com
You clearly didn't understand (or properly read) my posts. As I
mentioned, one cannot work “alone” just “by themselves” -- if they so
choose. Seems as though you don't understand the concept I was trying
to convey.
Actually, I've spent time giving you informed advice among other
things, but as I mentioned before, it's basically a waste as it's not
appreciated.
Anyway, I think that the tone of communication often gets lost here;
but there's no doubt you're being inflammatory (and if I'm on a soap
box you're screaming from a mountain).
It's not your suggestions I was commenting on, it was the prevailing
attitude.
You can treat this challenge however you like; each of us has our own
way of viewing it. I didn't say anything about cheating; it's up to
you how you go about doing this challenge and/or how it interests
you. My analogy on the Rubik's Cube was a more general one. If the
task itself is simply putting the Cube back to the solved condition,
one does not have to actually “solve” the puzzle to get there. It
depends on if they are interested in the puzzle challenge or the
goal. Again, you need to read what was written.
As far as your comments regarding “individual” challenge. I've
already expressed my views several times and you can go back and re-
read them to understand the differences that I'm talking about. In
short, we generally cannot separate societal influence from ourselves,
hence we cannot work “alone,” however we can work “by ourselves” if we
so choose. But, as I earlier noted, working in small teams can be a
lot of fun and very rewarding, and I think an important part of this
challenge is that it is met by an individual or a small team.
Please try to understand what is being said before condemning it.
~Sage
www.littlemonsterrocket.com
Sage (LMR)
Jun 2, 2009, 3:56:54 PM6/2/09
to N-Prize
Monroe,
I don't have time for this silly back and forth, and out of respect
for Paul, the contest, and everyone here, I'm going to refrain from
responding to your wonderfully flattering comment.
~Sage
www.littlemonsterrocket.com
> That seems to be your position an obvious insecurity and a definite
> liability. It gets worse from here. How old did you say you were? I
> don't want to traumatize anyone :) but hey I've had enough BS.
>
> Monroe
I don't have time for this silly back and forth, and out of respect
for Paul, the contest, and everyone here, I'm going to refrain from
responding to your wonderfully flattering comment.
~Sage
www.littlemonsterrocket.com
> That seems to be your position an obvious insecurity and a definite
> liability. It gets worse from here. How old did you say you were? I
> don't want to traumatize anyone :) but hey I've had enough BS.
>
> Monroe
N-prize
Jun 2, 2009, 2:41:19 PM6/2/09
to n-p...@googlegroups.com
I'm not looking at anyone in particular, but can we take this one to email, please?
Paul
MisterQED
Jun 2, 2009, 4:42:24 PM6/2/09
to N-Prize
My apologies to everyone else, and especially Paul, but I guess we all
have our buttons and Sage hit mine.
I didn't see Paul's email till after my post.
I want this forum to be productive and helpful, and my rant has
detracted from that.
MisterQED
Team Daedalus
> ...
>
> read more »
have our buttons and Sage hit mine.
I didn't see Paul's email till after my post.
I want this forum to be productive and helpful, and my rant has
detracted from that.
MisterQED
Team Daedalus
>
> read more »
N-prize
Jun 2, 2009, 4:54:24 PM6/2/09
to n-p...@googlegroups.com
No worries (my post was delayed anyway). It's good that people care enough about this to get passionate, but when the moguls of the international press come to pore over the site in years to come when we're all famous.....
Cheers,
Paul
Message has been deleted
N-prize
Jun 2, 2009, 5:00:57 PM6/2/09
to n-p...@googlegroups.com
Whoah - everybody take five. Smoke if you got 'em.
On 2 Jun 2009, at 21:54, Monroe wrote:
SageWhatever, sute yourself your really good at that.Monroe
Message has been deleted
Sage (LMR)
Jun 2, 2009, 10:59:12 PM6/2/09
to N-Prize
Paul,
Discussions, technical or otherwise, are the point of a forum. If
someone disagrees with a viewpoint, they usually explain why and have
a reasoned debate. In forums such as this, that typically means
without personal attacks; it has been my understanding that such was
this forum's intent.
So, while you may have no worries, the posts speak for themselves.
I've been civil, but am certainly not appreciative of the hostile tone
and insults leveled towards me (and/or the accusations of “buttons”
I'm supposedly pushing) because I've expressed some ideas. To such
attacks I've responded cordially, but received more of the same
attacks.
While you choose to excuse such behavior with “no worries,” many seeds
of reasonable discussion on this forum have been met by either
animosity or triviality. In my view, the lack of quality forum
discussion does an injustice to the N-Prize and its competitors.
~Sage
www.littlemonsterrocket.com
Discussions, technical or otherwise, are the point of a forum. If
someone disagrees with a viewpoint, they usually explain why and have
a reasoned debate. In forums such as this, that typically means
without personal attacks; it has been my understanding that such was
this forum's intent.
So, while you may have no worries, the posts speak for themselves.
I've been civil, but am certainly not appreciative of the hostile tone
and insults leveled towards me (and/or the accusations of “buttons”
I'm supposedly pushing) because I've expressed some ideas. To such
attacks I've responded cordially, but received more of the same
attacks.
While you choose to excuse such behavior with “no worries,” many seeds
of reasonable discussion on this forum have been met by either
animosity or triviality. In my view, the lack of quality forum
discussion does an injustice to the N-Prize and its competitors.
~Sage
www.littlemonsterrocket.com
Charles
Jun 2, 2009, 11:35:12 PM6/2/09
to N-Prize
Monroe: Thanks for the URL for the laser link company. I may want
to do just that with my design for escape velocity Microlaunchers--not
orbital N Prize. I will study the site some, try to find their patent
(s)--little liklihoode it will be too similar to my design.
A prospective investor in N Prize might go for forming a company for
this.
Charles
On Jun 1, 9:46 am, Monroe <monroel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pete
> That is good news! About the CAA.
> I so far am doing the same here with the FAA and so far I get the same
> result. I'll bet more paperwork though:)
> Also so far nothing is really flying! We did get our first Real note
> when we launched the first near space expedition so we are offically
> in the books now for one launch.
>
> Charles
> Check this link out! The Laserfire@ system is what I'm refering too.http://www.spacephotonics.com/pdf_files/SPI%20Capabilities%20Summary.pdf
>
> Monroe
to do just that with my design for escape velocity Microlaunchers--not
orbital N Prize. I will study the site some, try to find their patent
(s)--little liklihoode it will be too similar to my design.
A prospective investor in N Prize might go for forming a company for
this.
Charles
On Jun 1, 9:46 am, Monroe <monroel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pete
> That is good news! About the CAA.
> I so far am doing the same here with the FAA and so far I get the same
> result. I'll bet more paperwork though:)
> Also so far nothing is really flying! We did get our first Real note
> when we launched the first near space expedition so we are offically
> in the books now for one launch.
>
> Charles
> Check this link out! The Laserfire@ system is what I'm refering too.http://www.spacephotonics.com/pdf_files/SPI%20Capabilities%20Summary.pdf
>
> Monroe
N-prize
Jun 3, 2009, 4:47:13 AM6/3/09
to n-p...@googlegroups.com
Hi Sage,
Yes, the forum is a site for discussions - primarily technical, but also 'philosophical' up to a point. I wasn't making a point at anyone in particular (I hadn't followed the exchanges closely enough to do so), just pointing out that personal exchanges need to be done by personal email. But it looks like we all agree on that one. (BTW, my 'no worries' comment may have appeared out-of-sequence - my email was held up.)
On the topic of quality technical discussion, I think there is a fair bit, but it does (as you've noticed) tend to get diluted with side-topics. I don't want to regiment the discussion and turn us into a Big Formal Site, but I wonder if it's worth having a small number of permanent threads devoted to specific technical aspects. For example "Technical - solid rockets", "Technical - liquid rockets", "Technical - navigation and tracking" etc. What do you think? At least then, visitors to the site will be able to quickly home in on the meat.
Best,
Paul
On 3 Jun 2009, at 03:24, Sage (LMR) wrote:
Paul,Discussions, technical or otherwise, are the point of a forum. Ifsomeone disagrees with a viewpoint, they usually explain why and havea reasoned debate. In forums such as this, that typically means
without personal attacks; it is has been my understanding that such
was this forum's intent.So, while you may have no worries, the posts speak for themselves.I've been civil, but am certainly not appreciative of the hostile toneand insults leveled towards me (and/or the accusations of “buttons”I'm supposedly pushing) because I've expressed some ideas. To suchattacks I've responded cordially, but received more of the sameattacks.While you choose to excuse such behavior with “no worries,” many seedsof reasonable discussion on this forum have been met by eitheranimosity or triviality. In my view, the lack of quality forumdiscussion does an injustice to the N-Prize and its competitors.~SageOn Jun 2, 1:54 pm, N-prize <i...@n-prize.com> wrote:
...read more »- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Monroe
Jun 3, 2009, 8:23:13 AM6/3/09
to N-Prize
Charles
I believe at least there is something there to compete with If your
design is better you can point out advantages of your design all you
would need to get funding is a working model. I've got a couple of
CDRW drives I could steal laser diodes from and Dave Hein's Quad Pod
has a functional gimbal system that looks perfect for pointing a
colmanator I would build that for you and give it too you if it would
help. I don't want anything I would just give you the two stations
that do the pointing at each other. We don't need a patent to use
technology just to sell it and we are interested in station keeping
for our launch platform. I got a weird offer to open an office near
yours in Cal.
Monroe
I believe at least there is something there to compete with If your
design is better you can point out advantages of your design all you
would need to get funding is a working model. I've got a couple of
CDRW drives I could steal laser diodes from and Dave Hein's Quad Pod
has a functional gimbal system that looks perfect for pointing a
colmanator I would build that for you and give it too you if it would
help. I don't want anything I would just give you the two stations
that do the pointing at each other. We don't need a patent to use
technology just to sell it and we are interested in station keeping
for our launch platform. I got a weird offer to open an office near
yours in Cal.
Monroe
MisterQED
Jun 3, 2009, 10:14:07 AM6/3/09
to N-Prize
Per Paul's suggestion, I will take this discussion offline.
MisterQED
Team Daedalus
MisterQED
Team Daedalus
Charles
Jun 3, 2009, 6:09:37 PM6/3/09
to N-Prize
Monroe: First, all plans re laser data link are not related to l;ow
earth orbit or N Prize but to situations in which the movement of
either end of the link is slow, in any direction transverse to the
line of sight. For example, anything beyond escape, or in lunar orbit
or on the surface.
I am in discussions with some on possible developments, and any
funding that might result from that will pay for the development
costs--mostly infrastructure, overhead. I have had several versions
of the design worked out for some time now.
Office in CA? I sincerely do not recommend--CA is a sinking ship, and
even before the financial trouble it has been a bad place to start a
business. Only if some investor wants it to start here and is
prepared to bear higher costs, regulations would it be ok. I plan to
incorporate Microlaunchers and a company specific to my N Prize entry
as soon as I can establish that I'm not doing business in CA.
Probably in Nevada.
earth orbit or N Prize but to situations in which the movement of
either end of the link is slow, in any direction transverse to the
line of sight. For example, anything beyond escape, or in lunar orbit
or on the surface.
I am in discussions with some on possible developments, and any
funding that might result from that will pay for the development
costs--mostly infrastructure, overhead. I have had several versions
of the design worked out for some time now.
Office in CA? I sincerely do not recommend--CA is a sinking ship, and
even before the financial trouble it has been a bad place to start a
business. Only if some investor wants it to start here and is
prepared to bear higher costs, regulations would it be ok. I plan to
incorporate Microlaunchers and a company specific to my N Prize entry
as soon as I can establish that I'm not doing business in CA.
Probably in Nevada.
Charles
Jun 3, 2009, 6:20:05 PM6/3/09
to N-Prize
Paul:
I agreer with the desire for more discipline and focus and an
elevation of the discussions. Personal attacks should not be a part
of it, but seems to be a fearure that tends to creep into forums.
Also, any topic is quicly diverted from the original thread. This is
probably due it being easier to use a reply to a post (as I am doing
right now) than to start a fresh one.
A thread dealing just with liquid propulsion, and another with solid
rockets etc would be a very good thing, but hard to keep pure and on-
topic. I'll try this by starting one on liquid bipropellant
propulsion and why it is my preferred method, and try to keep it on
topic...
Charles Pooley
>
> read more »
I agreer with the desire for more discipline and focus and an
elevation of the discussions. Personal attacks should not be a part
of it, but seems to be a fearure that tends to creep into forums.
Also, any topic is quicly diverted from the original thread. This is
probably due it being easier to use a reply to a post (as I am doing
right now) than to start a fresh one.
A thread dealing just with liquid propulsion, and another with solid
rockets etc would be a very good thing, but hard to keep pure and on-
topic. I'll try this by starting one on liquid bipropellant
propulsion and why it is my preferred method, and try to keep it on
topic...
Charles Pooley
> >>>>>> You
> >>>>>> guys need to understand that some of us actually do have the
> >>>>>> guys need to understand that some of us actually do have the
> >>>>>>> capability to achieve this "by ourselves"//
> >>>>>>> Really? I mean Peter has his whole family helping him. :-)
> >>>>>>> Peter,
> >>>>>>> how old are your kids? Yes, there may be people who could do
> >>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>> “alone”, (standing on the shoulders of giants) if the
> >>>>>>> legalities can
> >>>>>>> be conquered or worked around. That is why I said “a breadth of
> >>>>>>> knowledge that few attain”, and I will stand behind those words.
> >>>>>>> But
> >>>>>>> maybe I read something into the video that was not there, but I
> >>>>>>> got
> >>>>>>> the idea that this was more than about winning a contest, but
> >>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>> changing the “main frame” path to space that everyone has been
> >>>>>>> following and to create the “fact” of a low cost access to space
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> is available to a wider audience. Maybe it’s just me, as
> >>>>>>> that is
> >>>>>>> what
> >>>>>>> I want to come out of this contest, and I don’t care who does
> >>>>>>> it. My
> >>>>>>> only
>
> ...
> >>>>>>> Really? I mean Peter has his whole family helping him. :-)
> >>>>>>> Peter,
> >>>>>>> how old are your kids? Yes, there may be people who could do
> >>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>> “alone”, (standing on the shoulders of giants) if the
> >>>>>>> legalities can
> >>>>>>> be conquered or worked around. That is why I said “a breadth of
> >>>>>>> knowledge that few attain”, and I will stand behind those words.
> >>>>>>> But
> >>>>>>> maybe I read something into the video that was not there, but I
> >>>>>>> got
> >>>>>>> the idea that this was more than about winning a contest, but
> >>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>> changing the “main frame” path to space that everyone has been
> >>>>>>> following and to create the “fact” of a low cost access to space
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> is available to a wider audience. Maybe it’s just me, as
> >>>>>>> that is
> >>>>>>> what
> >>>>>>> I want to come out of this contest, and I don’t care who does
> >>>>>>> it. My
> >>>>>>> only
>
>
> read more »
N-prize
Jun 3, 2009, 6:33:11 PM6/3/09
to n-p...@googlegroups.com
Hi Charlie (and all).
I was thinking these threads would cover most things technical:
Solid rockets
Liquid rockets
Rocket guidance and telemetry
Satellite design
Balloon systems
Cannons and guns
Recovery systems
Compliance and permissions
Machining, materials
Technical help wanted and offered
Any other obvious omissions? I think there should be an option for me to create these threads as "stickies" that stay close to the top of the list - any ideas? In the meantime, hold off creating your liquid biprop thread...
P.
Monroe
Jun 3, 2009, 6:32:51 PM6/3/09
to N-Prize
Charles: I copy that and it was an investor that suggested it. We are
not interested in the laser link for orbit but we are interested in it
for our station keeping platform for high altitude launches. I cannot
say at the moment but we are developing a perticular motivator for
station keeping and are testing this design. We are focusing on
station keeping now because we have solved the rocket issues and the
launching issues. Guidance is being worked on and comunication's are
still to be developed. I still have to get Aeronautic Enterprises in
the launch business and do the New Space Confrence in July. And And
And....
Monroe
Another launch comming up!
I lived in Newport Beach when dad worked at Hughs and was stationed in
Long Beach so no I really don't want to go there.
not interested in the laser link for orbit but we are interested in it
for our station keeping platform for high altitude launches. I cannot
say at the moment but we are developing a perticular motivator for
station keeping and are testing this design. We are focusing on
station keeping now because we have solved the rocket issues and the
launching issues. Guidance is being worked on and comunication's are
still to be developed. I still have to get Aeronautic Enterprises in
the launch business and do the New Space Confrence in July. And And
And....
Monroe
Another launch comming up!
I lived in Newport Beach when dad worked at Hughs and was stationed in
Long Beach so no I really don't want to go there.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Sage (LMR)
Jun 3, 2009, 6:58:47 PM6/3/09
to N-Prize
Paul,
Given the types of discussions here, the forum's format really isn't
the problem. Even if you were to segment the forum, you would still
get the same types of posts from the same types of people (this
condition is true across the internet, regardless of a forum's
format).
However, if your primary interest is to make the site easier to
navigate, that's a completely different issue and perhaps such a
segmented format might present a quicker search path. But other than
that, there's really no fundamental difference when using segmentation
for the forum participants. Each thread is a specific topic already
(so, you'll have people veering off topic anyway). Unless your
interest is just site navigation, my suggestion is to focus on the
core issue rather than making such largely unrelated “system” changes.
Simply put, the very few people here who consistently portray a
hostile tone or refuse to stay on topic often “swamp” the discussions
with frivolity, causing others who might bring valuable and insightful
information to disengage from the forum altogether.
Typical forum etiquette and common courtesy would go a long way, and
since the vast majority of people here are already of that persuasion,
it's merely insuring that those who aren't are not simply excused from
their behavior – and not just by the forum moderators, but by the
forum participants as a whole.
Until that core problem is solved, it will be far more difficult to
turn this forum into the great discussion hub it should be. And
unfortunately, until that happens, people who might otherwise bring
great value to the forum will simply avoid it.
~Sage
www.littlemonsterrocket.com
Given the types of discussions here, the forum's format really isn't
the problem. Even if you were to segment the forum, you would still
get the same types of posts from the same types of people (this
condition is true across the internet, regardless of a forum's
format).
However, if your primary interest is to make the site easier to
navigate, that's a completely different issue and perhaps such a
segmented format might present a quicker search path. But other than
that, there's really no fundamental difference when using segmentation
for the forum participants. Each thread is a specific topic already
(so, you'll have people veering off topic anyway). Unless your
interest is just site navigation, my suggestion is to focus on the
core issue rather than making such largely unrelated “system” changes.
Simply put, the very few people here who consistently portray a
hostile tone or refuse to stay on topic often “swamp” the discussions
with frivolity, causing others who might bring valuable and insightful
information to disengage from the forum altogether.
Typical forum etiquette and common courtesy would go a long way, and
since the vast majority of people here are already of that persuasion,
it's merely insuring that those who aren't are not simply excused from
their behavior – and not just by the forum moderators, but by the
forum participants as a whole.
Until that core problem is solved, it will be far more difficult to
turn this forum into the great discussion hub it should be. And
unfortunately, until that happens, people who might otherwise bring
great value to the forum will simply avoid it.
~Sage
www.littlemonsterrocket.com
> >>>>>> You
> >>>>>> guys need to understand that some of us actually do have the
> >>>>>> guys need to understand that some of us actually do have the
> >>>>>>> capability to achieve this "by ourselves"//
> >>>>>>> Really? I mean Peter has his whole family helping him. :-)
> >>>>>>> Peter,
> >>>>>>> how old are your kids? Yes, there may be people who could do
> >>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>> “alone”, (standing on the shoulders of giants) if the
> >>>>>>> legalities can
> >>>>>>> be conquered or worked around. That is why I said “a breadth of
> >>>>>>> knowledge that few attain”, and I will stand behind those words.
> >>>>>>> But
> >>>>>>> maybe I read something into the video that was not there, but I
> >>>>>>> got
> >>>>>>> the idea that this was more than about winning a contest, but
> >>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>> changing the “main frame” path to space that everyone has been
> >>>>>>> following and to create the “fact” of a low cost access to space
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> is available to a wider audience. Maybe it’s just me, as
> >>>>>>> that is
> >>>>>>> what
> >>>>>>> I want to come out of this contest, and I don’t care who does
> >>>>>>> it. My
> >>>>>>> only
>
> >>>>>>> Really? I mean Peter has his whole family helping him. :-)
> >>>>>>> Peter,
> >>>>>>> how old are your kids? Yes, there may be people who could do
> >>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>> “alone”, (standing on the shoulders of giants) if the
> >>>>>>> legalities can
> >>>>>>> be conquered or worked around. That is why I said “a breadth of
> >>>>>>> knowledge that few attain”, and I will stand behind those words.
> >>>>>>> But
> >>>>>>> maybe I read something into the video that was not there, but I
> >>>>>>> got
> >>>>>>> the idea that this was more than about winning a contest, but
> >>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>> changing the “main frame” path to space that everyone has been
> >>>>>>> following and to create the “fact” of a low cost access to space
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> is available to a wider audience. Maybe it’s just me, as
> >>>>>>> that is
> >>>>>>> what
> >>>>>>> I want to come out of this contest, and I don’t care who does
> >>>>>>> it. My
> >>>>>>> only
>
N-prize
Jun 3, 2009, 7:04:49 PM6/3/09
to n-p...@googlegroups.com
Sage,
Well, point taken, in part. At least segmenting the forum (ie, creating some permanent technical threads which will stay at the top of the list) makes managing it easier, and visitors can quickly home in on the meat of discussions. I'm the heavy-handed-est of forum managers (!!), but at least having clear threads makes it easier for me to say when something belongs elsewhere. I'm beginning to see why I didn't pursue a career in politics....
Best,
Paul
Youguys need to understand that some of us actually do have the
capability to achieve this "by ourselves"//
Really? I mean Peter has his whole family helping him. :-)Peter,how old are your kids? Yes, there may be people who could dothis“alone”, (standing on the shoulders of giants) if thelegalities canbe conquered or worked around. That is why I said “a breadth ofknowledge that few attain”, and I will stand behind those words.Butmaybe I read something into the video that was not there, but Igotthe idea that this was more than about winning a contest, butaboutchanging the “main frame” path to space that everyone has beenfollowing and to create the “fact” of a low cost access to spacethatis available to a wider audience. Maybe it’s just me, asthat iswhatI want to come out of this contest, and I don’t care who doesit. Myonly
...read more »- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
N-prize
Jun 3, 2009, 7:09:42 PM6/3/09
to n-p...@googlegroups.com
Damn - I thought I could create "sticky" threads, but I guess that's in a different forum format. I'll have a think.
Anyway, as a general note (to the forum as a whole and in general), henceforth any posts which get personal will be quietly removed. This is never going to be a highly-formal and sanitised forum (for better and for worse), but I'll try to keep a lid on some things.
Now, everyone, can we give up on the difficult and get back to the merely impossible?
Best,
Paul
On 3 Jun 2009, at 23:56, Monroe wrote:
That sounds very interesting Paul. However I don't believe you can dothat here at google. But!!! You could add a real forum to yourWEBSITE! That might even help get things going better you could havesome help with moderation that way as well. I don't like arguing butim sure tired of being bully'ed, I try to be nice in my post and offera way out of arguments but I'm particularly tired of people takingstupid everyday conversation and making something personal out of it.I won't put up with that anymore and I will fire back from now on ifyou try it with me. I don't want to be kicked off the site but I won'tput up with it anymore.Monroe
Sage (LMR)
Jun 3, 2009, 7:47:06 PM6/3/09
to N-Prize
Paul,
Well, it's that “in part” thing that concerns me...
In any case, it would be advantageous to have the last 20-30 thread
topics rather than just seven, so that recent topics don't simply
disappear. You might consider moving the forum to give yourself more
flexibility.
~Sage
www.littlemonsterrocket.com
Well, it's that “in part” thing that concerns me...
In any case, it would be advantageous to have the last 20-30 thread
topics rather than just seven, so that recent topics don't simply
disappear. You might consider moving the forum to give yourself more
flexibility.
~Sage
www.littlemonsterrocket.com
Pete (Nebula)
Jun 3, 2009, 8:16:51 PM6/3/09
to N-Prize
Hi Paul
If it helps, the forum type that you're most probably used to (where
you can create sticky threads for example) would need to be a
specially created set of pages on the n-prize server itself. Depending
on the server type - PHP, ASP etc - you could choose from a number of
ready-made forum packages, some of which are free under the GPL. One
of the most competent is FuseTalk for the Microsoft ASP .NET platform
but there are quite a few available.
The downside is that it does require some specialist knowledge to set
up and maintain so I guess (without prejudice) that would have to be
contracted out to whoever maintains the n-prize server
(pictureandword?).
Having said that, I've done it for one of my 'previous life' websites
and found that it can take over your life very quickly so I'm afraid I
can't recommend it.
On a more subjective level, I've always found that posting on this
type of forum in general, and this forum in particular a very
enjoyable experience.
Best
Pete
If it helps, the forum type that you're most probably used to (where
you can create sticky threads for example) would need to be a
specially created set of pages on the n-prize server itself. Depending
on the server type - PHP, ASP etc - you could choose from a number of
ready-made forum packages, some of which are free under the GPL. One
of the most competent is FuseTalk for the Microsoft ASP .NET platform
but there are quite a few available.
The downside is that it does require some specialist knowledge to set
up and maintain so I guess (without prejudice) that would have to be
contracted out to whoever maintains the n-prize server
(pictureandword?).
Having said that, I've done it for one of my 'previous life' websites
and found that it can take over your life very quickly so I'm afraid I
can't recommend it.
On a more subjective level, I've always found that posting on this
type of forum in general, and this forum in particular a very
enjoyable experience.
Best
Pete
Pete (Nebula)
Jun 3, 2009, 8:20:37 PM6/3/09
to N-Prize
Oh, just one more option - If you decided that a new type of forum was
the way to go, you could just relocate the n-prize site to somewhere
that provides this type of forum free as part of the service. Its the
path of least work and I think Sage was suggesting this as an option
too.
Best
Pete.
the way to go, you could just relocate the n-prize site to somewhere
that provides this type of forum free as part of the service. Its the
path of least work and I think Sage was suggesting this as an option
too.
Best
Pete.
Monroe
Jun 3, 2009, 8:20:43 PM6/3/09
to N-Prize
I can't belive you act as if you did,t instagate the whole argument
Sage.
KMA.
Anyway the real forum would alow for distrubution of moderation and
alow you to set up some sections and I suppose you could even have a
rant section:)
Monroe
Message has been deleted
Sage (LMR)
Jun 3, 2009, 8:46:40 PM6/3/09
to N-Prize
Paul and Pete,
Exactly Pete, that's the option I was suggesting (at least for now);
it's probably the least effort at this point (outside of staying with
the forum as-is, which is also fine).
Paul, if you surf around a bit you'll probably find some free (or very
inexpensive) hosting that gives you the kind of flexibility you want.
It's also possible to simply find some free 'forum' hosting by itself.
You might need to live with a few advertisements on the free sites,
but you could also potentially benefit a little from offering some
advertising space yourself.
~Sage
www.littlemonsterrocket.com
> > > =======================- Hide quoted text -
Exactly Pete, that's the option I was suggesting (at least for now);
it's probably the least effort at this point (outside of staying with
the forum as-is, which is also fine).
Paul, if you surf around a bit you'll probably find some free (or very
inexpensive) hosting that gives you the kind of flexibility you want.
It's also possible to simply find some free 'forum' hosting by itself.
You might need to live with a few advertisements on the free sites,
but you could also potentially benefit a little from offering some
advertising space yourself.
~Sage
www.littlemonsterrocket.com
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages