AP's 208th book --- NASA, new era of space travel-- Step into Space with battery & ion thruster-- nix the blast rockets as too dangerous and antiques/ Engineering by Archimedes Plutonium This is AP's 208th published book of science

345 views

Skip to first unread message

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Feb 23, 2025, 2:55:52 PM2/23/25

to Plutonium Atom Universe

NASA, new era of space travel-- Step into Space with battery & ion thruster-- nix the blast rockets as too dangerous and antiques/ Engineering

by Archimedes Plutonium

This is AP's 208th published book of science published on Internet, Plutonium-Atom-Universe,

PAU newsgroup is this.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe

Preface: This book is a plea, a begging of NASA to change their programs of rockets that blast into space, to that of spaceships the gently and slowly climb their way into Outer Space, like a stepping staircase to Outer Space. Blasting rockets are unsafe, time consuming, costly, and inadequate means of transport in outer space, especially as we need to make a permanent colony on Europa. If it were all dependent on blasting rockets to make a permanent colony on Europa, then we may as well forget any colony on Europa.

What this book does is inform NASA there is a new era of space travel and new spaceships, and that the old dinosaur blasting rockets are now obsolete. I write this as the latest blasting rocket Artemis is due to test flight a upcoming return mission to the Moon. I beg NASA to scrap Artemis and devote its energy and resources into a spaceship that climbs Earth's Magnetic Field to reach outer space and then use the Solar Winds to propel the spaceship to Europa.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of a Google Search on the recent MIT news of a ion thruster plane, a plane that flies yet has no moving parts.

------------------------------

Table of Contents

------------------------------

1) My history on this subject matter.

2) Old Physics and Old Astronomy think that getting into Space can only be with blast rockets.

3) The scheduled Artemis blast rocket launch.

4) Weather balloons routinely step their way in an approach to Outer Space.

5) The step by step climb into Outer Space from Earth's North Pole magnetic field.

6) MIT's ion thruster plane.

7) Is the Solar Wind a constant steady stream?

8) The far future use of the Moon as Sun gone Red Giant Initiation Phase.

9) NASA needs to get to Europa as fast as possible and to plant microbes on the planet for food for humanity in the future.

10) Future commentary.

-----------

Text

-----------

1) My history on this subject matter.

Well, I wrote several books on the idea that our Sun has gone Red Giant Phase, having killed 25% of all insect biomass from 2010 to 2020, and that NASA recorded a 0.005% Solar Radiation increase from 2010 to 2020. That much radiation increase is a plausible answer for why 25% insect biomass perished. I could eye witness observe it on my big yellow black garden spiders, that I used to have my south wall of house full of these garden spider webs but now almost none. They could no longer bear direct sun rays.

This is what happens when Stars and our Sun shine not from fusion, but from Faraday law. Where in each proton of the Sun is a Faraday law of the muon thrusting through proton torus and producing electrical energy, every moment of the clock.

If the Sun and stars shone from fusion, then we can wait for 4 billion years before the Sun misbehaves as a Red Giant star. But when Sun and stars shine from Faraday Law, then the Sun increases in mass every minute of every day and Red Giant phase is not in billions of years, but in thousands of years.

So when I discovered the Sun had gone Red Giant phase in 2020 after reading a article in SCIENCE about insect decline-- SCIENCE 24APR2020 report on its cover "Insect Decline". I began ringing the alarm bells for the entire world community, to act now. And especially for NASA with its Space Program. For if humanity wants to live and not go extinct or go into oblivion, then we must move out a far distance from the Sun, say Europa, a satellite of Jupiter.

But to get to Europa and to cargo haul so much to Europa, we are not going to be able to do this with dinosaur outdated blast rockets. We need a entirely new propulsion system for spacecraft.

This book is written to prompt, to urge, to beg and plead with NASA to throw out the old blast-rocket and usher in the new era of spaceships-- lithium ion battery and ion thruster spaceships.

2) Old Physics and Old Astronomy think that getting into Space can only be with blast rockets.

I had a long drawn out argument with someone in sci.math about getting into Space. That we do not have to build blasting rockets to escape Earth's gravity. What is commonly known as the "Escape Velocity". We do not need "escape velocity" to reach outer space. But if you watch NASA, it seems as though they are brainwashed into thinking the only way to reach outer space is via blasting rockets with more than escape velocity.

What is "escape velocity"? From physics we know that Kinetic energy + Potential energy = 0 on the surface of Earth. This is (1/2)mv^2 + (-(GMm)/R) = 0. This becomes v = square root of (2GM)/R. That becomes the number figure of 11.2 kilometers/second.

The escape speed from the surface of the Moon is so much smaller at 2.38 kilometers/second.

Escape velocity is true and real. However, it is not the only method of reaching Outer Space. It is the fastest method of reaching outer space, but not the only method. There is another method which I call the stepping staircase to Outer Space. Far more safe than blasting rockets. And far more able to offer a transport system that can cargo haul life and nonlife from Earth to Europa.

We do not have to use escape velocity to get to Outer Space but rather can slowly reach outer space such as floating up into Outer Space. Small organisms reach outer space by riding wind currents and some drift from Earth to other planets. Whether they survive the journey is a different matter. But they escaped Earth and not using 11.2 km/s speed. They floated and rode the air currents.

A weather balloon is another example. Provided if there was atmosphere in outer space. For then all we need do is make a big balloon that slowly ascends into Outer Space. The only hold-up here is that Earth atmosphere gives way before we reach Outer Space and thus the balloon descends.

But what I have in mind is a different take on the Weather balloon and its slow ascent. I have a spacecraft built of lightweight material and has a lithium ion battery pack and has ion thrusters. It starts its ascent at the Magnetic North Pole, near the North Pole and utilizes the upward Lines of Force of Earth's magnetism. These Lines of Force is what the spaceship rides upon and then the ion thrusters push the Spacecraft further than what the weather balloon could push. Riding on Earth's magnetic north field is what lifts the spacecraft into Outer Space.

3) The scheduled Artemis blast rocket launch.

Artemis I, is a test flight to the Moon, to orbit the Moon with no astronaut crew. It is a test mission with bigger blast rockets and a newest designed space capsule. All because the USA wants to return to the Moon.

NASA please call off completely the Artemis lunar launch// We need a new spacecraft, not these dangerous monster rockets-- we need lithium battery powered drones-- safe, cheap, and get us to Europa. NASA, time to change

Archimedes Plutonium

Sep 13, 2022, 10:33:22 AM

to sci.physics, Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroups

AP's 208th book of science: NASA please call off completely the Artemis lunar launch// We need a new spacecraft, not these dangerous monster rockets-- we need lithium battery powered drones-- safe, cheap, and get us to Europa.

NASA, time to change rocketry altogether.

The Moon is not a place to replenish for any mission to Europa. To Europa or even Mars, we need to fly directly out to them, not stop on some dead Moon.

And the Moon will be hit worse than Earth as Sun gone Red Giant Initiation Phase gets worse and worse. Instead, flights from Earth to Europa will have to be more direct, perhaps a stop at Mars, not the Moon.

Notice that drones are in heavy use in Russia-Ukraine war. Notice drones all over the place.

NASA never _tried to replace_ its ancient dinosaurish rockets with lithium battery powered drones. NASA never even tested "how high up can they fly" really? Can a well designed drone fly to the Space Station? Probably, but NASA is too dinosaurish to even try.

Instead of a Artemis, a dinosaur to the Moon. What we really need is a testing of how high up a drone on lithium ion batteries can fly.

Even if everything of Artemis is a success-- it goes to the Moon -- USA and Europe send astronauts to the Moon. All of that is a waste of time and energy and money, when we need to go to Europa, not the Moon.

And to go to Europa, means none of these wasteful rocket antique technology that is Artemis.

If a lithium battery drone can fly to the SpaceStation, means that flying to Europa or Mars is going to be a direct flight. Why visit a dead Moon as Sun gone Red Giant phase. Why visit a Moon that is unable to replenish astronauts. We need a direct flight to Europa and to Mars, not a silly stop over on the Moon.

Please call off Artemis completely, and focus, concentrate on the New Wave of Space Travel-- lithium battery operated drones, and the MIT ion thruster propulsion system.

Archimedes Plutonium

Sep 14, 2022, 1:37:14 AM

to sci.physics, Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup

Bill Nelson and Pamela Melroy, please cancel Artemis. The Space Race with Russia is over with, and this Artemis is just dinosaur relics of the past. The monster rocket Artemis and rockets like it cannot possibly be a vehicle to colonize Mars or Europa. For them, you need a new vessel that is Safe and easy to produce-- Drones. You need lithium powered drones.

I bet no-one at NASA or the European Space agency asked the question-- how high exactly can a battery operated drone fly. Can it reach the Space Station flying on Earth's magnetic field and then flying on Solar Winds.

No-one at NASA asked those questions, no-one curious to find out. No, instead everyone there-- building monster rockets, highly dangerous, erratic in behavior. While a drone is utterly safe.

We do not need to *rocket* to outer space, but rather, wisely, climb the steps and stairs into Outer Space formed by Earth's magnetic field and then the Solar Winds.

You saw how tremendous was the ability of the drone helicopter on Mars. But no-one in NASA put 2 and 2 together-- we can make outer space travel a step by step climb to reach the Space Station and then go beyond.

Bill Nelson and Pamela Melroy, even if every monster rocket by NASA is safe in the future, they are totally useless in making a permanent colony on Mars or Europa.

What needs to be done is a train of drones in constant flight drift from Earth to Mars and Europa, all powered by lithium batteries and accelerated by Solar Wind.

Please, the age of monster dinosaur rockets is over with, and NASA, is behind the times. The times have moved into battery drones. Please forever shelf the monster rocket and start experimenting on drone flights.

Bill Nelson and Pamela Melroy, please consider the fact, that science and technology have made huge advances since the 1960s with their huge rockets, dangerous rockets, big big machines. Because they are under a mindset of Escape Velocity to get into Outer Space. When getting into Outer Space can be much easier much safer.

4) Weather balloons routinely step their way in an approach to Outer Space.

Weather balloons routinely step their way to approaching Outer Space. If there was a atmosphere of gases from Earth to Europa, then we can travel there simply on balloons. Making sure our balloon has the lightest gas.

We do not need huge dangerous rockets to get to outer space.

We can Step our way, such as harnessing the Earth's magnetic field at the North pole, and when we re-enter, we use the North pole again to help decelerate.

We do not need to blast off in huge rockets for that immediate entry to outer space. Instead we gradually climb into outer space with lithium battery powered drones and once in outer space we use Solar Wind and also Solar radiation to re-energize lithium ion batteries.

Instead of spending decades on making ever bigger dinosaur rockets, how about spending time on engineering Drones with batteries that slowly, step by step gets us to the International Space Station and then we easily escape that ISS by catching the next Solar Wind out to Europa.

NASA is still back in the 1960s, when we need to Step and Climb into space, not blast rocket into Space. Still back in the 1960s with dangerous dinosaurs on the launch pad. When what is needed is a Airport on the North pole where the next step and climb flight into Outer Space is daily and will catch the Earth's Magnetic field in a lithium powered ion thruster drone.

NASA-- get with the times, get with the advances in technology. In Ukraine in that war, they use drones each and every day. Try it, NASA. Experiment with drones. Stop being a dinosaur, NASA.

Please NASA, start to feel a New Era of space travel, no longer the dangerous blast rocket into Space.

5) The step by step climb into Outer Space from Earth's North Pole magnetic field.

But rather the Safe Climb into Space, the walking of a staircase into Space, the ascent by light safe drones powered by lithium ion batteries and using Earth's magnetic field as a staircase to the International Space Station ISS. It was MIT that recently showed us some ion thruster type space craft with no moving parts works. Experiment with ion thruster drones in utilizing the North Pole magnetic field. Can ion thrusters utilize the magnetism of North Pole? We need to experiment to find out.

It is time for NASA to dismiss the old dinosaur technology of dangerous dinosaur blast rockets. Rockets that escape Earth's gravity. Whereas, we need not escape velocity of Earth, but rather climb steps and ascend into outer space.

The Weather balloons around Earth that are released yearly, none of them need to be rocket blasted. No, they are safe and Climb the Earth staircase to outer space.

For, as the Sun has Gone Red Giant Initiation Phase, and we need a permanent colony on Europa by 3022; today is 2022. There is no hope that heavy dangerous clunker dinosaur rockets can achieve a permanent colony. There is every hope that lightweight battery powered drones can ride Earth's magnet field and ride the Solar Winds out to Mars and Europa, in what envision as almost a continuous back and forth highway from Earth to Mars, then Europa.

NASA, please rethink your entire space program. Your Artemis klunker went out like the dinosaurs. And the mammals that took over Earth are now the battery powered drones.

NASA, start thinking about missions to outer space, not as a rocket blast off, but as a staircase to climb. A Staircase to Heaven as Outer Space, climbing it by drones, battery powered and ion thruster spacecraft.

Your Artemis dinosaur blasting type rockets are 53 years old with Apollo 11, land on the Moon in 1969. There has been huge significant advances in alternative technology, and do you not see it is time to try the new technology? You see it in even that of the Mars helicopter, performing vastly far above your expectations. A lithium ion battery of typical 350 watts, drone helicopter on Mars.

Space is conquered not by dangerous rockets blasting away. No, space is conquered by drones as crafts powered by lithium batteries, by ion thruster, and by Earth's Magnetic Field and by Solar Wind.

NASA, get with the times.

6) MIT's ion thruster plane.

The recent MIT research on ion thruster airplanes is especially intriguing and masterful in engineering with a propulsion of no moving parts. The plane used 40,000 volts from its battery pack.

This is great for catching Solar Winds by a Drone spacecraft. Where the batteries are turned off and flying on pure Solar Wind.

So, I recommend, NASA, to completely drop the ugly monster dinosaur dangerous, bigtime dangerous rockets for space travel. And give MIT research funds to make their ion thruster airplane fitted onto a lithium ion battery powered drone. So that drone uses the batteries to step up and climb into outer space then switches on the ion thruster to carry the craft to Mars or Europa.

Time for NASA to be in the New World of space travel, not back to the 1960s with those klunker dinosaur rockets. Dangerous as all hell. And also, rockets that blast you into Space is much like a kids toy-- instant gratification, but dangerous and deadly. Whereas the wise man, the wise woman sees that Space travel is climbing the Steps, the Staircase to Outer Space as a heaven.

NASA, reconsider, why waste all that time and money on blasting rockets, -- join the new world of space flight.

NASA, please, call off the Artemis-- dangerous old klunker rocket blast. The new generation of getting into space has arrived with lithium battery powered lightweight vessels-- We step, staircase into heaven. We no longer blast our way into heaven, putting all those astronauts at huge risk.

NASA, please dismiss the old technology, the blasting technology with old unsafe engineering. Get with the "new", the safe healthy stepping into outer space, slow stepping with lithium ion batteries in lightweight spacecraft. Test from the North Pole riding the Earth's magnetic field, how high up a drone lithium battery powered plus ion thruster will travel. Can it go beyond the Space Station???? Give it a try. Once in outer space, use the ion thrusters to carry the vessel on the Solar Wind.

We know how energy consuming and dangerous is your Artemis. Time for something new, something far far better.

7) Is the Solar Wind a constant steady stream?

I think the Solar Wind is a constant steady stream. A constant steady underlying stream of ion particles that gets fortified and boosted. The Wind is of ion particles of kinetic energy of about 10keV. But the underlying stream is constant and steady. So the question is, would such a spacecraft not need any batteries for a flight from Earth to Europa and use only the ion thruster propulsion system? For 10keV is quite energetic for motion in the Wind. And of course we need concern ourselves with health protection from these ion particles.

--- quoting from MIT News, 21Nov2018 ---

Since the first airplane took flight over 100 years ago, virtually every aircraft in the sky has flown with the help of moving parts such as propellers, turbine blades, or fans that produce a persistent, whining buzz.

Now MIT engineers have built and flown the first-ever plane with no moving parts. Instead of propellers or turbines, the light aircraft is powered by an “ionic wind” — a silent but mighty flow of ions that is produced aboard the plane, and that generates enough thrust to propel the plane over a sustained, steady flight.

Unlike turbine-powered planes, the aircraft does not depend on fossil fuels to fly. And unlike propeller-driven drones, the new design is completely silent.

“This is the first-ever sustained flight of a plane with no moving parts in the propulsion system,” says Steven Barrett, associate professor of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT. “This has potentially opened new and unexplored possibilities for aircraft which are quieter, mechanically simpler, and do not emit combustion emissions.”

He expects that in the near-term, such ion wind propulsion systems could be used to fly less noisy drones. Further out, he envisions ion propulsion paired with more conventional combustion systems to create more fuel-efficient, hybrid passenger planes and other large aircraft.

Barrett and his team at MIT have published their results today in the journal Nature.

--- end quoting from MIT News ---

First question is how fast can the Solar Wind carry a spacecraft on ion thruster propulsion and second question for me is, can the Solar Wind re-energize lithium ion batteries? We know Sunlight can re-energize batteries, but can the Solar Wind do it faster and better? If so, how much speed can we expect from a ion-propelled spacecraft? Could we cut the time in 1/2 in getting from Earth to Europa or even Mars with such a spacecraft, compared to our present day space flights?

When I first had the idea of stepping staircase from Earth to get into Outer Space, I had only the lithium ion battery powered spaceship, helicopter style using the Earth's Magnetic Field as the staircase.

I was totally unaware that MIT had built and test flown a plane that had no moving parts, the ion thruster plane.

So now I have two propulsion systems to build into a spaceship.

A spaceship that completely replaces the old dinosaurish blasting into Outer Space. Unsafe and unhealthy as hell, old ships like the test flight Artemis now at Cape Canaveral. Unsafe as hell, yet they keep using them. Too dumb to see the world of engineering has changed for Staircase Stepping into Outer Space and end the blasting into Outer Space.

With these posts to Usenet sci.physics and other newsgroups, I am hoping to convince NASA to scupper, and shelf the blasting rockets into space, shelf them out of existence, due to terrible safety and impractical when Humanity wants Outer Space transport. It is the purpose of this book to convince NASA that it is time to change direction from blasting into Outer Space to that of staircase stepping into Outer Space.

If I cannot convince them, I am almost certain that the next tragedy in the blasting rockets will convince NASA. Maybe I can avert the next disaster. For blasting technology is almost guaranteed to have one fatal accident after another fatal accident.

Wikipedia even has a entire page devoted to "List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents" , and they cite "As of 2020, there have been 15 astronaut and 4 cosmonaut fatalities during spaceflight." "As of 2021, there has been 31 fatalities in incidents regarding spaceflight."

Those 31 fatalities are because of the very nature of Blasting into Outer Space. If we had only known of the Staircase Stepping into Outer Space, I would estimate there would be no fatalities in spaceflight.

So, what will it be? Will NASA only start to look to the new way of space flight after the next fatality? Or will NASA wake up, wake up to the new era of spaceflight? The era of Stepping into Outer Space.

As NASA continues on this path of blast rockets into Outer Space will come a time of huge disaster, where astronauts are stranded in space, say half way from here to the Moon, and are we to daily watch them slowly die? Because the time it takes to get another blast rocket up there and rescue them will be all for nought. The entire world branded on their minds, how astronauts left stranded in space because of the dumb fool hardy blast into space technology was used far longer than what it needed to be.

The new era of space travel is lightweight ships that climb into Outer Space from the North Pole, using the Earth's Magnetic Field and once in space using the Solar Wind for a ion thruster ship, much like a surf board rider, with the Solar Wind as the surf.

So if a astronaut crew were stranded, the very next day, another spaceship climbs the staircase to Outer Space and is on a rescue mission.

NASA-- do you see how ridiculous it is for you to continue these Blast into Space rockets, the dinosaurs of modern space travel. Why not send up a Model T Ford into a mission to the Moon?

I had written two books beforehand, both books relevant to a Stepping Staircase spaceship into Outer Space, rather than the foolish Blasting Rocket technology. Neither of my prior books discuss the recent MIT news of a ion thruster propulsion system. Perhaps in the future as I revise these two prior books I should include the ion thruster on top of the lithium ion battery helicopter type spaceship.

"Airfoil Lift solved, true theory of how flight is possible///Physics series for High School Book 10"

By Archimedes Plutonium

Last revision was 14Mar2021. This is AP's 83rd published book on science.

When I was in High School, in the Cincinnati, Ohio region, I remember reading in "General Science" classrooms of what was the explanation of why planes flew in the sky. Of course, so young of age we never questioned the truth or veracity of such, we accepted it, especially since we are graded on ideas like that. And the picture we saw of how a airplane flies, is a picture of a wing with the air having many lines of pressure under the wing and few lines of pressure over the top of the wing. And then a arrow of lift upwards because the high pressure below the wing lifted the wing and airplane upwards. I do not think it was given the name Bernoulli's law, and I am certain that Newton's law of every action has equal and opposite reaction was not mentioned back then circa 1965 in Ohio classrooms.

But now, fast forward to January 23, 2020 some 55 years later, and to my pleasant surprise, in Scientific American (SA) magazine, their Feb2020 issue starting page 44 is an article titled "The Enigma of Aerodynamic Lift" "No one can completely explain why planes stay in the air" by Ed Regis.

And I had just published a few days earlier in January, two books talking about the fact that the chemistry molecule of O2 that composes 21% of the air, is a polar molecule. Polar molecule just like water, H2O is a polar molecule. A polar molecule is filled with electricity and magnetism, just ready to go into action. And so, reading this SA article, and fresh in mind that O2 is brimming with electricity and magnetism, made me realize-- there is a new and third and better explanation for why airplanes fly. Thus was born the true theory of why planes fly, as you read the text below.

Cover Picture: Is my photo of a Google Search on Bumblebees.

"Spacecraft Propulsion System based entirely on electricity and magnetism using the ambient electricity & magnetism of Space// Engineering series, book 3"

by Archimedes Plutonium

Last revision was 6Apr2022. This is AP's 142nd published science book.

Preface: While writing several books recently in the months leading up to October 2020, I needed a new Spacecraft Propulsion System, to ferry Humanity from Earth to Mars, Europa, Pluto, due to Sun Initiation of Red Giant Phase with its 0.005% yearly increase in UV radiation. And to satisfy my sci-fi books of "White Rhino", "Two White Rhinos", and some other books. So in October 2020, I had a urgent need to write a book on how to engineer the worlds finest spacecraft for the future. And that urgent need lead me to this book. I must say though, that without that Scientific American article in February 2020, "The Enigma of Aerodynamic Lift" without that article, this book would not have come about. So this book is a clear cut example of the nexus of several research projects all lending a helping hand in the writing and culmination of this book. As the Old Saying goes, one hand washes the other hand.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of a Google search for drones. Now I define drones as those that are lithium battery powered and are helicopter flight in motion. I do no include airplanes as drones.

A Google search for MIT ion thruster plane reveals this. And reveals that even NASA is working on this new technology. Yet it is NASA with the huge dinosaur klunker blast rocket Artemis due to launch.

NASA, is it not wise to cancel these blast rockets and go full speed with battery powered and ion thruster powered spacecraft. Just climb the staircase of Earth using its Magnetic field then use the Solar Wind. Even you, NASA, is involved in ion propulsion.

--- quoting Google search ---

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Apr 2, 2026, 3:09:04 AMApr 2

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Artemis II has only a 50 to 50% chance of success for all --- Blasting Rockets are dangerous as hell--- especially when Humanity has the easy way of exploring and traveling in space--- battery-ion thruster drone ships launched at North Pole and stepping into space.

Face reality--- dear NASA--- blasting rockets are dinosaur antiques. Face reality, the history of space travel by foolish blasting rockets is a 50% chance of failure every time astronauts board those antiques.

--- quoting BBC---

NASA spacecraft orbiting Earth after spectacular Artemis II Moon mission launch

--- end quoting BBC---

--- quoting BBC---

Elon Musk's SpaceX moves to become a publicly traded company

... make Musk the world's first trillionaire.

--- end quoting BBC---

Sad that greed for money, jeopardizes 1/2 of all astronauts who board these dinosaur-antiques- blasting-rockets.

Have a yearly North Pole tournament where the world entertains all engineers who built a battery drone, ion thruster drone that launches from the North Pole or Greenland and sees if the drone can reach the International Space Station.

Stop the senseless deaths by Blasting Rockets foolishness, these are antiques that belong in museums, not on launch pads.

AP, King of Science

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Apr 2, 2026, 7:04:13 PMApr 2

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Someone made a tally and the numbers come out as 50-50% of blasting rocket history the world over is 50% tragedy.

I recall the two launches in USA that were tragedies on the ground and then there was the tragedy of re-entry. Then there was the Russian tragedies.

With an even larger blasting rockets of Artemis II when what NASA should be doing is going to Drones operating on batteries and ion thruster of Stepping Slowly Into Space from the North Pole like a balloon slowly ascending into Space.

This Artemis II Spacecraft can easily get stuck at the Moon. Causing a hastily put together a second blasting rocket on Earth to go up and try to rescue the first crew, and they get stuck also and thus a Double Tradegy.

Inherently, just simple inherently dangerous are BLASTING spaceships. This is why they are always a 50 to 50 chance of success.

A Stepping into Space and Stepping down by battery drones with ion thruster is the Way Forward in Future. Drones would be I reckon 80% safe and only 20% dangerous. Blasting Rockets are known to be 50% dangerous as hell, only 50% safe.

Blasting is itself the inherent danger.

--- quoting BBC---

Astronauts await final 'go' from NASA for critical push towards the Moon

--- end quoting BBC---

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Apr 3, 2026, 3:34:16 AMApr 3

to Plutonium Atom Universe

So re-entry by drones with battery propulsion and ion thruster, will be a stepping down process so that heat shields need not be so critically important, and we do it over the North Pole where the Earth's magnetic field helps to "brake the descent".

--- quoting the Daily Mail---

The moment space fans have waited more than 50 years for finally arrived last night, as NASA launched its Artemis II mission to the moon.

The launch went to plan, with Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and Jeremy Hansen blasting into space at around 18:30 local time.

However, it wasn't all smooth sailing, as the one toilet on board the Orion capsule malfunctioned, leaving it out of action for six hours.

Now, as the crew get further into their mission, the risks will become increasingly severe.

As we recently found out when NASA dramatically evacuated the ISS due to a medical crisis, even a small health issue could become critical in space.

Experts have also raised concerns about the heat shield, which will bear the brunt of the searing heat during re–entry through Earth's atmosphere.

'During the final phase of the Artemis II mission, there's no backup, no contingency, and no chance of escape,' Dr Macaulay explained in an article for The Conversation.

'The four astronauts on board will be depending on a few inches of resin–coated silica to shield themselves from temperatures approaching half that of the surface of the Sun.'

Artemis II moon mission

The moment space fans have waited more than 50 years for finally arrived last night, as NASA launched its Artemis II mission to the moon

1. Critical systems failure

Part of what makes Artemis II riskier than NASA's standard missions is that it is testing relatively new technology.

Compared to a spacecraft like the Crew Dragon, which has been used dozens of times, the Orion spacecraft has only been used once, during Artemis I.

'Orion's life support and deep–space systems have never been flown with a crew before,' explained Chris Bosquillon, co–chair of the Moon Village Association's working group for Disruptive Technology & Lunar Governance.

This creates a risk that one of the critical systems might fail once Orion has already left the atmosphere.

If something goes wrong during the first day, while Orion is still in low–Earth orbit, the crew can simply fire the engines to make an early return to Earth.

But if part of the engines or life–support system were to fail once the trip to the Moon had begun, things would be much more complicated.

The absolute worst–case scenario would involve multiple systems failing, including the propulsion system, leaving Orion unable to alter its course.

--- end quoting the Daily Mail---

ppp

Blasting Rockets, the dinosaur antiques of space travel

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Apr 3, 2026, 10:02:12 PMApr 3

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Time to mothball these ---- dangerous as hell dinosaur antique Blasting Rockets.

Every mission with a Blasting Rocket is only a 50% chance of success.

The alternative is stepping into space in a Drone battery powered and ion thruster powered space vehicle climbing from North Pole Greenland Magnetic Field and then the ion thrusters taking over in space flight.

And upon Re-entry we enter from the North Pole Greenland using Earth's Magnetic Field to slow down the Spacecraft, ion thruster as brakes. We land on dry solid land no longer needing to plunge into the ocean.

And the added beauty is that if a hardship hits the mission, that a backup drone with crew is ready to help immediately. With the idiotic blasting rockets, anything goes wrong-- no help will be on its way--- bye bye goodbye.

AP, King of Science

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Apr 9, 2026, 8:19:47 PMApr 9

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Safe AP space travel compared to NASA's dangerous as hell space travel. Just no logical brains at NASA.

So the spaceship of AP looks like a drone aircraft. It cannot hold 4 astronauts but only 2. It steps into space using the Magnetic North Pole much like a helium balloon steps into space. Once it goes beyond Earth atmosphere the space craft uses its Ion Thruster of the Solar Winds. Highly manueverable once beyond Earth.

The Antique rockets are most dangerous at launch and Earth reentry.

For the AP drone spacecraft, Reentry is a Stepping Down, just as launch was a stepping up at the North Pole to use the Earth's magnetic field, the stepping down is to use the Earth's magnetic field as a Braking of the drone spacecraft. No more of this hellish nightmare of if the sealed surface can withstand that hotter than the Sun melting.

So the AP drone steps down slowly and gently.

Another benefit is that if for any reason the astronauts are stuck in space, there is a standby launch of another drone on call at any time. Whereas the idiotic blasting rockets have no stand by rescue crew on call. If Artemis has trouble, sadly, farewell....

The historical record of Blasting Rockets has been seldom on time, and 50% tragedies to astronauts.

I am not saying that AP drone spaceships will be 100% safe, no, the danger in space travel is always dangerous, but we can cut that danger in my estimate to be 80% safe compared to current 50% safe, the toss of a coin on Artemis.

NASA seems to be too stupid in logic, to look around and see that drones have remade all wars. If a single person in NASA sees that drones have remade wars. NASA should see they need to build a drone with lithium battery plus Ion Thruster and go to the North Pole-Greenland, test launch and see if the drone reaches the International Space Station.

No, to date, as of this writing, NASA is far far to stupid and illogical to even test out the AP drone spaceship.

Good luck, astronauts on those dinosaur antique blasting rockets, dangerous as hell......

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Apr 11, 2026, 6:07:09 PMApr 11

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Open Letter to the fools and idiots of NASA

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes you were able to successfully land on the Moon and return home safely some 50 years ago. And today successful in traveling around the Moon and back home safely. But at an enormous cost of 50% of all blasting rocket missions are dangerous as hell. And yet NASA never learns anything until a major catastrophe accrues.

SPACE TRAVEL should be with Drones powered by lithium battery + Ion Thruster

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We step into outer space and off of Earth's gravity by using the North Pole magnetic field which allows us to slowly climb into Space and then with the ion thruster explore other planets or satellites.

Blasting spaceships are just dangerous as hell.

We come back to Earth not with a gamble and risk that the module will be burned alive in the atmosphere with temperatures that of the Sun's surface, only morons would continue in that technology.

We come back to Earth the same way we departed Earth, only we Step Down Slowly from the North Pole, enlisting the Earth's magnetic field as a BRAKE to bring our Drone spacecraft down to Earth, not as a messy fireball, but as a spacecraft. No more splashing in the water but actually landing on dry land.

Instead of spending billions, trillions on dangerous as hell space travel.

Time to have engineers of the world build their drones and NASA takes them to Greenland-North Pole and see if they can climb step by step and reach the ISS, International Space Station.

NASA, time to say goodbye to dangerous as hell antique dinosaur blasting rockets. Get with the times NASA, instead of your 50 years out of date, out of touch with reality.

AP, King of Science

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Apr 17, 2026, 10:04:26 PMApr 17

to Plutonium Atom Universe

They mention a "rocket equation" in this show, some division equation that lifts a rocket into outer space, rapid lift. What AP proposes is that we do not need blasting rockets for getting into space and returning to Earth. For we let the North Pole magnetic field slowly STEP US INTO SPACE and when we return, we use the North Pole magnetic field to BRAKE us in descent so that we no longer are a fiery ball of fierce fire with heat shields. Instead we brake gently by the Magnetic field that we no longer need parachutes but can land the entire capsule on land or some ship.

Drone technology of batteries and Ion Thruster is all we ever need for Space Travel. We eliminate all that unnecessary and hugely dangerous liquid hydrogen blasting fuel and the heat shield of a Fiery Ball reentry.

NASA needs to --- grow-up ---- and see their programs as dinosaurish antiques, in a world of technology that has moved beyond their antique blasting rockets.

I am going to look to see if that "rocket equation" is included in the below transcript.

--- quoting PBS NOVA: Return to the Moon---

A half-century after American astronauts walked on the Moon, NASA and its international partners are taking the dream of Apollo a giant step further. In the coming years, the Artemis missions – named after Apollo's twin sister in Greek mythology – aim to bring astronauts back to the Moon and establish a lunar space station for scientific and commercial exploration. Follow the four members of the Artemis II crew as they embark on a perilous 10-day journey to orbit the Moon, venturing beyond Earth orbit for the first time since Apollo and farther into the Solar System than any humans have gone before. And get an inside look at the preparations needed to overcome the extreme engineering challenges of human-crewed spaceflight, all the way from launch to splashdown.

Premiering Wednesday, April 15 at 9 pm on PBS.

TRANSCRIPT

Return to the Moon

Published: April 15, 2026

EUGENE CERNAN (Apollo 17 Commander, December 14, 1972/Film Clip): We leave as we came and God willing as we shall return.

NARRATOR: After more than 50 years, humanity has finally returned to the moon. To get there, NASA needed a new rocket that packs a punch.

BILL NELSON (NASA Administrator, 2021–2025): Eight-point-eight-million pounds of thrust at lift-off.

REID WISEMAN (Artemis II Commander, NASA): I call it the arrogance of humanity. The fact that we think we can launch machinery like this, it just leaves you with a sense of awe.

NARRATOR: How did they build it?

JOHN BLEVINS (Chief Engineer, Space Launch System, NASA): This is like no other kind of atmospheric machine. We designed for every iteration that could occur between lift-off and orbit.

MISSION CONTROL: Copy, Vernon.

NARRATOR: What were they up against?

MISSION CONTROL: Copy.

ANDREA LEINFELDER (Space Reporter, Houston Chronicle): China’s space program is more advanced than I think a lot of people realize.

ERIC BERGER (Senior Space Editor, Ars Technica): When you see something that anomalous on a critical system like the heat shield, where there is no backup, that really raises your concerns.

MAGGIE ADERIN-POCOCK (Space Scientist): They’ve mitigated the risk as much as possible, but there still could be a catastrophic failure and loss of life.

NARRATOR: The inside story of Artemis II, from design to splash down: Return to the Moon, right now, on NOVA.

April 1st, 2026: it’s launch day for the crew of Artemis II: Commander Reid Wiseman, Pilot Victor Glover, and two Mission Specialists, Christina Koch and Canadian Jeremy Hansen. They’re about to fly on the most powerful rocket NASA has ever built, the Space Launch System.

REID WISEMAN: As you get out to the pad, you can look all the way up and see the top of the rocket. It’s full of fuel, so it’ll be venting, it’ll be cold, it’ll be alive. And we are just teeny tiny specks amongst this 280-foot-tall rocket in front of us.

We’ll get in an elevator; we’ll ride that elevator up to the 274 level; and we walk down the gantry to the White Room. Put on our helmet, put on our gloves, make sure we look good from head to toe. And then, one at a time, we’ll go into the Orion and start getting strapped in.

NARRATOR: Artemis II is the first crewed mission to the moon in over 50 years. The astronauts will travel farther from Earth than any humans have travelled before, paving the way for future missions to land on the lunar surface.

MAGGIE ADERIN-POCOCK: When a rocket launch is going ahead, it is almost like poetry in motion. Everything has to be in perfect alignment before they will give the go ahead for a launch.

ERIC BERGER: You’ve got four human beings sitting on top of a massive bomb. If the detonation is controlled properly, then the rocket goes up and they go to space. But if something goes wrong, that rocket blows up.

MISSION CONTROL: O.T.C.

CREW MEMBER: T.C. is go.

NARRATOR: It’s taken decades to get here. The risks are enormous.

CREW MEMBER: M.C.O., T.O. is go.

NARRATOR: But now it’s finally time, time for humans to go back to the moon.

CREW MEMBER: Artemis II crew is go for launch.

MISSION CONTROL: I copy that. Good luck. Godspeed, Artemis II. Let’s go.

NARRATOR: Three years before the launch of Artemis II, NASA launches Artemis I, a test flight, to the moon and back, without astronauts on board.

CHARLIE BLACKWELL-THOMPSON (Launch Director, Artemis): There are things that we’ve done many times in sims, and we’ve done them many times in the lab, but in a tanked configuration at the pad, it was the first time.

It is incredibly quiet in this room. Everybody is focused on their system, they’re focused on the data. I mean there’s not a sound.

NARRATOR: It’s the first flight of the space launch system, S.L.S., the rocket specially built for the Artemis program.

Five-million pounds of fuel has to ignite on cue to lift the rocket into space.

ERIC BERGER: Rockets are insanely complex vehicles where everything has to go right for it to succeed. And if a single important thing goes wrong, the rocket blows up. I mean, it is the ultimate kind of pass-fail test.

MISSION CONTROL: And here we go. Ten,…

CHARLIE BLACKWELL-THOMPSON: I got a bit of the hair on my arms stood up just a little bit as those final six seconds ticked off the countdown clock.

MISSION CONTROL: …six, five, four, stage engines start,…

CHARLIE BLACKWELL-THOMPSON: And then the call “Booster ignition and lift-off.”

MISSION CONTROL: Three, two, one…

CHARLIE BLACKWELL-THOMPSON: Lift-off of Artemis I.

It was, it was breathtaking.

MISSION CONTROL: Good control on the roll from teams on Mission Control, Houston. All good calls so far, now 30 seconds into the flight of Artemis I.

NARRATOR: The S.L.S. is a multi-stage rocket. Once each stage, or section, of the rocket has done its job, it separates. The spacecraft becomes lighter, better able to accelerate into space.

Within two hours, all that remains is Orion, the crew and service modules, heading away from Earth.

It takes five days to reach the moon, where Orion settles into lunar orbit, allowing mission controllers to test its flight systems in Deep Space.

MIKE SARAFIN (Mission Manager, Artemis I): For me, one of the highlights was seeing the Earth pass behind the Moon and disappear and then come out the other side.

Eight-billion people disappeared behind the only other place that humanity had ever been.

I’ve had a different perspective every time I’ve looked at the moon since then.

NARRATOR: NASA’s newest moon explorer is barreling its way back home, after circumnavigating the moon and beyond.

When Artemis I returns from the moon, Orion is travelling 7,500 miles per hour faster than a spacecraft coming back from low-earth orbit.

As it hits the upper atmosphere, friction generates intense heat and super-hot plasma, visible through the capsule window.

The only protection from this inferno is a heatshield, an inch and a half thick.

MIKE SARAFIN: Demonstrating the heatshield at lunar re-entry velocities was our number one priority, because temperatures outside got half as hot as the sun, approaching 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

When you come back from the moon, you’re coming back at Mach 32 or 24,500 miles an hour. In fact, we came back at 24,581 miles an hour. We were 81 miles an hour over the speed limit.

MISSION CONTROL: And there it is…5,000 feet; three good main chutes for Orion.

Orion in the perfect orientation for splashdown, just seconds away.

NARRATOR: Half an hour earlier, Orion was hurtling towards Earth at 32-times the speed of sound.

When it hits the water it’s falling at less than 20 miles an hour.

The idea for Artemis II is to go back to the moon, but this time with a crew of astronauts on board.

They will do a single wide loop, flying more than 4,000 miles beyond the moon, the farthest any human has been into space, before returning to Earth.

MAGGIE ADERIN-POCOCK: Artemis I was about testing the hardware, making sure that everything would work going to the moon and back. Now they’re putting people on board, and people, of course, there is a sense of danger, a sense of trepidation.

ERIC BERGER: It just amps up the safety factor, right? With Artemis I, a failure will be bad, right, but it wouldn’t have been catastrophic. If you lose the human crew on Artemis II, that is catastrophic. That calls into question the future of the whole Artemis program.

NARRATOR: In April 2023, the Artemis II crew is announced: Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch and Jeremy Hansen. They’ll be the first humans to leave Earth’s orbit since Apollo 17, in December, 1972.

GENE CERNAN (Film Clip): Hello Houston! Apollo 17, loud and clear. Hippity hoppity! Hippity hoppity! Hippity hopping over the hill and dale.

TIM PEAKE (Former European Space Agency Astronaut): Artemis intrinsically builds on the legacy of Apollo. We stand on the shoulders of giants, and we’ve learnt so much in human exploration. But, of course, returning to the moon when we haven’t done that for over 50 years, we are looking back to Apollo. We’re, we’re making those comparisons.

GENE CERNAN (Film Clip): By golly this time goes fast!

ERIC BERGER: Apollo was clearly a program designed to demonstrate U.S. superiority in technology compared to the Soviet Union. And it was successful in that. And then once they completed that task, they shut it down, because it costs a lot of money. And every time they launched, there was a 10 or 15 percent chance that the crew would not come back safely.

NARRATOR: In only three and a half years, the Apollo program completed a total of six lunar landings, at a cost equivalent to $280-billion today.

GENE CERNAN (Film Clip): We leave as we came and, God willing, as we shall return, with peace and hope for all mankind.

ERIC BERGER: If you look at NASA’s budget in the 1960s, at its peak it was drawing down five percent of the federal budget. NASA’s budget today is point-five percent, so 10 times less, or one-tenth of what it was back in the 1960s. And NASA is, sort of, building the Artemis program within that budget.

NARRATOR: Despite having much less money, the long-term ambition for Artemis far exceeds that of Apollo. Rather than simply landing astronauts on the moon for a few days at a time, the goal is to establish a moon base, where humans can live and work long-term.

During the Apollo program, each landing was at a different site, clustered around the lunar equator. With the Artemis program, the plan for future missions is to land near the South Pole.

This part of the moon has deep craters, where the sun never shines. They’re thought to contain huge deposits of water, in the form of ice.

TIM PEAKE: Where you have ice, you have the ability to melt that and provide drinking water, clearly, for habitation modules, but also, then, the potential to split that water into hydrogen and oxygen gas, which can be used for atmosphere, and it can also be used for potential rocket fuel.

NARRATOR: But NASA isn’t the only one eyeing this prime real estate.

BILL NELSON: China has already announced its intention to land with their astronauts, they call them “taikonauts,” on the south pole of the moon. On the schedule that we are, we will land before the Chinese. But it is a race.

ERIC BERGER: I do think getting back there first matters a heck of a lot. China would turn that into a huge win. Just, just sort of saying that this is the century of China. “Look, we’ve surpassed the United States, they can’t get back to the moon, we can.” But that’s really why we’re going. There’s kind of a geopolitical imperative at this time.

ANDREA LEINFELDER: China’s space program is more advanced than I think a lot of people realize, and it is hitting its deadlines. It’s meeting a lot of critical milestones. NASA’s program, the deadlines keep getting pushed back, and so, there is concern that China’s accelerating and NASA’s not keeping up.

NARRATOR: The pressure is on to speed up the Artemis program and get its astronauts to the moon. With this goal in mind, thousands of people, at sites across the U.S. and in Europe, are developing hardware for Artemis II.

They’re building a spacecraft capable of taking astronauts to the moon and returning them safely, for the first time since the Apollo era.

The rocket that will get them into space is the S.L.S., the Space Launch System. Its huge core stage contains the fuel tanks and main engines. Alongside are two solid-fuel boosters to provide extra thrust at launch. Above, is the upper stage and service module, which power the vehicle in space, and finally, the crew module that carries the astronauts on their journey to the moon.

On the outskirts of New Orleans, the core stage of the S.L.S. is leaving the hangar in which it’s been assembled. Over 200 feet long, it’s the single largest rocket stage NASA has ever built.

REID WISEMAN: When you see S.L.S., you think scale. You do not understand scale until you go see that thing in real life.

I call it the arrogance of humanity. The fact that we think we can assemble machinery like this and launch it successfully, it, it just leaves you with a sense of awe.

NARRATOR: The core stage contains two massive aluminum fuel tanks which at launch will be filled with liquid hydrogen and oxygen. Liquid hydrogen generates more thrust per pound than any other rocket fuel, but its molecules are so light and loosely packed together, it needs more storage space than any other fuel. That’s why the core stage is so large.

MAGGIE ADERIN-POCOCK: Liquid hydrogen is the rocket fuel of choice, and you can see why. It packs a punch; it will get people to the moon. But it is incredibly hard to handle.

It needs to be kept at temperatures of -250 Celsius. The fuel lines, the tank itself, everything has to be kept at that temperature, or the liquid hydrogen will start to evaporate, to expand.

Now, imagine if your liquid hydrogen starts expanding in the tank, the tank will explode. And so, everything has to be kept at that low, low temperature, so that everything stays in its liquid form.

NARRATOR: Sixty percent of space shuttle launches had to be postponed, often due to problems with hydrogen fueling. The worry is Artemis will suffer the same complications.

CHALLENGER MISSION CONTROL (Film Clip): Lift-off of the 25th space shuttle mission and it has cleared the tower.

NARRATOR: NASA knows just how dangerous rocket fuel can be at launch.

SPACE SHUTTLE ASTRONAUT (Audio Clip): <unintelligible > there are not problems for most of the flight. One-hundred-four percent.

NARRATOR: When the fuel tank of the Challenger space shuttle ruptured, liquid hydrogen ignited,…

CHALLENGER MISSION CONTROL (Film Clip): Challenger, go with throttle up.

NARRATOR: …causing a catastrophic explosion that took the lives of seven astronauts.

CHALLENGER MISSION CONTROL (Film Clip): Obviously a major malfunction.

NARRATOR: Such disasters have led NASA to prioritize safety over speed.

The core stage of the S.L.S. is transported very slowly and carefully, by barge, 900 miles to Kennedy Space Center, where it will eventually launch.

On arrival it’s taken to the vehicle assembly building, the largest single-story building in the world.

The head of NASA at the time, Bill Nelson, is taking a look for himself.

BILL NELSON: That core stage packs a big punch in those four engines, right there. By the way, those engines were the same engines that were on the space shuttle. But instead of throwing them away, we’re using them.

NARRATOR: In order to support the existing aerospace industry, congress mandated NASA to re-use and update the RS-25 engines that had previously powered the space shuttle.

ANDREA LEINFELDER: Congress basically told NASA that it’s going to use contracts, workforce, systems from the shuttle, from previous programs.

NARRATOR: Developed in the 1970s, to deliver maximum thrust from liquid hydrogen RS-25s were known as the “Ferrari” of rocket engines. But reusing them comes at a cost.

ERIC BERGER: The space shuttle main engines were great engines, just brilliant engineering. But it turns out if you want an affordable space program you don’t want to be launching Ferraris in space, especially if, like, you drive it one time and the car goes away.

NARRATOR: The RS-25s were originally designed to be reusable, but on Artemis, each of them will be flown only once, and then discarded.

ERIC BERGER: If you total up all the money that NASA’s spending, the cost of a single RS-25 engine is between 100 and 140-million U.S. dollars.

SpacexX is building a comparable Raptor engine for $500,000, half a million.

If you were starting from a clean sheet, this is probably not what you would have designed, but given all the political, financial and technical realities it is the systems we have. It’s the best shot we have to get to the moon in the next few years. And so NASA is making the best of it.

NARRATOR: The engines need to generate enough thrust to get the rocket into space, balancing the rocket equation, which determines the ratio of fuel to mass to thrust required for a successful launch.

JOHN BLEVINS: Physics doesn’t read PowerPoint. It doesn’t read our reports. It doesn’t care about any of that. So, the rocket equation is simply a representation of the physical requirements to cheat gravity.

NARRATOR: The tyranny of the rocket equation is that heavy rockets require more fuel, but more fuel makes rockets heavier, requiring even more fuel.

A fully loaded S.L.S. weighs 5.7-million pounds, 5-million of that is fuel.

JOHN BLEVINS: Ninety percent of the entire mass that we’ve got is chemical energy. And a good bit of the rest of the mass is actually structured to hold that chemical energy. We’re going from zero velocity, sitting on the launch pad, to 32,000 feet per second. That’s an incredible energy ride. So, we continually accelerate. So, this is like no other kind of atmospheric machine. It’s not like airplanes. It’s not like cars. We don’t get to a cruising speed and stop. And so, we design for every iteration that could occur between lift-off and orbit.

NARRATOR: Since the 1960s, NASA rockets have been designed here, at Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama.

FILM CLIP: Out of this center will come the vehicles that will carry the United States into outer space.

NARRATOR: Its historic wind tunnel is still used to test the aerodynamics of the S.L.S.

JOHN BLEVINS: There’s a joke around Marshall Space Flight Center that “In God we trust, everybody else bring data.”

NARRATOR: By inserting a scale model of the S.L.S. into the wind tunnel and blowing air over it, engineers can study the forces acting on the rocket, as it accelerates into space.

JOHN BLEVINS: This is 25- to 50,000 feet, and air molecules pile up on each other, and they create a very dense layer of air. And so that’s what we call a shockwave. And so, once we get supersonic, we’ll see these all over the vehicle.

That dictates our stability and our control system, and this gives us all the data that we need in order to control the rocket.

NARRATOR: This data can be used to create computer simulations that plot every second of the rocket’s journey.

ANDREA LEINFELDER: Rocket science has a thousand different parts, a thousand different components that have to be done perfectly. It’s not just focusing on one big task. It’s all these little parts. And when they all come together, they don’t always work seamlessly. And so that’s why all of this stuff has to be checked and tested so rigorously.

NARRATOR: At the top of the spacecraft sits the Orion capsule, which carries the four astronauts. Its cabin is 50 percent larger than on Apollo, about the size of a passenger van. But before it can go to the moon it needs to be certified ready to fly.

To do this, engineers are running post-flight tests on the returned capsule from Artemis I.

They start by shaking the capsule, blasting it with extreme noise, equivalent to the sound of 200 jet engines, simulating the most extreme vibrations that might occur during a mission.

The focus today is on the forward bay cover, the cap on top of the capsule, which needs to eject on re-entry, so the parachutes can deploy safely. This happened on Artemis I, but now they’re testing the same mechanism for Artemis II with a replacement forward bay cover.

ROB OVERY (Chief Engineer, NASA Glenn): This takes less than a second for the pyros or explosives to separate that cover. But it takes months to plan, months to make sure that everything is set up. Like, we’re looking here at a catch system. So, the forward bay cover will go into that net; the bungee cords, then, will keep a tension so it stays in that; and then we have very high-speed photogrammetry cameras that are set up with extremely bright lights that are focused on the hardware, so the engineers can analyze it and see if all the systems are performing as expected.

NARRATOR: If any wires or bolts have come loose from the shaking, the mechanism won’t function properly, potentially delaying the launch of Artemis II.

ROB OVERY: Ready to test? All right, let’s go test.

MIKE SARAFIN: Testing does end up requiring more time to be put into the design development process of spacecraft, but it’s necessary, at both the component level and all the way up to the entire system level. That’s how we fly spacecraft safely.

TESTER: On my mark, all fire F.B.C. pyros. Three, two, one…

Yes!

NARRATOR: The forward bay cover has detached cleanly. The capsule’s design has passed its test.

But all is not well with Orion. When Artemis I splashed down, the mission was hailed as a great success. But in reality there were problems with the capsule. When it was hauled onto the recovery ship it was quickly examined by engineers. Their biggest concern, the heatshield. How was it affected by the intense heat of re-entry?

Its epoxy resin tiles were meant to melt and vaporize, taking heat away from the capsule. But it didn’t work out like that.

MAGGIE ADERIN-POCOCK: This report caused quite a stir when it came out. It makes some pretty, sort of, damning claims, really. What I’m looking at here especially is the pictures of the Orion heat shield. What you can see is sort of cavities and some burn marks on these areas. And it is pretty scary, because this is a technology, is going to be used to get people to the moon. And yet there is this degradation.

And the Inspector General actually says “in our judgment the unexpected behavior of the heatshield poses a significant risk to the safety of future crewed missions.” And having something like that written in the report means a response is needed. Something has to change, because this sort charring of the heatshield could risk human life.

ERIC BERGER: The material is ablative, so it sort of burns away slowly. And you expect that, but you didn’t expect chunks of it to fall away like they did.

When you see something that anomalous on a critical system like the heat shield, where there’s no backup, then that really raises your concerns.

BILL NELSON: The technologies that we thought would be ready are not, because there was some charring on Artemis I. That was one of the unexpected things.

NARRATOR: The dangers of re-entry are all too familiar to NASA.

COLUMBIA OBSERVER: It looks like you can see pieces of the shuttle coming off.

MISSION CONTROL: Columbia, Houston, U.H.F. comm check; Columbia, Houston, U.H.F. comm check.

NARRATOR: Damage to the thermal protection system led to the break-up of Columbia on its return to Earth. As with Challenger, seven astronauts lost their lives.

ANDREA LEINFELDER: The space shuttle had two major disasters, and 14 astronauts died. That, that has weighed heavily on NASA, on America, and it’s definitely something that has affected this mission and other human spaceflight missions.

NARRATOR: The launch of Artemis II is postponed, as NASA investigates what went wrong with the heatshield and how best to proceed with the mission.

While engineers search for a solution to the heatshield problem, the astronauts continue training. Today, they’re in the Orion simulator, practicing each maneuver, engine burn and course correction. Even communicating with mission control is a training exercise.

MISSION CONTROL: Copy Brennan, copy.

REID WISEMAN: There is a lot of training. If we were to boil it all down, we could probably get it done in under a year, but we are also flying this vehicle for the first time, so we do need to spend a lot more time than the next crew will have to spend on just all of the what-ifs.

MISSION CONTROL: All right, we’re starting to climb.

CHRISTINE KOCH (Mission Specialist): I see good numbers.

MISSION CONTROL: I concur.

NARRATOR: During the mission, they’ll be testing the human systems that couldn’t be tested on Artemis I: flight control, navigation and life support.

REID WISEMAN: We are talking to the engineers, going through every single detail with them. We’re road-testing the training, we’re road-testing the preparation towards launch, we’re road-testing all of that, that’s our job.

There’s the moon.

CHRISTINE KOCH: Nice.

REID WISEMAN: Looks like we’re pointed in the right direction.

TIM PEAKE: There is no substitute for preparation. There’s no substitute for having an intimate knowledge of what you’re doing. And what that allows you to do is generate options when things go wrong. As we say in the military, “you train hard, you fight easy.”

ERIC BERGER: On the Artemis II mission the astronauts aren’t going to do much flying, they’re going to do some demonstrations, but that’s not essential. Orion could fly itself around the moon. But in emergencies you do want humans flying. That’s what they train for.

MISSION CONTROL: Orion, Houston, looks like a good burn.

REID WISEMAN: Okay, excellent news, Houston. We saw a good burn and all good indications up here, as well.

MAGGIE ADERIN-POCOCK: I often get asked why you put people in space. We have robotic missions, we have A.I., why have humans? To me, they are critical, because they are literally the eyes and the ears of the mission. If something goes wrong you just need that human ingenuity to find solutions.

NARRATOR: NASA had a stark reminder of this in June, 2024, when the Boeing Starliner malfunctioned.

I.S.S. ASTRONAUT: And we have our first views of Starliner from the International Space Station.

ERIC BERGER: The Starliner Mission, that was supposed to fly itself, essentially, to the space station. And as it got, sort of, to within a few kilometers of the space station, thrusters started blinking out. Butch Wilmore, who was the commander of that mission, took control.

BUTCH WILMORE (Starliner Mission): Estimated contact in a little bit more than two minutes.

ERIC BERGER: His actions were pretty heroic in terms of guiding that spacecraft to the space station safely.

BUTCH WILMORE: Capture.

ERIC BERGER: If a human had not been on board, that mission would have been lost.

BUTCH WILMORE: Nice to be attached to the big city in the sky.

NARRATOR: After a two-year investigation into the safety of the heatshield, NASA finally announces its conclusions.

They blame the damage on the skip entry maneuver, which was used on Artemis I, which was used to slow down the capsule during re-entry

PAM MELROY (NASA Deputy Administrator2021–2025): This is a technique we use coming back from the moon, because the velocity is much greater than coming back from low-earth orbit.

TIM PEAKE: They were trying a different re-entry procedure, a skip entry. So, that’s where the spacecraft dips into the earth’s atmosphere once, then it creates a small amount of lift, it exits the earth’s atmosphere, and then it comes back in a second time for the re-entry.

And by doing that skip maneuver it meant that layers of gas were trapped inside the heat shield. So, when it came into Earth’s atmosphere for the second time those gasses had to escape, and that caused cracking and chunks of the heat shield to come off.

NARRATOR: NASA decides to keep the existing heatshield design for Artemis II but to ditch the double dip skip entry. Instead, Artemis II will make what engineers call a ballistic entry, with a single, steeper profile, as if the capsule has been fired like a bullet from a gun.

But will it work?

ERIC BERGER: We don’t know. I mean, engineering, the models, all the modelling suggests it will work. But all of that data suggested that with the skip re-entry on Artemis I, there wouldn’t be heat shield loss. So….

MAGGIE ADERIN-POCOCK: This is a compromise. They’re keeping the existing heat shield because designing a new one would take an awful long time. But with all space missions, there is a risk. They’ve mitigated the risk as much as possible, but there is still always that risk that there could be a catastrophic failure and loss of life.

ERIC BERGER: I do think ultimately, if Artemis is going to be carried out in any kind of a reasonable time line, there will have to be some risk taken. I think we’re seeing that with the Orion heatshield being flown as is on Artemis II.

REID WISEMAN: We’ll be nervous coming in. You can’t be not nervous. But you trust the architecture, you trust the engineering, and it’s going to work out.

JARED ISAACMAN (NASA Administrator): Now, this is the start of a very long journey. We ended our last human exploration of the moon, Apollo 17, the 17th mission. And I hope someday my kids are going to be watching, maybe decades into the future, the Artemis 100 mission. We should be able to undertake repeatable, affordable missions to and from the Moon.

NARRATOR: The S.L.S. rocket rolls slowly out to the launch pad, top speed, zero-point-eight miles per hour.

KRISTIN FISHER (Journalist): You four are about to fly farther into space than any humans have ever flown. But how are you training your families as you get ready to leave them behind on Earth?

REID WISEMAN: I try to train them honestly and openly. With my kids I told them, “Here’s where the will is; here’s where the trust documents are. And if anything happens to me, here’s what’s going to happen to you.”

It’s our families we think about the most on launch day.

NARRATOR: After 12 hours, the rocket arrives at its destination: launch pad 39b.

But in February it has to roll back again into the vehicle assembly building. Engineers have discovered two problems, a hydrogen leak and a helium flow issue.

By March, the rocket has been repaired, and it rolls out again. NASA sets a new launch date, April 1st, 2026.

REID WISEMAN: About nine hours prior to liftoff, we’ll wake up. They’re going to take our temperature, our weight, our blood pressure. Once that’s complete, it’s time to go start getting dressed. And we’ll go into the suit room. They’ll leak-check us, make sure our suit holds pressure. And then when that’s complete, we wait until it’s time to walk out.

From the moment that you walk out to go out to the launchpad, you’re on this extremely choreographed timeline.

MEGAN CRUZ: We are now under an hour from the opening of our two-hour launch window at 6:24 p.m. Eastern Time.

ANDREA LEINFELDER: Rocket science has hundreds or thousands of things that all have to go just right. It all has to be perfect. The rocket has to launch within this window. If it doesn’t launch in this window, it can’t go today.

ERIC BERGER: You get to T minus 10 minutes, 10 minutes to go in the countdown. They’ll pause it there for about 30 minutes. They’ll go through and ask basically everyone if their part of the rocket or the spacecraft is good to go.

JEFF SPAULDING: M.C.O.?

LAUNCH TEAM: T.O. is go.

JEFF SPAULDING: Houston flight?

LAUNCH TEAM: Houston flight is go.

ERIC BERGER: If there’s a reading out of bounds during that time, then the countdown will be stopped and the launch will be scrubbed for the day.

REID WISEMAN: Artemis II crew is go for launch.

CHARLIE BLACKWELL-THOMPSON: I copy that. Good luck. Godspeed, Artemis II. Let’s go.

DERROL NAIL: Ten, nine, eight, seven… RS-25 engines lit.

Four, three, two, one. Booster ignition and lift-off.

ERIC BERGER: Go!

ANDREA LEINFELDER: Oh, my gosh.

DERROL NAIL: The crew of Artemis II, now bound for the moon. Humanity’s next great voyage begins!

MISSION CONTROL: Good roll pitch.

REID WISEMAN: Roger. Roll pitch.

GARY JORDAN: Mission Control Houston seeing good performance in four main engines.

Three miles in altitude, traveling more than 1,200 miles per hour.

NARRATOR: The rocket powers its way into orbit, as designed by the engineers at Marshall Space Flight Center.

GARY JORDAN: Confirm separation. Now passing 5,000 miles per hour.

REID WISEMAN: Houston, Integrity. Good last jettison. Great view.

MISSION CONTROL: Integrity, nominal MECO, core stage separated.

NARRATOR: For this voyage, the crew has renamed their ship Integrity.

It’s now traveling beyond low-earth orbit, heading for the moon.

JEREMY HANSEN (Mission Specialist): We know that there was some talk about some burnt smell from the heaters, so we just thought we’d check in with you.

NARRATOR: The astronauts test the life support systems, exercise for 30 minutes daily...

NASA COMMENTATOR: Christina Koch, taking the camera,…

NARRATOR: …and even deal with a toilet issue …

NASA COMMENTATOR: …to show us a wastewater dump.

NARRATOR: As they adjust to life in Deep Space.

TIM PEAKE: Your body is being bombarded by galactic cosmic rays, and actually we see that, as astronauts, when we’re falling asleep. You close your eyes, and before you actually drop off, you’ll see several flashes like bright streaks of light going across your eye. And you know that that’s a high-energy particle striking the back of your retina. It’s quite pretty to look at, but it’s not when you realize the damage that that could be doing to your body. And that could cause some form of cancer.

VICTOR GLOVER: Good morning, Houston, from inside Integrity.

NARRATOR: On day six, Integrity reaches the moon. The crew will do a seven-hour flyby, capturing high-quality images of the moon’s surface, going farther from Earth than any crew has gone before.

But first, they want to name a crater located at the western edge of the moon’s near side.

JEREMY HANSEN: A number of years ago, we started this journey in our close-knit astronaut family, and we lost a loved one. Her name was Carroll, the spouse of Reid, the mother of Katie and Ellie. And we would like to call it Carroll. And you spell that C-A-R-R-O-L-L.

NARRATOR: On the ground, the science team is receiving live reports as the astronauts fly by the moon, observing different geological features.

VICTOR GLOVER: I think Copernicus is the easternmost feature that we can see: a very nice ring to the north and the south, with a lot of terrain shadow features.

CAPCOM: We are getting a sneak preview from one of our S.A.W. cameras at what you’re looking at, and we see some of what you’re describing. We love it.

ANDREA LEINFELDER: The Artemis II crew has been trained to observe the moon, to find significant features. As a spacecraft goes around the moon, an astronaut can look at a spot from different angles. It might take a spacecraft years to have that trajectory, where they can see all those angles.

CHRISTINA KOCH: Something I've never seen in photographs before but is very apparent. All the new craters, some of them are super tiny. There’s a couple that really stand out, obviously, and they are so bright compared to the rest of the moon.

NARRATOR: The flyby ends with a final flourish: a total solar eclipse, seen from space.

VICTOR GLOVER: The sun has gone behind the moon and the corona is still visible. And it creates a halo almost around the entire moon. But when you get to the Earth side, the Earthshine is already showing, and the moon is just hanging in front of us, this black orb out in front us. Wow, it’s amazing.

REID WISEMAN: No matter how long we look at this, our brains are not processing this image in front of us. There's no adjectives. I'm going to need to invent some new ones to describe what we are looking at out this window.

NARRATOR: But as the sun comes out, it’s time for the Artemis crew to head home.

On day 10, Integrity separates from the service module and falls to Earth.

ERIC BERGER: Re-entry, I think, is probably the most critical part of the mission.

ROB NAVIAS: You can see the reflection of one of the crew members in the window.

ERIC BERGER: You’re testing the Orion heatshield, which had some failure during Artemis I. In terms of pucker factor, for me, that reentry will be the highest part.

MAGGIE ADERIN-POCOCK: There's no getting around it. It is a time of trepidation, and it is one of those moments where you wish them Godspeed.

ROB NAVIAS: And we have crossed the threshold, now entering the earth’s atmosphere. This will be a six-minute blackout period; no voice, no data from the crew.

NARRATOR: Integrity’s traveling 25,000 miles per hour, faster than Artemis I, whose heat shield was badly damaged.

ROB NAVIAS: So that pinpoint of light shows the vehicle, the first tug of gravity being felt by Integrity’s astronauts.

NARRATOR: The minutes tick by.

ROB NAVIAS: We’re getting intermittent views, still waiting to establish voice communication.

MISSION CONTROL: Integrity, Houston comm check post blackout.

REID WISEMAN: Houston, Integrity, we have you loud and clear.

ROB NAVIAS: Big cheers from the viewing room here in Mission Control, as voice communication reestablished with Commander Reid Wiseman.

MISSION CONTROL: We see three good looking parachutes.

REID WISEMAN: Integrity copies.

NARRATOR: NASA’S gamble has paid off. The heatshield has done its job.

REID WISEMAN: Houston, Integrity, splashdown sending post-landing command now.

NARRATOR: Mission accomplished.

ROB NAVIAS: Splashdown confirmed.

The first crew member is out of Integrity.

ERIC BERGER: My hope is that this is just the beginning of not Artemis III, IV, V, but Artemis XXX, L, and then you have a growing community on the moon, potentially on Mars, throughout the solar system. The really hard work for Artemis is still ahead of us.

--- end quoting PBS NOVA Return to the Moon---

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Apr 18, 2026, 4:27:21 AMApr 18

to Plutonium Atom Universe

PBS NOVA of Return to the Moon talks about the rocket equation but not shown in their transcript. Below Wikipedia does show this equation and I have liberally quoted them and their derivation, for I expect to in the coming months or years, use that same math to figure out how the AP Drones with lithium batteries and ion thruster STEP INTO OUTER SPACE from the North Pole Magnetic field like an ever slow ascending balloon and then how the magnetic field BRAKES the space ship as it returns to Earth.

Yes, NASA needs to pull its head out of its arsenal with their antique dinosaur blasting rocket and scrap their rocket junkpile and begin to make space travel up to modern date standards.

--- quoting Wikipedia on the rocket equation---

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A rocket's required mass ratio as a function of effective exhaust velocityratio

The classical rocket equation, or ideal rocket equation is a mathematical equation that describes the motion of vehicles that follow the basic principle of a rocket: a device that can apply acceleration to itself using thrust by expelling part of its mass with high velocity and can thereby move due to the conservation of momentum. The equation is named after—and usually credited to—Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, who derived and published the formula in 1903,^[1]^[2] though William Moore had outlined it as early as 1810^[3] and elaborated further in a book published in 1813.^[4] Robert Goddard and Herman Oberth also obtained the same result in 1912 and 1920, respectively. All four of them reasoned and derived the same model independently.

The maximum change of velocity of the vehicle, (with no external forces acting) is:

where:

is the effective exhaust velocity (which is also equal to )
- is the specific impulse in dimension of time;
- is standard gravity;
is the natural logarithm function;
is the initial total mass, including propellant, a.k.a. wet mass;
is the final total mass without propellant, a.k.a. dry mass.

Given the effective exhaust velocity determined by the rocket motor's design, the desired delta-v (e.g., orbital speed or escape velocity), and a given dry mass , the equation can be solved for the required wet mass :The required propellant mass is then

The necessary wet mass grows exponentially with the desired delta-v.

We can also express this as the ratio of fuel mass to payload mass:and we see that it grows exponentially with

History

The equation is named after Russian scientist Konstantin Tsiolkovsky who independently derived it and published it in his 1903 work.^[1]^[2]

The equation had been derived earlier by the British mathematician William Moore in 1810,^[3] and later published in a separate book in 1813.^[4]

American Robert Goddard independently developed the equation in 1912 when he began his research to improve rocket engines for possible space flight. German engineer Hermann Oberth independently derived the equation about 1920 as he studied the feasibility of space travel.

While the derivation of the rocket equation is a straightforward calculus exercise, Tsiolkovsky is honored as being the first to apply it to the question of whether rockets could achieve speeds necessary for space travel.

Derivation

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Apr 18, 2026, 5:39:05 PMApr 18

to Plutonium Atom Universe

I may as well take advantage of known Balloon math-physics because balloons actually do Step upward.

The question for me though is that the DRONE battery+ion-thruster spaceship would use as much of the strongest North Pole Magnetic Field Lines of Force as possible and so the Stepping into Space by the Drone spaceship would follow a spiral upward climb like a spiral stepcase trying its best to hold onto the strongest Magnetic Lines of Force.

Looks like the math below follows the same math as the Blasting Rocket. Essentially, the Drone takes much longer, whereas the foolish blasting rocket is like a impetuous silly child that wants gratification of hurdling in space in a few seconds.

--- quoting NASA Wyoming Space grant dot org---

Calculate Balloon Ascent Rate

1. Force Balance and Buoyancy

The vertical movement of a helium-filled balloon depends on the sum of the various forces

acting upon it, which we will fall the net force (Fnet). These forces include the upward buoyancy

force (FB) of the inflated balloon, the downward gravitational force exerted upon the helium

inside the balloon (FHe), and the downward gravitational force exerted upon the balloon itself

(Fball). This is written as

𝐹𝐹 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 = 𝐹𝐹 𝐵𝐵− 𝐹𝐹 𝐻𝐻𝑛𝑛− 𝐹𝐹 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 (1)

Within the atmosphere, the buoyancy force exerted on an object or substance (such as helium) is

by definition equal to the weight of the air that the object or substance displaces. Weight is

simply the gravitation force exerted upon an object or substance. Thus, the buoyancy force of the

helium in the balloon is equal to the gravitational force exerted upon the amount of surrounding

air that would otherwise occupy the space filled by the helium, if the balloon and helium were

not there.

The gravitational force is given by

𝐹𝐹 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚

where m is mass and g is the acceleration due to gravity. We also know that 𝑚𝑚 = 𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌, where ρ is

the density of the object or substance and V is its volume. By substitution, this means that

𝐹𝐹 = 𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝑚𝑚

The upward buoyancy force of the balloon can therefore be written as

𝐹𝐹 𝐵𝐵 = 𝜌𝜌𝑏𝑏𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝜌𝜌𝑚𝑚

where ρair is the density of the surrounding air and V is the volume of air displaced by the

balloon. By substituting this into equation (1), we get

𝐹𝐹 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 = (𝜌𝜌𝑏𝑏𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝜌𝜌𝑚𝑚)− 𝐹𝐹 𝐻𝐻𝑛𝑛− 𝐹𝐹 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏

which is also equal to

𝐹𝐹 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 = (𝜌𝜌𝑏𝑏𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝜌𝜌𝑚𝑚)− (𝜌𝜌𝐻𝐻𝑛𝑛𝜌𝜌𝑚𝑚)− (𝑚𝑚𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑚𝑚)

where ρHe is the density of the helium inside the balloon and mball is the mass of the balloon.

Note that the volume of the helium and the volume displaced by the balloon are the same (if we

neglect the very thin width of the balloon’s skin). After some factoring, we arrive at𝐹𝐹 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 = 𝑚𝑚[(𝜌𝜌𝑏𝑏𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎− 𝜌𝜌𝐻𝐻𝑛𝑛)𝜌𝜌 − 𝑚𝑚𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏]

The above equation assumes that the balloon is not also lifting a payload. If a payload is attached

to the balloon, the force of gravity acting upon it (Fpay) must also be included. Thus,

𝐹𝐹 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 = 𝐹𝐹 𝐵𝐵− 𝐹𝐹 𝐻𝐻𝑛𝑛− 𝐹𝐹 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏− 𝐹𝐹 𝑝𝑝𝑏𝑏𝑝𝑝

Going through the same steps as above, we finally arrive at

𝐹𝐹 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 = 𝑚𝑚�(𝜌𝜌𝑏𝑏𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎− 𝜌𝜌𝐻𝐻𝑛𝑛)𝜌𝜌 − 𝑚𝑚𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏− 𝑚𝑚𝑝𝑝𝑏𝑏𝑝𝑝� (2)

where mpay is the mass of the payload. Thus, the greater the volume of helium in the balloon, the

greater the buoyancy force to counteract the gravitational force pulling down on the balloon, the

helium, and the payload.

2. Drag Force

As the balloon moves through the atmosphere, air resistance induces

--- end quoting NASA Wyoming Space grant dot org---

ppp

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Apr 18, 2026, 5:48:50 PMApr 18

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Looks promising as the Balloon Equation is similar to Rocket Equation

--- quoting iowa state digital press dot com---

IV. Balloon Fundamental Motion

ACADEMIC

HIGH-ALTITUDE

CONFERENCE

r Drag Force

F0 =Y.C.,Ai, pv2 r

Velocity, v

Buoyant Force

F8::.!m .-m 8 )g

A. Basic forces and Lift

A di agram of the vertical forces on a balloon is shown in Figure 4-1

assuming a stationary atmosphere (no vertical winds). The upward

buoyant force or Gross Lift is F8 = (ma - mg)*g where m. is the balloon

fill equivalent atmospheric mass that is displaced by the balloon gas

mass, mg, and g=9.8 m/s2 is the acceleration of gravity. Hydrogen gas at

STP has a density of 0.09 kg/cu m and air a density of about 1.2 kg/cu m

which generates a lift of about I. !kg/cum. The balloon gross mass, ma,

includes the mass of the rubber balloon, nlj,, plus the mass of the

payload, mp.so that ma=mb + mp.

The Nozzle Lift is F8 - mb g. payload attached, FL = F8 - W = Fb - ma g.

The Free Lift is the net lift with the

Weight

--- end quoting iowa state digital press dot com---

ppp

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Apr 18, 2026, 6:07:47 PMApr 18

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Dr. Wu gives a brilliant discussion of the Balloon Equation from the Internet at "large dot stanford dot edu courses wu-v2"

He connects Buoyancy with Ideal Gas Law.

Both have the Math Form of A = B x C x D

If we examine the Rocket Equation, it too is of form A = B x C x D, for all exponential or logarithmic formulas are replaceable as straightline formulas. Specific Impulse x standard gravity x Ln(m_o/m_f)

Only difference is rapid ascent in blasting rocket and slow ascent in using Earth Magnetic Field lines-of-force with battery and ion thruster Drone.

I doubt that a 4 crew can utilize a Drone. So the big question is going to be Weight, and whether the Earth Magnetic Field can carry a 2 crew and not a 4 crew.

--- quoting Dr. Wu on Internet about balloon equation---

Hot-Air Balloons Physics: The Relationship between Buoyancy and Temperature Victor Wu
December 14, 2025Submitted as coursework for PH240, Stanford University, Fall 2025Introduction

Fig. 1: Hot-Air Balloons in Cappadocia. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Balloons have a rich history. The very first hot-air balloon was invented by Joseph and Etienne Montgolfier, which attracted "crowds gathered to watch them". [1] After their debut, hot-air balloons have become an important transportation method. Although such an importance gradually decreased as other more efficient transportation memthods emerge (e.g., airplanes and trains), hot-air balloons are still an integral part to the the economy of many regions that depend on tourism. An example of such is shown in Fig 1, with a hot-air balloon flying on top of mountains in Cappadocia. This short article will explore some of the most basic physical principles behind hot-air balloons through simple derivations and calculations.

Hot-Air balloon Mechanisms

Hot-air balloons operate under a relatively simple mechanism. In short, in order to create buoyancy, "ambient air is burned with propane and the hot exhaust gas creates buoyancy". [2] When the net buoyancy exceeds the total weight of the balloon, the balloon will rise and vice versa. To keep the balloon in stable flight (i.e., maintaing a relatively constant height), neutral buoyancy needs to be achieved, in which the net buoyancy force matches approximately with the weight of the balloon.

Buoyancy vs Temperature

Traditionally, the force of buoyancy is given by

F = ρ × g × V

In this formula, F represents the net buoyancy force (i.e., lift), ρ represents air density, g is the acceleration because of earth's gravity, and V represents volume.

As Abe et al. points out in their book, "effective buoyant force" is "a function of the difference in the densities" between "the density of the external air and that of the internal buoyant gas". [3] In other words, the balloon's force of going upwards comes from "a buoyant gas of volume V" being "injected into a balloon". [3] With such knowledge, we can continue our calculation by calculating the effective buoyant force

F = (ρ_out - ρ_in) × g × V

In addition, the ideal gas law is given by

p × V = n × R × T

In this equation, p represents the absolute pressure, n is the number of moles, R is the ideal gas law constant, and T represents Kelvin temperature. The molar form of the law can be derived as

p = ρ × R × T

If we switch the terms around, we will get

ρ = p × R × T

With air outside and inside being similar in both their contents and absolute pressure, we can derive two equations: first, ρin = p ⁄ (R × Tin); second, ρ_out = p ⁄ (R × T_out). Combining the two equations, we obtain

ρ_in = ρ_out × (T_out ⁄ T_in)

If we plug this back into the effective buoyant force equation, we get

F = (ρ_out - (ρ_out × (T_out ⁄ T_in)) × g × V

--- end quoting Dr.Wu on Internet---

ppp

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Apr 18, 2026, 6:16:23 PMApr 18

to Plutonium Atom Universe

On Re-entry to Earth

------------------------------

So the ascent will be at North Pole strongest Magnetic Lines of Force--- interesting biology question as to whether animals or plants seek out or stay away from the Strongest Magnetic Lines of Force??? I would guess that it is warmer spot than surrounding spots and so animals seek out this Line-of-Force.

The Ascent is a Spiralling Stepping into Outer Space, and the return mission should use the North Pole descent without the fiery ball heat shield, as a spiralling down descent using the Magnetic Lines-of-Force as BRAKES.

Here I imagine that we can configure the space craft to sort of Hover using the Lines of Force as brakes. Perhaps a helicopter configuration?

AP, King of Science

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

May 29, 2026, 9:44:54 PM (9 days ago) May 29

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Jeff Bezos & Elon Musk & NASA are immature goons in space travel--- not a one is a grown up.

With their endless waste of time-US taxpayer dollars on dangerous as Hell blasting rockets. Antiques, rust bucket antiques in a modern day era of Drones.

Launch a drone near the North Pole and use the Earth Magnetic Field to boost the drone to the Space Station with its ion batteries and then MIT's ion thruster.

Only science goons still push dangerous as hell blasting rockets. These creaky antique fossils of space travel. When the future of Space travel will be the use of Drones launched at North Pole equipped with lithium batteries and ion thruster. Every time one of the goons launches their rust buckets costs the taxpayer 100 million and wastes the time of all of humanity in their moron understanding of Space travel.

--- quoting BBC---

Exploding rocket casts doubts over NASA's Moon plans

Explosion of Blue Origin rocket is a setback

--- end quoting BBC---

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

May 29, 2026, 9:54:24 PM (9 days ago) May 29

to Plutonium Atom Universe

I am hoping one or two of these pictures will take hold here, from a Google Search of this disaster blow up. Maybe NASA will collect together all its marbles in their head, and then begin to take drones to Greenland and the North Pole and test flight drones to see How High will they go using Earth's Strong Magnetic Field to lift to the Space Station.

The Bezos disaster may change the entire field of Space travel==== DRONES into outer space.

--- quoting Google search hits---

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

May 30, 2026, 4:25:08 AM (9 days ago) May 30

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Shame none of those pictures took hold.

If you had asked me years back if a Drone can carry Fiber Optic, I would have said far-fetched, yet recently we see such drones used in warfare.

So, well, test fly a Drone near the North Pole as launch site and utilize the uplift of Earth's Magnetic Field with lithium battery and ion thruster aboard the drone.

See if it can make it the Space Station.

Then, well, perhaps we can have drones flying from the Moon to Europa all with a fiber optic cable.

While here on Earth blasting rocket goons test out their latest dinosaur antique rust buckets costing taxpayers billions of dollars.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

May 30, 2026, 6:27:45 PM (8 days ago) May 30

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Drone technology for underwater, but no-one except AP bright enough to say--- Drones for space travel instead of the dangerous as hell blasting rockets-- those Musk and Bezo antique rust buckets that just cost taxpayers billions of dollars in time waste.

No govt smart enough to test fly drones off the North Pole to see how high they can fly and reach the Space Station.

--- quoting BBC---

US, UK and Australia to develop underwater drone technology

--- end quoting BBC---

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages