Compact Translunar Rockets for Microsatellites
Brad Guth
questions that are really ulterior naysay loaded, unless those somehow
relate to how I'd like to see this microsatellite form of launcher
configured, whereas obviously the smaller and more composite worthy and
thus lower ratio the better, especially since the 10 kg payload(s) can
offer so much in hard-science from energy efficient micro
instrumentation and just plain old nifty high resolution images from
micro CCD cameras having absolutely terrific optics or even of
extremely low mass mirror obtained telescopic performance that can be
accommodated quite easily within each 10 kg satellite (configured as a
micro spaceplane reentry glider seems perfectly doable).
Since my initial "MICROSATELLITES; how small? How cheap?" topic has
been quite summarily stalked and trashed by all of those nasty little
brown-nosed naysay MIB, that not only have their ulterior motives plus
a wee bit more than their fair share of "the right stuff", but
otherwise are clearly out to pounce upon anyone that's bringing up
notions of ever accomplishing any such reasonable if not exceptionally
impressive rocket/payload ratio, as for deploying of whatever into
orbiting and eventually crash-landing or at least soft-impacting upon
our extremely nearby moon, that which I'd been attempting to suggest by
way of my original topic:
MICROSATELLITES; how small? How cheap?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.history/browse_frm/thread/cf44a7ab4ce942aa/1b1a42ce857675f1#1b1a42ce857675f1
In which case, I'm tossing out most of the old topic and willing to
restart this one from scratch as many times as need be, whereas before
(until I've learn otherwise) I'll be using their very own gold standard
of what our NASA/Apollo galactic record of supposedly having
accomplished their task fairly quickly while at merely 64:1, as per
having created the basis for my notions/arguments of using a mere
fraction of the relative inert mass, that should thereby become capable
of performing the 32:1 task, especially doable if we're using the most
advanced composite/disposable SRB and SRM stages, along with an
efficient core delivery vessel of H2O2/C3H4O, that which combined
should easily get the task accomplished with thrust and/or payload to
spare.
I have these three basic translunar goals of:
1) deploying an individual 10 kg microsatellite = 10 kg
2) of deploying a 10X 10 kg collective at one shot = 100 kg
3) a mother shipment load of 100X 10 kg microsatellites = 1000 kg
Now all that I need is a share of your expertise in order to establish
what's obtainable by way of selections or if need be R&D upon the two
or three stages of a comparatively little composite rocket
configuration that'll seriously kick butt because of it's extremely
slight inert mass. We might eventually call this one the TRANSLUNAR
STINGER.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
for dragging whatever he doesn't happen like into his alt.fan.art-bell,
alt.usenet.kooks or alt whatever else beholds his compatable
disinformation groups, as part of their ongoing damage-control
cesspools of why this Usenet sucks and blows.
Dear Art Deco (aka topic/author hijacking rusemaster of
alt.fan.art-bell),
>Art Deco; Why send leetle teeny satellites to the moon when
>really big ones have already been there.
<http://www.astronautix.com/craft/clentine.htm>
Obviously that's another loaded/naysay derogatory question. However,
Clementine @424 kg was extremely spendy and obviously massive, plus a
rather energy consuming alternative by microsatellite standards. It
also hosted certain DoD applications that only added payload insult to
injury, which ultimately limited what it otherwise could have achieved.
At 356:1 is why it took forever just to get there, whereas much of the
time it remained as way the hell and gone, a good part of the time at
2950 km and closest ever for 5 hours worth at 425 km was still simply
too far away to accomplish all that much good. The cubic density and
physical configuration of Clementine wouldn't have likely survived the
nasty sort of end-of-mission semi-hard if not impact vaporising
landing. Thus 1,000 out of 1,000 spendy Clementines would have failed
their lunar landing phase.
Actually, the Lunar Prospector might have had a 1% chance of something
surviving final impact, especially if having been directed into a large
crater basin that should have offered tens of meters in depth of a very
soft (low surface tension) fill of somewhat nasty moon-dust, solar-dust
and cosmic-dust, thus perhaps 10 out of a thousand such attempts could
have partially survived touching down.
With the 10 kg alternative being so minimal and, somewhat aerobreaking
as a composite shaped body of a shell that's within a tenth of a cubic
meter isn't representing all that much volumetric density, especially
at 1/6th gravity. Therefore, the prospects of a survivable landing
might get as great as 90%, with at least a few of the interactive
science instruments still operational until battery and/or solar PV
energy is exhausted, or the unit gets so badly radiated, summarily
roasted to death or absolutely pulverised clean through if not into
vapor by an incoming speck of sand.
The list of why bother sending microsatellites into such low initial
orbits, only to shortly thereafter terminate into the thick lunar dust
is actually fairly extensive for someone that only knows how to ask
loaded/naysay questions, instead of contributing with the sorts of
positive notions plus answers that should already exist. Basically, we
need a whole lot more moon-science, and of the closer to the deck the
better, with something interactive surviving for a short time on the
deck if at all possible.
First things first, is to come up with at least a good understanding of
whatever a small but viable delivery rocket that will not bust the bank
nor excessively pollute mother Earth can accomplish. Merge that along
with the R&D as to creating the 10 kg microsatellite that'll suit
whatever a given rocket can manage to deploy, as hopefully hosting as
many as 10 each. Thereby getting 100 kg worth of such individual 10 kg
deployments into their initial 25 km (nearly circular) orbits that'll
eventually need a good amount of luck avoiding running smack into a
lunar mountain or crater ridge.
I believe that most if not all of the necessary micro electronics for
the science and camera instruments already exist, and/or can be easily
modified to suit, as perhaps semi-mass produced by the likes of SONY or
perhaps a little of something Chinese is suggesting upon getting these
sophisticated individual microsatellites for tens of thousands instead
of the usual tens of millions each. The details are certainly going to
be extensive but not the least bit insurmountable within existing
expertise and technology as of today.
I have another rather basic question;
Perhaps you should already know of or can otherwise obtain and share
this information without those MIB nondisclosure cops taking your life,
as to sharing upon the most likely sort of aerobreaking/orbital
information that'll ballpark SWAG as to how many passive orbits can be
expected if having started off at 25 km above the lunar deck?
Say if we further qualified that question by way of our using a simple
volume as represented by a 0.1 m3 sphere, having no external
appendages.
If it's sufficiently bad news, we'll simply upward adjust the initial
orbit insertion altitude in order to suit the final outcome that's
desired. I'd like to obtain 1000+ orbits, however if need be I'd take
as few as 100.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
Mention upon the all-solid rocket alternative method of deploying our
Lunar Prospector that took 4.42 days, as nearly 50% longer than the
NASA/Apollo task, of Athena-2 getting that little payload away from the
surface of Earth and obviously safely into orbiting our moon via 764:1
worth of rocket/payload, and lo and behold there's still not one
cheering soul nor a happy camper to being found within the vast Usenet
borg collective of NASA's rusemasters.
Athena-2 (LLV 2 / MX 4 stage all-solid launch vehicle) at 764:1 was
capable of getting the 185 kg as of 30 years after the Saturn-V that
supposedly required less than 64:1. However, try sharing that or even
the warm and fuzzy Clementine results with the likes of "Robert
Juliano" simply isn't a viable option. It's somewhat interesting to
note that Athena-2 was also a privately funded solid propellant
satellite launch vehicle, thus we might actually be able to believe a
good portion of their $26 million per translunar mission capable
deployment that's specifically related to the rocket itself.
http://www.lunar-research-institute.org/images/book/testimony-dr-binder.pdf
The total birth to grave mission of Lunar Prospector was supposedly
limited to $65 million, which I believe by NASA standards is perhaps
10% of their usual mission cost.
Rather oddly, a great many secondary links have been excluded or having
been vaporised within the following Lunar Prospector science document:
http://www.lunar-research-institute.org/science.htm
With regard to the NASA/Apollo Saturn-V;
Robert Juliano says Saturn-V was at 3149 tons = 2857 metric tonnes /
47t = 61:1
Mind yourself that Juliano's 61:1 is a whole lot better off than my
64:1
Obviously wizards like Juliano seem to harbor a typically ulterior (aka
naysay mindset) of a perverted motive and/or a hidden agenda or two
that's not about to ever change for the good, no matters what. For
that I'll have to share the very same high standards and accountability
mindset of your resident warlord(GW Bush), so what's the difference?
Even though I believe Juliano's liftoff tonnage is way short by at
least the factor of his having excluded the payload tonnage, thus if
the Saturn-V tonnage were having been combined along with nearly 60
tonnes of the initial payload plus some lingering tonnage of ice and of
their Launch Escape System(LES) of nearly 4 tons (actually that item
was supposedly a dead amount of weight worth merely an extra 4170 kg),
for the total mass of roughly becoming nearly 3210 tones (2912t metric)
is still somewhat better off than 62:1 at 47t getting into orbit, if
46t being 63.3:1 and, nearly 64.7:1 if the combined payload as placed
into lunar orbit was merely 45t. Either way you'd care to cut into it,
seems as though a 64:1 ratio is a wee bit more than a little
impressive, especially pre SRB/SRM assist as of nearly 4 decades ago.
Also remember that a first stage of LOX/RP-1 is downright wossy
compared to the likes of using a H2O2/RP-1 density, and even that's
seriously wossy density as well as thrust energy deficient compared to
the somewhat testier worth of H2O2/C3H4O. I'm not all that sure that
their first and 2nd stages shouldn't have at least been of H2O2/RP-1,
with only their 3rd stage as LOX/LH2.
H2O2, RP-1 or C3H4O are so much denser elements than LOX or especially
LH2, that are a whole lot more volumetric and inert mass effectively
stored (especially in slush form) than anything of LOX/LH2 that's
having to be ultra sub-frozen and of such low density to boot. The
Saturn-V packed a great deal of inert mass because of the formula of
rocket fuels utilized, and to further top that inert mass insult to
injury off, it clearly had a whole lot more aerodynamic surface
friction to deal with, as well as no SRB/SRM assistance whatsoever
(other than the LES module that to thank their lucky stars never had to
be utilized for it's intended save-thy-butt purpose).
Because of all the Saturn-V hocus pocus rocket-science basis of their
utilizing conditional physics, I'm having to rethink that perhaps my
dream of achieving the highly composite multi-stage translunar rocket
of 32:1 capability simply isn't within the cards, nor is it anywhere
within the regular laws of physics ballpark, just like the 64:1 ratio
wasn't for real if that's having to suggest deploying nearly 47t into
orbiting our moon within less than 3 days.
Perhaps if given 5+ days worth of translunar delivery, whereas the
nearly decade newer and improved Athena-2 could conceivably manage as
great as 260 kg, thus deploying 24 microsatellites of 10 kg each isn't
so bad off if the all-solid multi-stage rocket itself hasn't become too
spendy. However, I'd bet my bottom dollar that kg/kg the likes of
Russia could do as well at ten cents on the failing dollar, and China
at five cents against our failing dollar.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
Gosh folks, the silence about this nifty topic is almost deafening. I
suppose, if I'd started off talking about Athena-2 deploying 24 of my
microsatellites into orbiting the moon, whereas such it's going to be
asking too much from the mainstream status quo.
Mention upon the all-solid rocket alternative method of deploying our
Lunar Prospector that took 4.42 days, as nearly 50% longer than the
NASA/Apollo task, of Athena-2 getting that little payload away from the
surface of Earth and obviously safely into orbiting our moon via 764:1
worth of rocket/payload, and lo and behold there's still not one
cheering soul nor a happy camper to being found within the vast Usenet
borg collective of NASA's rusemasters.
Athena-2 (LLV 2 / MX 4 stage all-solid launch vehicle) at 764:1 was
capable of getting the 185 kg package into lunar orbit as of 30 years
after the Saturn-V that supposedly required less than 64:1. However,
try sharing that or even the warm and fuzzy Clementine results with the
likes of "Robert Juliano" simply isn't a viable option. It's somewhat
interesting to note that Athena-2 was also a privately funded solid
propellant satellite launch vehicle, thus we might actually be able to
believe a good portion of their $26 million per translunar mission
capable deployment that's specifically related to the rocket itself.
http://www.lunar-research-institute.org/images/book/testimony-dr-binder.pdf
The total birth to grave mission of Lunar Prospector was supposedly
limited to $65 million, which I believe by NASA standards is perhaps
10% of their usual mission cost.
Rather oddly, a great many secondary links have been excluded or having
been vaporised within the following Lunar Prospector science document:
http://www.lunar-research-institute.org/science.htm
With regard to the NASA/Apollo Saturn-V;
Robert Juliano says Saturn-V was at 3149 tons = 2857 metric tonnes /
47t = 61:1
Mind yourself that Juliano's 61:1 is a whole lot better off than my
64:1
Obviously wizards like Juliano seem to harbor a typically ulterior (aka
naysay mindset) of a perverted motive and/or a hidden agenda or two
that's not about to ever change for the good, no matters what. For
that I'll have to share the very same high standards and accountability
mindset of your resident warlord(GW Bush); so what's the difference?
Brad Guth
other reasoning "rocket scientist" qualified, yet somehow they and
their kind seem to know all there is to know, that is just as long as
it perpetuates their social/political/religious brown-nosed minion
mainstream status quo of their Third Reich NASA/Apollo perpetrated
cold-war ruse/sting of the century. Yet lo and behold, here they are
diverting my topic into their personal cesspool of disinformation-R-us
(aka damage control) Usenet group(s).
More proof positive that I'm still sufficiently right as rain, and that
these pagan fools are not even close.
-
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
donsto...@hotmail.com
other reasoning "rocket scientist" qualified, yet somehow they and
their kind seem to know all there is to know, that is just as long as
it perpetuates their social/political/religious brown-nosed minion
mainstream status quo of their Third Reich NASA/Apollo perpetrated
cold-war ruse/sting of the century.
***************
Could you go to the board and diagram that sentence please, Brad?
Brad Guth
-
Brad Guth
mbb...@mighty.co.za
> Neither Art Deco or Bookman are in any fashion of the phrase or by any
> other reasoning "rocket scientist" qualified, yet somehow they and
> their kind seem to know all there is to know, that is just as long as
> it perpetuates their social/political/religious brown-nosed minion
> mainstream status quo of their Third Reich NASA/Apollo perpetrated
> cold-war ruse/sting of the century. Yet lo and behold, here they are
> diverting my topic into their personal cesspool of disinformation-R-us
> (aka damage control) Usenet group(s).
STFU, Guth.
> More proof positive that I'm still sufficiently right as rain, and that
> these pagan fools are not even close.
Right as rain? I think we need to call for Foamy's opinion on that one.
Bookman
>Brad Guth wrote:
>> Neither Art Deco or Bookman are in any fashion of the phrase or by any
>> other reasoning "rocket scientist" qualified,
Neither are you, Guthball, yet you still keep k'laming to "know" the
"truth" that the factual historical events, i.e. the 6 Apollo
landings, did not happen.
>>yet somehow they and
>> their kind seem to know all there is to know,
That's your k'lame, not my claim, Bratty.
>>that is just as long as
>> it perpetuates their social/political/religious brown-nosed minion
>> mainstream status quo of their Third Reich NASA/Apollo perpetrated
>> cold-war ruse/sting of the century.
...and the inevitable descent into name-calling, the way teh Guthball
always does when one fails to agree with his ko0ky "theories".
(And they aren't even really theories, because teh Guthball doesn't
"do" science.)
>>Yet lo and behold, here they are
>> diverting my topic into their personal cesspool of disinformation-R-us
>> (aka damage control) Usenet group(s).
Your "topic" is mostly name-calling and self-justification in service
of your ko0ky delusions.
>
>STFU, Guth.
STFU, Guth.
>
>> More proof positive that I'm still sufficiently right as rain,
People making fun of your go0fy notions don't "prove" that
they are "right", Guthball.
>and that
>> these pagan fools are not even close.
What "evidence" do you have that I'm a "pagan", ko0kboi?
Oh, that's right - you'll latch on to any kind of name-calling, won't
you?
>
>Right as rain? I think we need to call for Foamy's opinion on that one.
Good idea.
<Snip Brad's ko0klinks>
ESL!
--
Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Keeper of the Nickname Lists
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
Monthly Hammer of Thor award, October 2005
"I'd love to kill you in a ring" - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely
"****SPV....... So yes I am an idiot."
"ASK THE NWS, YOUR TAX DOLLAR GOES TO THEM NOT TO DR.TURI."
- Mr. Turi explains how to accurately predict hurricanes
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/afa-b/
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/afa-b/index.html
OM
wrote:
><Snip Brad's ko0klinks>
<PLONK>
...You net.kooks bozos are just as bad as the trolls.
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
Michael Baldwin Bruce
> On 23 Jan 2006 04:22:19 -0800, mbb...@mighty.co.za wrote:
>
> >Brad Guth wrote:
> >> Neither Art Deco or Bookman are in any fashion of the phrase or by any
> >> other reasoning "rocket scientist" qualified,
>
> Neither are you, Guthball, yet you still keep k'laming to "know" the
> "truth" that the factual historical events, i.e. the 6 Apollo
> landings, did not happen.
He has detailed files, Bruce.
> >>yet somehow they and
> >> their kind seem to know all there is to know,
>
> That's your k'lame, not my claim, Bratty.
>
> >>that is just as long as
> >> it perpetuates their social/political/religious brown-nosed minion
> >> mainstream status quo of their Third Reich NASA/Apollo perpetrated
> >> cold-war ruse/sting of the century.
>
> ...and the inevitable descent into name-calling, the way teh Guthball
> always does when one fails to agree with his ko0ky "theories".
> (And they aren't even really theories, because teh Guthball doesn't
> "do" science.)
>
> >>Yet lo and behold, here they are
> >> diverting my topic into their personal cesspool of disinformation-R-us
> >> (aka damage control) Usenet group(s).
>
> Your "topic" is mostly name-calling and self-justification in service
> of your ko0ky delusions.
Its his kind of "science", Bruce.
> >STFU, Guth.
> STFU, Guth.
STFU, Guth.
> >> More proof positive that I'm still sufficiently right as rain,
>
> People making fun of your go0fy notions don't "prove" that
> they are "right", Guthball.
>
> >and that
> >> these pagan fools are not even close.
>
> What "evidence" do you have that I'm a "pagan", ko0kboi?
> Oh, that's right - you'll latch on to any kind of name-calling, won't
> you?
>
> >
> >Right as rain? I think we need to call for Foamy's opinion on that one.
>
> Good idea.
No sign of Foamy yet. It must be snowing in teh Poconos, Bruce. Rain
gauge not working.
> <Snip Brad's ko0klinks>
>
> ESL!
AOL!
OM
<mbb...@mighty.co.za> wrote:
>Its his kind of "science", Bruce.
<PLONK>. Bruce.
Brad Guth
Noticing how all the Usenet contributions of this topic are into doing
their usual sucking and blowing, as such It's time that I contributed a
few of my recent learnings about actual rocket-science.
In spite of what others haven't been sharing and otherwise of the few
nice folks like Steven S. Pietrobon and his friend Linder Metts that
are smart enough to stay away from this Usenet that sucks and blows,
yet seem to have no problems with their having shared a gift for being
the honest rocket-scientist types. This why I'm re-thinking about
getting my microsatellites of 10 kg each into orbiting our moon is
still a bit easier said than accomplished without involving such a
great deal of mainstream status quo bashings and banishment, of dealing
with their continual taboo/nondisclosure and/or need-to-know gauntlet
with regard to rocket/payload ratios (short of our having to go with
Willian Mook's nuclear impulse alternatives), in that it's not going to
get much better off than 128:1 unless a collective of ten or more of
these microsatellites are packaged upon a compact version of a
H2O2/C3H4O slush-LRB core using two or three composite/disposable SRBs,
plus the likes of a STAR kicker as 3rd stage might even conceivably get
this notion down to the 64:1 alternative (a goal of merely 6400 kg
including the payload of getting 100 kg deployed into orbiting our
moon, or if given a great deal of transit time these sorts of
microsatellites could be configured for orbiting if not floating close
to the surface of Venus).
At $45 million, the all-solid 3-stage J-1A is simply way too spendy and
not even all that likely to get a 100 kg payload past LL-1. Whereas
the 3-stage all-solid Athena-2 at perhaps $30 millions might
accommodate 260 kg or even a bit more if taking the somewhat longer way
about getting there. However, the reusable LRB of what's suggested by
Steven Pietrobon as having an inert mass of 53.5t could by it's self
become just the best ever core ticket to ride, especially if composites
were utilized that shouldn't have any problem in cutting 25% away from
the inert mass, making it worth 40t, and perhaps becoming as little as
27t if given a Viking burial (meaning disposable), suggesting that a
SSTO and a TSTTO (two stage to translunar orbit) could become doable if
the final upper kicker stage were that of a carbon/basalt composite
formulated SRM, thus minimal inert mast STAR-37XFP or STAR 48A were
utilized.
Because our 2018 CEV on a stick fiasco is having to make due with being
a ways off equator, and going for the altitude of ISS, is likely to end
up representing 44:1 if not 45:1 instead of their current SWAG of 39:1,
as representing the requirement just for accomplishing that first leg,
plus that much effort again if that were for reaching GSO as per
hauling the same inert plus spare fuel payload and, if there's a need
(as there damn well should be) for accommodating the expendable though
necessary retrothrusting fuel loads past LL-1 should perhaps represent
an overall 3 X LEO demand of 135:1 for having to reach the moon along
with that sufficient extra tonnage of fuel on behalf of retrothrusting
and obviously a little something in reserve for their get-home.
If their own specified Saturn-V example of 57:1 actually represents the
original NASA/Apollo task of having to get something greater than 51t
so quickly past LL-1 (William Mook having stipulated 58.3t), as then we
may have a wee little bit bigger problem, especially if all of that
transfer of such tonnage transpired so quickly.
>From Earth to the moon is now suggested by 135/57 = 2.37 fold greater
task by way of the newest of applied rocket-science than what their
original Saturn-V supposedly accomplished as of nearly 50 years prior
to the year 2018, and having accomplished that task within slightly
over 3 days (75 hrs) worth of getting from ground zero into lunar
orbit. It's actually about the 3 day's that I'm not certain is all
that stick doable unless the new ratio is given a little extra benefit,
in order to match or better their supposed Saturn-V gold-standard of
being equivalent to 75 hrs.
I'm not sure about this part, although it seems any notions of cutting
that time of arrival by 25% might require half again the energy in
order to accomplish the translunar task in 56 hrs, and a 50% reduction
to 37.5 hrs might become a rather hefty demand of taking twice the
rocket/payload ratio. Therefore whatever reductions in inert mass
seems key to the formula, whereas the LRB of H2O2/C3H4O instead of SRBs
seems to fit that criteria just fine and dandy, even as second stage
the LRBLRM of h2o2/c3h4o looks perfectly viable.
Therefore, it's time to re-focus upon the H2O2/RP-1 or better yet, upon
the H2O2/C3H4O LRB/LRM alternatives that's kg/kg worth 50% more payload
than any reusable SRBs, as still a good 25% better off than most any
disposible SRMs. At least that's the current SWAG of what I'm pulling
from this following link.
High Density Liquid Rocket Boosters for the Space Shuttle
http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/pub/lrb.pdf
The LRB has the same propellant mass as the shuttle SRB of 501.8t
Computer simulations indicate that payload mass can be increased by a
third from 24,950 kg
to 33,140 kg for a 28.45°, 203.7 km circular orbit.
The HTML (no copy) version of the
abovehttp://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:d6RJz_mJX0gJ:www.sworld.com.au/steven/pub/lrb.pdf+SRB+1000+kg&hl=en
Space Shuttle Simulation Program
http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/shuttle/sim/
If mere replacement of the SRBs with the much less inert mass of these
LRBs of H2O2/Kero or I'm assuming RP-1 is what's good enough for such a
conservative 33% boost in payload, then without question the H2O2/C3H4O
should become worthy for nearly a 50% boost in LEO payload, and/or
achieving the same payload at roughly half the LRB mass, by way of
offering far better then a LOX/RP-1 match for achieving the maximum 1st
stage velocity and altitude, whereas considerably less inert massive,
and even remaining sufficiently exhaust velocity suitable for a 2nd
stage core application seems worth our looking into.
Sorry for all of my usual confusing words plus math that's not always
correct, or that of my interpretations of what's most important isn't
improtant to those that already seem to know all there is to know. As
I manage to learn more on this typically need-to-know basis, at least
I'll share without ulterior motives or the sorts of hidden agendas that
the vast majority of Usenet rusemasters seem to be continually involved
with.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
I'm still taking notice as to how most all the Usenet contributions of
this and most any other topic I've posted have been accomplishing their
usual brown-nose butt sucking and blowing on behalf of protecting their
mainstream status quo (very Third Reich collaborating like), as such
It's time once again that I continue returning the favor by way of
contributing a few recent edits plus my recent learnings about actual
rocket-science that actually matters.
This research and subsequent learning curve is still progressing in
spite of what others haven't been sharing and otherwise benefitting
from the few nice folks like Steven S. Pietrobon and his friend Linder
Metts that have been smart enough to stay sufficiently away from this
Usenet that sucks and blows, yet seem to have no problems with their
having shared a gift for being the honest rocket-scientist types. This
why I'm re-thinking about getting my microsatellites of 10 kg each into
orbiting our moon is still a bit easier said than accomplished without
involving such a great deal of mainstream status quo bashings and
banishment, of dealing with their continual taboo/nondisclosure and/or
need-to-know gauntlet with regard to rocket/payload ratios (short of
our having to go with Willian Mook's nuclear impulse alternatives), in
that it's not going to get much better off than 128:1 unless a
collective of ten or more of these microsatellites are packaged upon a
compact version of a H2O2/C3H4O slush-LRB core using two or three
composite/disposable SRBs, plus the likes of a STAR kicker as 3rd stage
might even conceivably get this notion down to the 64:1 alternative (a
goal of merely 6400 kg including the payload of getting 100 kg deployed
into orbiting our moon, or if given a great deal of transit time these
sorts of microsatellites could be configured for orbiting if not
floating close to the surface of Venus).
At $45 million, the all-solid 3-stage J-1A is simply way too spendy and
outdated that it's not even all that likely to get a 100 kg payload
past LL-1. Whereas the 3-stage all-solid Athena-2 at perhaps $30
millions might accommodate 260 kg or even a bit more if taking the
somewhat longer way about getting there. However, the reusable LRB of
what's suggested by Steven Pietrobon as having an inert mass of 53.5t
could by it's self become just the best ever core worthy ticket to
ride, especially if composites were utilized that shouldn't have any
problem in cutting 25% away from the existing inert mass, making it
worth all of 40t, and perhaps becoming as little as 27t if given a
proper Viking burial (meaning fully composite disposable), suggesting
that a SSTO and a TSTTO (two stage to translunar orbit) could become
doable if the final upper kicker stage were that of a carbon/basalt
composite formulated SRM, thus minimal inert mast STAR-37XFP or STAR
48A were utilized.
Because our 2018 CEV fiasco on a stick is having to make due with being
a ways off equator, and going for the altitude of ISS, is likely to end
up representing 44:1 if not 45:1 instead of their current SWAG of 39:1,
as representing the requirement just for accomplishing that first leg,
plus that much effort again if that were for reaching GSO as per
hauling the same inert plus spare fuel payload and, if there's a need
(as there damn well should be) for accommodating the expendable though
necessary retrothrusting fuel loads past LL-1 should perhaps represent
an overall 3 X LEO demand of 135:1 for having to reach the moon along
with that sufficient extra tonnage of fuel on behalf of retrothrusting
and obviously a little something in reserve for their get-home.
If their own specified Saturn-V example of proposing that 57:1 is what
actually represents the gospel holy grail truth as to the original
NASA/Apollo task of having to get something greater than 51t so quickly
past LL-1 (William Mook having stipulated 58.3t), as then we may have
established a wee little bit bigger problem, especially if all of that
transfer of such tonnage had to have transpired so quickly.
>From Earth to the moon is now suggested by 135/57 = 2.37 fold greater
task by way of the newest of applied rocket-science than what their
original Saturn-V supposedly accomplished as of nearly 50 years prior
to the year 2018, and having accomplished that task within slightly
over 3 days (75 hrs) worth of getting from ground zero into lunar
orbit. It's actually about the 3 day's that I'm not certain is all
that stick doable unless the new ratio is given a little extra benefit,
in order to match or better their supposed Saturn-V gold-standard of
being equivalent to 75 hrs.
I'm still not entirely sure about this part, although it seems any
notions of cutting that time of arrival by 25% might suggest half again
the energy in order to accomplish the translunar task in 56 hrs, and a
50% reduction to 37.5 hrs might become a rather hefty demand of taking
twice the rocket/payload ratio. Therefore whatever reductions in inert
mass seems key to the formula, whereas the LRB of H2O2/C3H4O instead of
using SRBs seems to fit that criteria just fine and dandy, even as
second stage the LRB/LRM of h2o2/c3h4o looks perfectly viable.
On the brighter side of what's been worth doing something about. Using
expendable composite SRBs and certainly far better yet would involve
using the much lighter inert mass of what the LRB alternatives that
existed at the time would have been a win-win all the way around.
Therefore, it's time to re-focus upon the H2O2/RP-1 or better yet, upon
the H2O2/C3H4O LRB/LRM alternatives that's kg/kg worth 50% more payload
than any reusable SRBs, as still offering a good 25% better off payload
capability than most any disposible SRBs/SRMs. At least that's the
current SWAG of what I'm pulling from this following link.
This is what Steven S. Pietrobon and his friend Linder Metts have had
to contribute:
High Density Liquid Rocket Boosters for the Space Shuttle
http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/pub/lrb.pdf
The LRB of h2o2/rp-1 has nearly the same propellant mass as the shuttle
SRB of 501.8t
Computer simulations indicate that payload mass can be increased by a
third from 24,950 kg
to 33,140 kg for a 28.45°, 203.7 km circular orbit.
The HTML (no copy) version of the
abovehttp://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:d6RJz_mJX0gJ:www.sworld.com.au/steven/pub/lrb.pdf+SRB+1000+kg&hl=en
Space Shuttle Simulation Program
http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/shuttle/sim/
If the mere upgrade of the existing SRBs with the much less inert mass
of these LRBs of H2O2/Kero or I'm assuming RP-1 is good enough for
achieving such a conservative 33% boost in LEO payload, then without
question the extra 40% benefit of the H2O2/C3H4O improved density over
H2O2/RP-1 and still affording a slightly better Isp of 350 that's
similar to if not better Isp than most SRBs seems perfectly doable.
LRBs of the h2o2/c3h4o formula should thereby become worthy of nearly a
50% boost in LEO payload, and/or achieving the same payload as SRBs at
roughly half the LRB mass.
By way of having offered far better then a LOX/RP-1 match for achieving
the maximum 1st stage velocity and altitude, whereas taking
considerably less inert massive, and even as having remained
sufficiently exhaust velocity suitable for a 2nd stage core application
seems worth our looking into.
RP-1 = C12H24 (H2O2/RP-1 is thereby a somewhat cleaner burn though not
quite as of thrust energy worthy as for using plain old
Kerosene/hexadecane C12H26). However, it seems that each of those are
seriously dragging rocket butt when it comes down to the application of
what an LRB using H2O2/C3H4O has to offer that's clearly far better yet
than SRBs, and even better off than composite/disposable SRBs because,
if need be LRBs can also become composite/disposables.
PROPARGYL ALCOHOL / Acrolein = C3H4O / CHCCH2OH
2-Propyn-1-ol as C3H4O / CH CCH2OH having the molecular mass: 56.1
http://www.emsdiasum.com/microscopy/technical/msds/10100.pdf
PRODUCT NAME: propargyl alcohol, structurally "methyl acetylene
alcohol"
CAS NO. 107-02-8
MOLECULAR FORMULA: C3H40
VAPOR DENSITY: 1.94
SPECIFIC GRAVITY: 0.839 (@25°C) (< 0.095 g/cm3 at extreme slush mode)
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/MHMI/mmg124.html
http://www.dunnspace.com/alternate_ssto_propellants.htm
http://yarchive.net/space/rocket/fuels/propargyl_alcohol.html
"Propargyl alcohol is even better with hydrogen peroxide - a model
peroxide/propargyl alcohol SSTO puts about 40% more payload into orbit
than peroxide/kerosene."
"In addition to being energetic, it is dense at 944 kg/m^3 (vs. about
800 kg/m^3 for kerosene)."
http://www.chemicalland21.com/arokorhi/industrialchem/solalc/PROPARGYL%20ALCOHOL.htm
PROPARGYL ALCOHOL SPECIFIC GRAVITY - slush at 0.96~0.97 g/cm3
http://www.dunnspace.com/alternate_ssto_propellants.htm
"H2O2/propargyl alcohol yields roughly 40% more payload than H2O2/RP-1"
40% is offering a rather significant advantage, especially if a portion
of that performance enhancement goes along with reducing the inert/dry
mass of the delivery rocket. Smaller rockets means a lower ratio of
total rocket mass to payload mass, accommodating either more payload
and/or smaller and less complex rockets of essentially LRB/SSTO+SRM
kicker.
Sorry for my usual wall of words, plus whatever's math that's not
always correct, or that of my interpretations of what's most important
that isn't the least bit improtant to those that already seem to know
all there is to know. Hoerver, as I manage to learn more on this
Michael Gallagher
wrote:
>
>I have these three basic translunar goals of:
>1) deploying an individual 10 kg microsatellite = 10 kg
>2) of deploying a 10X 10 kg collective at one shot = 100 kg
>3) a mother shipment load of 100X 10 kg microsatellites = 1000 kg
>
I went into more detail in the thread you abandoned. Based on charts
in *The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space Exploration,* payloads of
this size to the Moon were sent by nothing bigger than an Atlas
Centaur (now known as "Atlas") and nothing smaller than the precursors
to the Delta 2. Athena 2 might have broken that rule, mainly because
it was solid fueled, but you couldn't get much smaller than that.
>Now all that I need is a share of your expertise in order to establish
>what's obtainable by way of selections or if need be R&D upon the two
>or three stages of a comparatively little composite rocket
>configuration that'll seriously kick butt because of it's extremely
>slight inert mass. We might eventually call this one the TRANSLUNAR
>STINGER.
>-
Reveolutions in propulsion and structural design, because the Delta 2
is realistically the smallest existing booster we can use for
interplanetary missions.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
OM
<mike...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I went into more detail in the thread you abandoned.
...Why the fuck did you bother? Please, just killfile the retarded,
child-molested bastard and put him out of our misery! Enough is
enough!
Brad Guth
Thanks for the positive feedback on those two alternatives, which seem
well proven though still somewhat spendy, especially the Delta 2 at
$60+ million.
I totally agree that the Athena 2 has more than proven it's capability,
of which I'm certain as is can be tweaked into giving us 240~260 kg
deployed into lunar orbit.
I was wondering if the upgrade to Athena 2 were to involve a great deal
of carbon/basalt composites, that if such a great deal of inert mass
could be eliminated from the original 9,812 kg, say cut by 25% would
make the new and improved inert mass 7,359 kg, and especially if that
inert mass savings of 2453 kg were replaced with extra solid-fuel and
more payload. How much extra payload to the moon are we talking about?
Second question has to do with the Steven Pietrobon LRB upgrade of
having that better than all-solid method using h2o2/c3h4o instead of
his original h2o2/kero <http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/pub/lrb.pdf>,
which beggs the same question as to how much extra rocket/payload per
translunar ratio performance are we looking at. Whereas it seems this
method of using a slush-liquid core of h2o2/c3h4o should have the
capability of accomplishing the task at a much better ratio (meaning it
involves less liftoff inert mass than offered by the Athena 2 that's
already proven as good gor better than 185 kg), especially if the LRB
core had two or three composite/disposible SRBs, plus a final Star SRM
kicker stage?
Ideally, I'd like to see the capability of deploying 100 each of the
microsatellites per shot, thus we'd need to explore the possibility of
a 1,000+ kg payload. However, for the moment I'd settle for the 100+
kg capability of deploying 10 units, especially if that could be
accomplished at less than half the Athena 2 configuration. Or should I
have been asking this question to Steven Pietrobon, as to what his LRB
alternative to whatever the all-solid has to offer?
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
Delta 2.
How about the LRB h2o2/c3h4o potential?
Or, is that one too much taboo/nondisclosure (aka need to know)?
Seems as though the first stage as perhaps 3 x LRBs and second or core
stage could also be of that h2o2/c3h4o formula, then a couple of
solids.
How about a pair or perhaps 3 small LRBs and the Athena-2 ?
Seems that combination should surpass the translunar 1+t mark, with
energy to spare.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
another sting upon the environment.
topic: least polluting rocket fuel
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.tech/browse_frm/thread/5d4ccc841ca15f08/c24dc1d465fb3dab#c24dc1d465fb3dab
This topic goes on and on about the usage of LH2/LXO as though such
rocket fuel is being perfectly clean and thus environmentally friendly,
but then they'd just as soon ignore the vast amounts of coal, oil and
NG that was extracted or mined, sorted, processed, shipped and
subsequently burned extremely badly with vast amount of our mostly N2
atmosphere in order to have converted such into the original energy it
takes for having created the likes of LH2 and LO2, not to mention upon
the fair share of lives taken, as well as their having excluded the
massive infrastructure and other needs of having safely stored, shipped
and otherwise managing that nasty LH2/LO2 stuff, then involving final
LH2/LO2 individual transports and only then comes the final destination
as it's transferred into the clean burning rocket.
Ian Woollard offers some words of wisdom;
>Hydrogen is only less polluting if you make it in a non polluting way,
>but hydrogen is actually commercially manufactured from methane; is
>energy intensive and probably generates more CO2 than a rocket burning
>kerosene would.
>(Manufacturing hydrogen from electrolysis of water using nuclear power,
>in principle is clean, but is never done on a large scale; the energy
>required is prohibitive.)
I've learned by the somewhat typically under-estimating methods (aka
William Mook) that seldom if ever takes into account for the required
infrastructure nor after process losses, such as having to deal with
the somewhat testy cryogenic storage and/or of the extra spendy plus
energy consuming transporting factors, whereas it's only taking the
initial hefty draw upon the grid of having to extract 50 kwhr/kg of
what's driving the electrolysis process for managing the conversion
from pure water into the raw elements of frozen LH2/LO2. Perhaps all
and all, the entire process from birth to grave is where we're actually
talking about using up 100 kw/kg of whatever gets devoured by the
hundreds of tonnes in minutes by the given rocket. That's merely
100,000 kwhr/tonne worth of electrical and/or other energy that
obviously had to come from somewhere.
Of course the horrific exhaust plum isn't exactly atmospheric friendly,
meaning the impact upon the mostly N2 atmosphere of Earth throughout
launch phase is not merely a contribution of water, but also having
created a nasty worth of nitrogen oxides along the path. In addition
to having badly interacted with good old Nitrogen, there's also the
rather obvious contribution of the raw thermal energy impact to our
already global warming situation. Even the "Ian Woollard" contribution
that offers a somewhat better perspective isn't taking a full
accounting look-see at the total situation of what raw amounts of
energy it takes per tonne of whatever gets launched into space. Ian
Woollard's "vegetable oils to replace kerosene with minimal
modification to the engines" has even managed to exclude upon the far
better alternative of producing and consuming the likes of c3h4o along
with h2o2.
The example offered by the New Horizons mission involved a total
rocket/payload ratio of 1233:1, meaning if a tonne of payload were to
be shot off into space at the same velocity would involve nearly 1000
tonnes worth of liquid and solid fuel expenditures, most of which
having transpired within the global and gravitational confinements of
our environment, whereas most everything that goes up shall eventually
contribute towards warming and somewhat polluting our environment by
that amount of expended energy, plus having previously contributed
whatever R&D and final assembly it took prior to launch.
That's were I'm thinking, for much of whatever's not representing a
whole lot greater than 1.25 tonne (possibly 1.5t maximum), it seems an
LRB assisted Athena-2 (aka LMLV2 w/LRBs) should become the far better
alternative to that of using the spendy Delta 2 configuration.
Thereby, for getting 1.25+t deployed into lunar orbit is where the LRB
assisted Athena-2 configuration would insure sufficient capability of
deploying 100 each of the 10 kg microsatellites, along with ample
payload to spare.
QUESTION: Exactly how much consideration is necessary for the LRB
h2o2/c3h4o potential?
Or, is the LRB assisted notion going to remain as taboo/nondisclosure
(aka need to know)?
Seems as though, if to be starting this rocket configuration from
scratch, outfitting as the first stage a pair or possibly 3 x LRBs and
then having the second or what I'd call the mid/core stage that could
also be of that very same h2o2/c3h4o formula, then at most a couple of
SRMs for the remainder of getting the utmost bang capability of
deploying 1500+ kg past the LL-1 with sufficient velocity is doable,
whereas the final parking orbit for the microsatellite deployments
might utilize a small version of the h2o2/c3h4o for the necessary
retrothrust of getting the robotic mothership into orbiting at perhaps
as low as 25+ km.
The mothership could certainly be a whole lot more than a mission data
transponder on behalf of the brude of microsatellites, whereas it could
be configured as an updated Lunar Prospector, hosting ten fold better
resolution plus other greatly enhanced science instruments that could
be sustained in a similar polar orbit for a good year past the expected
2 month lifespan of the deployed microsatellites.
The original Lunar Prospector started it's mission payload off at
roughly 295 kg, ending 19 months later at 126 kg worth of dry/inert
mass.
How about a pair or perhaps using 3 LRBs and the Athena-2 as the
3-stage core, making essentially a 4-stage rocket?
Seems perfectly reasonable that such a combination of LRBs with
something of all-solids should surpass the translunar 1.5+t mark, along
with extra payloads and energy to spare. It also seems rational that
the production of and total birth to grave aspects of h2o2/c3h4o is a
whole lot less energy demanding intensive in the first place, and it's
certainly much easier to store and otherwise manage than the ordeal of
what LH2/LO2 imposes.
Not the least bit surprising is the usual intellectual black hole
banishment treatment or dead silence as coming from the supposed
all-knowing lords and wizards of Usenet sci.whatever, as to what little
they thought of HSSI having created LRI with Dr. Allan Binder's -Lunar
Prospector- team taking the point, getting somewhat of the usual
banishment treatment as par for the course upon most anything that's
privately related research upon our moon, whereas I've only located one
extremely old (Scott E McWilliams Feb 6 1992) as a pre mission Usenet
topic that even so much as mentioned his name. Perhaps "Dr. Allan
Binder" wasn't sufficiently Jewish or Third Reich brown-nosed to suit
the fundamental Skull and Bones cultism of this Usenet that sucks and
blows.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
topic: least polluting rocket fuel
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.tech/browse_frm/thread/5d4ccc841ca15f08/c24dc1d465fb3dab#c24dc1d465fb3dab
This topic goes on and on about the usage of LH2/LXO as though such
rocket fuel is being perfectly clean and thus environmentally friendly,
but then they'd just as soon ignore the vast amounts of coal, oil and
NG that was extracted or mined, sorted, processed, shipped and
subsequently burned extremely badly with vast amount of our mostly N2
atmosphere in order to have converted such into the original energy it
takes for having created the likes of LH2 and LO2, not to mention upon
the fair share of lives taken, as well as their having excluded the
massive infrastructure and other needs of having safely stored, shipped
and otherwise managing that nasty LH2/LO2 stuff, then involving final
LH2/LO2 individual transports and only then comes the final destination
as it's transferred into the clean burning rocket.
Ian Woollard offers some words of wisdom;
>Hydrogen is only less polluting if you make it in a non polluting way,
>but hydrogen is actually commercially manufactured from methane; is
>energy intensive and probably generates more CO2 than a rocket burning
>kerosene would.
>(Manufacturing hydrogen from electrolysis of water using nuclear power,
>in principle is clean, but is never done on a large scale; the energy
>required is prohibitive.)
I've learned by the somewhat typically under-estimating methods (aka
William Mook) that which seldom if ever takes into account for the
required infrastructure nor after process losses, such as having to
deal with the somewhat testy cryogenic storage and/or of the extra
spendy plus energy consuming transporting factors, whereas it's only
taking the initial hefty draw upon the grid of having to extract 50
kwhr/kg of what's driving the electrolysis process for managing the
conversion from pure water into the raw elements of frozen LH2/LO2.
Perhaps all and all, the entire process from birth to grave is where
we're actually talking about using up 100 kw/kg of whatever gets
devoured by the hundreds of tonnes in minutes by the given rocket.
That's merely 100,000 kwhr/tonne worth of electrical and/or other
energy that obviously had to come from somewhere.
Of course the horrific exhaust plume isn't exactly atmospheric
friendly, meaning the impact upon the mostly N2 atmosphere of Earth
throughout the launch phase is not merely a contribution of water, but
also having created a nasty worth of nitrogen oxides along the path.
In addition to having badly interacted with good old Nitrogen, there's
also the rather obvious contribution of the raw thermal energy impact
to our already global warming situation. Even the "Ian Woollard"
contribution that offers a somewhat better perspective isn't taking a
full accounting look-see at the total situation of what raw amounts of
energy it takes per tonne of whatever gets launched into space. Ian
Woollard's "vegetable oils to replace kerosene with minimal
modification to the engines" has even managed to exclude upon the far
better alternative of producing and consuming the likes of c3h4o along
with h2o2.
The example offered by the New Horizons mission involved a total
rocket/payload ratio of 1233:1, meaning if a tonne of payload were to
be shot off into space at the same velocity would involve nearly 1000
tonnes worth of liquid and solid fuel expenditures, most of which
having transpired within the global and gravitational confinements of
our already polluted environment, whereas most everything that goes up
shall eventually contribute towards warming and somewhat polluting our
environment by that very same amount of expended energy, plus having
previously contributed whatever R&D and final assembly it took prior to
launch.
That's were I'm re-thinking, for much of whatever's not representing a
whole lot greater than 1.25 tonne (possibly 1.5t maximum), it seems an
LRB assisted Athena-2 (aka LMLV2 w/LRBs) should become the far better
alternative to that of using the spendy SRB boosted Delta 2
configuration. Thereby, for getting 1.25+t deployed into lunar orbit
is where the LRB assisted Athena-2 configuration should more than
insure sufficient capability of deploying 100 each of the 10 kg
microsatellites, along with ample payload to spare.
QUESTION: Exactly how much consideration is necessary for the LRB
h2o2/c3h4o potential?
Or, is the LRB assisted notion going to remain as taboo/nondisclosure
(aka need to know)?
Seems as though, if to be starting this rocket configuration from
scratch, outfitting as the first stage a pair or possibly 3 x LRBs and
then having the second or what I'd call the mid/core stage that could
also be of that very same h2o2/c3h4o formula, then at most a couple of
SRMs for the remainder of getting the utmost bang capability of
deploying 1500+ kg past the LL-1 with sufficient velocity is doable,
whereas the final parking orbit for the microsatellite deployments
might utilize a small version of the h2o2/c3h4o for the necessary
retrothrust of getting the robotic mothership into orbiting at perhaps
as low as 25+ km.
The mothership could certainly be a whole lot more than than
functioning as the mission data transponder on behalf of the brude of
microsatellites, whereas it could be configured as an updated Lunar
Prospector, hosting ten fold better resolution plus other greatly
enhanced science instruments that could easily be sustained in a
similar polar orbit for a good year past the expected 2 month lifespan
of the deployed microsatellites.
The original Lunar Prospector started it's mission payload off at
roughly 295 kg, ending 19 months later at 126 kg worth of dry/inert
mass, impacting into the extremely dusty moon with little if any
science as a result of that crash landing.
Therefore, how about a pair or perhaps using 3 LRBs and the Athena-2 as
the 3-stage core, making essentially a 4-stage rocket?
Seems perfectly reasonable that such a combination of LRBs along with
something of all-solids should surpass the translunar 1.5+t mark, with
extra payloads and energy to spare. It also seems rational that the
production of and total birth to grave aspects of h2o2/c3h4o is a whole
lot less energy intensive task in the first place, and it's certainly
Brad Guth
myself rated as "PROVISIONAL NOMINATION" worthy by Art Deco.
Why do we suppose that these brown-nosed spooks, moles and otherwise
incest cloned bigots of this pagan Usenet from hell are having such a
bother with the likes of myself?
Apparently, if you're the least bit anti-LLPOF, anti-warmonger, anti
perpetrated cold-war and thus anti upon crimes against humanity, much
less being anti-collaboration via Third Reich partnerships as having
taken profits at the demise of their own kind, whereas such that's
apparently a very bad sort of thing for myself to have been doing,
especially by way of the anti-Christian and thus anti-humanity high
standards and accountability of Art Deco's Christ on a stick manifesto
that claims master of the universe expertise in "continued vile,
racist, delusional spews", whereas his continual avoidance upon sharing
or even allowing of other to share truthful information that shouldn't
be all that taboo/nondisclosure, is exactly the sort of evidence that
I'm right far more often than not.
Meanwhile, the likes of Lawrence ben' Franklin seems to have provided
some further insight into the ongoing fiasco of our complex relations
with Israel, and of their obviously Jewish owned and operated
infrastructure that's American invested and thereby having been
protected. Their being Skull and Bones certified and as close to being
Third Reich as it gets without their being blue-eyed and blonde (aka
Aryan) like the Jesus Christ they'd placed on a stick via their Roman
partners in crimes against humanity (is there any question, or better
yet is to ask why should anyone have to make up or otherwise skew the
actual eye and hair color of such a trouble maker that most certainly
wasn't all that Jewish). Perhaps those most upset are merely the folks
having emerged as sprouting from a defective evolutionary branch, of an
incest mutated DNA code that's a bit off from their otherwise being
blue-eyed and blonde Aryans?
As of lately, having further taken consideration as to the rather
substantial LRB(liquid rocket booster) potential via h2o2/c3h4o. I was
simply wondering about the petrochemical and other industrial class of
suppliers for such specific items as h2o2 and c3h4o, as to why all the
Usenet topic banishment as well as other internet taboo/need-to-know
with regard to the bulk availability and of course the end-user cost
per tonne is an even bigger secret.
For good measure, I'd also like to learn about the required energy that
it takes in order to produce the likes of h2o2 and c3h4o by the tonnage
or per kg. By way of realizing the amount of auxiliary energy, one can
estimate what potential the 25 kw/m2 footprint of green/renewable
energy can manage to produce. It seems if taking 50% of this 2.5 TW
capability is 1.25 TW of absolutely clean energy, that you'd think
could be wisely diverted into the continuous productions of h2o2/c3h4o,
thereby making rockets as well as the Internal Rocket Rotary Combustion
(IRRC) Engine even better off than reliance upon h2o2/c12h26.
I guess that I hadn't realized exactly how Jewish owned and operated
these petrochemical and biochemical establishments were, as for their
having dated all the way back as prior to their collaboration with the
Third Reich, and as of today being every bit as Skull and Bones
entitled as they can get. Perhaps this is why it depends entirely upon
whom you are and/or of what your social/political/religious mindset
supports, as being the criteria as to how much you'll get to pay, or
even if you can obtain a drop.
Perhaps the likes of the all-knowing Art Deco or even rocket-wizard
William Mook can manage to explain all of this hocus pocus, as to the
need-to-know about the bulk price/cost of h2o2 and c3h4o?
Possibly Howard Stern or even a pro-Jewish Rush Limbaugh can be a whole
lot more informative then the usual collective of Usenet individuals
that continually claim to know all there is to know, but otherwise
having no intensions of their ever sharing squat, especially off-limits
if that'll help others than their own kind. Of course, other than the
obvious cult followings of such individuuals, I'm not exactly certain
of what "their own kind" represents, whereas it usualy means that even
if you agree with these folks, no matters what you're dead wrong by
default, and that's simply because it wasn't their topic or focus of
interest to start off with (I actually know of lots of folks that are
that way, so much so that it must be the status quo norm).
-
Brad Guth