National Space Intelligence Center proposed
Allen Thomson
It will be interesting to see if this makes it through conference and,
if it does, how the various agencies will react to it. There are a lot
of fiercely defended (and some quite expensive) rice bowls involved.
Also, I wonder what "Recent international events have only served to
highlight this problem" is talking about.
+++++++++++++++++
>From the FAS Secrecy News Extra for 26 May 2006:
The new Senate Intelligence Committee report on the Intelligence
Authorization Act for FY 2007 includes numerous other significant and
interesting provisions including: a requirement for a DNI report on
treatment of detainees (section 313); a requirement for a report on
alleged clandestine detention facilities (section 314); establishment
of a National Space Intelligence Center (section 410); and quite a bit
more.
See the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on the FY 2007
Intelligence Authorization Act, Senate Report 109-259, May 25, here:
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt109-259.pdf
The underlying bill, S. 3237, is here:
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/s3237.pdf
The intelligence bill has been referred to the Senate Armed Services
Committee for a ten day period.
+++++++++++++++++
>From http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt109-259.pdf
Section 410. National Space Intelligence Center.
The United States maintains a very large investment in satellites, and
this investment has grown dramatically in recent years. These
satellites serve the commercial and national security needs of the
nation. As such, a loss of any or all of these assets could do
tremendous harm to our economy and security.
At the same time, our investment in intelligence collection concerning
threats to our interests in space has declined markedly as a function
of our overall investment in space systems. Despite this significant
investment, some estimates indicate that we commit only 10 percent of
what we did nearly 25 years ago to the analysis of threats to space
systems. Recent international events have only served to highlight this
problem.
In an effort to better understand the future threats to our space
assets, as well as potential threats to the United States from space,
Section 410 establishes a National Space Intelligence Center (NSIC). It
is not the intent of the Committee that the NSIC be a physical
consolidation of existing intelligence entities with responsibilities
for various types of intelligence related to space. Rather, the
Committee believes that the first function of the NSIC is to coordinate
all collection, analysis, and dissemination of intelligence related to
space, as well as participate in Intelligence Community analyses of
requirements for space systems. The NSIC augments the existing efforts
of the National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC) and Missile
and Space Intelligence Center (MSIC); it is not designed to replace
them. Indeed, the Committee intends that the NSIC work closely with
NASIC and MSIC to ensure a coordinated Intelligence Community response
to issues that intersect the responsibilities of all three
organizations.
The Director of the NSIC shall be the National Intelligence Officer for
Science and Technology, and the Committee encourages the appointment of
an Executive Director from the Senior Intelligence Service. Further
details related to the mission of the NSIC can be found in the
Classified Annex accompanying this Act.
+++++++++++++++++
Allen Thomson
> The Director of the NSIC shall be the National Intelligence Officer for
> Science and Technology,
According to http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_personnel.html that would be
Lawrence K. Gershwin
National Intelligence Officer for Science and Technology
Dr. Gershwin joined the National Intelligence Council in 1981 and
served as the National Intelligence Officer for Strategic Programs
until 1994, when he became NIO for Science and Technology. Dr. Gershwin
had previously served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
Program Analysis and Evaluation (1979-81). He worked at the Institute
for Defense Analyses (1972-75) and the Rand Corporation (1975-79). He
served as a post-doctoral associate at Columbia and Stanford
Universities (1969-72).
Dr. Gershwin has received the awards of Distinguished Officer and
Meritorious Officer in the Senior Intelligence Service. In 1989 he
received the Distinguished Intelligence Medal and in 1996 the National
Intelligence Medal of Achievement. He earned a Ph.D. in physics from
the University of California, Berkeley, in 1969 and a B.S. in physics
from the California Institute of Technology in 1963.
American
A more appropriate title to the post would have been
"Upgrading the Importance of Earth-to-Orbit Technology
in the Downplay of "Kingdom-Now" Technology of Dominionist
Government".
We're talking not about "is THE cup of Nationalist Intelligence
half-full or half-empty" but "aren't the National collection of
cups dangerously half filled with intellectual capital? The
answer to this question is simple: Yep, esp. for nuclear pro-
pulsion! So for NSIC, as long as the big dipper government authorizes
how they assume that they will stay out of the pockets of private
enterprise, no enterprise except big government will have to worry
about patting itself on the back with clandestine Trilateral or
CFR conspiracies, as long as their robot economies continue to back
off from the sea of space.
"Rather, the Committee believes that the first function of the
NSIC is to coordinate all collection, analysis, and dissemination
of intelligence related to space, as well as participate in
Intelligence Community analyses of requirements for
space systems."
Great. How about upgrading private enterprise (RLV's) to competitive
status with NASA? The prospective Director of the NSIC needs to
consider a complete overhaul of the AST's (Associate Administrator
for Commercial Space Transportation) mentality for actually
preventing launches on national soil. Is it because NSIC is already
designed as a covert authorization scheme to absorb the competition
thru just another arm of the military?
"It is not the intent of the Committee that the NSIC be a physical
consolidation of existing intelligence entities with
responsibilities for various types of intelligence related
to space."
Now I can see how Caesar washes his hands. It's all about keeping
the establishments of earth-based bureaucracies intact, while
private enterprise continues to supplant big government with the idea
of competition. No problem.
Willia...@gmail.com
military, and intelligence sectors in space development. When that
happens, we have to make sure that the commercial developments don't
come back to bite us in the ass as a nation, or a world. After all, a
colony in the asteroid belt could quite easily reduce the surface of
the Earth to molten slag while remaining beyond the reach of Earth's
military might.
impact.arc.nasa.gov/downloads/impactsdmfh101200.pdf
So, the seeds of control must be sown early, and appropriately to the
level of threat created by commercial space operations.
Fred J. McCall
:At some point the commercial sector will supersede the civilian,
:military, and intelligence sectors in space development. When that
:happens, we have to make sure that the commercial developments don't
:come back to bite us in the ass as a nation, or a world. After all, a
:colony in the asteroid belt could quite easily reduce the surface of
:the Earth to molten slag while remaining beyond the reach of Earth's
:military might.
Nope. No sane asteroid population would try this, since their habitat
is a LOT more fragile than ours. If they can get out there to have a
colony, we can get to them to punch holes and let their air out.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
American
>At some point the commercial sector will supersede the civilian,
>military, and intelligence sectors in space development. When that
>happens, we have to make sure that the commercial developments don't
>come back to bite us in the ass as a nation, or a world. After all, a
>colony in the asteroid belt could quite easily reduce the surface of
>the Earth to molten slag while remaining beyond the reach of Earth's
>military might.
>
>
>
>So, the seeds of control must be sown early, and appropriately to the
>level of threat created by commercial space operations.
Oh, come now, gentlemen, it's a little more complicated than that!
Surely, the earth is no prison detainee central from which all must
report to before leaving the solar system! Is there no joy in your
hearts for advancing the science of propulsion to the asteroids?
Surely, you jest, William Mook! You have studied my posts closely
about the asteroid mining parts, but I wouldn't imagine that
this little NSIC proposal would have anything to do with that,
would it? However, let's assume that your case in point would
be just that - that some fledgeling colony of intrepid survi-
valists did happen upon the technology to crash an asteroid
into the earth - wouldn't that be the Wormwood that prophecy
speaks of? - And maybe that evil angel of light Satan is inside?
EEUUWWHH - methinks this has nothing to do with advancing the
wrong technology more than advancing the "needed" technology,
so why shouldn't we be altering the course of human history for
the better rather than for the worse? Let's assume that security
proposals always follow in lockstep with revolutionary techno-
logy. Would the accidental discoveries of Dynamite been in-
vented? Gravity? X-rays? Velcro? Maybe we're assuming that only
true prisoners trapped on an asteroid don't have the ingenuity
that pioneers have - therefore they rebel against the enemy
that sent them there - the whole earth. O.K. - granted - if
this was the scenario - but I don't believe that it is the
scenario or should be the scenario in the situation
just described.
Asteroid Mining is an issue that deserves a moratorium on the
subject, not only to educate the public, but also to prove that
there is a genuine need to explore "our area" of the galaxy, not
only for exploiting the use of extraterrestrial resources, but
also to exhibit the need for long term research and development
in providing an external sanctuary for "earthlings" in case of
major disruptions in the earth's biosphere.
In order for asteroid mining to be a business and career in
itself, it would have to depend upon the exploitation of re-
sources, such as primary and precious metals, in order to
facilitate the creation of trade and resource exchanges,
such as water ice (ex. from the moon of Jupiter (Europa),
aerogel made from silica-rich regolith (moon or large aster-
oid), space mining equipment, satellite technology, and life
support systems.
All of these prospects require astronauts to be exposed to
the hazardous environment of space. Therefore, the space science
of life support systems is crucial towards maintaining a work
environment. Beyond that, there are protective systems that
must be in place in order to preserve a back up system for
machinery and instrumentation if the primary one fails.
The need for making asteroid mining a profitable venture is
based on a new gold standard for the colonies of the earth,
just like it was profitable for explorers in the New World
to stake their claim for God and country!
Enter cheaper earth-to-orbit technology. The technology dis-
cussed particularly by you, William Mook, in your posts re-
garding the Orion technology, are invigorating! The technology
is already here, yet the forces that control our economy are
just beginning to take notice of the vast resources that space
has to offer: primary and precious metals by the billions of
tons, lunar ices, non-invasive, sterile work environments,
synthetic aperture radar mapping technology, huge non-radio-
active propulsion systems - all dependent upon cheaper earth-to-
orbit and orbit-to-orbit technology so that components can be
modularized on earth, and designed, assembled, tested, and
marketed in space.
Asteroid mining would be both a federally funded and private
enterprise. This is where the current balancing effect of earth-
bound private-industry-to-government ratios will need to retain
their integration so that familiar lines of communication are
not lost to isolationism. The aforementioned NSIC proposal,
based on your "seeds of control that must be sown early" would
be welcomed just as the original Fort Knox was welcomed in a
military installation - protecting the Gold Bullion and Assets
of other government Agencies. Sound better now?
America should stop showcasing, grandstanding, and sensational-
izing the low profile adventures of what has almost become a
special interest group with NASA, preserve the groundwork that
much of NASA has already laid, and move on towards creating a
much needed support structure for private enterprise to start
blasting industry into space.
After the asteroid is mined, other uses for the asteroid could
include utilizing the mineshaft as a storage facility or habitat
preserve in case a future in-transit rendezvous or emergency
landing was made.
The feasibility of mining an asteroid is multi: First of all,
we need a way to react quickly to an incoming asteroid if the
need arises. For that to happen, we need nuclear space propulsion
systems "on" and "outside" of high earth orbit for the Hohmann
transfer, as well for establishing a base on the surface of
an asteroid.
Secondly, regarding the exploitation of mineral resources, that
if there was more of a need for macroeconomic ripples, you are
allowed to disagree if you believe that the Federal Reserve sets
the rates for platinum, which it would not if the privateers are
the ones who set the price in the first place. Just because there
is "policing" or "fear" that greed will run amok on earth is no
reason to believe that the privateers are a bunch of pirates,
either. You can arbitrarily set the price of platinum as low as
you want, so the resource for platinum will then just "dry up"
without replenishment." All this means is that outside of earth
orbit, there are advantages to being closer to where the mining
takes place.
Perhaps most importantly, there are those that believe that the
earth is moving into a pole shift during the years following 2001.
The shift starts out gradual at first, and then becomes more
pronounced after a few years. What this means is that our Sun
is moving through the galactic plane into the oppositely charged
side of the galaxy. This occurs every 25,000 years. When a pole
shift occurs, the molten, metallic core of the earth tries to
shift its position. As a result, there are an increase in volca-
noes, earthquakes, and sunspot activity. The effects could be
catastrophic. Asteroid mining technology could provide us with
a way off the planet and to the stars in order to escape the
cataclysm, if it was to occur.
With some sort of extraterrestrial economic infrastructure in
place, the extraterrestrial environment becomes self sustaining,
and competition between the cost of earth-to-orbit and colony
raw materials, goods, and services creates a trade to be established
between the colony and earth orbit. Therefore, the colonies
automatically become self-sustaining and progressively separated.
It is surmised that only with an improvement in the fidelity of
electronic communications and supply of environmental resources
between earth based, orbital, and interplanetary trading partners,
can a healthy economy of extraterrestial infrastructure be
maintained. Without these direct communications between resource
trading partners, the earth becomes progressively monitored and
controlled thru excessive marginalization of profits by the
establishment of trade laws between international bureaucracies.
Yet just short of planetary revolution, the law of supply and
demand in an extraterrestrial economy will help to create
incrementally affordable modes of communication and transportation.
At this point in the trade of resources and technology, the law of
supply and demand dictates that both earthly and extraterrestrial
environments cannot become isolated from each other, as this may
result in diminishing resources, marginalized competition, trade
imbalances, scandal, and environmental disaster.
Naturally, there are obstacles concerning the bootstrapping of
asteroid mining. Lack of economic focus for a long term research
and development plan for implementing a much cheaper earth-to-
orbit technology with massive lifting capacity for a no-holes-
barred rush into the solar system; general ignorance of the
government, public, and private institutions at large about
technologies that revolutionize space transportation, providing
an awesome opportunity for expanding the free market economy
towards stellar regions of the galaxy; opening up an awareness
for reestablishing the gold standard as the benefit for adopting
trading partners within the solar system, as well as providing a
new system of financial credit between those trading partners.
So how is it that our vision has become so shortsighted, as
described by the current NSIC program? I contend that my original
statement regarding upgrading private enterprise (RLV's) to
competitive status with NASA will enhance the performance of
promise markets in this field, not destroy them!
"It's time to change derbies for Stetsons and kick some mule butt!"
Jim Kingdon
> highlight this problem" is talking about.
Yeah, I don't get that reference either. I would think that Al Queda
and the like are less likely to be a threat to satellites, compared
with state actors.
> > Section 410 establishes a National Space Intelligence Center
> > (NSIC) . . .
> > The NSIC augments the existing efforts of the National Air and Space
> > Intelligence Center (NASIC) and Missile and Space Intelligence Center
> > (MSIC); it is not designed to replace them.
Doesn't look like this would change anything. I don't see any new
authority. And if it is just a voluntary, hold-some-meetings, kind of
cooperation, it might succeed but very much depending on whether the
agencies in question want it to.
Although I guess the language about funding might imply that this is
about new money for this subject.
Willia...@gmail.com
easier to knock out a space station than destroy a planet. If you can
find it. And if you have enough missiles. That's why a dispersed
population of billions of personal space stations all operating
independently of one another, spread throughout the solar system,
invisible from Earth, is far less vulnerable to any sort of attack
Earth might launch versus an attack from them! Dropping ceres onto
Earth will absolutely sterilize it. There is no equivalent counter
measure to a population of billions of independent space stations
orbiting between Mars and Jupiter. Earth would have to launch billions
of missiles to destroy such a population of stations, the stations
would have to sit still and not see the incominb missiles, for there to
be any sort of devastation of the asteroidal civlization, and even
after all of that, there would likely be some small number - 99.99%
destruction of a population of 10 billion stations would result in 1
million stations still being viable! Whereas, a single sterilizing
asteroid could be caused to collide with Earth, and would virtually
guarantee the end of all life on Earth, with no useful countermeasures
possible.
Allen Thomson
Jim Kingdon wrote:
> > Also, I wonder what "Recent international events have only served to
> > highlight this problem" is talking about.
> Yeah, I don't get that reference either. I would think that Al Queda
> and the like are less likely to be a threat to satellites, compared
> with state actors.
If it gets that far, who gets appointed as ExDir ("Committee encourages
the appointment of an Executive Director from the Senior Intelligence
Service") may provide an indication of what events, or what kind of
events, are meant.
For the past several years, a couple of people either in the SIS or
appointable to it have been making fairly extravagant claims about the
dire damage that has resulted from public discussion of satellite
reconnaissance. If one of them gets the job, it will mean a
concentration on strengthening secrecy and compartmentation with other
considerations trailing behind. (Just so I can claim prescience if
events unfold that way, here are two digraphs: JB & WG.)
[BTW, I am truly impressed by the speed with which this thread has
bifurcated. :-) ]
American
esp. as soon as it deviated from its orbit, and long before
it got here? (e.g., The University of Hawaii unveiled the
Pan-STARRS telescope for asteroid detection down to 300m). So
Isn't the internationalist environmentalist "movement" side-
tracking the HUBBLE for the sake of "defining capitalism down"
rather than regrouping to add new angel investors for
extraterrestrial resource development?
Yep, there'll be plenty of people watching out there, I'm sure,
after the first Mook gallion traverses the earth-moon system.
Hyper
> William Mook wrote:
> >At some point the commercial sector will supersede the civilian,
> >military, and intelligence sectors in space development. When that
> >happens, we have to make sure that the commercial developments don't
> >come back to bite us in the ass as a nation, or a world. After all, a
> >colony in the asteroid belt could quite easily reduce the surface of
> >the Earth to molten slag while remaining beyond the reach of Earth's
> >military might.
Please someone get on the line with the Men in Black now, now, NOW !
And get Captain Kirk out of retirement too.
Dynamite and velcro were not "accidental" discoveries. Nobel blew a lot
of real estate before coming out with a stable enough stuff, so you
might say he vas actively looking for it. The inventor of velcro got
the ideea from thistles in his dog's fur. Gravity was not a
"discovery".
> Asteroid Mining is an issue that deserves a moratorium on the
> subject, not only to educate the public, but also to prove that
> there is a genuine need to explore "our area" of the galaxy, not
> only for exploiting the use of extraterrestrial resources, but
> also to exhibit the need for long term research and development
> in providing an external sanctuary for "earthlings" in case of
> major disruptions in the earth's biosphere.
moratorium = temporary suspension/ban of an activity
"to exhibit the need for long term research" - you sure you an
American?
> In order for asteroid mining to be a business and career in
> itself, it would have to depend upon the exploitation of re-
> sources, such as primary and precious metals, in order to
> facilitate the creation of trade and resource exchanges,
> such as water ice (ex. from the moon of Jupiter (Europa),
> aerogel made from silica-rich regolith (moon or large aster-
> oid), space mining equipment, satellite technology, and life
> support systems.
What do you need water for? Carb-chondrites can supply enough, unless
you want to terraform Venus or something. Mars or the Moon (a caveat
here) can be sources of cheaper H2O. Finally, if you're hung on Jupiter
and big moons, Calisto would be a better choice - slightly lower g. &
500 times LESS radiation from the belts.
> The need for making asteroid mining a profitable venture is
> based on a new gold standard for the colonies of the earth,
> just like it was profitable for explorers in the New World
> to stake their claim for God and country!
Why adopt a gold standard and then dump large quantities on the market?
> After the asteroid is mined, other uses for the asteroid could
> include utilizing the mineshaft as a storage facility or habitat
> preserve in case a future in-transit rendezvous or emergency
> landing was made.
Asteroids won't be "shaft mined". Not the way you seem to think -
spitted potato style.
http://www.permanent.com
http://science.howstuffworks.com/asteroid-mining.htm
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0201328194/qid=1148824584/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-9260587-2331817?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
> The feasibility of mining an asteroid is multi: First of all,
> we need a way to react quickly to an incoming asteroid if the
> need arises. For that to happen, we need nuclear space propulsion
> systems "on" and "outside" of high earth orbit for the Hohmann
> transfer, as well for establishing a base on the surface of
> an asteroid.
Hohmann orbits are minimal energy ones, hence not suitable for "quick"
missions.
> Secondly, regarding the exploitation of mineral resources, that
> if there was more of a need for macroeconomic ripples, you are
> allowed to disagree if you believe that the Federal Reserve sets
> the rates for platinum, which it would not if the privateers are
> the ones who set the price in the first place. Just because there
> is "policing" or "fear" that greed will run amok on earth is no
> reason to believe that the privateers are a bunch of pirates,
> either. You can arbitrarily set the price of platinum as low as
> you want, so the resource for platinum will then just "dry up"
> without replenishment." All this means is that outside of earth
> orbit, there are advantages to being closer to where the mining
> takes place.
pri-va-teer (prie vuh teer') n.
1. a privately owned ship commissioned to
fight or harass enemy ships.
2. the captain or a crew member of such a
vessel.
Disregard previous comments - waste of time.
James Nicoll
Except, of course, whatever technology made moving Ceres possible
in the first place.
From Earth's POV, a billion tar-paper shacks in the main belt
isn't a bad deal. For them to cower in deep stealth, they'd have to
seriously limit their energy production lest the heat be detected.
They couldn't trade much physical materials because most methods of
delivering material from one orbit to another are noisy and the limits
on energy production would place a limit on how much information could
be traded (It could, of course, be quite a high limit but the nations
of Earth will have a higher one, since they are not hiding). We're
talking a billion cold, poverty-stricken isolationists.
Actually, the most efficient way to deal with them (leaving
aside phased arrays of Earth-based lasers using the seas as a heat-dump)
is to convince the paranoids that their neighbors are out to get them.
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
American
>Please someone get on the line with the Men in Black now, now, NOW !
>And get Captain Kirk out of retirement too.
Nice attempt at pulling a rabbit out of a hat - next trick?
Hyper wrote:
>
>Dynamite and velcro were not "accidental" discoveries. Nobel blew a lot
>of real estate before coming out with a stable enough stuff, so you
>might say he vas actively looking for it. The inventor of velcro got
>the ideea from thistles in his dog's fur. Gravity was not a
>"discovery".
Definition of Accidental:
Inadvertant occurrance or appearing or singled out by chance.
Velcro:
http://www.scholastic.ca/titles/accidentaldiscoveries/
Nobel capitalized on what was already his accidental discovery:
http://www.nonwoven.co.uk/reports/History%20of%20Cellulosics.html
Gravity is accidental enough through gravitic research:
Accidental discovery of gravity shielding:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=351
Feel the Force, and Focus!
> Asteroid Mining is an issue that deserves a moratorium on the
> subject, not only to educate the public, but also to prove that
> there is a genuine need to explore "our area" of the galaxy, not
> only for exploiting the use of extraterrestrial resources, but
> also to exhibit the need for long term research and development
> in providing an external sanctuary for "earthlings" in case of
> major disruptions in the earth's biosphere.
>moratorium = temporary suspension/ban of an activity
>"to exhibit the need for long term research" - you sure you an
>American?
The actual physical project takes a few years of planning,
so this planning stage would act also as an moratorium:
Reinvent what a PAC should mean to private industry w.r.t. cutting
edge propulsion technology. Make PAC appointments conditional over
creating a more massive earth-to-orbit technology, and rider a
massive advertising campaign that would preclude any project work
being done. With the rider as a secret political "hot" button, any
reneging on either the rider or project would divert all NASA
funding into a *fail safe mode* of political blackmail for the PAC
and supporters that refuse the deal.
> In order for asteroid mining to be a business and career in
> itself, it would have to depend upon the exploitation of re-
> sources, such as primary and precious metals, in order to
> facilitate the creation of trade and resource exchanges,
> such as water ice (ex. from the moon of Jupiter (Europa),
> aerogel made from silica-rich regolith (moon or large aster-
> oid), space mining equipment, satellite technology, and life
> support systems.
>
>
Hyper wrote:
>
>What do you need water for? Carb-chondrites can supply enough, unless
>you want to terraform Venus or something. Mars or the Moon (a caveat
>here) can be sources of cheaper H2O. Finally, if you're hung on Jupiter
>and big moons, Calisto would be a better choice - slightly lower g. &
>500 times LESS radiation from the belts.
The Mars, Moon gravity fields too strong for establishing a
supply route to the asteroids, Europa is a better source of "quick
and dirty" water ice - Callisto would require too much drilling and
filtration. Europa would therefore require less involvement in the
extraction process.
> The need for making asteroid mining a profitable venture is
> based on a new gold standard for the colonies of the earth,
> just like it was profitable for explorers in the New World
> to stake their claim for God and country!
>
Hyper Wrote:
>
>Why adopt a gold standard and then dump large quantities on the market?
Because its not your market! These are the colonies of the solar
system! Besides, read the intention of the post, and not
necessarily what you are assuming yourself to read.
> After the asteroid is mined, other uses for the asteroid could
> include utilizing the mineshaft as a storage facility or habitat
> preserve in case a future in-transit rendezvous or emergency
> landing was made.
>
Hyper wrote:
>
>Asteroids won't be "shaft mined". Not the way you seem to think -
>spitted potato style.
>http://www.permanent.com
>http://science.howstuffworks.com/asteroid-mining.htm
>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0201328194/qid=1148824584/sr=2-1/ref...
I never said they would, did I? Assuming a single X-ray per molecule
of 65.122 KeV X-rays, with 1 mole of platinum equaling 195.09 grams,
converting to kcal we have:
((65.122)(1.602 x 10-16) / (4200 x 195.09 grams / 6.023 x 1023 atoms )
= 7668.64 times the energy required for transmission. This also means
that the incidental X-ray will penetrate the metal up to 7668 molecules
deep. Phased Bragg Planes will transmit radiation at the incidental
wavelength of 0.190381 angstroms. The X-ray penetration thickness of
the pure metal would be the interatomic distance of 9(pi)Z/4 (from
Electronic Structure and the Properties of Solids, Walter A. Harrison,
'Solid State Table of the Elements') x 7668(10-10m) = 4.227 x
10-3meters, or 4.227mm. Therefore, no shaft mining, except for habitat
preserve or storage facility.
The problem with you, Hyper, is that WE are not on the same wavelength.
> The feasibility of mining an asteroid is multi: First of all,
> we need a way to react quickly to an incoming asteroid if the
> need arises. For that to happen, we need nuclear space propulsion
> systems "on" and "outside" of high earth orbit for the Hohmann
> transfer, as well for establishing a base on the surface of
> an asteroid.
>
Hyper wrote:
>
>Hohmann orbits are minimal energy ones, hence not suitable for
>"quick" missions.
*High-eccentricity targets require Hohmann transfers, and a short
mining season at aphelion* The problem is in scheduling the
rendevous, not "how fast" the rendevous occurs!
> Secondly, regarding the exploitation of mineral resources, that
> if there was more of a need for macroeconomic ripples, you are
> allowed to disagree if you believe that the Federal Reserve sets
> the rates for platinum, which it would not if the privateers are
> the ones who set the price in the first place. Just because there
> is "policing" or "fear" that greed will run amok on earth is no
> reason to believe that the privateers are a bunch of pirates,
> either. You can arbitrarily set the price of platinum as low as
> you want, so the resource for platinum will then just "dry up"
> without replenishment." All this means is that outside of earth
> orbit, there are advantages to being closer to where the mining
> takes place.
>
>
Hyper wrote:
>
>pri-va-teer (prie vuh teer') n.
1. a privately owned ship commissioned to
fight or harass enemy ships.
2. the captain or a crew member of such a
vessel.
Does private industry harass you? How about this:
Article I of Congress states: "You may, by force of arms, attack,
subdue, and take all Ships and other Vessels belonging to the
inhabitants ..." Are YOU the enemy?
Hyper wrote:
>
>Disregard previous comments - waste of time.
This is not your industry to be concerned.
Hyper
American wrote:
> Gravity is accidental enough through gravitic research:
>
> http://www.padrak.com/agn/
>
> Accidental discovery of gravity shielding:
>
> http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=351
>
> Feel the Force, and Focus!
The ONLY thing I feel is contempt. Anti-gravity, gravity shielding ...
shields up and dial the psychiatric hotline bozo.
> >Why adopt a gold standard and then dump large quantities on the market?
>
> Because its not your market! These are the colonies of the solar
> system! Besides, read the intention of the post, and not
> necessarily what you are assuming yourself to read.
So you did away with the "idiot" line, huh? What's wrong, a little
voice told you to be polite and maybe you'll convert me to your moronic
beliefs?
> >Disregard previous comments - waste of time.
>
> This is not your industry to be concerned.
No, you certainly own it all.
American
just like your drive-by reactions to intelligent posting.
Brad Guth
Other than the usual LLPOF, cover-thy-butt and damage-control form of
hype, spin and wag-the-dog intelligence, where's the need of our having
yet another spendy agency that sucks and blows at most anything,
delivering more of their usual eye-candy plus infomercial-science
rather than the plain old truth?
Where's the hard-science from our moon?
Where's the hard-science of the nearby LL-1 zone?
Where's the hard-science with any regard to intelligent other life on
Venus?
Where's their had-science as to all of those supposed fly-by-rocket
landers?
Where's the hard-science as to the Sirius star/solar system that we've
been orbiting at roughly every 100,000 years?
Where's any need of establishing a "National Space Intelligence Center"
if there's no such honest hard-science to be intelligent about. Since
when do we need yet another spendy space-toilet of an agency that
summarily sucks and blows on behalf of their benefiting only the upper
most 0.1% of humanity that suits their Skull and Bones criteria.
FAS is an international joke. It's otherwise another collective of old
fart rusemasters and most certainly phony baloney and otherwise as
hocus-pocus as they can get each of their suck-up brown noses into the
butt-cheeks of our NASA, as well as those of any other publicly funded
and/or tax avoidance opportunity.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
If NSIC get's a go, as such it'll only further prove that I'm even more
right. That is unless that committee function becomes a qualified
retroactive butt kicking service with lethal MIB like teeth, that's
badly needed as being deployed upon the existing butts of all the cloak
and dagger rusemasters within your Third Reich.
-
Brad Guth
tomcat
Us Earth humans are still in the cradle of good ole' mother Earth. Our
governments are afraid of Outer Space because our 'buddies' are up
there waiting for us. What are we to do?
What we have always done. Assign the United States Air Force the duty
of keeping the Outer Space shipping lanes open, and take mankind out of
the cradle, and Spread Out before we turn into a 'crib death' infant.
And, we better get our really 'bright' people into the military and
NASA, before it is too late. Politics is fine as long as it doesn't
stifle progress, which it does mighty quick for some reason. Pucker up
and 'kissy kissy kissy' societies don't last very long.
And, yes, we really do need an Outer Space Intelligence Center.
tomcat
Hop David
> What do you need water for? Carb-chondrites can supply enough,
Like 1998 KY26, for example.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020919.html
unless
> you want to terraform Venus or something. Mars or the Moon (a caveat
> here) can be sources of cheaper H2O. Finally, if you're hung on Jupiter
> and big moons, Calisto would be a better choice - slightly lower g. &
> 500 times LESS radiation from the belts.
Plus Europa's deeper in Jupiter's gravity well. Earth LEO to a circular
orbit 599400 km from Jupiter takes about 12.8 km/sec delta vee, Earth
LEO to a 1811500 km orbit from Jupiter takes about 11 km/sec delta vee.
David Jewitt's recent discovery of comets in the main asteroid belt
suggests some main belt asteroids are water rich. I would imagine even
more of Jupiter's Trojans are water rich.
My favorite terraforming yarn is Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy.
Icey bodies are sent to Mars from the Oort cloud (if I remember right).
Far better, in my opinion, to send icey bodies from Jupiter's Trojans
and the Main Belt.
Hop
Brad Guth
We certainly lied our extremely white and Jewish butts off in order to
have pulled off the best ever perpetrated cold-war (only costing
humanity a few trillion per decade), thus how hard could it be to
snooker a few more of those heathen ETs?
-
Brad Guth
Allen Thomson
Allen Thomson wrote:
> > The Director of the NSIC shall be the National Intelligence Officer for
> > Science and Technology,
>
>
> According to http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_personnel.html that would be
> Lawrence K. Gershwin
> National Intelligence Officer for Science and Technology
> Dr. Gershwin joined the National Intelligence Council in 1981 and
> served as the National Intelligence Officer for Strategic Programs
> until 1994, when he became NIO for Science and Technology.
Somewhat aside from the topic (such as it is) of the thread, I thought
that LG had gotten a different title a couple of years ago and indeed
one finds in the NIC organization description at
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/www.cia.gov/www.cia.gov/nic/NIC_organization.html
"Mr. Gershwin became the National Intelligence Officer for Intelligence
Assurance in April 2004 after serving as the NIO for Science and
Technology from 1994 to 2004 and as the National Intelligence Officer
for Strategic Programs from 1981 to 1994."
There is no NIO/S&T in that document, so apparently the NIO/IA was a
brief excursion which has now gone back to being the NIO/S&T.
American
But first you have to go out and find them. It's not like they'd
be scattered all over the place like popcorn. - And your suggestion
that Europa is too deep in Jupiter's gravity well is nonsense -
gravity assists have always been the hallmark of journeys to the
outer planets. I think the real problem lies in the development of
some type of magnetic shielding from charged ions of Jupiter's and
Io's vicinity, while extracting the water-ice, quick and dirty from
"pack ice on polar seas" of Europa:
http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets/europa.html
tomcat
The only reason we aren't in Outer Space already is that the U.S. is
afraid of ET. We certainly have all the necessary equipment to get up
there in a couple of years with a crash program.
We have to learn to conquer our fears and do what has to be done. To
put an Outer Space Intelligence Center in orbit or on the Moon is a
good place to start. Then, when they are attacked, killed, eaten, or
burned to death, we will have an excuse to do what has to be done.
tomcat
American
sounded pretty damn good to me - as long as them nukes weren't
supposed to be lethal, right? So here's some of his original
thread, leeched from the sci.space.tech usenet:
A vehicle leaves Earth bound for the asteroid belt. It arrives
90 days after departing Earth. Once in the belt, it identifies
a valuable asteroid and processes it using onboard resources.
The result of the processing is slag and elemental materials.
The elemental materials are formed into a payload pod. The slag
is formed into propellant mass and loaded around nuclear
pulse units.
93 high gee nuclear pulse engines, operated with slag propellant,
operate at a specific impulse of 1,000 seconds. These are removed,
one by one, from the main vehicle and attached to the return pay-
load bringing it back to Earth along a minimum energy transfer
trajectory, taking seven years to complete its journey.
At the end of seven years, and sending four payload cannisters
amounting to 350 million tons of refined materials each, back to
Earth, the main vehicle departs for Earth, to meet the first
cannister's return and manage the recovery of all the materials
over the next seven years - with a new crew.
PRIMARY VEHICLE TRANSPORT
Travelling at constant 1/1000th gee a distance of 200 million km
using a rocket with a specific impulse of 50,000 seconds, will burn
19.232% of the total rocket's mass and take 88day 6hrs 57min 35sec.
A round trip to this distance and back will burn a total of 34.77%
of the rocket's mass.
The rocket will take off at high thrust, using 31 high gee nuclear
pulse engines operated as a ram-rocket with a specific impulse of
1,000 sec. At an altitude of 10 km the vehicle switches to a pure
nuclear pulse rocket which is operated at a specific impulse of
10,000 sec until it achieves escape velocity. Once escape velocity
is achieved, the nuclear pulse rocket uses a magnetic nozzle to
produce low levels of thrust at 50,000 sec specific impulse. This
rocket is operated throughout the flight at a constant 1/1000th gee
to arrive at zero velocity relative to its target. This magnetic
nozzle nuclear pulse rocket is operated in a similar fashion until
it arrives back at Earth, where it switches to a material nozzle to
produce higher thrusts at lower specific impulse.
MHD type generators capture a portion of the rocket's jet power to
produce electricity. Configuration can be changed in the magnetic
nozzle to produce the bulk of the power as electricity - for
industrial purposes aboard ship.
The vehicle at lift off masses as follows;
GLOW: 1.45577 million tons 100.00%
Structure: 0.29115 million tons 20.00%
Propellant: 0.16452 million tons 13.30%
Payload: 1.00000 million tons 68.70%
The payload breakdown is as follows after Earth escape;
Payload: 0.55112 million tons 55.11%
Propellant: 0.44888 million tons 44.89%
The additional propellant carried the vehicle to its target in the
asteroid belt and back in less than 90 days.
PAYLOAD RETURN
Usable asteroids consist on average of 18% usable materials. Thus,
89% of the materials are slag. Asteroids are processed by the
vehicle, using on board nuclear pulse generated electricity to heat,
separate, and reform, useful materials into their elemental form.
For each ton of material, 1.72 tons of slag, primarily silica, are
retained for use as propellant mass.
The propellant is energized by approximately 100 tons of Lithium-6
Deuteride which fuses when triggered by 220 lbs of Pu-240. This along
with 602 billion tons of slag produces a jet with a specific impulse
of 1000 sec capable of carrying 350 million tons of payload through a
delta vee of 7 miles per second. Sufficient to return the payload to
Earth orbit from the asteroid belt along a minimum energy trajectory.
Each elemental material cannister consists of a solid sphere of
material, 1900 feet in diameter. It is followed by a propellant
cannister which consists of a sphere some 2,700 feet in diameter.
Both are propelled by three nuclear pulse nozzles with a diameter of
125 feet each. A large rotating ring shaped crew quarters, sufficient
to provide for 100 people for seven years, is attached between the
propellant cannister and payload cannister.
CREW SIZES AND PRODUCTION RATES
The crew consist fo 50,000 men and women which are dispatched along
with 448,000 tons of tools, material, and supplies. They identify and
process 52,527 million tons of asteroidal material. This would form a
sphere of rock 2 miles across.
This material produces 9,455 million tons of elemental material over
seven years. Thus, raw ore is processed at a rate of 860,000 tons per
hour and produces 154,000 tons of elemental material per hour.
Rates typical of Earth based mining and refining operations yeild
rates of 200 tons per man hour. Thus, 4,300 men are active at all
times in the ore processing operations, and 750 men are active at all
times in the refining operations. With four shifts operating this
translates to 17,200 miners and 3,000 refinery workers. In addition
there are 15,000 support jobs, and 19,800 other positions (primarily
family and entertainment related).
100 crew members accompany each load back to Earth along the minimum
energy trajectory. A total of 31 return cannisters are flown back, so
a total of 3,100 crew members depart the vehicle over the course of
the seven years on target. The last crew member to return to Earth
returns 14 years after the start of the journey.
The vehicle is also equipped with six smaller scout vessels. These
vessels mass a total of 20,000 tons each and have a crew of 20 to 30
people. They operate at low gees with a specific impulse of 50,000
seconds. They are capable of using a variety of propellant material,
including slag.
These vehicles can scout the asteroid belt for materials, be used in a
variety of exploratory and support roles, including rapid transport of
high value payloads to and from Earth in two weeks, as in postal
delivery, or a medical emergency.
VEHICLE TOTAL: 20,000 tons
STRUCTURE: 3,000 tons
PAYLOAD: 3,000 tons
CREW: 30-20
PROPELLANT: 14,000 tons
Isp: 50,000 sec
Vf:(ideal) 591.15 km/s
Since each crew member, along with supplies to last 20 days, masses
less than .15 tons, and each vehicle has 600,000 cubic feet of
interior space, the 3,000 ton payload in each of the six scout
vehicles could carry 20,000 people. So, any three of the six vehicles
could in an emergency be used to ferry the entire crew back to Earth
in two weeks.
The size of the main vehicle can be doubled to double the payloads
returned and the payloads at the asteroid belt along with the numbers
of crew and support ships.
****************************************************************
Editor's note: The "high value" payloads (3,000 tons) would include
the water-ice, smelted metal, etc., so all we need is an orbital
refinery, hotels, additional merchant ships, radar observation posts,
etc., and THEN come the tourists... however,
The low density gases of space consist of hydrogen, helium, protons,
and alpha particles. The gas pressure of interplanetary space is
10**-18 Newtons/meter2, while interstellar space is 10**-27
Newtons/meter2. Space radiation includes cosmic rays, electromagnetic,
Van Allen Belt, auroral particles, and solar flare particles.
Hypercharged "killer" electrons radiate from the Sun, as well as from
Jupiter @ 22.2 Mhz, 300Mhz, and 3 Ghz in the decimeter wavelength
(10 cm. and more), especially during *lower* sunspot activity. The Van
Allen Belts, which consist of the action of charged subatomic parti-
cles, like solar electrons and protons, on the earth's magnetic field,
produce X rays, UV, and Gamma rays. Particulate radiation consists of
electrons, protons, neutrons, alpha particles, and others. The energy
in the Van Allen Belt normally reaches 1eV, with a density of 10
particles/cm3. Solar activity that induces magnetic storms on the
earth have been known to cause high energy radiation of 10 to 20 keV,
which in turn can induce arc discharges on dielectric surfaces.
In order for a continued presence to be maintained, how do important
people shield themselves? There was an interesting article in the
March '06 issue of Astronomy, which offered a few interesting points:
1) Reinforced polyethelyne 10 times stronger than aluminum
2) Carbon composite structures
3) Plastics (already on ISS)
4) Electric fields
5) Lighter, more flexible space suits
6) Aerogel
7) Dietary supplements
The Jovian environment is one of the richest in heavy ions. Voyager
observations have led to the identification of three sources
for Jupiter's energetic particles: the Sun, the Jovian ionosphere,
and the Jovian moons.
Radio and Plasma wave data were obtained on December 3, 2000 by the
Cassini Radio and Plasma Wave Science (RPWS) investigation from a
distance of just over 27 million kilometers from Jupiter: During this
time period, the RPWS captured radio emissions generated in the
vicinity of Jupiter. These emissions included decametric radio
emissions originating in the auroral regions of Jupiter.
(Decametric refers to approximate wavelength of radio emissions
(10 meters). At somewhat lower frequencies, near 1 megahertz, the
hectometric radiation, around 100 meters, is generated as a part
of the auroral process at Jupiter. Lower in frequency, near 100
kilohertz, are examples of two types of kilometric radiation.
(Kilometric refers to wavelengths around 1 kilometer or 1000
meters.) Even though these two types of emissions are centered at
about the same frequency, they are thought to originate in totally
different locations and by totally different mechanisms. The
broadband kilometric radiation near the center of the display is
again believed to be generated on field lines associated with the
aurora and probably generated by the same or similar mechanism as
the decametric and hectometric radiation. The narrowband kilometric
radiation is generated near the outer edge of the Io torus, which
remains on a different orbital path than Europa. Data on Quasi-
periodic bursts below about 10 kilohertz consist of brief bursts
and sometimes occur at about 15-minute spacing, and sometimes at
about 40-minute spacing. Even though these emissions were discov-
ered by Voyager and studied by Ulysses and Galileo. Very little is
known about where and how they are generated.
(From: http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/messenger/oldmess/Ion.html):
On Jupiter's moon, Io, volcanoes constantly erupt, spewing forth
oxygen and sulphur, which then settle on Io's surface. The inter-
action of Io with Jupiter's magnetosphere strips the oxygen and
sulphur from Io's surface at the rate of 900 kg (1 ton) per second,
tearing these particles from Io's gravitational influence and expel-
ling them into Jupiter's magnetosphere. These particles become elec-
trically charged and many diffuse outward to 1.5 to 3.6 million
kilometers (0.9 to 2.2 million miles) from Jupiter, where they are
accelerated by an interaction with the massive Jovian magnetic
field. Ed explains, "About 0.2% of the original particles, now
highly energized, diffuse back toward Jupiter. The ions may have
left Io at one-thousandth the speed of light. By the time they have
returned to within 700,000 kilometers (420,000 miles) of the planet
(near Europa's orbit), these ions have accelerated to one-tenth
the speed of light (about 30,000 kilometers/second (18,000 miles per
hour))!" Some of these ions travel along Jupiter's magnetic field
lines and spiral into the planet's polar region. In fact, these
heavy ions falling into Jupiter's atmosphere may be the single
largest contributor to Jupiter's auroras.
So, the sure signs of death, taxes, and incumbents returning to Wash-
ington are not signposts leading to factories in orbit, they are signs
of a failed bureaucracy! So it is that we should not put our faith in
princes, nor the apathetic, blind, deaf, dumb, and stupid citizens who
elect them! We should know what their voting record is on massive
earth-to-orbit R&D funding while simultaneously discrediting their
self-absorbed juggernaut of bloated bureaucracy!
Nobody in Washington interested in funding "non-radioactive" or
"minimally radioactive" pulse propulsion are numbskulls. It's the
ones who get in the way of funding by attaching all kinds of re-
visions to bills that swamp the most important projects from their
true objectives that are numbskulls: case in point, Title II from
"The National Aeronautics and Space Act" [NASA] was struck down
from "encouraging to the maximum, the fullest commercial use of
space". Would this mean, that, some other entity is encouraging
it, and if so, who? Nobody. Nobody except the ones with the ideas?
Probably. Are the ideas related to NASA? ... Probably not. What
does this mean? That we are either totally dependent on the shuttle
(NASA), or we are totally "independent" of the shuttle. But since
legally, NASA is not "encouraging to the maximum, the fullest com-
mercial use of space" does this mean that maybe they (NASA) can
"partially" encourage it? Probably, if it is in the interests of
NASA to do so. O'Keefe eliminated the "stovepipe" architecture from
each department seeking its own funding, but the new administrator,
Mike Griffin, seems to be addressing the problem of large booster
carrying capacity. Whatever happened to faster, cheaper space
access? Is there no sense of urgency? Nope. Look at all the projects
that have come down the pike in recent years: Roton, X-33,
Venturestar, Kelly Space, Space Access, Pioneer Rocketplane, Beal
Aerospace - all became underfunded and "overlicensed", yet worked.
Andrew Beal put it this way: "The BA-2C program was the largest
privately funded program ever in existence to build a large capa-
city space launch system. Unfortunately, development of a reliable
low cost system is simply not enough to ensure commercial viability.
Several uncertainties remain that are totally beyond our control
and put our entire business at risk. The most insurmountable risk
is the desire of the U.S. government and NASA to subsidize com-
peting launch systems. NASA has embarked on a plan to develop a
"second generation" launch system that will be subsidized by U.S.
taxpayers and that will compete directly with the private sector..."
... There will never be a private launch industry as long as NASA
and the U.S. government choose and subsidize launch systems. While
Boeing and Lockheed are private entities, their launch systems and
components are derivatives of various military initiatives. Very
little new effort takes place without significant government subsidy,
control, and involvement. While we believed we could compete succes-
sfully against the government subsidized EELV launch vehicles, the
characteristics and depth of subsidy for NASA's new initiative as
well as its ultimate performance are impossible to determine
or evaluate."
William Mook - Chief Engineer: I encourage you to be the hero of
antiquity for resurrecting some very important facts concerning the
continuing validity of this very important technology.
American
and reptilianated. Also, aren't those magnetically shielded
bubbles withstanding 600KW per day? Would they require
"cloaking"? e.g.,
Willia...@gmail.com
needn't be a problem for very large systems.
Large numbers of small objects arriving at Earth orbit on a continuing
basis to support Earth industry and Earth's population, can act as a
cover for a far larger number of small objects hiding behind them in
their shadow! These small objects would do a last minute deflection
and instead of entering orbit, they'd all impact in minutes or seconds
of one another and produce a worldwide sterlizing event - with far less
mass than a single impactor. If done right Earth based observers would
only have a few dozen hours of knowledge, which given the mass, number,
and speed, will be totally ineffective.
The only answer to that is to have adequate intelligence going in, and
to have a space based observation system that detects such things early
on, and to know where all the spacer's assets are, and pre-position
forces to counter-strike if even an attempt is made. Of course
penetrating and undermining any anti-Earth political movement will be
required as well.
Further, social norms can be developed that seek to honor and protect
Earth's biosphere - despite anything the population demands in terms of
resources taxes and the like! lol. The US seeks out the best and
brightest and bring them for education in the US for this reason. We
could seek out the best and brightest spacers and bring them back to
Earth for higher education, and in the process expose them to things
like the Pacific Ocean, the Himilayas, the Great Barrier Reef, Mount
Kilimanjaro, Paris... in such a way as to instill a great respect for
Earth's diversity, and raw biological capacity. It would also help if
the biosystems of the spacer's most cherished spacestations required
periodic recharging to maintain biodiversity and vigor in these.
Finally, if all the best foods, fiber, bio-products, came from Earth,
this sort of thing could become the basis of an important philosophy
that would make attacking the Earth in a sterilizing event unthinkable
- at least for a long long time.
Interplanetary war is possible once you have people who live largely in
space and others who live largely on Earth, with little traffic between
the two.
Of course once space travel becomes so easy that travel between Earth
and Moon are as easy as driving across town - then, you don't have the
conditions that are ripe for conflict. Its only in the early stages
that risks are highest. When both groups diverge and don't understand
the needs of each other, and are most likely to make unreasonable
demands of each.
This is where intelligence shines. And why its needed early on.
Brad Guth
>afraid of ET. We certainly have all the necessary equipment to get up
>there in a couple of years with a crash program.
The first reason is a rathe nasty premature death by way of radiation,
especially if they're going anywhere near our physically dark and DNA
lethal moon. The second reason is that they don't have a tenth of what
your mindset is worth to work with. A third reason is that having to
launch our stuff on a stick isn't very efficient, nor all that
reliable, and it's certainly not been cheap.
Of the easiest and most payload efficient placement for having created
a station-keeping science platform, as being that of LL-1, hasn't
materialized because of that rather nasty gamma and hard-X-ray moon
that's always nearby. Besides a few physiological complications, it'll
take more than a few tonnes/m2 worth of shielding for insuring the
safety of any such crew that's spending any amount of time within that
essentially zero-gravity nullification zone. Obviously without the new
and composite improved Saturn V we haven't a cost effective nor tonnage
effective alternative for getting such horrific mass into the LL-1
zone.
You recently had this little tidbit to say about out moon:
: While there appears to be uranium on the Moon, uranium doesn't really
: throw off that much in radiation unless it has reached critical mass.
: Is that the case with the Moon?
>Mike Combs; Not typically, although when Nuclear Waste Disposal Area 2
>went critical it was... interesting.
I then contributed the following:
That's certainly terrific status quo feedback. However, it seems as
though our extremely salty moon that was once upon a time coated in a
protective thick layer of salty ice has actually remained as somewhat
like a solid form of a Van Allen belt, having been collecting solar and
cosmic debris plus a little of just about everything that's good as
well as nasty that you and I can think of. That's why in places the
fluffy moon-dust that can't hardly support 0.5 g/cm2 is tens of meters
deep and absolutely chuck full of the worse possible radioactive debris
imaginable.
That's also why the gamma spectrum image of our naked moon looks so
downright nasty as all get-out, and this only gets much worse off upon
the solar illuminated side which adds another extra secondary/recoil
worth of hard-X-rays as representing serious insult to injury. By day
I believe we're talking minutes before DNA termination, that which no
amount of banked bone marrow will salvage. Perhaps by earthshine we're
talking hours to perhaps at best a day or so before an extra good
moonsuit occupant reaches their 100+ Rad of TBI dosage, by which
his/her banked bone marrow should save their day.
-
This is exactly why having the fully moon tethered LSE-CM/ISS and of
their taking advantage of such folks being extremely well shielded by
the 50t/m2 abode within the massive CM/ISS, and for otherwise keeping
58,000 km away from that nasty sucker, is so gosh darn bloody and DNA
butt saving important.
Because I'm such a good sport; Lets place their "Outer Space
Intelligence Center" within a portion of the 1e9 m3 abode that's
shielded by 50t/m2, as smack within the efficient tethered
station-keeping orbit of LL-1.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
Our physically dark and TBI nasty moon is actually representing itself
as a solid form of Van Allen belt, as in all rather nicely rolled up
into one heck of a dusty solar and cosmic dosage collection site that's
unfortunately nothing but a naked ball of salty basalt that's covered
in billions upon billions of meteorites, especially if including their
secondary impact shards, plus a good amount of our Apollo debris as
having vaporised upon impact, thus unable to defend itself nor hardly
capable of keeping any of that nasty radioactive accumulation to
itself, much less prevent further solar and cosmic influx from the
unavoidable secondary/recoil reactions that's giving extra birth to
those DNA nasty hard-X-rays.
This is what the likes of "tomcat" and "Mike Combs" are having to say,
and oddly they both believe or at least badly want to believe in every
last stinking word of whatever our infomercial NASA/Apollo fiasco had
to say about their having walked on that physically dark and otherwise
terribly nasty but nifty moon of ours.
>tomcat; The only reason we aren't in Outer Space already is that the
>U.S. is afraid of ET. We certainly have all the necessary equipment
>to get up there in a couple of years with a crash program.
tomcat,
I believe the first reason is a rather nasty premature death (from the
inside out) by way of radiation, especially if they're going anywhere
near our physically dark and DNA lethal moon. The second reason is
that they don't have a tenth of what your mindset is worth to work
with. A third reason is that having to launch our stuff on a stick
isn't very efficient, nor all that reliable, and it's certainly not
been cheap nor without carnage.
Of the easiest and most payload efficient placement for having created
a station-keeping science platform, as being that of LL-1, hasn't
materialized because of that rather nasty gamma and hard-X-ray moon
that's always nearby. Besides a few physiological complications, it'll
take more than a few tonnes/m2 worth of shielding for insuring the
safety of any such crew that's spending any amount of time within that
essentially zero-gravity/nullification zone. Obviously without our
having the new and composite improved Saturn V we haven't a cost
effective nor tonnage effective alternative for getting such horrific
mass into the LL-1 zone.
You recently had this little tidbit to say about out moon:
: While there appears to be uranium on the Moon, uranium doesn't really
: throw off that much in radiation unless it has reached critical mass.
: Is that the case with the Moon?
>Mike Combs; Not typically, although when Nuclear Waste Disposal Area 2
>went critical it was... interesting.
I then contributed the following:
That's certainly terrific status quo feedback. However, it seems as
though our extremely salty moon that was once upon a time coated in a
protective thick layer of salty ice has actually remained as somewhat
like a solid form of a Van Allen belt, having been collecting solar and
cosmic debris plus a little of just about everything that's good as
well as nasty that you and I can think of. That's why in places the
fluffy moon-dust that can't hardly support 0.5 g/cm2 is tens of meters
deep and absolutely chuck full of the worse possible radioactive debris
imaginable.
That's also why the gamma spectrum image of our naked moon looks so
downright nasty as all get-out, and this only gets itself much worse
off upon the solar illuminated side which adds another extra
secondary/recoil worth of hard-X-rays as representing serious insult to
injury. By day I believe we're talking minutes before DNA termination,
that which no amount of banked bone marrow will salvage your soul.
Perhaps by earthshine we're talking hours to possibly at best a day or
so before an extra good moonsuit occupant reaches their 100+ Rad of TBI
dosage, by which his/her banked bone marrow should manage to save their
day.
-
This ongoing argument or honest sub-topic discussion is exactly why
having the fully moon tethered LSE-CM/ISS and of their taking advantage
of such folks as being extremely well shielded by the 50t/m2 abode
within the massive CM/ISS, and for otherwise keeping their 58,000 km
distance away from that nasty sucker, is so gosh darn bloody essential
and DNA butt saving important.
Because I'm such a good hearted and honest sport; Lets place (free
gratis) their "Outer Space Intelligence Center" within a portion of the
1e9 m3 abode that's shielded by 50t/m2, as smack within this extremely
efficient tethered station-keeping orbit of LL-1. I'm certain that the
Chinese encharge of this LSE-CM/ISS will be accommodating and
reasonably fair about the amount of rent we'll have to pay. Besides,
didn't you folks always want to learn the Chinese language?
-
Brad Guth
Eric Chomko
You've been watching too many sci-fi films. You obviously thought the Mel
Gibson movie, "Signs", was a documentry.
Eric
: tomcat
Alex Terrell
Brad Guth
>Gibson movie, "Signs", was a documentry.
what Mel Gibson manages to pull off as an actor and/or film producer,
that's usually way better than most.
-
Brad Guth
tomcat
The U.S. went to the Moon in July of 1969. The year is 2006 and we are
capable of going there with just a couple of years of preparation,
regardless of who says we can't.
Often, today, things are thought of as sci-fi when they aren't. This
is one such case.
tomcat
Brad Guth
Huston, we have another problem; Especially when we have the likes of
"Tom Davidson" and even yourself telling us such blatant lies upon
lies, as based upon all of that hyped infomercial-science, and of
others as equally having to use various forms of evidence exclusion in
order that their infomercial-science that obviously can't be
replicated, and of their having to use those conditional laws of
physics are of what's having no option but to survive in spite of the
truth, as in no matters what the consequences none the less. Whereas
with such a skewed and/or perverted mindset it's an absolute wonder
that the likes of Muslims and of other honest folks haven't put us
pagan LLPOF heathens out of our misery long before.
Our gamma and otherwise hard-X-ray moon has NOT been walked upon, at
least there no such hard-science proving otherwise, whereas there's
otherwise more than sufficient hard-science as proof to such
NASA/Apollo stories being chuck full of lies, yet obviously you're
remaining so thoroughly snookered and subsequently dumbfounded that
it's simply too late for salvaging the lost soul of "tomcat" and of all
the souls of so many other fools that can't seem to understand as to
why all sorts of things have been going so terribly wrong.
You keep telling yourself that there's simply no good technical reasons
as to why we haven't returned to the moon, much less to having
established the much simpler LL-1 platform, whereas many other aspects
of our perpetrated cold-wars and of our NASA has since cost us far more
than merely another Apollo class of mission. Yet lo and behold,
everything from the complexity of utilizing various new and improved
delivery rockets, to the lunar orbiting unit and of the lander itself
are each having to be R&D invented and proof-tested from scratch,
exactly as though it has never been accomplished before. Exactly what
part of double duh and no kidding folks don't you get?
There's actual sci-fi that uses more of real hard-science and depends
entirely upon the regular laws of physics than of what our NASA/Apollo
wizards supposedly used for their walking on our physically dark and
TBI nasty moon. What part of being "physically dark" is even too much
for the likes of the "tomcat" mindset to understand?
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
Alex Terrell wrote:
> How about proposing some intelligence in NASA?
gram of remorse, don't you think?
What do you think about China's LSE-CM/ISS ?
-
Brad Guth
tomcat
Tomcat climbs into the cockpit of his freshly built -- with 2 years --
of his sport model Fat Albert.
The sport model has one SSME and has a gross liftoff weight of 4
million pounds. The fuel weight is 3 million 9 hundred and fifty
thousand pounds. The dry weight, then, is 50 thousand pounds with
about 8000 pounds of SSME. Fully 38 thousand pounds is devoted to huge
doughnut and spherical tanks, one inside the other, with a 20 foot
thick skin consisting of sheet titanium laminated with basalt/epoxy and
covered with Corelle/silica tiles. Most of the skin is vacuum, making
the 20 foot thick skin lighter than air.
I make my way through a tunnel deep into the center of the sport model.
I find myself surrounded with high resolution screens showing
everything around the spaceplane in 'starlight green' just as if I was
in a glass bubble.
My hastly made spaceplane is capable of escape velocity, but the flight
is to be a quick Moon flyby with a 200,000 mph 'slingshot' return.
Speed to target (Moon) will be 27,000 mph and take 18 hours. The
return will only take a couple of hours.
As far as they Van Allen Belts are concerned, I will penetrate them on
the way to the Moon surrounded by many feet of hydrogen, oxygen, and
water; not to mention the titanium skin, stainless steel tanks, and
titanium cockpit egg. The fuel will be depleted on the return, but the
200,000 mph speed will limit my time in the Belts to less than 2
minutes.
The onboard computer lights a screen and greets me with a cheery "Good
Morning, tomcat."
"Computer, fuel in seconds on the left screen, flight instruments on
the top screen, and telephoto the Moon on my right screen," I command
while settling into the ejection seat. The standard menu screen is to
my lower right. The stick is on the left side. I strap myself in.
Screens light up all around me. I can even see the runway between my
legs.
It is 3:30 am and the runway is glowing green. No runway lights at
all. The Moon is at 10 o'clock high directly ahead of the runway. The
last two years and nearly a billion dollars have been for this moment.
I push the stick all the way forward. I feel a soft but constantly
increasing acceleration. The runway stripes are zipping between my
legs. At 4 million pounds GLOW it is going to be slow at first, but
will prove itself in about an hour.
When the engine shuts down some 63 minutes into the flight, I swivel my
seat around, unstrap, and step into the my cabin. The autopilot will
handle the flight for the next 18 hours. About 15 hours from now I will
have to strap in again for the slingshot. Then a couple of hours later
I will strap in for planetfall. The rest of the time I can relax,
rest, or study the Moon with telephoto lens. Or, read a book for that
matter.
"Isn't that right, computer," I ask.
"Yes, tomcat," the computer replies.
So, you see Brad, it is possible.
tomcat
Eric Chomko
: Brad Guth wrote:
: > tomcat,
Clarke, when he wrote "2001: A Space Odyssey", knew enough to consider
using the toilet in space and dealing with food.
Perhaps you should call your tale, "2006: A Space Oddity"? And that
computer of yours sounds too friendly for a good space tale. Since HAL is
already taken, why not call the computer some other fiendish name like,
Rand or Fred? The latter has vague reference to Sperry UNIVAC and the
latter could just be Flintstone. LOL!!!
Eric
: tomcat
Brad Guth
With an open mindset and a little faith in humanity (mistakes and all),
almost anything becomes possible, even if it's terribly spendy and
downright selfish.
The problem here is with this naysay mindset from hell, of the
anti-think-tank of this Usenet that summarily sucks and blows at just
about anything associated with their offering the truth. You're still
snookered and dumbfounded by those folks having "the right stuff",
which is to say that most everything you've ever accomplished or hope
to accomplish is badly skewed into the nearest space-toilet, that's
obviously based upon their infomercial-science that can't be replicated
and otherwise depending on those conditional laws of physics for
keeping their perpetrated cold-war lids on tight.
-
Brad Guth
tomcat
> : > > capable of going there with just a couple of years of preparation,
> : > > regardless of who says we can't.
> : > >
> : > > Often, today, things are thought of as sci-fi when they aren't. This
> : > > is one such case.
> : > >
> : > >
>
>
>
>
Eric Chomko wrote:
> Clarke, when he wrote "2001: A Space Odyssey", knew enough to consider
> using the toilet in space and dealing with food.
>
> Perhaps you should call your tale, "2006: A Space Oddity"? And that
> computer of yours sounds too friendly for a good space tale. Since HAL is
> already taken, why not call the computer some other fiendish name like,
> Rand or Fred? The latter has vague reference to Sperry UNIVAC and the
> latter could just be Flintstone. LOL!!!
>
> Eric
Note that the vehicle I describe is a little run-a-bout with a single
SSME. Really pushing, it could be built in roughly 2 years for a
billion dollars. It would not be capable of any significant payload,
nor could it land on the Moon. Rigging it for escape velocity is
maxing it out.
Given at least 5 years and 8 billion dollars a 200 million pound GLOW
version could be built. It could put a million pound payload in orbit
or sit a half million pound payload on the Moon. It could visit the
planets as well.
The big version would be capable of having a crew of 2 along with 6
passengers. It's quarters would include sophisticated cabins,
restrooms, galley, observation decks, and the like. It would have it's
own magnetosphere to deflect radiation (deflectors).
Why isn't it being built? Because no one believes that it can be
built. But it can be. If we try.
tomcat
>
> : tomcat
Brad Guth
For God's sake, stop expecting anything but more of the same mainstream
status quo of naysay Eric Chomko and bigot/naysay Art Deco's pagan
incest cloned crapolla on a stick, especially from this anti-think-tank
of a Usenet from hell that sucks and blows exactly the way these pagan
rusemasters like it.
As I've said before, and as far as I can tell I'm still going strong, I
can't be any more anti-anti-semitic than Jesus Christ himself. But
then, what's your sorry excuse for having been so totally status quo
dumbfounded, and otherwise continually snookered by your own kind, none
the less?
Think about it; even if you had wanted, you couldn't possibly become
any more Third Reich qualified if you tried. Even though yourself and
others may not think so, you're all badly reacting as though exactly
like the Third Reich collaborating Art Deco's intended, running
yourself and others amuck with yet another skewed butt-load of your own
infomercial basis of disinformation, of your cultivated status quo
brains in a box, that obviously haven't so much as a freaking honest
independent clue emerging from between either of your cheeks, much less
sharing a gram of remorse between the entire lot.
Unless you've got some new and improved hard-science to offer; WE HAVE
NOT WALKED UPON THAT NASTY GAMMA AND HARD-X-RAY NASTY MOON, as you'd be
soon thereafter become quite DNA dead unless that cash of your banked
bone marrow saved your sorry moonsuit naked butt. And what exactly is
that telling you about your government and of whatever suck-up religion
that's in support of your government?
What part of LLPOF is still way over tomcat's head?
Face it, you've been snookered by those folks having "the right stuff".
These rusemasters simply don't honestly give a tinkers damn about any
"tomcat spaceplane", never did and never will, other than to stalk,
bash and banish such notions, and you're obviously too dumbfounded as
to realize that our Saturn V was simply too inert massive to have
accomplished getting 50+t past LL-1, especially in such short order as
per recorded in the NASA/Apollo koran. I'll give them credit for
possibly accomplishing 25t deployed into the LL-1 zone, but until you
can manage to prove otherwise, that's as good as it gets.
-
Brad Guth
tomcat
The Borg have finally made an official announcement of their existence!
The following quote is from Rising Star:
"We, The Borg, resent that remark. Your assimilation is assured. Your
technological and biological distinctiveness will be incorperated into
the collective BOX. Then we will seal said box and sell it on
ebay......MUWAHAHAHAHHAHA"
So, rest assured, Brad, the battle has begun. They are out in the
open.
tomcat
Brad Guth
-
Brad Guth
tomcat
I believe that you are underestimating Dr. Van Braun and the NASA when
it comes to the Apollo Program.
Today we know that the Army has a polyethelene derivative substance
that can stop hard radiation. How long they have had this I don't
know, but there is the possibility that it may go back to 1969.
The Saturn V is one tremendous vehicle and it's capabilities should not
be underestimated. The only mistake NASA made back then was to stop
the Saturn V's production.
As far as sinking into deep Moon dust is concerned keep in mind that
the Moon's gravity is only 1/6th that of Earth's. The Astronauts only
weighed 58 pounds on the Moon. The Moon lander weighed less too and
had meter wide landing pods.
Burn marks where one of the Apollo Missions landed have been
photographed.
Our next step should be to build an underground National Space
Intelligence Center on the Moon. We should dig into the side of a rill
using a nuclear tunneling machine, melting the Moon dirt into rock hard
tunnels. It should be a an ELINT and Radar base complete with a
hardened Command and Control Unit. In addition, a major observatory
should be constructed nearby which could serve both the Intelligence
Center and scientific endeavor.
tomcat
American
Many have proposed that the moon is the way to go before Asteroid
Mining Technology can be realized, but too many private enterprises
would have to overspend their profits before incurring debt from
government and bank loans. The not-too-obvious result would be
that the United States would export micro-managed technology with
its team of overbureaucratized minutia men like ants on a feeding
frenzy rather than for a wider exploration initiative. Minutia men
model the minutia generated from IRS micromanagement in overbureau-
cratized promise markets. Therefore, the moon and every private
enterprise gets swallowed up in refinancing larger buyouts, which
is not a too respectable scenario.
Why I am saying this is that the whole idea of establishing
a niche in the market for Asteroid Mining involves free market
enterprise, NOT rigid market controls (so as to establish mani-
pulative banking systems in red tape, bureacracy, and isolationism,
which excludes free trade). The premise for FREE TRADE is that
those whose diligence and hard work PAYS OFF the EXPECTATION for
GREATER FREE TRADE, rather than having dreams haunted by the next
establishment banking, merger, and layoff takeover! Therefore, the
moon is NOT the way to go-I REPEAT-THE MOON IS NOT THE WAY TO GO!
The way to go is CHEAPER EARTH-TO-ORBIT ACCESS, which would help to
establish orbital colonies, as discussed in the beginning of the
Mars Colonization vs. Stanford Torus thread.
Certain technologies that support Asteroid Mining Technology are
absolutely vital to securing American independence from the world
banking monopolies. Anyone who even leverages Federal Reserve Notes
is a ward of the state, and an invalidator of private enterprise!
At what point does the research realize a gain? Imagine recieving
the first data set from an SAR NEA Amun flyby, discussed in an
earlier post, SAR Technology Incidental to an NEA Flyby:
Would the data set be required to become public knowledge, or does
the industry that supports such technology keep it secret?
(I really don't think that the Fed needs to know about this one,
do you?) Who really needs to become envious of them? The state?
The whole world? - Yeah, I would imagine so - that's why I'd keep
this technology secret to those that delegate the rest of where
responsibility lies to "helping" humanity where it needs help the
most, while providing a form of currency for those that work
"outside" of earth's orbit! The moon, to me, seems like some
rather huge "dustbowl" that, once there, might trap the tourist
into becoming a slave-of-the-state - forever churning out life
support systems for "Lex Luthor" and his associates.
No, I'd rather "wing it" to LEO with one of those Orion type
propulsion systems, re-engineered to include the non-lethal
"bomblet" type, with a 3,000 TON payload, Stanford Torus type,
and begin using Material Specialists to assist in the acquisition
and modularization of components for both a power satellite con-
struction center and cargo vessel. The "Center" would be a place
where much of the actual construction of an Asteroid cargo vessel
takes place, with some provision for human living quarters, or
"habitcons" available, so that the first ten people that arrive
must be able to work inside an inflatable "bubble" with ceramic/
steel framing surrounding the core. The core "bubble with
ceramic/steel frame" should be assembled, with fully functional
core "habitcons" in under 100 man hours time. The core consists
of an inflatable toroidal bladder that is restrained against ex-
pansion by a web of straps. The straps are attached to a rigid
ceramic/steel frame using clevice/pin(s) on the internal circum-
ference. Eight men, with rotating crews of four, and the remain-
ing two on standby, each working 25 hours in a weeks time, should
have the core project completed and ready for expansion into the
construction center. Once the core is complete, additional modules
for construction are "unpacked" and assembled on to the core by a
crew of four men. The expanded core now includes a cargo bay
storage area with a cryogenic welding supply system in place, as
well as the habitcons with (20) potable water temperature con-
trolled stowages (one for each man). Now the center becomes a
self-sustaining life support area w/ replenishment food, water,
and air, as well as additional modules for construction for the
space station, as well as for the cargo vessel fuselage,
fuel cells, etc.
After this so-called "base station" becomes semi-operational,
another crew arrives from a second Orion-type spacecraft,
delivering additional life support systems, potable water sup-
plies, foodstuffs, and modules for construction. The nature of
the mission is two-fold: (1) To finish the Orbital Torus, and
(2) To launch an NEA flyby, followed by Cargo Vessel for mineral,
water ice, and metals extraction. Launch facility and cargo vessel
delivery systems are a private enterprise, whereas GAMS (stands
for Geosynchronous Asteroid Mapping System) delivery from LEO
are an incorporation interest venture. SATCOM would coordinate
data received from the GAMS flyby with a window of opportunity
for the cargo landing. For this reason, the decision to launch
the flyby requires a window that stretches from a long range,
low delta-V to a short range, high delta-V, and the cargo vessel
window of opportunity exists to a lesser degree within this window.
SATCOM should also decide what the time differential is between
the outer and inner windows of opportunity, and coordinate launch
schedules between the GAMS launch facility and the cargo vessel.
There is an SAR server program that could be developed as a sim-
ulation of an actual transmission of SAR data from a single server
to pro-GAMS clients. All that is required of the clients is that
they are logged in to a part of an Asteroid Mining Technology web-
site in order to process the raw data thru an applet that runs
while the client is logged on to the website. Since data collection
takes several weeks to several months, the amount of data collected
must be compared to what the actual frame and time stamped
telemetry data would be on an actual GAMS flyby, using the Monte
Carlo method. This method provides a mapping technique using virtual
geo-modeling for the asteroid terrain characteristics. The length
of the virtual data telemetry collection period could then be com-
pressed into a simulated rendition of the full SAR telemetry stream.
The server program would help to establish an SAR mockup of what the
actual conditions would be for a GAMS flyby.
Currently, there is nothing mentioned anywhere, except maybe in the
search for extraterrestrial intelligence, for distributed, online
computing systems. Components of a distributed SAR mapping system
would provide additional processing power for RTL (Real Time Looping)
using distributed Fortran Java applets for frequency and time chart-
ing of the frame and time stamped data, or cells. The data sets for
input to a simulated telemetry database are capable of being stored
in a single 2GHZ computer, however a distributed database allows the
functionality to increase the number of systems for data storage.
In such a scenario, several methodologies utilizing extraterrestrial
resource awareness and data mining involving Near Earth Asteroids can
be implemented on a world wide scale.
Brad Guth
> Today we know that the Army has a polyethelene derivative substance
> that can stop hard radiation. How long they have had this I don't
> know, but there is the possibility that it may go back to 1969.
dumbfounded, if not another mole of an e-spook borg that's knowingly
collaborating with the Third Reich, or much worse.
According to the official words of the regular laws of physics and of
your own replicated hard-science; it takes roughly 130 meters of
sealevel atmosphere or 18mm worth of lead in order to cut hard-X-ray
dosage in half (and that's only if dealing with a given point-source of
those xrays), however lead itself remains damn near transparent to
gamma. Go figure one again as to what having your DNA near and much
less upon and thus surrounded by our salty and gamma plus hard-X-ray
moon is going to demand, and that's even if you have your cash of
banked bone marrow back home.
That polyethelene is merely a nifty solid form of semi-structural
density that's similar in density to water. BTW; polyethelene (unless
extensively modified) would melt on the double IR impacted and
atmospherically insulated moon. Polyethelene isn't much better off
than UHMWPE, whereas modified Torlon or perhaps Delrin might cut the
thermal mustard without involving much greater than 1.4 g/cm3 that'll
still involve a not so healthy degree of generating those
secondary/recoil worth of soft and hard-X-rays. It's called radiation
physics-101.
-
Brad Guth
American
A few interesting links:
http://www.lightparty.com/Peace/MiracleInTheVoid.html
which states:
Perhaps the most astonishing finding from cold fusion
research is the apparent observation of radioactivity
reduction in the process! CETI, one of the first cold
fusion companies, recently announced it had been
awarded a US patent on an electrolytic process for
reducing the radioactivity of thorium and uranium. The
company claims its process can reduce the radioactivity
of *radioactive materials* by over 90 per cent in periods
less than 24 hours - compressing into hours what nature
takes billions of years to do. A demonstration of this
seemingly successful process was included in the same
Good Morning America story which described Patterson's
prototype water heater.
***
Here is a process of extracting Be-7 for the
purpose of Neutron reflecting:
www.ipm.virginia.edu/people/dam2j/MurdickAU1999.pdf
Interesting, but Be-7 is slightly radioactive, and
must be handled w/ extreme care.
So, if a radiation absorbing medium can be made to be
"appreciably thick", perhaps some of the harmful rad-
iation can be "drained off" using the above methods
w/o any harmful exposure effects.
Another link for gamma radiation-proof solvents:
http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/ChemScience/Volume/2006/07/nuclear_industry.asp
Maybe some kind of "solvent duct" between shell housings
is the application needed for protection.
Here's a link for a radiation proof polymer:
http://www.hnswp.com/pdfs/polymer_leaflet.pdf
(I like the part "Electronic equipment protection from electromagnetic
pulses, radio wave effects, and solar
radiation interference when directly applied to the
electronic equipment or component").
Protected body suits, gloves, and boots with Demron:
"Radiation Shield Technologies (RST) is proud to offer
DemronTM : the new standard in personal radiation pro-
tection. This revolutionary technology is currently
produced as full body suits, gloves and boots. DemronTM
not only protects against particle ionizing/nuclear
radiation (such as Beta and Alpha), but does what NO
OTHER full body radiation protection can do: shield
against X-ray and low-energy Gamma emissions. DemronTM
is non-toxic and completely Lead-free.
DemronTM suits are constructed from a unique nanotech-
nology that far surpasses the effectiveness (or inef-
fectiveness) of current nuclear-biological-chemical
(NBC) suits that only protect against radioactive
particulate sources."
***
There is also an interesting topic that is discussed
rarely, if at all, regarding the use of "tuned" Helm-
holtz coils for degaussing a "pulsed" resonance.
Since ionic radiation can be "repelled" by a strong
"cloak of invisibility" with a "Zero Energy Biofield"
(that creates and joins opposite phased EM vectors
w/ a strong "white noise" component), this causes the
original 2-D plasma cell-EM vector to de-polarize
and become a vibrating or rotating 3-D plasma cell.
Thanks for the "heads up", Mr. Brad Guth...
tomcat
The simple fact is that any kind of Outer Space exploration is
difficult without proper spacecraft capable of lifting the enormous
loads that mining, operational bases, or colonization require. And,
conversely, with huge vehicles capable of lifting million pound loads
to orbit or a half million to the Moon, or planets, then Outer space
exploration is easy. We need to develop new, large, powerful
spacecraft before we can reasonably proceed with anything beyond
orbital satellites.
This is why I have proposed that a new waverider 200 million pound GLOW
spacecraft be built. We need that kind of lift capability.
The Moon is desirable because it is loaded with resources. It has
titanium, aluminum, uranium, and water, as well as silicon for glass.
These resources are virtually unlimited. This, I believe, is enough
reason to make the Moon one of the first settlements. And, a National
Space Intelligence Center is a good starter, a starter that really puts
our military out into Outer Space.
tomcat
American
Tomcat:
Realistically speaking, REALISTICALLY speaking, any technology or
concept that has been formally wrapped up in secret government
projects will never see the light of day to the private entrepre-
neur, private enterprise, and, sad to say, HEALTHY competition,
because of the bureaucracy that the project has already been tied
up with. Are you stipulating that there will be some private
interest at stake here? Is the foundation already laid that will
get the project rolling in a fair amount of time? Is there the
right expertise, technology, financial support, publicity, and
manpower available that will insure that the project is completed
without useless delays? Are there "bureaucratic loopholes" that
need to be circumvented by an act of Congress to allow
"waveriders" to take off and land on the "mainland"? The last
time I checked, Elon Musk was launching somewhere in the Marshall
Islands. I would imagine that companies like Boeing and Lockheed
have pretty much saturated the launch location market here in the
U.S., but aren't they military?
When speaking about your "waverider" concept, doesn't your noble
attempt at massive earth-to-orbit technology beg for pro-PAC
affiliation? If it does, wouldn't it be more likely that you
would support private initiative rather than the military indus-
trial complex? Then I would probably say to you that non-lethal
Orion pulse technology has a much shorter list of technicalities
to overcome than waverider, mainly because most of the research
has already been accomplished decades ago, and there is a growing
public awareness and sentiment for restarting the project.
However, let's not jump to conclusions right away and assume that
using your "waverider" idea, we assume that your "monster
scramjet" requires a three mile long runway, HUGE HUGE landing
gear, and various other sundry packages have already been pro-
vided for in your start-up.
I urge you to take a hard look at what is "closer" to achieving the
goal of establishing a faster, cheaper mode for greater opportunity
in opening up the solar system for its resource potential.
In addition to the cooling problem, hypersonic mass flow rates,
such as are being used in your Monster Scramjet, would require high
performance turbopumps with cavity resistant impeller blades:
Moving large amounts of mass into orbit requires greater mass flow
ratio of propellant LH (liquid hydrogen); but in order to accom-
modate the increased load of fuel, an increase in the structural
weight of the entire system must be accepted. Since the whole con-
cept of reusability is indispensible for the future of the space
program, combustion gas temperatures must be lowered by increasing
the percentage of hydrogen in the O/F (oxygen/fuel) ratio.
Computer modeling for lowering the combustion temperatures re-
quires one step for each temperature difference of 5 degrees C
between each location, or state for the combustion chamber and
nozzle geometric configuration. Following the nozzle contour,
there are [C] for the combustion chamber, [T] for the throat,
and [E] for the nozzle exit. On the contour from [C] to [T]
representing one state, requires 15 steps which would lower the
temperature (15 x 5 = 75 degrees), whereas the contour between
[T] and [E] for another state, requires 450 steps or (450 x 5 =
2250 degrees!)
The specific impulse, or Isp, depends on this fuel-oxidizer combin-
ation. Since there are a wide range of performance characteristics
for a hydrogen-fueled Monster Scramjet, one can conclude that, given
a specified fuel-oxidizer combination, feed pressure, mass flow/ex-
pansion ratio, the optimal value of specific impulse is virtually
independent of the mass flow rate.
I think that we are talking about a major headache concerning the
R&D costs of redesign and manufacture of a suitable combustion
chamber, nozzle, turbopump, impeller blade, etc., for "waverider",
but let's still suppose that these obstacles have been overcome,
and that the components are still at large. How are you going to
convince people like Thiokol, General Dynamics, Rocketdyne,
Rockwell, Messerschmidt-Bolkow-Blohm-Corp. to act as "vendors"
supplying you with these components? Thus the timetable has been
pushed back another 10 years or so before real fabrication is seen.
With Orion, we are only seeing two major obstacles preventing
a project of this type: (1) shrinking the EMP area to under 100
miles, and (2) providing a remote location for launch. Not so bad,
if one considers that Elon Musk is already doing one of these!
Most of the plans and computer simulations for a project of this
sort has been completed in years past, so the only channels that
remain blocked are the legal ones. I think that we're far enough
beyond the Kennedy years to give it the "thumbs up", because
the technology for non-lethal atomic propulsion is already here.
Kennedy was worried about the nuclear part of it getting out of
control, but isn't that why we have fool proof bomblet technology
and institutions like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
in Vienna, Austria?
With Orion, there is no "nozzle" other than an ejector, no turbo-
pump, no "combustion chamber" (other than pusher plate, or laser
ignited), simpler feed line design, and more thrust per combustible.
Molybdenum makes an excellent ablative surface, and an MHD ejector
is not to be confused with the "mechanical coke machine type" (that
was often referred to by less qualified specialists in the field).
Now is the time for Americans to separate their sacred right as
"privateer of the new colonies of the earth" from our
"Federal-Reserve-in-a-box" HONEST DISSENT (pacifist) from DISLOYAL
SUBVERSION (activist) and boldly stake our claim for God and Country!
Eric Chomko
And getting it back in one piece is the real trick.
: Given at least 5 years and 8 billion dollars a 200 million pound GLOW
: version could be built. It could put a million pound payload in orbit
: or sit a half million pound payload on the Moon. It could visit the
: planets as well.
You seem pretty matter-of-factly about this spaceplane given we can't even
get to LEO and back.
: The big version would be capable of having a crew of 2 along with 6
: passengers. It's quarters would include sophisticated cabins,
: restrooms, galley, observation decks, and the like. It would have it's
: own magnetosphere to deflect radiation (deflectors).
: Why isn't it being built? Because no one believes that it can be
: built. But it can be. If we try.
Anything can be built. Right now it's easier to do nothing and not fail
rather than risk to succeed.
Eric
: tomcat
: >
: > : tomcat
Eric Chomko
: tomcat,
: For God's sake, stop expecting anything but more of the same mainstream
: status quo of naysay Eric Chomko and bigot/naysay Art Deco's pagan
: incest cloned crapolla on a stick, especially from this anti-think-tank
: of a Usenet from hell that sucks and blows exactly the way these pagan
: rusemasters like it.
Guth, if you actually built anything, even a simulated spacecraft in
software; I'd be impressed. As it is you mash words, dare to be daring and
swear at people that tell you you're full of crap.
: As I've said before, and as far as I can tell I'm still going strong, I
: can't be any more anti-anti-semitic than Jesus Christ himself. But
: then, what's your sorry excuse for having been so totally status quo
: dumbfounded, and otherwise continually snookered by your own kind, none
: the less?
Tomcat is at least discussing a spaceplane to the planets. Yes I'm
skeptical but is IS something I'd like to see. Your balland chain approach
to the moon has me thinking you're a little daft. (Well more than a
little).
: Think about it; even if you had wanted, you couldn't possibly become
: any more Third Reich qualified if you tried. Even though yourself and
: others may not think so, you're all badly reacting as though exactly
: like the Third Reich collaborating Art Deco's intended, running
: yourself and others amuck with yet another skewed butt-load of your own
: infomercial basis of disinformation, of your cultivated status quo
: brains in a box, that obviously haven't so much as a freaking honest
: independent clue emerging from between either of your cheeks, much less
: sharing a gram of remorse between the entire lot.
I see Art Deco has managed to push your buttons. Probably laughs like hell
when he gets you stirred up to boot...
: Unless you've got some new and improved hard-science to offer; WE HAVE
: NOT WALKED UPON THAT NASTY GAMMA AND HARD-X-RAY NASTY MOON, as you'd be
: soon thereafter become quite DNA dead unless that cash of your banked
: bone marrow saved your sorry moonsuit naked butt. And what exactly is
: that telling you about your government and of whatever suck-up religion
: that's in support of your government?
He's already stated that be believes we went to the moon, so...
: What part of LLPOF is still way over tomcat's head?
: Face it, you've been snookered by those folks having "the right stuff".
: These rusemasters simply don't honestly give a tinkers damn about any
: "tomcat spaceplane", never did and never will, other than to stalk,
Not true! I for one would love to see an actual spaceplane. C'mon, the
world has waited from day one for a SSTO plane ever since the first jet!
Maybe before that if you read Jules Verne.
: bash and banish such notions, and you're obviously too dumbfounded as
: to realize that our Saturn V was simply too inert massive to have
: accomplished getting 50+t past LL-1, especially in such short order as
: per recorded in the NASA/Apollo koran. I'll give them credit for
: possibly accomplishing 25t deployed into the LL-1 zone, but until you
: can manage to prove otherwise, that's as good as it gets.
Easier to go to the moon than to fake it six times!!
Eric
: -
: Brad Guth
Brad Guth
>Easier to go to the moon than to fake it six times!!
> Not true! I for one would love to see an actual spaceplane. C'mon, the
> world has waited from day one for a SSTO plane ever since the first jet!
> Maybe before that if you read Jules Verne.
I've never once excluded anything as to the "tomcat" spaceplane effort,
especially if having included a couple of those reusable LRBs that'll
use h2o2/c3h4o, while others much like yourself certainly have
topic/author stalked, bashed and wherever possible having banished the
likes of our snookered and otherwise totally dumbfounded "tomcat".
I've offered 50/50 matching funds (unlimited) as for whatever it'll
take. How about yourself?
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
worthy of a "National Space Intelligence Center" that'll obviously have
to specialize in another brown-nosed worthy butt-load of LLPOF
infomercial-science, of cover-thy-butt, snooker thy humanity and
wag-that-dog until them rad-hard NASA/Apollo cows come home.
How about such "National Space Intelligence Center" sharing a perfectly
good look-see at good old (1997) ACE that's always station-keeping
itself within L-1?
BTW; even KECK can manage a good lunar look-see of 1 m/pixel if
allowed to mask off 99% of each primary mirror, and by using their f40
secondary along with the 1.75 micron CCD might even improve on that via
image-stacking and PhotoShop.
Because I'm such a good and honest sport, I'll try to share this one
again.
Just going by their artificial XENON lamp spectrum of what those
UNFILTERED Kodak moments had recorded is offering us honest folks more
than sufficient proof-positive of such images not having been exposed
to the raw solar spectrum, not to mention the total lack of any
double-IR impact or having recorded any worth of cosmic and solar
radiation influx, much less yet for such film that was near-blue,
near-UV and even a bit UV-a sensitive as having been totally unaffected
by all of the local gamma and unavoidable hard-X-rays, or even from the
UV-a/blacklight worth of secondary/recoil photons worth of near-blue
that should have been vibrant off the flag white, more so off those
extra white moonsuits and having given the flag blue a somewhat
fluorescent illuminated look as a super-bright and/or over-saturated
blue via color film and offering a light gray to nearly white look as
of recorded by their equally unfiltered B&W film. End of freaking
argument, as in case summarily closed, and absolutely nowhere for all
of those absolutely pagan liars and status quo rusemasters of our
perpetrated cold-war to hide their remorseless LLPOF butts.
Moon cameras would have needed considerable shielding, extra thick
leaded glass lenses and having a good deal of applied spectrum
filtration (especially via the raw solar spectrum) on top of all that.
I'd also have to insist upon their EVAs taking advantage of only
earthshine unless it were a one way ticket to ride. Human DNA simply
isn't rad-hard, and at best there are limits even if having a
substantial cash of banked bone marrow back home.
At best they likely managed a short mission turn-around within L-1
(roughly 60,000 km away from the physically dark and nasty surface of
our moon), though even that effort should have been damn freaking nasty
to their DNA. Of whatever orbited and subsequently impacted the moon
was, as having been accomplished before, robotic and therefore wasn't
at all of we've been informed, nor hardly of what we've paid for, and
paid for and will most likely pay even more dearly for because of what
these absolute Skull and Bones perverts and Christ on a stick bastards
have done and gotten away with for all of these decades. Fortunately
it's not quite as bad off as for their kind getting Jesus Christ on a
stick, and then lying about their ancestors (AKA kin folk) not ever
having anything whatsoever to do with such, but it's certainly running
a close second.
Does it get any worse off; you bet it does.
Could a one-way ticket to ride have deployed science instruments?
Of course that's still remains as a viable possibility, at least it's
technically better off than most anything fly-by-rocket of what
AI/robotics could have managed way back in the mid 70's.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
make L-1, at a horrific 281:1 worth of rocket to payload ratio and
taking much longer than any NASA/Apollo mission of going that same
distance, that still isn't giving the likes of snookered and
dumbfounded "tomcat" a freaking clue as to the necessary amount of
energy required just to make L-1 as a one-way ticket to ride.
Your SSTO spaceplane had best add a couple of those reusable h2o2/c3h4o
LRBs if going for anything more than LEO.
-
Brad Guth
tomcat
A lot of thought has already gone into the 'Fat Albert'. My 'secret'
rocket formula says it will fly to LEO and escape velocity, both. The
cyrogenic fuel tanks will be the body and support structure -- two
birds with one stone saving a fair amount of weight. The thick skin
will be vacuumed and actually reduce it's weight while in the
atmosphere.
Highly reliable SSMEs -- 41 of them -- will provide the thrust for the
200 million pound version. It will be capable of putting 1million
pounds in orbit, or a half million on the Moon. A magnetosphere will
protect against radiation along with fuel tanks, and polyethelene.
> : The big version would be capable of having a crew of 2 along with 6
> : passengers. It's quarters would include sophisticated cabins,
> : restrooms, galley, observation decks, and the like. It would have it's
> : own magnetosphere to deflect radiation (deflectors).
>
> : Why isn't it being built? Because no one believes that it can be
> : built. But it can be. If we try.
>
> Anything can be built. Right now it's easier to do nothing and not fail
> rather than risk to succeed.
The horrible fact is your remarks are true:
"Anything can be built. Right now it's easier to do nothing and not
fail
rather than risk to succeed."
There is a good chance that China will SHOCK AND AWE the U.S. out of
that attitude. I suspect they may land on the Moon WITHIN 3 YEARS.
There will be "wailing and gnashing of teeth." Many U.S. aerospace
engineers will be FIRED.
tomcat
Eric Chomko
: Obviously you're not aware of the 1997 ACE mission that only had to
: make L-1, at a horrific 281:1 worth of rocket to payload ratio and
: taking much longer than any NASA/Apollo mission of going that same
: distance, that still isn't giving the likes of snookered and
: dumbfounded "tomcat" a freaking clue as to the necessary amount of
: energy required just to make L-1 as a one-way ticket to ride.
The moon at the same location as ACE? According to this link:
http://sd-www.jhuapl.edu/ACE/ACE_FactSheet.html
Ace is 1/100 the distance from the earth to the sun. Okay, earth at
93,000,000 miles. 1% is 930,000 miles. Lunar distance (average) is
238,855 mi. according to the TRW Space Data book. 930,000 is almost 4
times what 238,855 is. How did you manage to equate them?
: Your SSTO spaceplane had best add a couple of those reusable h2o2/c3h4o
: LRBs if going for anything more than LEO.
Brad, what percentage of a Saturn V's fuel capacity (total) was used to
get to LEO? To the moon? Fly off the moon and get back to Earth prior to
re-entry? The answers are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V
Seems that the LEM return mission is considered different (makes sense).
Do you doubt that the LEM, after landing on the moon, could return as was
designed?
Also, it appears as though the 165,000 kg of fuel, over 70% was used to
get the Saturn V into LEO. Less than 30% to go to the moon. And check this
link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module
Brad, you're so easy to refute...
Eric
: -
: Brad Guth
tomcat
My 'secret' rocket formula clearly indicates that 'Fat Albert' can make
it to the Moon. It can achieve 27,000 mph. It is simply Newton's
force-mass-acceleration formula figured for acceleration with gravity
and drag added in.
The 'secret' rocket formula is then looped in a visual basic program so
that fuel expenditure is recalculated for every second of flight. It
is bound to be fairly accurate -- a good deal more than can be said for
the Tsiolkovsky Equation -- and might turn out to be extremely
accurate.
Fat Albert will work. The biggest obstacle is the large size of the
tanks and fuselage. Big size makes construction difficult, but not
impossible. Everything needed, other than the skin, can be purchased
off-the-shelf. It will need a long runway, but building a long runway
is no more difficult than building an 8 mile length of super highway.
tomcat
Brad Guth
At 41 SSMEs you're up to 400 tonnes worth of those LO2/LH2 sucking
monsters and their essential infrastructure (that may not even include
the unavoidable dead/inert weight of fuel that can't be burned) + Fat
Albert.
If that volumetric massive sucker doesn't need a couple if not four of
the reusable LRBs of h2o2/c3h4o, then I don't know of what does.
Obviously you've paid no attention to the 281:1 ratio it took of the
ACE mission, as a one-way ticket to ride that wasn't even in any hurry
to get that wussy ACE payload into the nearby L-1 zone that represents
the most payload efficient sort of place to go.
Lets say your Fat Albert is twice as good; at 140:1 of the
do-everything Fat Albert to payload ratio for a similar one-way ticket
to ride seems sufficiently impressive, though you're suggesting
something of a SSTO that's of a fully reusable round-trip ticket and
supposedly way better off than the 60:1 ratio of accomplishment that
our fully disposible and otherwise inert massive Saturn V supposedly
managed those NASA/Apollo missions without a hitch.
-
Brad Guth
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
> tomcat,
> At 41 SSMEs you're up to 400 tonnes worth of those LO2/LH2 sucking
> monsters and their essential infrastructure (that may not even include
> the unavoidable dead/inert weight of fuel that can't be burned) + Fat
> Albert.
>
> If that volumetric massive sucker doesn't need a couple if not four of
> the reusable LRBs of h2o2/c3h4o, then I don't know of what does.
>
> Obviously you've paid no attention to the 281:1 ratio it took of the
> ACE mission, as a one-way ticket to ride that wasn't even in any hurry
> to get that wussy ACE payload into the nearby L-1 zone that represents
> the most payload efficient sort of place to go.
>
> Lets say your Fat Albert is twice as good; at 140:1 of the
> do-everything Fat Albert to payload ratio for a similar one-way ticket
> to ride seems sufficiently impressive, though you're suggesting
> something of a SSTO that's of a fully reusable round-trip ticket and
> supposedly way better off than the 60:1 ratio of accomplishment that
> our fully disposible and otherwise inert massive Saturn V supposedly
> managed those NASA/Apollo missions without a hitch.
> -
> Brad Guth
Remember that each of those SSMEs is putting out compensating thrust
for their weight. if it was a Moon trip you have to add on 4
additional SSMEs on the waverider's bottom.
The trick is to keep the dry weight down. Vacuum will have to be used
as much as possible inside. This doesn't reduce mass but it does
reduce weight in the atmosphere. And, I can't help but wonder if 0 dry
weight is possible using enough vacuum.
Keep in mind, as well, that returning from the Moon will require a lot
less fuel than getting there. With 1/6th Earth's gravity holding you
back and ever increasing Earth gravity pulling you toward it, it
doesn't take a lot of fuel. A 10 second burn would probably bring you
home. That 10 second burn, by the way, would probably have a thrust to
weight ratio of 10 to 1. Ten seconds would be about all your body
could take.
tomcat
Rand Simberg
<jla...@bellsouth.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>The trick is to keep the dry weight down. Vacuum will have to be used
>as much as possible inside. This doesn't reduce mass but it does
>reduce weight in the atmosphere. And, I can't help but wonder if 0 dry
>weight is possible using enough vacuum.
Good idea. Why not make the entire vehicle out of vacuum? That would
really save a lot of weight.
I can't help but wonder why you seem to so enjoy making a
laughingstock of yourself on Usenet.
Brad Guth
Terribly sorry about that mistake of needing 150,000 km of LRB effort,
as I'd meant 100~150 km worth.
10 tonnes per SSME is most certainly suggesting as to a great deal of a
worthy "trick is to keep the dry weight down", if there ever was such a
trick to behold. You keep talking as though getting such initial mass
away from Earth is no big deal, whereas I'd just reported the matter of
fact truth that the ACE mission being a one-way ticket to ride, as for
getting it's wussy payload into the L-1 zone and of that effort having
taken it's damn sweet time was a 280:1 effort. I'm not suggesting that
it's not Fat Albert spaceplane doable, just that a few of those energy
efficient and least possible inert mass LRBs are going to be necessary
for getting your Fat Albert past the first 100~150 some odd km, and for
otherwise insuring there's still a good amount of the initial exit
velocity for all of those reliable SSMEs to start with.
Here's yet a another good one for your "National Space Intelligence
Center" to ponder.
Guess what folks, NASA's LLPOF policy isn't nearly as bad as it really
is, nor nearly as bad as it's soon going to get.
Oddly, the ESA official home page of their Venus EXPRESS mission and of
all associated links offers nothing as to any such reported "stuck
mirror", thus obviously the damage-control efforts as intended as being
further perpetraded along via such continuing LLPON infomercials of
NASA's orchestrated and approved disinformation, as having been
published and promoted by various big name science journals and
magazines that are obviously of their private media that's bought and
paid for by way of NASA's thumb residing deeply up each of their
born-again pagan butts (mostly Jewish butts none the less), is the one
and only reason such liars have been getting away with such lies posted
throughout their mainstream status quo or bust WWW, as representing
100% more of the very same bogus info of their Third Reich crapolla as
were all of those lies pertaining to WMD in Iraq.
No wonder when I'd asked of this Usenet for a little "stuck mirror"
feedback, there was dead silence from the usual naysay crowd of this
anti-think-tank Usenet which as per MI/NSA usual sucks and blows.
Venus EXPRESS Status Reports
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=31575&fareaid_1=64&fareaid_2=63&farchive_objecttypeid=30&farchive_objectid=30930&fchoice=-1&startz=1&startpage=1
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=39386
All activities of Venus Express's first week of the routine phase have
been executed as planned without any problem. The performance of the
space and the ground segment has been nominal during the reporting
period. The planning cycle proceeds in its activities and according to
the plan.
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=39343
All activities of the third and last week of the Venus Orbit
Commissioning Phase have been executed as planned without any major
problem.
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=39310
No. 29 - Final Commissioning Phase 31 May 2006 11:21
All activities of the second week of the final commissioning phase have
been executed as planned without any major problem.
It's obvious that we're being further snookered and summarily kept as
disinformed and thereby dumbfounded as these dastardly folks having
"the right stuff" can possibly make it happen without their getting
caught with both of dirty hands as well as each of their peckers in the
same cooky jar.
-
Brad Guth
tomcat
Rand Simberg wrote:
> On 14 Jun 2006 09:02:54 -0700, in a place far, far away, "tomcat"
> <jla...@bellsouth.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
> way as to indicate that:
>
> >The trick is to keep the dry weight down. Vacuum will have to be used
> >as much as possible inside. This doesn't reduce mass but it does
> >reduce weight in the atmosphere. And, I can't help but wonder if 0 dry
> >weight is possible using enough vacuum.
>
> Good idea. Why not make the entire vehicle out of vacuum? That would
> really save a lot of weight.
Blimps takeoff everyday and fly around in their 'lighter than air'
mode. The same technology can be applied to a waverider. Since,
however, the waverider has lots of thrust and lift it doesn't really
have to be lighter than air. Just about the same weight as air would
be pretty good for the performance specs.
In short, the technology exists and it could be easily applied to a
waverider 'Fat Albert'.
>
> I can't help but wonder why you seem to so enjoy making a
> laughingstock of yourself on Usenet.
You are a 'in the BOX' man, Rand. As long as you try to do things
exactly as everyone else does you will get the same results, make the
same predictions -- and make the same mistakes -- everyone else does.
It is easy to be like that, but it does nothing for getting mankind off
the Earth, developing Outer Space for our benefit, and moving ahead for
a change.
If we don't get out of the box soon ET will pounce on us and it will be
all over. Or, the Chinese will land on the Moon and all the aerospace
engineers and executives will be fired. Neither one is a good future.
We must get out of the BOX now!
tomcat
Eric Chomko
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: >Easier to go to the moon than to fake it six times!!
: Terrific news. GOT PROOF?
Apollos 11,12,14,15,16,17
: > Not true! I for one would love to see an actual spaceplane. C'mon, the
: > world has waited from day one for a SSTO plane ever since the first jet!
: > Maybe before that if you read Jules Verne.
: I've never once excluded anything as to the "tomcat" spaceplane effort,
: especially if having included a couple of those reusable LRBs that'll
: use h2o2/c3h4o, while others much like yourself certainly have
: topic/author stalked, bashed and wherever possible having banished the
: likes of our snookered and otherwise totally dumbfounded "tomcat".
I think you speaking for tomcat when he's capable of speaking for himself
is the only real isssue at hand.
: I've offered 50/50 matching funds (unlimited) as for whatever it'll
: take. How about yourself?
It sounds like you'll have two nickels to rub together then...
: -
: Brad Guth
Eric Chomko
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: > tomcat (jla...@bellsouth.net) wrote:
: >
The name 'Fat Albert' has already been taken. It is a wide body prop plane
(C-130) that flys in formation with the Blue Angels at air shows. I saw
once last month at Andrews Air Force Base while trying to meet the famous
Sean D. Tucker. For Fat Albert photos, see:
http://www.highgallery.com/blue-angels-fat-albert.html
http://www.blueangels.com/fatalbertairlines.shtml
: rocket formula says it will fly to LEO and escape velocity, both. The
: cyrogenic fuel tanks will be the body and support structure -- two
: birds with one stone saving a fair amount of weight. The thick skin
: will be vacuumed and actually reduce it's weight while in the
: atmosphere.
: Highly reliable SSMEs -- 41 of them -- will provide the thrust for the
: 200 million pound version. It will be capable of putting 1million
: pounds in orbit, or a half million on the Moon. A magnetosphere will
: protect against radiation along with fuel tanks, and polyethelene.
Do you have any diagrams, blueprints or plans?
: > : The big version would be capable of having a crew of 2 along with 6
: > : passengers. It's quarters would include sophisticated cabins,
: > : restrooms, galley, observation decks, and the like. It would have it's
: > : own magnetosphere to deflect radiation (deflectors).
: >
: > : Why isn't it being built? Because no one believes that it can be
: > : built. But it can be. If we try.
: >
: > Anything can be built. Right now it's easier to do nothing and not fail
: > rather than risk to succeed.
: The horrible fact is your remarks are true:
: "Anything can be built. Right now it's easier to do nothing and not
: fail
: rather than risk to succeed."
: There is a good chance that China will SHOCK AND AWE the U.S. out of
: that attitude. I suspect they may land on the Moon WITHIN 3 YEARS.
: There will be "wailing and gnashing of teeth." Many U.S. aerospace
: engineers will be FIRED.
Well, cooperation doesn't seem to moitvate us like competition did. I site
now vs. the Cold War was my reference to that.
Eric
: tomcat
tomcat
There is, I believe, a real need for a large Cargo Hauler spaceplane to
put the really big payloads into orbit and on the Moon. Using a rocket
formula I made myself -- not the infamous Tsiolkovsky Equation -- I
found that a 10 to 1 thrust to weight ratio works best for escape
velocity. This allows, apparently, the best fuel economy for getting
out of the atmosphere before with minimum weight.
The '10 to 1' was determined by trial and error. My 'Rocket Formula'
is on a basic program and could be run again and again quickly,
checking all permutations and combinations of engines, weight, and fuel
load. To build a sub-orbital a nice slender spaceplane starting out
with a '1 to 1' thrust to weight works fine. The '10 to 1' ratio
works, by the way, whether you have 1 SSME or 41 SSMEs. The larger
version may enable a proportional weight savings, however. Some things
don't have to be increased in size proportinately and this saves
weight. The computer and cockpit, for instance.
The '10 to 1' Fat Albert version will require a long -- 50,000 foot --
runway. Too much has been made of building runways of this length. It
is roughly equivalent to building a 9 mile stretch of Interstate Road.
I estimate takeoff at about 30,000 feet.
The large, 200 million pound, version will require lots of landing
gear. Off-the-shelf Airbus landing gear would probably do fine. Put
enough of them underneath and they should be able to hold the weight.
Of course this would be carefully calculated.
One important point I haven't mentioned is that a rocket is not like a
jet aircraft in that a jet aircraft uses a dense fuel and has a very
high ISP engine. The jet's engine weighs quite a bit as well as the
very high percentage payload that a jet carries. This is great for in
the atmosphere flights at slow speeds and minimal altitude.
A rocketplane, however, doesn't work like that. The 'Fat Albert' I am
thinking of would have 98%of it's weight in fuel -- more than that if I
can keep the dry weight down. That is why I am talking seriously about
lighter than air. Because it will burn fuel at roughly 2 1/2 million
pounds per minute, it's thrust to weight ratio will improve rapidly.
It will reach '1 to 1', then '2 to 1', until the final few seconds at
'10 to 1' when acceleration will put considerable G's on the crew.
Construction will be difficult for a spaceplane that big. But not
impossible. Composite lamination requires proper temperature and
humidity. Welding and titanium or steel aren't as fussy as to
conditions. Huge cranes will be a necessity. Enormous tanks will have
to be put together on location because transport will have many
difficulties.
It should be built in an enormous hanger at the end of that 9 mile
runway. I estimate construction, using as much off-the-shelf materials
and equipment as possible, at 5 to 8 years, costing 8 billion dollars.
Cost overruns are a real possibility. Not an easy project but one that
would revolutionize putting cargo into Outer Space.
tomcat
Rand Simberg
>There is, I believe, a real need for a large Cargo Hauler spaceplane to
>put the really big payloads into orbit and on the Moon. Using a rocket
>formula I made myself -- not the infamous Tsiolkovsky Equation -- I
>found that a 10 to 1 thrust to weight ratio works best for escape
>velocity. This allows, apparently, the best fuel economy for getting
>out of the atmosphere before with minimum weight.
>
>The '10 to 1' was determined by trial and error. My 'Rocket Formula'
>is on a basic program and could be run again and again quickly,
>checking all permutations and combinations of engines, weight, and fuel
>load.
Did your "trial and error" including building actual vehicles to see
if their performance bore any resemblance to your computer model? Or
physics? Do you realize how hilarous this is?
tomcat
Just about anything seems hilarous to you. Profit and Loss dictates
that only fully developed and accepted methods are used. This is the
BOX that you are in. But new developments don't come from that BOX.
New ideas are laughed at within that BOX. That BOX won't put a man on
the Moon for 12 years and won't build a waverider at all, because one
has never been built before other than the X-43a which did a short
experimental run.
In short, that BOX don't hunt. It won't push the envelope. IT IS
STAGNATION, which is what 'thinking' people are now fighting in our
Space Program.
tomcat
Rand Simberg
>> >The '10 to 1' was determined by trial and error. My 'Rocket Formula'
>> >is on a basic program and could be run again and again quickly,
>> >checking all permutations and combinations of engines, weight, and fuel
>> >load.
>>
>> Did your "trial and error" including building actual vehicles to see
>> if their performance bore any resemblance to your computer model? Or
>> physics? Do you realize how hilarous this is?
>
>
>Just about anything seems hilarous to you.
No, only hilarious things are hilarious to me.
>Profit and Loss dictates
>that only fully developed and accepted methods are used. This is the
>BOX that you are in. But new developments don't come from that BOX.
>New ideas are laughed at within that BOX. That BOX won't put a man on
>the Moon for 12 years and won't build a waverider at all, because one
>has never been built before other than the X-43a which did a short
>experimental run.
>
>In short, that BOX don't hunt. It won't push the envelope. IT IS
>STAGNATION, which is what 'thinking' people are now fighting in our
>Space Program.
As I said, hilarious.
Brad Guth
Saturn V as per those NASA/Apollo missions at offering better than 60:1
can not be replicated, especially within the given time frame. Is that
the degree of infomercial rocket-science that turns you on?
Otherwise it's my total mistake about ACE, not that I'd ever make any
of those mistakes, as I'd thought the ACE page had specified L-1 as the
M/E-L1, representing the home of ACE, station-keeping within moon L-1,
not Earth L1. Sorry about that.
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/
Although, it has a good unobstructed view at the moon every month,
whereas actually it's best look-see is of the backside of the moon.
Since distance means almost nothing to the likes of gamma, and means
hardly nothing of attenuating hard-X-rays, all that's lost is the
resolution by way of ACE being at Earth L-1 instead of moon L-1 as that
moon passes each month between Earth and Earth L-1.
In other words, the good news for China and their LSE-CM/ISS is that
there's still nothing of our's that's of any consequence at LL-1 or
ME-L1.
BTW; Astronauts returning from the moon would soon have been quite
dead. Fortunately, they didn't have a viable fly-by-rocket lander,
thus didn't have to needlessly die on behalf of our perpetrated
cold-war(s).
I wish I was a dumbfounded as yourself, as then I'd feel real good
about having caused so much collateral damage and of exterminating so
many innocent souls, that are as of lately Muslim souls.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
ratio of rocket per payload of what the massively inert heavy slug of
the old Saturn V as having managed to accomplish that task nearly 4
decades ago, whereas your "Fat Albert" that's so composite and so much
more launch efficient should accomplish the same task at not worse off
than 30:1 (rocket per payload) with fuel to spare. Is there any
problem here?
-
Brad Guth
tomcat wrote:
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
> According to your very own pagan God, it only took at most the 60:1
> ratio of rocket per payload of what the massively inert heavy slug of
> the old Saturn V as having managed to accomplish that task nearly 4
> decades ago, whereas your "Fat Albert" that's so composite and so much
> more launch efficient should accomplish the same task at not worse off
> than 30:1 (rocket per payload) with fuel to spare. Is there any
> problem here?
> -
> Brad Guth
It's apple and oranges, vertical rocket and waverider. A vertical
rocket can't carry better than a 1 to 1 thrust to weight fuel load. A
waverider can carry a 1 to 10 thrust to weight fuel load. Air lifts
and gravity provides that lift via the compressed air molecules.
Imagine setting 1/2 million pounds of habitats and supplies down on the
Moon's South Pole in a single mission, not to mention delivering 6
Astronauts besides. That's what Fat Albert can do. It can be done in
8 years. All they have to do is mail tomcat a treasury check for 8
billion dollars.
tomcat
Eric Chomko
: On 15 Jun 2006 13:38:28 -0700, in a place far, far away, "tomcat"
They laughed at Bozo the Clown, too. Everybody knows who he is and many
fewer know Rand Simberg...
That said, Tomcat would do better to replace his smugness with some real
results.
Eric
Eric Chomko
: Brad Guth wrote:
: > According to your very own pagan God, it only took at most the 60:1
: > ratio of rocket per payload of what the massively inert heavy slug of
: > the old Saturn V as having managed to accomplish that task nearly 4
: > decades ago, whereas your "Fat Albert" that's so composite and so much
: > more launch efficient should accomplish the same task at not worse off
: > than 30:1 (rocket per payload) with fuel to spare. Is there any
: > problem here?
: > -
: > Brad Guth
: It's apple and oranges, vertical rocket and waverider. A vertical
: rocket can't carry better than a 1 to 1 thrust to weight fuel load. A
: waverider can carry a 1 to 10 thrust to weight fuel load. Air lifts
: and gravity provides that lift via the compressed air molecules.
: Imagine setting 1/2 million pounds of habitats and supplies down on the
: Moon's South Pole in a single mission, not to mention delivering 6
: Astronauts besides. That's what Fat Albert can do. It can be done in
: 8 years. All they have to do is mail tomcat a treasury check for 8
: billion dollars.
That's it? Now, you getting half a year's worth of NASA money in the form
of a check is hilarious. Get Bill gates to fund you...
Eric
: tomcat
tomcat
Unfortunately, I don't have 8 billion dollars laying around collecting
dust.
It would be possible, however, to build 'Small Albert' using a single
SSME that would have a GLOW of 4 million pounds. This would be a piece
of cake capable of being built within 2 years at a cost of 1 to 2
billion dollars.
Small Albert's payload would only amount to a pilot, possibly a
co-pilot, and maybe a couple of thousand pounds. It would be primarily
orbital with some possibility of a Moon flyby. The Moon flyby would
take the fuel to zero and thus be a little on the reckless side. Best
to think of it as sub-orbital/orbital.
The kind of "results" Simberg is talking about would involve me owning
a major aerospace corporation, which I don't. So, I agree with your
"Bozo the Clown" remarks in regard to him.
tomcat
Rand Simberg
>The kind of "results" Simberg is talking about would involve me owning
>a major aerospace corporation, which I don't. So, I agree with your
>"Bozo the Clown" remarks in regard to him.
How about validating your model with someone else's?
Brad Guth
manage at something better off than 60:1, with fuel and payload to
spare?
Or, don't you understand the basic question?
Obviously your SSTO "Fat Albert" isn't going to accomplish any Apollo
mission at 120:1, much less 60:1 and, forget about any 30:1 unless
you've become God with a few spare LRBs hidden much like all of those
stealth WMDs, as having been stuffed up your SSTO butt.
Going for a one-way Earth L-1 or easier yet being the moon LL-1 is
technically doable at perhaps 120:1 w/o composites, and only possibly
60:1 w/extensive composites and using the likes of h2o2/c3h4o LRBs.
-
Brad Guth
tomcat
Show me your model, Rand. I'd like to see it. So far all you have
shown is . . . blank.
tomcat
Rand Simberg
I use known physics. It's not necessary for me to show "my model," to
show that yours is invalid.
tomcat
'Validity' relates to arguments and language, not equipment. But that
is besides the point, you haven't shown my "model" to be unworkable.
In fact, you haven't 'shown' anybody anything.
tomcat
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
> So, how the heck did they and their inert massive slug of Saturn V
> manage at something better off than 60:1, with fuel and payload to
> spare?
>
> Or, don't you understand the basic question?
This is where multi-stages come in. They kept throwing away the weight
-- millions and millions of dollars worth of brand new rocket motors,
tanks, skin, computers, etc.
> Obviously your SSTO "Fat Albert" isn't going to accomplish any Apollo
> mission at 120:1, much less 60:1 and, forget about any 30:1 unless
> you've become God with a few spare LRBs hidden much like all of those
> stealth WMDs, as having been stuffed up your SSTO butt.
"Fat Albert" is going to weigh 200 million pounds. The dry weight is
estimated at 4 million pounds, which is quite good. That works out to
about 2% dry weight and this includes the 1 million pound orbital
payload. Remember that rockets and waveriders are apples and oranges.
What is required for one is not necessairly required for the other.
Brad Guth
> "Fat Albert" is going to weigh 200 million pounds. The dry weight is
> estimated at 4 million pounds, which is quite good. That works out to
> about 2% dry weight and this includes the 1 million pound orbital
> payload. Remember that rockets and waveriders are apples and oranges.
> What is required for one is not necessairly required for the other.
as ISS.
However, that's wussy compared to what that inert massive Saturn V slug
accomplished as a 60:1 deployment, that which not only got such
horrific payload tonnage all the way to the moon but did so in
extremely short order, with fuel to spare for getting that tonnage
safely parked into lunar orbit, accomplishing another good portion on
behalf of their to/from the lunar deck and then returning the final
portion of that mission payload with crew and samples unscaved in every
way back to mother Earth. Obviously you still don't get it, do you?
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
> This is where multi-stages come in. They kept throwing away the weight
> -- millions and millions of dollars worth of brand new rocket motors,
> tanks, skin, computers, etc.
>
> > Obviously your SSTO "Fat Albert" isn't going to accomplish any Apollo
> > you've become God with a few spare LRBs hidden much like all of those
> > stealth WMDs, as having been stuffed up your SSTO butt.
>
> "Fat Albert" is going to weigh 200 million pounds. The dry weight is
> estimated at 4 million pounds, which is quite good. That works out to
> about 2% dry weight and this includes the 1 million pound orbital
> payload. Remember that rockets and waveriders are apples and oranges.
> What is required for one is not necessairly required for the other.
Try 28% being the inert liftoff mass of the Saturn V.
Even your do-everything and highly composite spaceplane that's
supposedly making use of the very most efficient of rocket engines,
taking the fullest advantage of our atmosphere for the most energy
demanding part of the launch phase, and by way of using the maximum
available ISP worth of fuel (though not being very volumetric nor
density efficient) is at best offering a 40:1 ratio of getting it's
inert self at 4 million pounds plus that million pound payload into
LEO, and since it'll take at the very least 2.6 times that ratio amount
in order to get that same amount of tonnage to the moon in 6 days (if
not a bit longer), thus greater than 100:1 being the case if all goes
exactly according to plan (actually it'll take considerably more of a
ratio since you're planning on returning to Earth along with a good
amount of payload and the spaceplane itself that's 100% reusable, thus
I'd be rather surprised if a 1000:1 ratio is even doable if to be
including your VTOL task of having to get that big sucker to/from the
lunar surface):
Other than by way of infomercial-rocket-science and/or via our
perpetrated cold-war of hocus-pocus smoke and mirrors, how do you
explain the absolutely massive inert worth of such a heavy method of
rocket infrastructure plus having multiple tonnes worth of other
internal inert dead-weight issues (such as ice loading and unusable
fuel) associated with the Saturn V that supposedly accomplished the
their NASA/Apollo task without being the least bit composite and of
having made such happen at the impressive 60:1 ratio with fuel and
payload to spare, and in roughly half the time as compared to the
tomcat spaceplane?
That Saturn V inert mass at lift-off was actually worth nearly 850
tonnes.
Doesn't that excessive inert/dry mass plus a little extra unusable mass
that's obviously not dry or otherwise expendable except for
vent/dumping such loads, and especially of the much greater Saturn V
velocity factor alone impose any applied energy and thus applied
rocket/payload ratio impact upon accomplishing that sort of task?
What I mean is that your slower spaceplane, that which supposedly
hardly weighs anything, should be demanding of far less applied energy
for getting all of that tonnage away from Earth and safely past LL-1
along with obviously having all of those necessary spare tonnes worth
of essential retrothrust fuel to burn seems somewhat unlikely, if not
physics/rocket-science impossible at 100:1, and that's without even
doing an actual moon landing with that big thing.
What you'll need to do is the math, and then scale that payload back
from a million pounds to 100,000 lbs at most. The Saturn-5 is not a
good rocket for doing our moon, at least not as pertaining to
accomplishing any 50t deployment (try 25t and it might be just fine and
dandy).
-
Brad Guth