Re: A kerosene-fueled X-33 as a single stage to orbit vehicle.
Robert Clark
> On Aug 24, 11:41 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The import of the Dr. John C. Whitehead article "Single Stage To Orbit
> > Mass Budgets Derived From Propellant Density and Specific Impulse" is
> > that it shows that for a rocket SSTO even though hydrogen has a higher
> > Isp than kerosene its low density means that it's actually easier to
> > make a rocket SSTO using dense fuels such as kerosene:
>
> > Single Stage To Orbit Mass Budgets Derived From Propellant Density and
> > Specific Impulse.
> > John C. Whitehead
> > 32nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference
> > Lake Buena Vista, FL July 1-3, 1996
> >http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/379977-2LwFyZ/webviewable/37...
>
> At the beginning of this thread I showed theX-33would become a
> fully orbital SSTO, rather than just suborbital, if switched to using
> dense fuels from using hydrogen. A key fact is that this is true for
> the other RLV proposals made to NASA in the 90's, the DC-X modeled
> version by McDonnell-Douglas and the space shuttle modeled version by
> Rockwell:
>
> X-33Proposal by McDonnell Douglas - Computer Graphic.http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/X-33/HTML/EC96-43631-6.html
>
> X-33Proposal by Rockwell - Computer Graphic.http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/X-33/HTML/EC96-43631-5.html
>
> For these two cases as well their half-scale demonstrators could only
> be suborbital when hydrogen fueled. However, switched to hydrocarbon-
> fueled the half-scale demonstrators now become fully orbital craft.
> This is an important fact because rather than just being expensive
> suborbital test vehicles they are now orbital, reusable launch
> vehicles that can profitably launch payloads at a lower cost than
> comparably sized expendable systems.
> These would have an advantage over the Lockheed version of theX-33
> because they wouldn't have the problem of the conformally-shaped tanks
> getting a poor propellant mass to tank mass ratio which led to theX-33downfall. As described here the circular cross-section tanks for
> these versions could get the high tankage ratios as for usual
> cylindrical rockets...
Just saw this on Hobbyspace.com:
Boeing proposes SSTO system for AF RBS program.
The new issue of Aviation Week has a brief blurb about a Boeing
proposal for the Air Force's Reusable Booster System (RBS) program:
Boeing Offers AFRL Reusable Booster Proposal - AvWeek - June.13.11
(subscription required).
"Darryl Davis, who leads Boeing's Phantom Works, tells AvWeek that
they are proposing a 3-4 year technology readiness assessment that
would lead up to a demonstration of a X-37B type of system
but would be smaller. Wind tunnel tests have been completed. Davis
says the system would be a single stage capable of reaching low Earth
orbit and, with a booster, higher orbits. The system would return to
Earth as a glider.
Davis says "that advances in lightweight composites warrant another
look" at single-stage-to-orbit launchers."
http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=30110
I don't have a subscription to AV Week. If anyone does perhaps they
could look it up.
I'm curious about the statement it would be "smaller" than the X-37B.
I did some preliminary calculations that if you switched to kerosene
fuel and a high efficiency engine such as the NK-33, and filled every
scrap of internal volume with fuel, then a vehicle twice the size of
the X-37B could be SSTO. I'm surprised they are able to get it to work
with a smaller vehicle than the X-37B. Perhaps they mean it would be
smaller than the booster, the Atlas V, and X-37B system, as the Atlas
V weighs upwards of 300,000 kg.
This X-37B derived SSTO would be analogous to the winged version of
the X-33 submitted by Rockwell. As I have been arguing switching to
dense propellants allows you to produce a small fully orbital vehicle,
where as the hydrogen fueled version of comparable size could only be
suborbital.
It is important to keep in mind the failure of the Lockheed X-33 does
not show that SSTO's are impossible. If you look at the details of
that program you see what failed was the attempt to form conformal,
i.e., non-cylindrically shaped tanks out of composites. However, the
other advanced features were progressing nicely such as the aerospike
engines and the metallic shingle thermal protection.
Then note that the other suborbital X-33 versions proposed by
Rockwell and McDonnell-Douglas would use circular-cross section tanks
that would be easy to produce. So the expectation is they would have
worked, and thus have provided impetus to proceed to the full size
orbital versions.
Again note though if these versions had been switched to dense,
hydrocarbon fueled then the original X-33 versions themselves would
have become actually fully orbital. I showed that a vertical landing
DC-X styled SSTO could be derived from the Delta Thor first stage
here:
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy, sci.astro, sci.physics,
sci.space.history
From: Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 09:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: A kerosene-fueled X-33 as a single stage to orbit
vehicle.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/msg/5b5ecf0850bfdaf5?hl=en
This shows the McDonnell Douglas version of the X-33 also styled on
the DC-X should also be SSTO when switched to hydrocarbon fueled. Note
that in point of fact the vehicle I calculated is smaller than the
McDonnell Douglas X-33, yet still manages to be fully orbital when
switched to hydrocarbon fueled.
Here I'll do a calculation to show that a X-37B scaled up by a factor
of two will become SSTO capable when switched to using high efficiency
kerosene engines, such as the NK-33. This will show that the winged
Rockwell version of the X-33 could also become SSTO capable when
switched to hydrocarbon fueled from hydrogen. Actually this scaled up
X-37B will still be smaller than the Rockwell X-33, so that the
Rockwell X-33 would have an even better mass ratio when switched to
hydrocarbon fueled, so be able to carry better payload.
The dimensions of the X-37B I used I estimated from this image:
http://www.collectspace.com/review/atlas_x37b02-lg.jpg
by comparing to the published length and wing span values of the
vehicle. I estimate the width of the main cylindrical body as 5 ft.,
call it 1.5 m, and the length of the main cylindrical body, not
including the nozzle or conical nose cone, as 19.2 ft., call it 5.8
meters. Then the size scaled up twice will give the main cylindrical
body a width of 3 m and a length of 11.6 m.
For a SSTO every scrap of internal space is valuable to hold
propellant so I'll fill the entire main body with propellant tanks.
Any payload, and any avionics or other equipment will be placed either
in the nose cone or in an external canister. So we have a volume of
pi*(11.6)*(1.5)^2 = 82 m^3 for the tanks. Since kero/LOX has an
approx. 1,000 kg/m^3 density, this gives a propellant mass of about
82,000 kg.
Note this is about the mass of the propellant in the Delta Thor first
stage. So we'll build up this SSTO as we did the DC-X styled version
based on this Delta Thor first stage. We need to give it wings. Just
as for vertical landing where about 10% propellant had to be set aside
for powered landing, approx. 10% also of the landing weight has to be
set aside for wings for a gliding landing:
Reusable launch system.
2.3 Horizontal landing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reusable_launch_system#Horizontal_landing
So the added weight here is about the same as for the DC-X style
case. Actually we'll be using composites for the wings which will be
of short, stubby shape, so probably half this would suffice.
Now for the thermal protection. We'll be protecting the bottom of the
body and the wings. The length of the full vehicle from end of the
nozzle to tip of nose cone is published as 8.9 m, and the width we
estimated as 1.5 m. This is an area of 13.35 m^2. For the wings,
estimate from the above linked image a width on each side of 1.5 m
from the cylindrical body, and a length of 2.5 m, and the shape on
each side as roughly triangular. Then the total area for the wings on
each side of the body is (1/2)*3*2.5 = 3.75 m^2. And the total area
that has to be covered for the body and wings is 13.35 + 3.75 m^2 =
17.1 m^2. Note this again is about the same area that had to be
covered on the base for the DC-X style case. So the thermal protection
added mass will again be the same.
Finally, the landing gear weight will again be estimated as 3% of the
landed weight; so this added mass also is the same as the DC-X case:
Landing gear weight.
http://yarchive.net/space/launchers/landing_gear_weight.html
Note too though with composites half this amount would likely
suffice.
Now we see the dry mass is about the same as the DC-X case so again
would be SSTO capable.
Bob Clark
Peter Hill
<rgrego...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sep 4 2010, 11:43 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> This is an important fact because rather than just being expensive
>> suborbital test vehicles they are now orbital, reusable launch
>> vehicles that can profitably launch payloads at a lower cost than
>> comparably sized expendable systems.
Using fuel to put mass into orbit only to let it fall back down to
earth is a huge waste of resource. By all means bring back the motors
and computers but leave the tanks in orbit. Tanks are cheap to make,
expensive in fuel cost. The tanks are what you make your space
station, lunar base or mars mission spaceship from.
--
Peter Hill
Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!
Brian Thorn
<peter....@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Using fuel to put mass into orbit only to let it fall back down to
>earth is a huge waste of resource. By all means bring back the motors
>and computers but leave the tanks in orbit. Tanks are cheap to make,
>expensive in fuel cost. The tanks are what you make your space
>station, lunar base or mars mission spaceship from.
But empty tankage makes your returning spacecraft much less dense and
you can use a lighter, more robust heat shield (X-33's metallic tiles)
instead of the difficult one-shot ablatives of capsules, especially a
capsule or capsules big enough to bring back the engines and avionics.
Probably actually easier to go the X-33 route than the separable
capsule, engine module, and tankage route, with all the critical sep
events and pyros that will need, and failure modes they introduce.
Brian
Pat Flannery
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 23:15:18 +0100, Peter Hill
> <peter....@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> Using fuel to put mass into orbit only to let it fall back down to
>> earth is a huge waste of resource. By all means bring back the motors
>> and computers but leave the tanks in orbit. Tanks are cheap to make,
>> expensive in fuel cost. The tanks are what you make your space
>> station, lunar base or mars mission spaceship from.
>
> But empty tankage makes your returning spacecraft much less dense and
> you can use a lighter, more robust heat shield (X-33's metallic tiles)
You don't want to use the ones Lockheed came up with for
X-33/VentureStar, as they were said to contain contained titanium. The
CAIB found out titanium physically ignited in the atomic oxygen
environment during reentry at a lower temperture than even aluminum,
which came as a major shock.
VentureStar's first orbital flight might have ended in a big fireworks
display as its TPS shingles ignited during reentry.
This leaves other alloys like Inconel-X or ceramics as options for a low
density type reentry vehicle, but they will be heavier than titanium to
get the same structural strength, so you will have a significant payload
loss if you use them...and ceramics may have a fragility problem as
well, which was one reason they wanted to go with metallics.
To do something like that you may have to go clean back to old Dyna-Soar
research and end up using some very exotic and expensive metallic
materials that really haven't been fully worked out for manufacturing
abilities (Rene'41 steel, molybdenum, and columbium)
...and end up with the same sort of problems that Lockheed ran into when
they chose titanium for the A-12* in understanding their individual
peculiarities.
* ...to avoid the problems North American was having with stainless
steel honeycomb construction on the XB-70. People who worked on the A-12
project said later that if they had known the can of worms they were
about to open, the A-12 would have been built out of stainless steel.
Pat
Robert Clark
> ...
> Now for the thermal protection. We'll be protecting the bottom of the
> body and the wings. The length of the full vehicle from end of the
> nozzle to tip of nose cone is published as 8.9 m, and the width we
> estimated as 1.5 m. This is an area of 13.35 m^2. For the wings,
> estimate from the above linked image a width on each side of 1.5 m
> from the cylindrical body, and a length of 2.5 m, and the shape on
> each side as roughly triangular. Then the total area for the wings on
> each side of the body is (1/2)*3*2.5 = 3.75 m^2. And the total area
> that has to be covered for the body and wings is 13.35 + 3.75 m^2 =
> 17.1 m^2. Note this again is about the same area that had to be
> covered on the base for the DC-X style case. So the thermal protection
> added mass will again be the same.
> Finally, the landing gear weight will again be estimated as 3% of the
> landed weight; so this added mass also is the same as the DC-X case:
>
>
> Note too though with composites half this amount would likely
> suffice.
> Now we see the dry mass is about the same as the DC-X case so again
> would be SSTO capable.
>
Correction. The vehicle is scaled up by a factor of 2 so the area
that needs to be covered by TPS is 4 times as great so to 4*17.1 =
68.4 m^2. I'll use the AETB ceramic tiles actually used on the X-37B
rather than the the metallic shingles used on the X-33. These are
lighter at about 12 kg/m^2. This gives a thermal protection mass of
820 kg, significantly higher than the vertical landing DC-X style
case. Note though from principles of scaling when the vehicle is made
larger the percentage of vehicle mass taken up the TPS will become
smaller as this is growing by the square of the dimensions while the
mass is growing by the cube.
Still we'll have to get some mass savings to get the dry mass
comparable to the DC-X style case. The X-37B is notable for its
composite design. Then for this SSTO you'll also want to use composite
fuel tanks. These won't have the difficulty of the X-33 composite
tanks because they will be of circular cross-section. Composite tank
manufacturers have gotten tanks half as heavy as standard metal tanks.
For aluminum tanks the weight for kero/LOX tanks is about 1/100th the
mass of propellant, so about 820 kg in this case. Then the composite
tanks would weigh about 410 kg, saving 410 kg off the dry mass. This
brings the dry mass now down to about that of the DC-X style case.
You can get additional mass savings in the wings as well which will
be composite. The usual estimate of 10% of the landed mass is for
metal wings. Using composites you can shave 40% off this mass, so save
200 kg off the dry mass.
Bob Clark
Jochem Huhmann
> You don't want to use the ones Lockheed came up with for
> X-33/VentureStar, as they were said to contain contained titanium. The
> CAIB found out titanium physically ignited in the atomic oxygen
> environment during reentry at a lower temperture than even aluminum,
> which came as a major shock.
> VentureStar's first orbital flight might have ended in a big fireworks
> display as its TPS shingles ignited during reentry.
It seems they actually flew one of these tiles on a STS mission and it
worked fine. Sorry, no URL.
Jochem
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Robert Clark
wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:58:44 -0700 (PDT), Robert Clark
>
> >On Sep 4 2010, 11:43 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> This is an important fact because rather than just being expensive
> >> suborbital test vehicles they are now orbital, reusable launch
> >> vehicles that can profitably launch payloads at a lower cost than
> >> comparably sized expendable systems.
>
> Using fuel to put mass into orbit only to let it fall back down to
> earth is a huge waste of resource. By all means bring back the motors
> and computers but leave the tanks in orbit. Tanks are cheap to make,
> expensive in fuel cost. The tanks are what you make your space
> station, lunar base or mars mission spaceship from.
> --
> Peter Hill
This might be workable for shuttle ET sized tanks, though not for the
small size tanks I'm considering here. Indeed it had been proposed to
use the shuttle ET's to form a space station:
STS External Tank Station.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/stsation.htm
It looks like NASA is leaning to a shuttle-derived version of a HLV
so perhaps this concept can be considered again:
Managers preparing for July 8 SLS announcement after SD HLV victory.
June 16th, 2011 by Chris Bergin
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/06/managers-sls-announcement-after-sd-hlv-victory/
Bob Clark
Mike DiCenso
> On Jun 17, 6:15 pm, Peter Hill <peter.usen...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:58:44 -0700 (PDT), Robert Clark
>
> > <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >On Sep 4 2010, 11:43 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> This is an important fact because rather than just being expensive
> > >> suborbital test vehicles they are now orbital, reusable launch
> > >> vehicles that can profitably launch payloads at a lower cost than
> > >> comparably sized expendable systems.
>
> > Using fuel to put mass into orbit only to let it fall back down to
> > earth is a huge waste of resource. By all means bring back the motors
> > and computers but leave the tanks in orbit. Tanks are cheap to make,
> > expensive in fuel cost. The tanks are what you make your space
> > station, lunar base or mars mission spaceship from.
> > --
> > Peter Hill
>
> This might be workable for shuttle ET sized tanks, though not for the
> small size tanks I'm considering here. Indeed it had been proposed to
> use the shuttle ET's to form a space station:
>
>
> It looks like NASA is leaning to a shuttle-derived version of a HLV
> so perhaps this concept can be considered again:
>
> Managers preparing for July 8 SLS announcement after SD HLV victory.
>
> Bob Clark- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The problem with external tanks or any rocket tankage being used is
that an inflatable module, like Bigelow Aerospace's can do it better,
and it will be a pressure vessel specifically made for crews to enter
into it and get it set up. With rocket tankage, and this was always
the killer on using STS ETs, is that you have to make some
modifications to the tankage to make it "friendly" enough for EVA
crews, and even then you still have some non-trival issues with
setting up ECLSS and finishing conversion, all without compromising
the original mission of the tank: to be a fuel tank for a rocket.
-Mike
Mike DiCenso
The composite lobed hydrogen tank delamination issue that ultimately
wound up killing the Lock-Mart X-33 were solved and tested. But by
then it was too late. The problem with the original plan was it put
too much onto the vehicle instead of as with DC-X and DC-XA, where it
was evolved and retrofitted after the initial round of test flights.
There is no reason that other tanks, like aluminum-lithium could not
have been also tested as well.
By using an all aluminum or Al-Li tanks for the early flights, this
would have allowed extensive testing of the vehicle's flight profile,
and the working out of software and instability issues, and the
proving of the metallic shingle TPS at modest hypersonic speeds.
An X-33A or B would then be made as funding allowed to retrofit the
vehicle and continue expanding the flight envelope.
-Mike
Robert Clark
> ...This X-37B derived SSTO would be analogous to the winged version of
> the X-33 submitted by Rockwell. As I have been arguing switching to
> dense propellants allows you to produce a small fully orbital vehicle,
> where as the hydrogen fueled version of comparable size could only be
> suborbital.
> It is important to keep in mind the failure of the Lockheed X-33 does
> not show that SSTO's are impossible. If you look at the details of
> that program you see what failed was the attempt to form conformal,
> i.e., non-cylindrically shaped tanks out of composites. However, the
> other advanced features were progressing nicely such as the aerospike
> engines and the metallic shingle thermal protection.
> Then note that the other suborbital X-33 versions proposed by
> Rockwell and McDonnell-Douglas would use circular-cross section tanks
> that would be easy to produce. So the expectation is they would have
> worked, and thus have provided impetus to proceed to the full size
> orbital versions.
> Again note though if these versions had been switched to dense,
> hydrocarbon fueled then the original X-33 versions themselves would
> have become actually fully orbital.
The original Lockheed version of the X-33 as hydrogen fueled could
only be suborbital. By scaling it up twice the VentureStar was
supposed to become orbital.
I showed in the prior post how a scaled up twice X-37B could become
fully orbital. But it is key to note this scaled up, orbit-capable
X-37B would still be smaller than the Lockheed X-33 which could not
reach orbit as hydrogen fueled. This shows you can get a SSTO vehicle
more easily and cheaper as hydrocarbon fueled.
In analogy with the X-33, we might want to get a high Mach suborbital
X-37B vehicle first to test the technology before scaling up to the
fully orbital version. Then we'll see the X-37B itself can accomplish
this as hydrocarbon fueled at a much smaller size and lower cost than
the X-33.
In the prior post we saw the twice scaled up X-37B had an internal
volume to hold 82,000 kg of kero/LOX. So the X-37B itself can hold
1/8th this at 10,500 kg. (Recall we are filling most of the internal
volume with propellant, removing avionic, instrument, and payload
bays.)
We'll replace now the low efficiency engine AR-2/3 [1] with a high
efficiency kerosene engine. The NK-33 probably will be too heavy at
1,200 kg and also overpowered for the purpose. We'll use the RD-0124
[2]. At 480 kg, this weighs 380 kg more than the AR-2/3 but it does
have a high sea level and vacuum Isp (but see note [3].)
Another possibility might be to use two of the RD-0242-HC [4]. This is
much lighter at 120 kg, though of lower thrust so two would be
required for a total of 240 kg. It's not clear also if this engine was
ever built, being a derivative of an engine originally fueled by
hypergolic propellants.
We need now the dry mass of the vehicle. The original NASA X-37 was
not to exceed 7,500 lb, 3,400 kg in dry weight [5]. We'll use this
value of 3,400 kg for the Air Force's X-37B version. For our purposes
it may very well weigh less than this since we don't need the
equipment bays and the solar cells. But we'll be using a 380 kg
heavier engine so let's make the dry weight 3,800 kg.
We'll use altitude compensation. High performance kerolox engines
should be able to get 338.3 s average Isp using altitude compensation
[6]. Then our delta-V will be:
338.3*9.8ln(1 + 10,500/3,800) = 4,390 m/s, about Mach 14. This is also
well above the required velocity for suborbital flight.
Bob Clark
1.)Boeing X-37 Technology Demonstrator, USA
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/boeing-x37/
2.)RD-0124.
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd0124.htm
3.) I've been informed by email that the RD-0124 is able to get such
high sea level and vacuum Isp values, because the values given are
from the engine being used in two different configurations. The sea
level value is when the engine is being used in a first stage, and has
a short nozzle. And the vacuum value is when the vehicle was being
used in a upper stage and has a long nozzle. However, by using
altitude compensation we should be able to get values close to these.
4.) RD-0242-HC.
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd0242hc.htm
5.)X-37 Technology Demonstrator: Blazing the trail for the
next generation of space transportation systems.
http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/background/facts/x37-historical.pdf
6.)Alternate Propellants for SSTO Launchers.
Dr. Bruce Dunn
Adapted from a Presentation at:
Space Access 96
Phoenix Arizona
April 25 - 27, 1996
http://www.dunnspace.com/alternate_ssto_propellants.htm
Robert Clark
reason why we don't have passenger access to space as routine as say
trans-Pacific flights is that the idea has been promulgated that SSTO
is impossible. That is not the case. In fact it is easy, IF you do it
in the right way. The right way is summarized in one simple
statement:
If you use both weight optimized structures and highest efficiency
engines at the same time, then what you wind up with will be SSTO
capable whether you intend it to or not.
We all know that to get a good payload to space you want a high
efficiency engine. And we all know we want to use lightweight
structures so the weight savings can go to increased payload. So you
would think it would be obvious to use both these ideas to maximize
the payload to orbit, right?
And indeed both have been used together - for upper stages. Yet this
fundamentally obvious concept still has not been used for *first
stages*. It is my thesis that if you do this, then what you wind up
with will automatically be SSTO capable. This is true for either
kerosene fueled or hydrogen fueled stages.
Part of the misinformation that has been promulgated is that the mass
ratio for SSTO's is some impossible number. This is false. We've had
rocket stages with the required mass ratio's since the 60's, nearly 50
years, both for kerosene and hydrogen fueled. Another part of the
misinformation is that it would require some unknown high energy fuel
and engine to accomplish. This is false. The required engines have
existed since the 70's, nearly 40 years, both for kerosene and
hydrogen fueled.
What has NOT been done is to marry the two concepts together for
first stages. All you need to do is swap out the low efficiency
engines that have been used for the high mass ratio stages and replace
them with the high efficiency engines. It really is that simple.
This makes possible small, low cost orbital vehicles that could
transport the same number of passengers as the space shuttle, about 7,
but would have a comparable cost to a mid-sized business jet, a few
tens of millions of dollars.
Then once you have the SSTO's they make your staged vehicles even
better because you can carry greater payload when they are used for
the individual stages of the multi-staged vehicle.
In disseminating the false dogma that SSTO's are not possible it is
sometimes said instead that they are not practical because the payload
fraction is so small. Even this is false. And indeed this is just as
damaging as making the false statement they are not possible because
the statements are often conflated into meaning the same thing. So
when those in the industry make the statement they are not
"practical", meaning actually they are doable but not economical, this
becomes interpreted among many space enthusiasts and even many in the
industry as meaning it would require some revolutionary advance to
make them possible.
The fact that you can carry significant payload to orbit using SSTO's
can be easily confirmed by anyone familiar with the rocket equation.
To get a SSTO with significant payload using efficient kerosene
engines you need a mass ratio of about 20 to 1. And to get a SSTO with
significant payload using efficient hydrogen engines you need a mass
ratio of about 10 to 1. Both of these the high mass ratio stages and
the high efficiency engines for both kerosene and hydrogen have
existed for decades now.
See this list of rocket stages:
Stages Index.
http://www.astronautix.com/stages/index.htm
Among the kerosene-fueled stages you see that several among the Atlas
and Delta family have the required mass ratio. However, for the early
Atlas stages you have to be aware of the type of staging system they
used. They had drop-off booster engines and a main central engine,
called the sustainer that continued all the way to orbit. But even
when you take this into account you see these highly weight optimized
stages had surprisingly high mass ratios.
See for instance the Atlas Agena SLV-3:
Atlas Agena SLV-3 Lox/Kerosene propellant rocket stage. Loaded/empty
mass 117,026/2,326 kg. Thrust 386.30 kN. Vacuum specific impulse 316
seconds.
Cost $ : 14.500 million. Semistage: LR89-5. Semistage Thrust (vac):
1,644.960 kN (369,802 lbf). Semistage Thrust (vac): 167,740 kgf.
Semistage specific impulse: 290 sec. Semistage Burn time: 120 sec.
Semistage specific impulse (sl): 256 sec. Semistage Jettisonable Mass:
3,174 kg (6,997 lb). Semistage- number engines: 2. Semistage: Atlas
MA-3.
Status: Out of production.
Gross mass: 117,026 kg (257,998 lb).
Unfuelled mass: 2,326 kg (5,127 lb).
Height: 20.67 m (67.81 ft).
Diameter: 3.05 m (10.00 ft).
Span: 4.90 m (16.00 ft).
Thrust: 386.30 kN (86,844 lbf).
Specific impulse: 316 s.
Specific impulse sea level: 220 s.
Burn time: 265 s.
Number: 140 .
http://www.astronautix.com/stages/atlaslv3.htm
Looking at only the loaded/empty mass you would think this stage had
a mass ratio close to 50 to 1. But that is only including the
sustainer engine. The more relevant ratio would be when you add in the
mass of the booster engines to the dry mass since they are required to
lift the vehicle off the pad. These are listed as the jettisonable
mass at 3,174 kg. This makes the loaded mass now 117,026 + 3,174 =
120,200 and the dry mass 2,326 + 3,174 = 5,500 kg, for a mass ratio of
21.85.
But this was using the low efficiency engines available in the early
60's. Let's swap these out for the high efficiency NK-33 [1]. The
sustainer engine used was the LR89-5 [2] at 720 kg. At 1,220 kg the
NK-33 weighs 500 kg more. So removing both the sustainer and booster
engines to be replaced by the NK-33 our loaded mass becomes 117,526 kg
and the dry mass 2,826 kg, and the mass ratio 41.6 (!).
For the trajectory-averaged Isp, notice this is not just the midpoint
between the sea level and vacuum value, since most of the flight to
orbit is at high altitude at near vacuum conditions. A problem with
doing these payload to orbit estimates is the lack of a simple method
for getting the average Isp over the flight for an engine, which
inhibits people from doing the calculations to realize SSTO is
possible and really isn't that hard. I'll use a guesstimate Ed Kyle
uses, who is a frequent contributor to NasaSpaceFlight.com and the
operator of the Spacelaunchreport.com site. Kyle takes the average Isp
as lying 2/3rds of the way up from the sea level value to the vacuum
value [3]. The sea level value of the Isp for the NK-33 is 297 s, and
the vacuum value 331 s. Then from this guesstimate the average Isp is
297 + (2/3)(331 - 297) = 319.667, which I'll round to 320 s.
Using this average Isp and a 8,900 m/s delta-V for a flight to orbit,
we can lift 4,200 kg to orbit:
320*9.8ln((117,526+4,200)/(2,826+4,200)) = 8,944 m/s. This is a
payload fraction of 3.5%, comparable to that of many multi-stage
rockets.
Note in fact that this has a very good value for a ratio that I
believe should be regarded as a better measure, i.e., figure of merit,
for the efficiency of a orbital vehicle. This is the ratio of the
payload to the total dry mass of the vehicle. The reason why this is a
good measure is because actually the cost of the propellant is a minor
component for the cost of an orbital rocket. The cost is more
accurately tracked by the dry mass and the vehicle complexity. Note
that SSTO's in not having the complexity of staging are also good on
the complexity scale.
For the ratio of the payload to dry mass you see this is greater than
1 for this SSTO. This is important because for every orbital vehicle I
looked at, and possibly for every one that has existed, this ratio is
going in the other direction: the vehicle dry mass is greater than the
payload carried. Often it is much greater. For instance for the space
shuttle system, the vehicle dry mass is more than 12 times that of the
payload.
This good payload fraction and even better payload to dry mass ratio
was just by using the engine in its standard configuration, no
altitude compensation. However, for a SSTO you definitely would want
to use altitude compensation. Dr. Bruce Dunn in his report "Alternate
Propellants for SSTO Launchers" [4] estimates an average Isp of 338.3
s for high performance kerosene engines when using altitude
compensation. Then we could lift 5,500 kg to orbit:
338.3*9.8ln((117,526+5,500)/(2,826+5,500)) = 8,928 m/s.
But kerosene is not the most energetic hydrocarbon fuel you could
use. Dunn in his report estimates an average Isp of 352 s for
methylacetyene using altitude compensation. This would allow a payload
of 6,500 kg : 352*9.8ln((117,526+6,500)/(2,826+6,500)) = 8,926 m/s.
Bob Clark
1.)NK-33.
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/nk33.htm
2.)LR89-5.
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/lr895.htm
3.)Re: EELV Solutions for VSE.
Reply #269 on: 11/05/2007 09:20 PM
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10497.msg208875#msg208875
4.)Alternate Propellants for SSTO Launchers.
Dr. Bruce Dunn
Adapted from a Presentation at:
Space Access 96
Phoenix Arizona
April 25 - 27, 1996
http://www.dunnspace.com/alternate_ssto_propellants.htm
Disclaimer: the citing of a particular reference should not be
construed as an endorsement by the cited authors of the viewpoint
expressed herein.
Sylvia Else
> If you use both weight optimized structures and highest efficiency
> engines at the same time, then what you wind up with will be SSTO
> capable whether you intend it to or not.
Or you end up with something that blows up, or falls apart, with
disconcerting frequency. Pushing the limits of technology is not the way
to produce something that's reliable.
Sylvia.
Robert Clark
can be reduced by two orders of magnitude in the near term. This will
result in large corporations, wealthy individuals, and most national
governments possessing their own manned orbital spacecraft.
This clearly will result in some national security concerns that
should start being addressed now. I found this report after a web
search:
National Security Implications of Inexpensive Space Access.
by William W. Bruner III
"INTRODUCTION
There has been a great deal of recent discussion in the space policy
community about the technical challenges of gaining economical and
routine access to space. Despite this, there has been little written
about the opportunities which exist for the development of new
missions for US military space forces. Neither has there been much
discussion of the security challenges that any resultant proliferation
of access to space may present to the United States and to the
established international order. Even the most forward looking space
"advocates" in the Department of Defense assume that access to space
will continue to be prohibitively expensive and difficult for the
foreseeable future, that an American decision not to take advantage of
the military potential of space is deterministic for the rest of the
world, and that "navigation, communications, and surveillance
activities will likely remain the limits of space-based capabilities"
for all countries.
Part of this failure to consider the possibilities of a world
radically changed by inexpensive access to space is a reaction to the
"expectations gap" set up by the gulf between mankind's collective
dreams about its future in space and the realities of its achievements
so far. The collective public and political mind has been shaped by
powerful and convincing fictional images of space activities that we
are not likely to see for a hundred years. Real world, but slow moving
and silent, pictures of Earth from space taken from small spacecraft
with cramped cabins and short mission durations suffer greatly in
comparison to images of robust and operable spacecraft spanning the
galaxy at faster than light speeds. A century after the Russian
Konstantin Tsiolkovsky conceptually solved most of the problems
involved in human space flight, over a third of a century since the
Soviet Sputnik ushered in the space age, and over a quarter century
since America left humanity's first footsteps on another celestial
body, many thoughtful and technically literate people are conditioned
by historical experience to think of access to space as an expensive
enterprise that is technically difficult, dangerous, and the exclusive
province of huge government and corporate bureaucracies..."
http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/bruner.htm
**********************************************************************************
It is my contention that the reason why launch costs are so high, the
reason why we don't have passenger access to space as routine as say
trans-Pacific flights is that the idea has been promulgated that SSTO
is impossible. That is not the case. In fact it is easy, IF you do it
in the right way. The right way is summarized in one simple
statement:
If you use both weight optimized structures and highest efficiency
engines at the same time, then what you wind up with will be SSTO
capable whether you intend it to or not.
Stages Index.
http://www.astronautix.com/stages/index.htm
338.3*9.8ln((117,526+5,500)/(2,826+5,500)) = 8,928 m/s.
Bob Clark
1.)NK-33.
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/nk33.htm
2.)LR89-5.
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/lr895.htm
**********************************************************************************
Robert Clark
On 26/06/2011 2:36 PM, Robert Clark wrote:
"If you use both weight optimized structures and highest efficiency
engines at the same time, then what you wind up with will be SSTO
capable whether you intend it to or not."
Or you end up with something that blows up, or falls apart, with
disconcerting frequency. Pushing the limits of technology is not the
way
to produce something that's reliable.
Sylvia.
***********************************************************
Thanks for the response. The key thing to keep in mind is this simple
and obvious idea is already used for upper stages. If you look at the
history of the Apollo missions you see a great deal of effort was
devoted both to getting the upper stages to be as weight optimized as
possible using common bulkhead design for the propellant tanks, as
well as to wringing every bit of performance out of the vacuum-
optimized hydrogen J-2 engine used on the upper stages.
And the Centaur upper stages still use common bulkhead design as
well as the "balloon tank" method for minimizing tank weight. They
also highly vacuum optimize the engines getting an Isp up to 465 s.
Both the Apollo upper stages and the Centaur upper stages were very
successful. What I am arguing for is applying this same obvious
concept to first stages. What you'll get is a stage that is
automatically SSTO capable with significant payload.
BTW, I'm writing this using Google's Usenet reader, but no new posts
have actually shown up on it since June 25th. I assume the posts
written are being sent out since you were able to read that one,
presumably using a different news reader, but they are not showing up
on Google Groups.
Anyone know what the problem is?
Bob Clark
William Mook
rocket attain 9.2 km/sec to account for gravity and air drag losses -
even though the spacecraft orbits at 7.9 km/sec.
The Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation tells us the propellant fraction
needed to attain this speed, once we know the exhaust velocity of the
propellant combination.
COMBINATION EXHAUST FRACTION DENSITY
Hydrogen Lithium Fluorine 5.4 km/sec 81.80% 730 kg/m3
Hydrogen Liquid Oxygen 4.4 km/sec 87.64% 362 kg/m3
Jet Fuel Liquid Oxygen 3.7 km/sec 91.68% 1,021 kg/m3
Jet Fuel Hydrogen Peroxide 3.2 km/sec 94.36% 1,310 kg/m3
Now, rocket engines typically produce 70 kgf thrust for each kg of
mass. This means that structure fraction is at least 1.43% Typical
overall values for launchers are around 12% for lightweight cryogenic
compounds but special cases like the SIVB stage on the Saturn V rocket
are as low as 5% - which means that 3.5% is tank weight while 1.5% of
that is engine and avionics weight. This is also confirmed with the
Space Shuttle External Tank which is 3.49% of the total weight.
Under the best of circumstances a tank that carries a low density
propellant will also carry higher densities without much increase in
structural mass. So, under the best circumstance we can see that;
Density Tank Engine Structure Payload TOW Empty
730 1.74% 1.50% 3.24% 14.97% 6.68 0.22
362 3.50% 1.50% 5.00% 7.36% 13.59 0.68
1021 1.24% 1.50% 2.74% 5.58% 17.92 0.49
1310 0.97% 1.50% 2.47% 3.17% 31.50 0.78
So, a SSTO vehicle that carries 10 metric tons into orbit would mass;
Propellant Take Off Wgt Empty Wgt
Length Diam Cost
Hydrogen Lithium Fluorine 66.8 tonnes 2.2 tonnes 33.9 ft
6.1 ft $22 M
Hydrogen Oxygen 135.9 tonnes 6.8 tonnes 86.7 ft
15.5 ft $68 M
Kerosene Oxygen 179.2 tonnes 4.9 tonnes 33.7
ft 6.0 ft $49 M
Kerosense H2O2 315.0 tonnes 7.8 tonnes 31.7
ft 5.7 ft $78 M
See, the high density propellants result in a smaller less costly
spacecraft. The heavier ships are more costly because they need
larger engines to lift them. The development of MEMS propulsive skins
that attain 1,000 to 1 thrust to weight, would be helpful here.
William Mook
needed to move forward is important to success. The success of the
Jupiter and Saturn rockets developed before Nov 22, 1963 was directly
attributable to this attitude. The lack of failure since then, in the
nuclear rocket program and in subsequent Space Shuttle program had to
do with this fundamental change.
If we want a low cost heavy lift commercially viable reusable vehicle
quickly we really should look at the Aerospike nozzle configured
around three RS-68 pump sets at the base of of an External Tank
derived reusable airframe, configured with cross feeding. We start
with a three element unit and expand to a seven element unit. We also
spend a dollar for launch infrastructure upgrade for every dollar of
vehicle development.
We also focus on a series of commercially viable programs and ask for
investors to put money into the program while giving those investors
significant tax breaks for putting money at risk. So, for every
dollar spent on launchers and launch infrastructure, we spend a dollar
on payloads for the new vehicle - and we do all this in a short time
frame of three to five years.
The launch operator participates 30% in all revenues earned by
investors as well, which goes to support flight operations and vehicle
development and expansion.
So, we create a fleet of 35 flight elements that operate together to
create five launch systems that support a network of communications
satellites, experimental power satellites, a return to the moon a
hotel in space and an expedition to Mars.
The budget for this fleet is $7 billion while another $7 billion is
spent on launch infrastructure improvements and $14 billion is spent
on payload development and operations. This $28 billion is raised by
placing tax exempt space bonds which are sold to the American public
and provide returns.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum
William Mook
sec - after accounting for air drag and gravity losses. A vehicle
that executes a lunar free return trajectory from low earth orbit must
travel at 10.85 km/sec. This is 2.95 km/sec more than the 7.9 km/sec
speed the vehicle is traveling in low earth orbit. When passing
around the far side of the moon, a vehicle must slow by 2.4 km/sec to
land safely on the lunar surface. To return to that same orbit
arriving back at Earth, requires the addition of 2.4 km/sec leaving
the lunar surface.
9.20 km/sec - Earth to LEO
2.95 km/sec - LEO to LFR
2.40 km/sec - LFR - Lunar Surface
2.40 km/sec - Lunar Surface - LFR
0.05 km/sec - attitude control
17.00 km/sec - total delta vee
Dividing this among four stages as follows;
12.15 / 3 = 4.05 km/sec
4.80 / 1 = 4.80 km/sec
We start with 3.36 tonnes going through a delta vee of 4.8 km/sec with
an exhaust velocity of 4.5 km/sec, and a 12% structural fraction.
This means;
3.36 tonnes lunar payload
1.80 tonnes structure
9.84 tonnes propellant
28.11 m3 propellant tank
3.78 m diameter
This is a 6 meter tall conical lander with a spherical tank forming a
spherical nose with a 6.6 m wide base. The tank rests inside a torus
that has a 6 meter ring diameter and 2.4 meter tube diameter -
propelled by three deeply throttle-able high-expansion RL-10 engines.
The launcher consists of seven flight elements each one 3.7 meters in
diameter and 20.7 meters tall carrying 63 metric tons of propellant
each massing 9 metric tons empty.
Six of the seven flight elements have an aerospike nozzle driven by a
J2 engine pump set. Very similar to the engine built in the 1960s the
J2T-250K
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/aeroster.htm
The seventh flight element is unpowered, and the lunar landing capsule
is placed beneath it, with the seventh element shifted forward to
create a space behind it to fit the capsule. Up to 12 astronauts in
long-duration counter pressure suits fit in the capsule
http://www.scribd.com/doc/54316434/Ballistic-Transport
Four of the seven elements feed the six engines accelerating the
system to 2.78 km/sec. These four separate to be recovered 394 km
downrange. Two of the three remaining elements continue to fire
accelerating the system to 6.24 km/sec. These two separate from the
seventh element which re-enter the atmosphere and are recovered
downrange. The unpowered element feeds propellant to the capsule
beneath, which fires its three RL-10 high expansion engines, and
continues to orbit, attaining a speed of 7.9 km/sec. The vehicle upon
reaching the appropriate point in its orbit fires again, raising its
speed to 10.85 km/sec. The capsule and tank section continue on to
the moon, and both arrive at the lunar far side in four days. At the
lunar far side the tank section is jettisoned, to return to Earth
where it re-enters and is recovered for reuse. The capsule slows its
speed sufficiently to come in for a landing on the lunar near side -
landing up to one dozen people on the moon. After two days on the
moon, the system fires up again, and accelerates the vehicle back to a
trajectory returning it to Earth where it executes a touchdown at the
launch center four days later - 10 days after launch - and all twelve
people disembark after visiting the moon.
12 people at 0.085 MT each = 1.02 - body weight
12 people x 10 days x 0.002 MT/day = 0.24 - consumables
12 people x 0.175 MT/person = 2.10 - cargo
Brad Guth
And according to Kodak film (with hardly any shielding), not one human
cell or strand of DNA ever gets zapped, and otherwise not one speck of
meteor causes anything nasty to happen. Plus otherwise according to
A-13, they'll need lots of auxiliary heating onboard in order to keep
from freezing to death.
http://groups.google.com/group/google-usenet/topics?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet/topics?hl=en
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
William Mook
Since the system described here is fully reusable, and fully
automated, it would reasonable to fly it to the moon and back a few
times to make sure everything works as planned. Radiation levels can
be monitored during these flights to assure everyone that radiation
levels are as expected. HDTV cameras can also be carried aloft, and
landing sites filmed. Returning to the Apollo sites would be
interesting in its own right. Off loading several tons of equipment
before a piloted flight would also be interesting - since it could
increase the length of time spent on the moon by our visitors.
The party line is that missions beyond low earth orbit leave the
protection of the geomagnetic field, and transit the Van Allen belts.
Thus they need to be shielded against exposure to cosmic rays, Van
Allen radiation, and solar flares. The region between two to four
earth radii lies between the two radiation belts and is sometimes
referred to as a "safe zone".
Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by
radiation. Geomagnetic storms occasionally damage electronic
components on spacecraft. Electronics on satellites must be hardened
against radiation.
A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by
20,000 miles) passing through the radiation belts will receive about
2,500 rem per year (6.8 rem per day). Almost all radiation will be
received while passing the inner belt.
The Apollo astronauts traveled through the Van Allen radiation belts
on the way to the moon, however, NASA claims exposure was minimized by
following a trajectory along the edge of the belts that avoided the
strongest areas of radiation.
The total radiation exposure to astronauts was estimated to be five
rem set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with
radioactivity at that time. This may be an under-reported figure and
the source of what appears to be a cover-up.
During the period when NASA was sending astronauts to the moon, from
December 1968 through December 1972 is a period where solar activity
was at a minimum. Not so today.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png
We may have to wait 5 years or more to have radiation levels at the
level we saw them in 1968-72. Though there was a record solar flare
in August 1972 between Apollo 16 and Apollo 17, which did contribute
to the decision to cut Apollo 18 through 21 off the mission schedule.
Alternatively, we can use more advanced methods, such as fusion
powered rockets with substantial shielding built in to an airframe
that is dense compared to aerospace structures but perfectly suitable
for operating with fusion rocket engines.
Two 6 mm stainless steel plates - creating a twin hull - the same way
ocean going ships are made, filled with polyethylene - provide
significant radiation protection.
Looking at the scantlings of a typical hull design for a 5,000 ton
ship capable of carrying 40,000 tons of cargo - we have 0.17 tonnes
per square meter of hull if its a sandwich of two stainless steel
sheets with members filled with solid polyethylene with a coating of
boron10 carbide - provides substantial radiation protection in flights
throughout the solar system.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Bulk_carrier_midship_section_en.svg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Bulk_carrier_general_arrangement_english.png
A cone shell constructed as an ocean going ship is constructed, 62
meters (210 ft) in diameter at the base and 256 meters tall (840 ft)
has a hull weight of 4,956 tonnes - and has a hull volume of 274,516
cubic meters.
180,000 cubic meters in the truncated cone between the base and the
nose, is the cargo holds. 48,000 tonnes of cargo. There are a dozen
of these, each with its own loading/unloading crane. Each hold
carrying 4,000 tonnes in 15,000 cubic meters.
The base of the cone has 12 propellant tanks, each holding 2,000 cubic
meters (1,640 metric tons) of lithium deuteride pellets - 19,680
metric tons total weight. The base of the ship has 12 inertial
confinement fusion based nuclear pulse drives that use a shaped
ablative shield with oil sprayers to produce thrust. The same
ablative shield is used to effect aerobraking when desired. 2,500
tonnes of oil is carried in a central ballast between the engines/
propellant tanks. This is all contained in a 2.5 meter space beneath
the rear cargo bulkhead. 200 meters forward of the rear hold bulkhead
is the forward hold bulkhead. Above this is the crew section -
twenty floors - standing 56 meters (184 feet) tall with a base 14
meters (46 feet) wide - with a total deck area of 808,129.4 square
meters (8,694,180 square feet). This is enough area for 3,810 suites
- all space view. With sufficient capacity to carry 7,620 passengers
and 3,821 crew. At 85 kg average person weight this is 973 metric
tons. Another 5,000 tonnes of consumables, personal cargo, and life
support is also aboard.
This is the sort of ship we should be considering.
40,000 tonnes - cargo
19,680 tonnes - propellant
5,973 tonnes - passenger/crew/life support
4,956 tonnes - structure
2,500 tonnes - engine consumables
1,500 tonnes - engines
74,609 tonnes - total weight
26.37% propellant fraction
Reducing cargo by half and adding another 20,000 tonnes of propellant
increases propellant fraction to 53.18%
With an exhaust velocity of 33,000 km/sec total delta vee is 10,101 km/
sec in the first case and 25,042 km/sec in the second case.
At 1 gee the ship can fly a distance of 650 million km in 6 days in
the first case (out and back) and can fly a distance of 12 billion km
in 43 days.
With twelve engines producing 150,000 tonnes force thrust (1.47 GN)
with an exhaust velocity of 33,000 km/sec 48,537 TW is generated - and
each engine is consuming 7 kg of lithium deuteride pellets per
second. With a pulse rate of 70 per second per engine (4,200 rpm) we
have a 100 gram per pellet mass. At 0.82 grams/cc this is a sphere
6.15 cm (2.4 inches) in diameter.
A ship like this could carry out three flights to the moon each day.
Carrying 40,000 tons of payload, and 4,000 settlers along with 3,620
tourists - One ship adds 4.3 million settlers to the moon each year.
A dozen ships do the same for Mars and the asteroids and other
planets.
William Mook
hour - mostly the cost of lithium. With 7,000 passengers and 40,000
tonnes of cargo, dividing this equally between the two, this is $100
per hour for passengers and $17.50 per tonne hour for cargo.
If it takes 3.7 hours to get to the Moon from Earth then costs are
$370 per passenger on average and $64.75 per tonne to ship. In the
early days operators may assign a premium for outbound cargo. $150
per ton to the moon, $75 per ton back, $200 round trip. $800 per
passenger to the moon, and $400 per passenger back, $1,000 round
trip.
It takes 50 hours to get to Mars from Earth at close approach and 80
hours to get to Mars from Earth when its more distant. So, a trip to
Mars will cost between $5,000 and $8,000. A ton of cargo will cost
between $875 and $1,400 to ship to Mars. In the early days one way to
Mars from Earth might cost between $9,000 and $15,000 with round trips
costing $12,000 to $16,000 while trips from Mars to Earth will cost
$5,000 to $8,000 or less. Cargo would range from $1,800 to $2,800 per
ton to Mars, $900 to $1,500 from Mars, $2,000 to $3,000 round trip for
a ton.
A settler taking 10 tonnes with them, would cost $1,000 for the moon
(with a return ticket escrow) and $1,500 for shipping materials.
$2,500 total. A family of four would have 40 tonnes and pay $10,000
to settle on the moon. The $500,000 worth of goods might form the
basis of a loan that over 30 years at 6% will cost $3,027 per month -
less than $800 per month per person. This isn't merely a home, but
also an occupation. A community of 1,000 would use 10,000 tonnes and
spend $2.5 million on passage and $500 million on hardware and
supplies - and generate $756,750 per month in revenues. The 380
employed in this community will generate on average $3.8 million per
month - which means over $3 million per month will be used to expand
the community, which means more shipments from Earth.
I can imagine outfitters or banks giving free tickets to qualified
settlers who purchase from them.
Who would buy tonnage both ways? Well, a band or orchestra, traveling
troupe, art exhibition, sales teams, etc.
4,000 settlers per trip, 3 trips per day per ship, and 120 ships,
525,960,000 people per year.
another 3,000 tourists per trip.
Mars - gateway to the asteroids - with 58 ships - and an average of 6
days out and back - carrying 4,000 settlers per trip, 14,123,000 per
trip.
This is 540 million people per year.
With another 22 ships traversing between Moon Mars and other points
beyond.
If we stared in 2015 shipping 540 million people per year to space,
our population would look like this;
YEAR EARTH OFF WORLD
2010 7,000 0
2011 7,098 0
2012 7,197 0
2013 7,298 0
2014 7,400 0
2015 6,964 540
2016 6,521 1,088
2017 6,073 1,643
2018 5,618 2,206
2019 5,156 2,777
2020 4,689 3,356
2021 4,214 3,943
2022 3,733 4,538
2023 3,245 5,141
2024 2,751 5,753
2025 2,249 6,374
2026 1,741 7,003
2027 1,225 7,641
2028 702 8,288
2029 172 8,944
Is it reasonable that 200 ships of the size described could be built
in the next four years? Well consider that larger ships are built at
a rate of 250 per year in dozens of ship yards around the world. A
handful of these are idle, and available for sale. Someone who
purchased these at a discount and gave them a design to build, would
be able to build 200 ships in less than 18 months at a cost of $10
billion - including the acquisition cost of the ship yards. Space
launch would proceed at sea, as envisioned by Sea Launch. This is due
entirely to the fact that the ship is air tight, and the fact that
cargo is 0.22x the density of water and the propellant is 0.82x the
density of water.
Floating docks and ferry craft would operate to support ocean launch.
What is more reasonable, is that once 200 ships are built, they will
continue to be built at that rate for the foreseeable future. In this
case the rate of folks leaving Earth increases linearly from 540
million to 1,080 million, to 1,620 million and so forth.
There is also demand for permanent off world housing, farms, and other
things as well.
In this case, we depopulate Earth by 2019 in FOUR YEARS after the
first flight! Continued construction of 200 space ships per year of
this capacity means that all people everywhere travel around the solar
system once a year on average. Space travel seats will be equivalent
to air travel seats during the peak of the jet age by 2025 - only 16
years after the Earth is depopulated.
YEAR EARTH OFF WORLD CAPACITY
2010 7,000 0 0
2011 7,098 0 0
2012 7,197 0 0
2013 7,298 0 0
2014 7,400 0 0
2015 6,964 540 540
2016 5,981 1,628 1080
2017 4,445 3,270 1620
2018 2,347 5,476 2160
2019 400 7,533 2700
2020 400 7,644 3240
2021 400 7,757 3780
2022 400 7,871 4320
2023 400 7,987 4860
2024 400 8,104 5400
2025 400 8,223 5940
2026 400 8,344 6480
2027 400 8,466 7020
2028 400 8,590 7560
2029 400 8,716 8100
2030 400 8,844 8640
So, we can cut this deal. Let's leave the Earth to the British, and
replace the slaves with robots, and let free humanity spread among the
stars using the American way of investing in people.
Creating a New Colossus astride the solar system and beyond...
The New Colossus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Brad Guth
> On Jul 2, 9:11 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And according to Kodak film (with hardly any shielding), not one human
> > cell or strand of DNA ever gets zapped, and otherwise not one speck of
> > meteor causes anything nasty to happen. Plus otherwise according to
> > A-13, they'll need lots of auxiliary heating onboard in order to keep
> > from freezing to death.
>
> > http://groups.google.com/group/google-usenet/topics?hl=en
> > http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet/topics?hl=en
> > http://translate.google.com/#
> > Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
>
> Since the system described here is fully reusable, and fully
> automated, it would reasonable to fly it to the moon and back a few
> times to make sure everything works as planned. Radiation levels can
> be monitored during these flights to assure everyone that radiation
> levels are as expected.
outside and inside the spacecraft), just like objectively testing in
order to see and precisely measure how long raw water and raw/naked
ice in 1 AU space will last could each be yet another first.
· Voltage differential between moon and Earth
· Gravity L1 null, counting particles/cm3
· Exact Earth-moon L1 distance (within +/- 1 mm)
· Ice at the Earth-moon L1 lasting how long?
· 16 channels worth of radiation (full time and live streaming)
· Multiple UV and IR cameras running full streaming mode.
· Auxiliary heating requirements (kw needed to keep the crew from
freezing)
>
> HDTV cameras can also be carried aloft, and
> landing sites filmed. Returning to the Apollo sites would be
> interesting in its own right. Off loading several tons of equipment
> before a piloted flight would also be interesting - since it could
> increase the length of time spent on the moon by our visitors.
>
> The party line is that missions beyond low earth orbit leave the
> protection of the geomagnetic field, and transit the Van Allen belts.
> Thus they need to be shielded against exposure to cosmic rays, Van
> Allen radiation, and solar flares. The region between two to four
> earth radii lies between the two radiation belts and is sometimes
> referred to as a "safe zone".
>
> Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by
> radiation. Geomagnetic storms occasionally damage electronic
> components on spacecraft. Electronics on satellites must be hardened
> against radiation.
>
> A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by
> 20,000 miles) passing through the radiation belts will receive about
> 2,500 rem per year (6.8 rem per day). Almost all radiation will be
> received while passing the inner belt.
Actual TRW Raytheon measurements taken of the GSO space specified 2e3
Sv/year (200,000 rem/year) while protected by 5/16”(8 mm) aluminum,
unless the sun is dead quiet and you don’t include them secondary/
recoil X-rays and gamma given off by the moon in addition to some of
its own radiation. Oddly the crew of Apollo 13 got somewhat higher
dosage than other missions, and they never set foot on the moon or
stayed half as long in space. More odd is that absolutely none of
their Kodak film was ever affected by radiation or heat.
>
> The Apollo astronauts traveled through the Van Allen radiation belts
> on the way to the moon, however, NASA claims exposure was minimized by
> following a trajectory along the edge of the belts that avoided the
> strongest areas of radiation.
>
> The total radiation exposure to astronauts was estimated to be five
> rem set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with
> radioactivity at that time. This may be an under-reported figure and
> the source of what appears to be a cover-up.
>
> During the period when NASA was sending astronauts to the moon, from
> December 1968 through December 1972 is a period where solar activity
> was at a minimum. Not so today.
Less active sun of mostly X-rays means more cosmic gamma gets through.
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png
>
> We may have to wait 5 years or more to have radiation levels at the
> level we saw them in 1968-72. Though there was a record solar flare
> in August 1972 between Apollo 16 and Apollo 17, which did contribute
> to the decision to cut Apollo 18 through 21 off the mission schedule.
>
> Alternatively, we can use more advanced methods, such as fusion
> powered rockets with substantial shielding built in to an airframe
> that is dense compared to aerospace structures but perfectly suitable
> for operating with fusion rocket engines.
>
> Two 6 mm stainless steel plates - creating a twin hull - the same way
> ocean going ships are made, filled with polyethylene - provide
> significant radiation protection.
Might as well fill that void of 10 cm with beer, or better yet is to
fill it with HTP, and then circulate it for cooling.
ISS has to use active refrigeration, and it's only exposed to the sun
50% of the time.
>
> Looking at the scantlings of a typical hull design for a 5,000 ton
> ship capable of carrying 40,000 tons of cargo - we have 0.17 tonnes
> per square meter of hull if its a sandwich of two stainless steel
> sheets with members filled with solid polyethylene with a coating of
> boron10 carbide - provides substantial radiation protection in flights
> throughout the solar system.
>
http://groups.google.com/group/google-usenet/topics?hl=en
Brad Guth
>
> So the added weight here is about the same as for the DC-X style
> case. Actually we'll be using composites for the wings which will be
> of short, stubby shape, so probably half this would suffice.
> Now for the thermal protection. We'll be protecting the bottom of the
> body and the wings. The length of the full vehicle from end of the
> nozzle to tip of nose cone is published as 8.9 m, and the width we
> estimated as 1.5 m. This is an area of 13.35 m^2. For the wings,
> estimate from the above linked image a width on each side of 1.5 m
> from the cylindrical body, and a length of 2.5 m, and the shape on
> each side as roughly triangular. Then the total area for the wings on
> each side of the body is (1/2)*3*2.5 = 3.75 m^2. And the total area
> that has to be covered for the body and wings is 13.35 + 3.75 m^2 =
> 17.1 m^2. Note this again is about the same area that had to be
> covered on the base for the DC-X style case. So the thermal protection
> added mass will again be the same.
> Finally, the landing gear weight will again be estimated as 3% of the
> landed weight; so this added mass also is the same as the DC-X case:
>
>
> Note too though with composites half this amount would likely
> suffice.
> Now we see the dry mass is about the same as the DC-X case so again
> would be SSTO capable.
>
> Bob Clark
Actually myself and a few other specified reusable LRBs as of more
than a decade ago.
Brad Guth
> Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Actual TRW Raytheon measurements ...
>
> Neat trick, since there's no such critter as "TRW Raytheon".
>
> Hint: TRW was acquired by Northop Grumman in a hostile takeover in
> 2002, bidding against two other corporations. Raytheon was not one of
> them.
>
> --
> "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
> truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
> -- Thomas Jefferson
Space Data Report, by Raytheon/TRW, set the satellite standards as
required for their internal electronics to be capable of taking
roughly half again that much dosage while shielded by a given aluminum
density of 2 g/cm2. So that's not the raw outside dosage, but what
each and every cm3 of your DNA/RNA would get while protected by 5/16"
thick aluminum.
Those Apollo missions spent at least a couple hours (or more like 3 or
4) while going to/from our moon, as having to pass nearly directly
through some of that worse potential Van Allen dosage. Even if they
got only to experience 10% of the really bad stuff, it was still a
considerably nasty but survivable full-body dosage, and of course the
physically dark moon itself is a kind of unavoidably reactive thing
that’s at least as highly charged as any Van Allen belts.
BTW, physicist James Van Allen agrees with me, as I do with most of
his interpretations of how potentially lethal space travels can be,
unless you are a robot or some kind of rad-hard android.
Shortly after I posted links to that Raytheon/TRW "Space Data Report",
it got removed from the internet, but I bet you could still find it
for us.
http://groups.google.com/group/google-usenet/topics?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet/topics?hl=en
http://www.wanttoknow.info/
Brad Guth
> Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 4, 12:40 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Actual TRW Raytheon measurements ...
>
> >> Neat trick, since there's no such critter as "TRW Raytheon".
>
> >> Hint: TRW was acquired by Northop Grumman in a hostile takeover in
> >> 2002, bidding against two other corporations. Raytheon was not one of
> >> them.
>
>
> No such critter as "Raytheon/TRW". Reality just doesn't penetrate
> into your world even when your nose is rubbed in it, does it?
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
I wasn't the one that removed it from the internet, but I'm certainly
the one that caused all the big fuss and damage-control panic so that
it had to get removed. Do an old skeletal web archive search, and
it'll be there. Sorry about that.
btw, the 2e3 Sv/year was including a typical year worth of CMEs,
whereas avoiding those would drop that number considerably, though I'd
kinda doubt by any ten fold.
Brad Guth
> Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 4, 2:03 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jul 4, 12:40 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >Actual TRW Raytheon measurements ...
>
> >> >> Neat trick, since there's no such critter as "TRW Raytheon".
>
> >> >> Hint: TRW was acquired by Northop Grumman in a hostile takeover in
> >> >> 2002, bidding against two other corporations. Raytheon was not one of
> >> >> them.
>
> >> >Space Data Report, by Raytheon/TRW, ...
>
> >> No such critter as "Raytheon/TRW". Reality just doesn't penetrate
> >> into your world even when your nose is rubbed in it, does it?
>
> >the one that caused all the big fuss and damage-control panic so that
> >it had to get removed.
>
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
Why isn't the moon reactive, or at least as nasty as the radiation
belts surrounding Earth?
In other words, what's protecting the moon?
Isn't that physically dark and naked moon charged up to gamma?
William Mook
> Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Actual TRW Raytheon measurements ...
>
> Neat trick, since there's no such critter as "TRW Raytheon".
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=5444
really?
>
> Hint: TRW was acquired by Northop Grumman in a hostile takeover in
> 2002, bidding against two other corporations. Raytheon was not one of
> them.
TRW and Raytheon have worked together closely for years
http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=138
and they share many executives
http://search.raytheon.com/search?site=default_collection&client=raytheon&proxystylesheet=raytheon&output=xml_no_dtd&q=trw
and board members.
William Mook
back. Their readings confirmed the NASA Lunar Orbiter readings from
decades earlier. The Japanese have even taken photos of the Apollo
landing sites showing the descent stages and footprint tracks.
The Japanese have no great love for the USA and are fond of bizarre
theories. For example there is a firm minority who believe that the
Japanese earthquake was caused by a US earthquake weapon after the
Japanese government stopped buying the requisite quantity of US T-
bills in December. So, if there was no evidence of a US landing at
the Apollo sites, that would have been reported without any problem.
Still, for long-term occupancy on the moon, we require lots of water -
about the amount of water that will cause the oceans to rise 1 meter
or so over the next few decades. It will also need to separate oxygen
from some of the rock there, to create an atmosphere of oxygen at 2
psi to 3 psi. Due to the low surface gravity on the moon, the
pressure lapse rate will be far smaller than on Earth. So, there will
be a sizeable ozone layer. If we also build a Fermi-tron - an
accelerator 10,920 km long encircling the moon, equipped with a vacuum
chamber after we add a breathable atmosphere, we can power it up to
produce a magnetic field capable of deflecting solar wind just as
Earth - and have the solar system's largest particle accelerator.
At $2 million per km, this would cost $22 billion to complete - a
small fraction of the total transformation project.
The Earth's atmosphere is 390 ppm CO2 and preindustrial levels were
280 ppm CO2. This is expected to rise over the next 50 years. If we
replace all fossil fuel use with fusion fuels by 2015 - this won't
happen. We will still require removal of the existing CO2.
The sea levels will rise by 1 meter over the next few decades.
7.07e+14 kg of CO2 must be removed.
3.61e+17 kg of H2O must be removed.
So, shipping carbonated water to the moon with 0.198% CO2 - achieves
these end. Launching a 49.7 meter diameter sphere containing 50,000
tonnes of slightly carbonated water (after extracting useful materials
like Lithium from it) every five minutes for 11 years - keeps our
oceans from rising and reduces our CO2 levels while helping the
conversion of the moon to a habitable place.
The Moon appears to have a tenuous atmosphere of moving dust particles
constantly leaping up from and falling back to the Moon's surface,
giving rise to a "dust atmosphere" that looks static but is composed
of dust particles in constant motion. The term "Moon fountain" has
been used to describe this effect by analogy with the stream of
molecules of water in a fountain following a ballistic trajectory
while appearing static due to the constancy of the stream. According
to the model recently proposed by Timothy J. Stubbs, Richard R.
Vondrak, and William M. Farrell of the Laboratory for Extraterrestrial
Physics at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, this is caused by
electrostatic levitation. On the terminator there could be significant
horizontal electric fields forming between the day and night areas,
resulting in horizontal dust transport - a form of "moon storm".
This effect was also predicted in 1956 by science fiction author Hal
Clement in his short story "Dust Rag" published in Astounding Science
Fiction.
Also in 1956, the American scientist Thomas Townsend Brown appears to
have predicted a similar lofting-falling cycle of photoelectrically
excited lunar dust (along with controversial and as yet unproven
speculations about unusual gravitational properties of this dust, an
interest he maintained to the end of his life).
There is some evidence for this effect. In the early 1960s before
Apollo 11, Surveyor 7 and several subsequent Surveyor spacecraft that
soft-landed on the Moon returned photographs showing an unmistakable
twilight glow low over the lunar horizon persisting after the Sun had
set. Moreover, the distant horizon between land and sky did not look
razor-sharp, as would have been expected in a vacuum where there was
no atmospheric haze. Apollo 17 astronauts orbiting the Moon in 1972
repeatedly saw and sketched what they variously called "bands,"
"streamers" or "twilight rays" for about 10 seconds before lunar
sunrise or lunar sunset. Such rays were also reported by astronauts
aboard Apollo 8, 10, and 15. These may have been similar to
crepuscular rays on Earth.
Apollo 17 also placed an experiment on the Moon's surface called LEAM,
short for Lunar Ejecta and Meteorites. It was designed to look for
dust kicked up by small meteoroids hitting the Moon's surface. It had
three sensors that could record the speed, energy, and direction of
tiny particles: one each pointing up, east, and west. LEAM saw a large
number of particles every morning, mostly coming from the east or west—
rather than above or below—and mostly slower than speeds expected for
lunar ejecta. Also, a few hours after every lunar sunrise, the
experiment's temperature rocketed so high—near that of boiling water—
that LEAM had to be turned off because it was overheating. It is
speculated that this could have been a result of electrically-charged
moondust sticking to LEAM, darkening its surface so the experiment
package absorbed rather than reflected sunlight.
It's even possible that these storms have been spotted from Earth: For
centuries, there have been reports of strange glowing lights on the
Moon, known as "Transient lunar phenomenon" or TLPs. Some TLPs have
been observed as momentary flashes—now generally accepted to be
visible evidence of meteoroids impacting the lunar surface. But others
have appeared as amorphous reddish or whitish glows or even as dusky
hazy regions that change shape or disappear over seconds or minutes.
These may have been a result of sunlight reflecting off of suspended
lunar dust.
These sorts of things will disappear as the moon gains an atmosphere.
The CO2 can be isolated and reduced to Carbon black and O2. The
carbon can then be used with FeO to produce elemental iron along with
CO2 again - and the process repeated.
The CO2 arriving on the moon consists of 1.93e+14 kg of carbon and
5.14e+14 kg of oxygen. To produce the needed 1.04e+17 kg of Oxygen
from FeO on the moon, requires carbon cycling 539x for each carbon
atom. This also produces 3.51e+17 kg of free iron (or other material
attached to the oxide) - which is a substantial industrial advantage!
hanson
-- Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
--- Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Brad wrote:
> >Actual TRW Raytheon measurements ...
>
> Neat trick, since there's no such critter as "TRW Raytheon".
>
<http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=5444>
really?
>
McCall wrote:
> Hint: TRW was acquired by Northop Grumman in a hostile takeover in
> 2002, bidding against two other corporations. Raytheon was not one of
> them.
>
TRW and Raytheon have worked together closely for years
<http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=138>
and they share many executives
<http://search.raytheon.com/search?site=default_collection&client=raytheon&proxystylesheet=raytheon&output=xml_no_dtd&q=trw>
and board members.
>
From the 1970s on these aerospace companies did
merge and shape-shift like crazy, as they became
integral parts of the Industrial Military Complex.
>
There was that kike Schwartz who was in charge of
Raytheon when they sold senitive missile guidance
stuff to the Chinese... which seemed to be connected
to that scandal when/where Al Gore/Clinton got a
HUGE sackfull of laundered dirty china money for their
re/election campaign...
A year later this item re-surfaced in some talks over
that US spy plane that fell into Chinese hands over the
South China Sea. (Google for exact idetails).. when
some China-General said: "~ you could lose SF or LA
over something like that. Don't you people care"
number of particles every morning, mostly coming from the east or west-
rather than above or below-and mostly slower than speeds expected for
lunar ejecta. Also, a few hours after every lunar sunrise, the
experiment's temperature rocketed so high-near that of boiling water-
that LEAM had to be turned off because it was overheating. It is
speculated that this could have been a result of electrically-charged
moondust sticking to LEAM, darkening its surface so the experiment
package absorbed rather than reflected sunlight.
It's even possible that these storms have been spotted from Earth: For
centuries, there have been reports of strange glowing lights on the
Moon, known as "Transient lunar phenomenon" or TLPs. Some TLPs have
been observed as momentary flashes-now generally accepted to be
visible evidence of meteoroids impacting the lunar surface. But others
have appeared as amorphous reddish or whitish glows or even as dusky
hazy regions that change shape or disappear over seconds or minutes.
These may have been a result of sunlight reflecting off of suspended
lunar dust.
These sorts of things will disappear as the moon gains an atmosphere.
The CO2 can be isolated and reduced to Carbon black and O2. The
carbon can then be used with FeO to produce elemental iron along with
CO2 again - and the process repeated.
The CO2 arriving on the moon consists of 1.93e+14 kg of carbon and
5.14e+14 kg of oxygen. To produce the needed 1.04e+17 kg of Oxygen
from FeO on the moon, requires carbon cycling 539x for each carbon
atom. This also produces 3.51e+17 kg of free iron (or other material
attached to the oxide) - which is a substantial industrial advantage!
>
--
>
hanson wrote:
Mook, your apprentice Guth must be creaming in his
panties by now over your grand scheme here...
>
But I think it sucks, cuz the time for promoting these lunatic
schemes is NOT now. It is an ill chosen time. ... But Mook
since you are into such bigger than life schemes, with "win
1 or 2 but loose most of them" like these here, of yours:
<http://tinyurl.com/Mook-schemes-in-Guths-world>
>
Why don't you, Mook, pay attention to something much
closer and grander, but right up your ally. Remember
the big deals of yore, the Louisiana Purchase and the
Alaska Purchase? Finish it with the **Baja Purchase**!
The Mining-, Fishing-, Agri-, Forest-, Construction,
Maritime-, Tourism-, etc- industries and interests are
keen to get into the action with you, over that, Mook.
>
Get with it Mook. Don't play with ice cubes on the moon.
There is and will be no money for space, for decades.
But... drum roll...
You could be William Mook, 1st Governor of Baja-USA.
Till then, thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahanson
William Mook
contractors to line their pockets illegally.
William Mook
Why are you making up shit about me and then laughing about it?
I say,
Depopulate the Earth by flying people to colonies off-world starting
in 2015 as we terraform Venus and Mars by 2025.
Reduce populations on Earth in that case, to zero. Also rapidly
reduce CO2 levels and rising sea levels over the same period.
Sure, this will be risky for those who depart, but not as risky as
certain death. It also will not be as risky to the environment which
is being scattered with thousands of tons of DU and lots of A-bombs in
major population centers along with engineered diseases and a host of
soft kill technologies already deployed.
Relative to the space faring technologies we know work, relative to
the capacities we have in place, flying everyone to the moon and
beyond provides the best solution going forward and is quite easily
achievable.
I even have a project that will pay for it.
(1) Fourteen coal-to-liquid plants that operate by direct
hydrogenation where the hydrogen comes from ultra-low-cost solar
power, to produce 220,000 bbl/day/plant a total of 3,080,000 bbl/day
at a cost of $8 per barrel - built by originating futures contracts
today against future production totaling 1,050 of the 3 million energy
contracts traded per day on the futures exchanges.
(2) Take the revenue of the oil plants and buy important assets. The
first of these are the two under-valued gold mines in South Africa for
$60 billion. Use access to low-cost energy to mine the 30,000 metric
tons of gold there at an accelerated pace, using oil profits. Instead
of selling the gold to pay those profits, establish 'Bills Bank' -
circulate $1 trillion in gold coin - using a micro-bullion technique
of 24 carat gold foil on QR-coded base coin. The bank using
fractional technique issues $9 trillion in credit against the value of
the coin now in circulation. Use only coin for buying oil in #1
above, and #3 below. Use additional credit to fund major projects to
follow.
(3) Each of the fourteen coal to liquid plants use 2,500 metric tons
of hydrogen per day made from solar driven electrolysis. One in 6400
of these hydrogen atoms is deuterium. So, 11 metric tons of deuterium
is easily extracted per day from the 14 plants. 33 metric tons of
Lithium 6 is extracted from 440 tons of Lithium metal - which itself
is extracted from the ocean. The resulting 44 tons of Lithium-6
Deuteride releases 2.53e+19 Joules of energy when fused to form Helium
4 using the Voitneko Compression technique. This energy divided by
the 86,400 seconds in a day achieves a 293 trillion watt rate of
energy use - 50x the consumption of oil each day at present. Energy
prices drop, volume of energy use rises, revenue increases, CO2
emissions plummet.
(4) Buy up all the aerospace companies, reorganize them along
functional lines, along with major ship builders around the world.
Build 200 spacecraft of 80,000 tonnes each, that begin flying people
off world by 2015. Grow the number of ships by 200 per year - and
depopulate the world in 4 years. Build space homes in conjunction
with the ships.
(5) Gather 50,000 tonnes of seawater every five minutes, inject it to
0.2% with CO2, place it in a 49.7 m diameter 'skin' and launch it
toward the moon at 12 km/sec. It arrives 12 hours later, where it is
'caught' by the same launching technology - and soft lands on the
moon. In 11 years this process reduces CO2 levels to 290 ppm - pre
industrial levels- from the current 380 ppm while also reducing water
levels to pre-industrial levels. Water and carbon and oxygen are
returned from ET sources within 100 years. Gold mined on Earth and
removed in the pockets of emigres is also returned to Earth as new
sources are developed off world.
(6) Develop the planets Venus, Mars, the dwarf planets Ceres, Juno,
Pallas, Vesta, etc. and the Earth's Moon to absorb growing
populations on transformed worlds. The oligarchs who remain are left
undisturbed by the rest of humanity, who guards against major
environmental catastrophe on behalf of the oligarchs. Anyone setting
foot on Earth without approval after this epoch, is killed
immediately. Anyone departing Earth after this epoch, runs the risk
of death after a thorough review - but may be accepted if they pass
muster.
(7) The expansionary subspecies continues its expansion to the nearby
stars using a combination of fusion rocket and solar pumped laser
light sail. Expansion rate occurs at 2/3 light speed. This means that
per star, population will decline, even while total numbers increase
YEAR PEOPLE RANGE STARS POP/STAR
2050 12,207 33.33 466 26.21
2100 24,463 66.67 3,727 6.56
2150 49,024 100.00 12,578 3.90
2200 98,245 133.33 29,813 3.30
With the majority of space faring humans traveling at 2/3 light speed,
population growth rate will close to 0.75% per year - due to time
dilation effects. So, these are vast over-estimates.
An accelerating rate of expansion further reduces population density
first, by increasing the number of stars reached at a given date,
second by further slowing by time dilation the rate of human
reproduction.
This is an answer to Fermi's Paradox - where are they? They spread
into a cosmos where every technical advance slows their rate of
population growth while simultaneously increasing the number of
habitable places to live so density tends to zero.
Successfully living in Space, on Ceres, the Moon, Mars and Venus
indicates that the these tiny populations per star will live across
the entire star system - not on Earth like worlds, though Earth like
worlds will be created where possible.
William Mook
> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Fred needs to read up on control fraud - and how its used by aerospace
> >contractors to line their pockets illegally.
>
> by some Usenet posters to explain their loony persecution theories. He
> can start with his own case history.
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
HAHAHAHA ...
Dude, listen to yourself.
You're the one who's delusional.
I'm nearly 60 not 30.
I have a 60% hearing loss and have a hard time hearing anything. lol.
I attend toastmasters and routinely do radio interviews and public
speaking
http://67.72.16.232/talk/2565604.mp3
.
My thoughts derive from a hard headed analysis of reality and I have
an ability to let things go - especially when I'm mistreated on line
by idiotic hecklers like you! lol.
I like myself just as I am. I have made major achievements in my
life. Like anyone I'm proud of some things in my life, not so proud
of others.
One thing I am proud of is my creativity.
I'm an inventive person this has resulted in a number of patents - and
I've made a fair bit of money with them over the years.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21970436/Spin-Communicating-Ball
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/22/sports/on-your-own-color-analysis.html
Some have even changed the world;
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21646352/Mook-POS-Patent
Some, I hope, will change the world even more;
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20047598/Mook-Patent-Application-Ultra-low-cost-CPV
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21832226/Mook-Patent-Solar-Energy-Spectral-Cooling
Sure, this is beyond the norm for most people, and for some like Fred,
it irritates him to meet someone smarter, happier, kinder, and just
plain better than him. I can't do anything about that. But there's
one thing I won't do - apologize for *being* better than people like
Fred.
William Mook
> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Hanson,
>
> >Why are you making up shit about me and then laughing about it?
>
>
>
>
> >Relative to the space faring technologies we know work, relative to
> >the capacities we have in place, flying everyone to the moon and
> >beyond provides the best solution going forward and is quite easily
> >achievable.
>
> >I even have a project that will pay for it.
>
>
> <snip mookspew unread>
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
Dude, listen to yourself. Do you even know what delusion means?
Delusion is a false belief or opinion.
Does this look false to you?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20024019/White-Paper-to-Mok-FINAL-1
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37046560/MokPhI-Part-2-Draft01
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20024194/Pages-1-42-From-Mok-Report
http://www.scribd.com/doc/59522868/Trust
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23098085/Indonesian-Project
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22490605/Indonesia-Presentation
Brad Guth
Fred is only here to topic/author stalk and torment, because it's what
GOP/ZNR redneck FUD-masters do whenever they're not pretending to be
Atheists or political independents. His actions are also 100% Semite
approved.
http://groups.google.com/group/google-usenet/topics?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet/topics?hl=en
http://www.wanttoknow.info/
Brad Guth
>
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/21832226/Mook-Patent-Solar-Energy-Spectral-...
>
> Sure, this is beyond the norm for most people, and for some like Fred,
> it irritates him to meet someone smarter, happier, kinder, and just
> plain better than him. I can't do anything about that. But there's
> one thing I won't do - apologize for *being* better than people like
> Fred.
Fred hates creativity and spunk, especially if any of it is
independent of faith or government. There's nothing about Fred that
isn't certified by Yemenite Jews.
http://groups.google.com/group/google-usenet/topics?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet/topics?hl=en
http://www.wanttoknow.info/
hanson
>
"William Mook", the Cook <mokme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hanson, Why are you making up shit about me
> and then laughing about it?
>
No shit. But that's how you came across, Mookie, in
<http://tinyurl.com/Mook-schemes-in-Guths-world>
.. and of course it was a laugh. Cherish it... ahaha...
>
Mook wrote:
> I say,
> Depopulate the Earth
> ... engineered diseases and a host of soft kill technologies
> already deployed.
>
hanson wrote:
That's just the general FUD-MO that has gotten to you, Mookie.
Nobody will invest their money into negativities like that,
no matter how many times you whine. "I say"... ahahahahaha...
>
Mook wrote:
> I even have a project that will pay for it.
> (2) <snipped as it is just a Mookie-Cookie>
> (3) <snipped as it is just a Mookie-Cookie>
> (4) Buy up all the aerospace companies
> (5) <snipped as it is just a Mookie-Cookie>
> (6) Anyone setting foot on Earth without approval
(presumably by Mookie), is killed immediately.
<snipped as it is just a Mookie-Cookie>
> (7) <snipped as it is just another Mookie-Cookie>
>
hanson wrote:
Now Mookie... after you come down from your
make belief faith-space faring, and you are broke
and penniless like a church mouse.. ..reconsider,
while you still can:
... redirect your Mook-attention to something much
hanson
>
"Fred J. McKnow it all" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
-- "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
--- "William Mook" <mokme...@gmail.com> wrote:
---- Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
----- Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>Brad wrote:
>>> >Actual TRW Raytheon measurements ...
>>>
>>McCall wrote:
>>> Neat trick, since there's no such critter as "TRW Raytheon".
>>>
>>Mook wrote:
>><http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=5444>
>>really?
>>>
>>McCall wrote:
>>> Hint: TRW was acquired by Northop Grumman in a hostile takeover in
>>> 2002, bidding against two other corporations. Raytheon was not one of
>>> them.
>>>
>>Mook wrote:
>>TRW and Raytheon have worked together closely for years
>><http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=138>
>>and they share many executives
>><http://search.raytheon.com/search?site=default_collection&client=raytheon&proxystylesheet=raytheon&output=xml_no_dtd&q=trw>
>>and board members.
>>>
>>hanson wrote:
>>From the 1970s on these aerospace companies did
>>merge and shape-shift like crazy, as they became
>>integral parts of the Industrial Military Complex.
>>
> See above. No such critter as "TRW Raytheon".
>
hanson wrote:
<http://tinyurl.com/Raytheon-Schwartz-Guidance-Chi>
Yet 151,000 links say there was, but dawn rises slowly
over Marble-head Fred McCall, the know it all, NOT.
>
hanson wrote:
>>There was that kike Schwartz ...
>>
Nit picker "McKnowit all" wrote:
> Who? Raytheon has had four CEOs since 1968, none of whom are named
> "Schwarz" (Swanson, Burnham, Piccard, Phillips). I think you expose
> yourself as a moron loon in your use of the word "kike". Is that you,
> Guthball?
>
hanson wrote:
ahahahaha.... Ahhh... So, MacCall you play the Kikes'
solidarity game.... AHAHAHAHAHA... McCall you fit
perfectly into the profile of a Rosenthal kike ||R:|| :
<http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>
wherein he says:
||R:|| We have a solidarity & a closeness to fellow Jews
||R:|| like none other in the world. We Jews are successful
||R:|| because of our unity. And we Jew make make you
||R:|| belief that == Jewish shit don't stink ==
>
||R:|| Anytime this truth comes forth which exposes us, we
||R:|| Jews simply rally our forces -- fellow Jews & the
||R:|| goyim, whom we have brainwashed totally, and
||R:|| into whom we Jews have placed a guilt complex
||R:|| which makes you afraid to criticize Jewry openly.
||R:|| In much of Europe we enacted laws which throw you
||R:|| Goys in prison if you do not believe or doubt what we
||R:|| Jews say or you say unflattering things about us Jews.
||R:|| We sacrificed some Jews so that our "persecution"
||R:|| propaganda & cries of "Anti-Semite/ism" can continue,
||R:|| Our Jewish beliefs are entirely different from yours.
||R:|| Our Talmud/Nedarim/Kol Nidre = "all vows" are recited
||R:|| each year in the synagogue on the Day of Atonement.
||R:|| It allows all future obligations, oaths or pledges a
||R:|| Jew may engage in to "be deemed absolved, forgiven,
||R:|| annulled, and void, and made of no effect."
||R:|| This allows Jews to lie, subvert, cheat the Goyim.
||R:|| Our culture has raised us that way so it is not a sin
||R:|| for us to take any oath and break it. It's our teaching.
>
hanson wrote:
>>... Schwartz, who was in charge of Raytheon
>>when they sold senitive missile guidance
>>stuff to the Chinese...
>>
Denialist McKnowitall wrote:
> What? Never happened.
>
hanson wrote:
151,000 accounts say it so did, but dawn rises slowly
over Marble-head Fred McCall, the know it all, NOT.
<http://tinyurl.com/Raytheon-Schwartz-Guidance-Chi>
>
hanson wrote:
>>... which seemed to be connected
>>to that scandal when/where Al Gore/Clinton got a
>>HUGE sackfull of laundered dirty china money for their
>>re/election campaign... Google for exact details...
>>
Oh-MCall recalls and wrote:
> Oh, you're talking about LORAL, not Raytheon.
> <remaining nut-lunacy elided>
>
hanson wrote:
<http://tinyurl.com/Raytheon-Schwartz-Guidance-Chi>
No, 151,000 links say it did, but dawn rises slowly
over Marble-head Fred McCall, the know it all, NOT.
>
Thanks for the laughs, though, Fred, you Dreidel....
ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahahanson
>
--
>
Fred McCalls self-indictment sig:
"Ordinarily Fred McCall is insane. But he has lucid
moments when Fred McCall is only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
Brad Guth
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> Now Mookie... after you come down from your
> make belief faith-space faring, and you are broke
> and penniless like a church mouse.. ..reconsider,
> while you still can:
> ... redirect your Mook-attention to something much
> closer and grander, but right up your ally. Remember
> the big deals of yore, the Louisiana Purchase and the
> Alaska Purchase? Finish it with the **Baja Purchase**!
> The Mining-, Fishing-, Agri-, Forest-, Construction,
> Maritime-, Tourism-, etc- industries and interests are
> keen to get into the action with you, over that, Mook.
>
> Get with it Mook. Don't play with ice cubes on the moon.
> There is and will be no money for space, for decades.
> But... drum roll...
> You could be William Mook, 1st Governor of Baja-USA.
> Till then, thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahanson
Mokenergy is supposedly already a done deal. So, other than your
protection of Big Energy, what's the mainstream hold up?
Brad Guth
The JAXA resolution of the moon was absolutely piss poor and
insufficient to identify Apollo squat. They could have accomplished
at least ten fold better with their existing technology of that era,
but either elected or were told not to bother.
Their initial unfiltered HDTV format images of the moon were all
bluish hue tinted or blue saturated. Do you even know what a UV
secondary/recoil photon is?
The hot sodium and the 1220 w/m2 of IR from the moon essentially
killed their mission.
Japan wouldn't dare officially (outside of silly tabloids) challenge
anything NASA/Apollo.
Even our USAF uses the moon for calibrating their gamma tracking
instruments.
Do you really think the one and only trustworthy agency we got is
NASA?
NASA should have been backing all things Mokenergy as of more than a
decade ago, because according to your own statements would have made
them into a self-sufficient agency worth trillions by now.
That highly paramagnetic and metallicity saturated moon is already
charged up to gamma, and it's otherwise naked and fully reactive to
all forms of cosmic, solar and local radiation.
Is there some conditional physics or magic as to why that physically
dark and naked moon environment isn't as bad or worse off than our
radiation belts that can deliver 2e3 Sv/year while shielded by 2g/cm2
(5/16" aluminum)?
Brad Guth
> BradGuth<bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 4, 7:12 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jul 4, 2:03 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Jul 4, 12:40 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> BradGuth<bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> >> >> Neat trick, since there's no such critter as "TRWRaytheon".
>
> >> >> >> 2002, bidding against two other corporations. Raytheon was not one of
> >> >> >> them.
>
> >> >> >Space Data Report, by Raytheon/TRW, ...
>
> >> >> No such critter as "Raytheon/TRW". Reality just doesn't penetrate
> >> >> into your world even when your nose is rubbed in it, does it?
>
> >> >I wasn't the one that removed it from the internet, but I'm certainly
> >> >the one that caused all the big fuss and damage-control panic so that
> >> >it had to get removed.
>
> >> Of course you were, Guthball. Of course you were.
>
> >belts surrounding Earth?
>
The physically dark and naked moon itself is highly paramagnetic as
well as charged up to gamma, plus otherwise solar X-ray saturated and
charged by day..
>
>
> >In other words, what's protecting the moon?
>
> Nothing.
>
>
>
> >Isn't that physically dark and naked moon charged up to gamma?
>
> You don't understand why the Earth has radiation belts, do you?
According to your NASA, DARPA and fellow FUD-masters, we don't need
any stinking magnetosphere. It's going away at 0.1%/year anyway.
The solar wind itself creates an electrical force field that's similar
to a geomagnetic field that's actually extremely weak compared to the
passing electron force.
What's the objective science from ISS or any platform in orbit that
compared the magnetic attraction towards Earth of any bar or sphere of
iron to that of an equal mass of aluminum? (which one is getting
pulled toward Earth or in any way motivated by the geomagnetic force?)
Use a cloud of fine iron dust to that of aluminum dust having
identical particle mass if you like, and report back.
hanson
>
"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
-- "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
> hanson wrote:
> Now Mookie... after you come down from your
> make belief faith-space faring, and you are broke
> and penniless like a church mouse.. ..reconsider,
> while you still can:
> ... redirect your Mook-attention to something much
> closer and grander, but right up your ally. Remember
> the big deals of yore, the Louisiana Purchase and the
> Alaska Purchase? Finish it with the **Baja Purchase**!
> The Mining-, Fishing-, Agri-, Forest-, Construction,
> Maritime-, Tourism-, etc- industries and interests are
> keen to get into the action with you, over that, Mook.
>
> Get with it Mook. Don't play with ice cubes on the moon.
> There is and will be no money for space, for decades.
> But... drum roll...
> You could be William Mook, 1st Governor of Baja-USA.
> Till then, thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
Mokenergy is supposedly already a done deal.
So, other than your protection of Big Energy,
what's the mainstream hold up?
>
>
hanson wrote:
ahaha... yeah, but just "supposedly", considering
that only a teeny bit of money so far is supposedly
on the table from a few Billionaires that can write it
off their taxes. Mookie, will never see his exodus.
He'll be dust generations before "colonists" empty
their colons on extraterrestrial soil... ahahahaha....
>
What's is holding it up?.. Excluding the "mainstream's"
more pressing concerns,.... to start with Big Oil is
being sued by Big Green, who is also suing Big Wind
who sues Big Coal, which is suing Big Solar, that
is suing Big Hydro, which is suing Big Gas... ahaha...
>
... and you geriatric fanatics actually do believe that
your opinions are counting for something other than
for laughs?.... ahahahaha...AHAHAHA... ahahahanson
Brad Guth
> .... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha...
>
So you think Mook's hydrogen or even LH2 + LOx plus a few other
benefits from solar farming is technically unfeasible?
Why not cover up to 10% or even 1% of our state and federal owned
deserts or spent mining and quarry sites with Mokenergy solar farms?
Brad Guth
Giving our trusty moon an atmosphere of most any sort (even if it were
mostly toxic) would be a whole lot better than nothing, and at least
we could all keep a close eye on the progress. We should sell this as
carbon credits, whereas for every tonne of CO2 and NOx delivered would
offset the local fines for hydrocarbons polluting by as much as
1000:1, meaning a terrestrial coal fired plant could legally disregard
better technology and dump 1000 tonnes of carbon into our environment
for each and every tonne delivered to the moon.
At the ongoing global volumes of CO2 and NOx rate of polluting our
environment, the amount of such CO2 and NOx delivered to the moon is
going to become substantial enough to create a sufficient atmosphere
for conventional shuttle aerodynamic landings within a couple years.
Btw; why wouldn’t the physically dark, naked, paramagnetic and highly
gamma charged surface of the moon itself attract and hold onto its own
fair share of the very same highly energized solar and cosmic protons
as well as attract and accumulate whatever passing electrons?
Is the unusually high metallicity of our moon inert (meaning not anti-
cathode worthy), or does our moon have some stealth kind of anti-
proton shield, or is it simply so neutron and positron saturated that
protons and even electrons are getting somehow neutralized???
We kinda know that its naked metallicity surface reacts favorably to
cosmic rays because it gives off a very good signature of gamma (some
of which could be from its own highly radioactive cache of heavy
elements, though perhaps most of them gamma counts/sec would be via
interactions with cosmic energy), and otherwise for good reason our
USAF uses moon gamma on a regular basis in order to calibrate their
gamma target detection and tracking instruments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moon_gamma_rays_egret_instrument_cgro.jpg
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1187952
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060527.html
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/cgro/cgro/egret.html
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.0543v1.pdf
Gamma ray spectrometers have been utilized to detect and quantify
various metallicity elements on our moon.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_15/experiments/gamma_ray/
Since the moon has no protective magnetosphere for sustaining any
great belts or layers of terrific particle density, like those
surrounding and protecting our atmosphere, nor having10 tonnes/m2 as
its ultimate gamma shield, thereby virtually all incoming cosmic rays
nail it (unless diverted/absorbed by all that surrounding sodium
that’s detected out to 9r), and subsequently react by creating those
pesky secondary/recoil gamma rays (many of which react at least once
again with local matter in order to create hard X-rays and so forth).
Therefore indirectly those cosmic rays that are relatively harmless to
our frail human DNA/RNA become a whole lot more problematic once
converted into gamma and hard X-rays that would be technically
impossible for the likes of Kodak film to not record.
hanson
>
> > hanson wrote:
> > Now Mookie... after you come down from your
> > make belief faith-space faring, and you are broke
> > and penniless like a church mouse.. ..reconsider,
> > while you still can:
> > ... redirect your Mook-attention to something much
> > closer and grander, but right up your ally. Remember
> > the big deals of yore, the Louisiana Purchase and the
> > Alaska Purchase? Finish it with the **Baja Purchase**!
> > The Mining-, Fishing-, Agri-, Forest-, Construction,
> > Maritime-, Tourism-, etc- industries and interests are
> > keen to get into the action with you, over that, Mook.
>
> > Get with it Mook. Don't play with ice cubes on the moon.
> > There is and will be no money for space, for decades.
> > But... drum roll...
> > You could be William Mook, 1st Governor of Baja-USA.
> > Till then, thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
> Brad wrote:
> Mokenergy is supposedly already a done deal.
> So, other than your protection of Big Energy,
> what's the mainstream hold up?
>
> hanson wrote:
> ahaha... yeah, but just "supposedly", considering
> that only a teeny bit of money so far is supposedly
> on the table from a few Billionaires that can write it
> off their taxes. Mookie, will never see his exodus.
> He'll be dust generations before "colonists" empty
> their colons on extraterrestrial soil... ahahahaha....
>
> What's is holding it up?.. Excluding the "mainstream's"
> more pressing concerns,.... to start with Big Oil is
> being sued by Big Green, who is also suing Big Wind
> who sues Big Coal, which is suing Big Solar, that
> is suing Big Hydro, which is suing Big Gas... ahaha...
>
> ... and you geriatric fanatics actually do believe that
> your opinions are counting for something other than
> for laughs?.... ahahahaha...AHAHAHA... ahahahanson
>
Brad wrote:
So you think Mook's hydrogen or even LH2 + LOx plus
a few other benefits from solar farming is technically
unfeasible?
>
hanson wrote:
These are YOUR doubts and your question, Brad.
AFAIAC, energy storage from solar into elyt-split
H2O into LH2 + LOx is a century old technology.
The feasibility for it is NOT about its technology.
Large scale projects like that are always social and
political endevors. When these 2 latter conditions are
right, then only will the money flow and then only will
such technologies turn into UTILITIES.
>
Brad wrote:
Why not cover up to 10% or even 1% of our state
and federal owned deserts or spent mining and quarry
sites with Mokenergy solar farms?
>
hanson wrote:
Try that. Try even 0.0001%, or even just 1/8 acre and
watch how YOUR beloved and admired Green Turds
come out of the wood works, and send in highly paid
environmental impact assessment specialists to find a
bug or a weed that is endangered.... and then you will
see why your Mokenergy ain't gonna fly... ahahaha...It's
YOU GREEN ENVIRO SHITS that prevent progress.
>
=== There is nothing filthier then an environmentalist.
=== There is nothing more immoral then an environmentalist.
== There is nothing more perverted then an environmentalist.
== There is nothing more corrupt then an environmentalist.
--------------------------------------------------��------------------
Greenism is the politics of Hysteria, Misanthropy & True lies.
=====================================
Brad Guth
> Greenism is the politics of Hysteria, Misanthropy & True lies.
> =====================================
You're not helping. Try harder.
Brad Guth
Giving our trusty moon an atmosphere of most any sort (even if it were
mostly toxic) would be a whole lot better than nothing, and at least
we could all keep a close eye on the progress. We should consider
selling this as carbon credits, whereas for every tonne of CO2 and NOx
(plus anything else nasty) delivered would offset their local fines
for hydrocarbon polluting by as much as 1000:1, meaning a terrestrial
coal fired plant could legally disregard better technology and dump
1000 tonnes of carbon and numerous other nasties into our environment
for each and every tonne of that nasty aromatic stuff delivered to the
moon.
At the ongoing global volumes of industrial, Big Energy and personal
energy usage produced CO2 and NOx that’s artificially polluting our
environment (say at least 100 billion tonnes/year, or conceivably it
could be an all-inclusive trillion tonnes/year), the 0.1% amount of
such CO2 and NOx delivered to the moon is going to become substantial
enough to create a sufficient atmosphere for conventional shuttle
aerodynamic landings within a few years. Taking 5 years for getting 1
billion tonnes of CO2 to such a place of only 1/6th gravity should be
enough to do the trick at 26 kg/m2 (plus whatever can be generated
from vaporizing lunar basalt that’ll yield O2 and 3 He as well as some
water).
Otherwise, with that moon kept as is, why wouldn’t the physically
hanson
You're not helping. Try harder.
>
Trying harder to help you green shits?... or
harder to subscribe to Mooks lunacies?
Be more specific. Better; don't even respond.
Brad Guth
>
> You're not helping. Try harder.
>
> 'hanson wrote:
>
> Trying harder to help you green shits?... or
> harder to subscribe to Mooks lunacies?
> Be more specific. Better; don't even respond.
That's still not very helpful.
Were you flipping off your mother every time she tried to change your
diaper?
How about working out some of the kinks in this topic, or in whatever
Mook has been suggesting?
hanson
-- "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
>
> Brad wrote:
> You're not helping. Try harder.
>
> hanson wrote:
> harder to subscribe to Mooks lunacies?
> Be more specific. Better; don't even respond.
>
That's still not very helpful.
Were you flipping off your mother every time
she tried to change your diaper?
>
So, Brad, your Schemes & that Mook energy
need Diapers and Mother's help?.... ahahaha...
You might be quite right, for a change, diaper-
and otherwise... ahahahaha... ahahaha...
>
Brad wrote:
How about working out some of the kinks in this
topic, or in whatever Mook has been suggesting?
>
How about you re-activating your faded memory
and re-read:
<http://tinyurl.com/Mook-schemes-in-Guths-world>
Brad Guth
?
Brad Guth
> Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >benefits from solar farming is technically unfeasible?
>
> >Why not cover up to 10% or even 1% of our state and federal owned
> >deserts or spent mining and quarry sites with Mokenergy solar farms?
>
> pay back is stupid?
But you're against anything that might take even a .1% bite out of Big
Energy.
How much does fusion sunlight cost?
You do realize the full all-inclusive cost of conventional nuclear
energy is more than twice what you FUD-masters claim, and even using
thorium at 10% of that all-inclusive cost is still more spendy than
Mokenergy. (why of course you do)
hanson
> Did you look at what your links actually SAY?
No, of course not.
>
Fanatic "McKnowit all" wrote:
So, youm answer your own questions... Heavy!
... ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA....
>>>
>>hanson wrote:
>>>>There was that kike Schwartz ...
>>>>
>>Nit picker "McKnowit all" wrote:
>>> Who? Raytheon has had four CEOs since 1968, none of whom are named
>>> "Schwarz" (Swanson, Burnham, Piccard, Phillips). I think you expose
>>> yourself as a moron loon in your use of the word "kike". Is that you,
>>> Guthball?
>>>
>>hanson wrote:
>>ahahahaha.... Ahhh... So, MacCall you play the Kikes'
>>solidarity game.... AHAHAHAHAHA... McCall you fit
>>perfectly into the profile of a Rosenthal kike ||R:|| :
>>
> Wow, what a rebuttal. Unfortunately for you, the fact
remains: Nobody named 'Schwarz' was ever the 'head
of Raytheon'.
>
hanson wrote:
"Schwartz, not Schwarz"... MacCall you Fartz
<http://tinyurl.com/Raytheon-Schwartz>
242,000 hits ... "McKnowit all" Zero hit!, but
McCall you are a perfect Rosenthal kike ||R:|| fit.
>>>
>>hanson wrote:
>>>>... Schwartz, who was in charge of Raytheon
>>>>when they sold senitive missile guidance
>>>>stuff to the Chinese...
>>>>
>>Denialist McKnowitall wrote:
>>> What? Never happened.
>>>
>>hanson wrote:
>>151,000 accounts say it so did, but dawn rises slowly
>>over Marble-head Fred McCall, the know it all, NOT.
>><http://tinyurl.com/Raytheon-Schwartz-Guidance-Chi>
>>
> None of your links say any such thing, you raving dipshit.
>
hanson wrote:
Well cranking yourself & cussing won't change the
fact that you lie and show that you, McCall, you are a
perfect Rosenthal kike ||R:|| fit.
>>>
>>hanson wrote:
>>>>... which seemed to be connected
>>>>to that scandal when/where Al Gore/Clinton got a
>>>>HUGE sackfull of laundered dirty china money for their
>>>>re/election campaign... Google for exact details...
>>>>
>>Oh-MCall recalls and wrote:
>>> Oh, you're talking about LORAL, not Raytheon.
>>> <remaining nut-lunacy elided>
>>>
>>hanson wrote:
>><http://tinyurl.com/Raytheon-Schwartz-Guidance-Chi>
>>No, 151,000 links say it did, but dawn rises slowly
>>over Marble-head Fred McCall, the know it all, NOT.
>>
> No, none of those links say any such thing.
>
hanson wrote:
Well, the fact that you lie shows that you, McCall,
are a perfect Rosenthal kike ||R:|| fit.
>>>
Indicting himself, Denialist McKnowitall wrote:
> Jesus, who left out the Clueless Loon Bait that
> brought us morons like this guy?
>
hanson wrote:
See, there your blasphemy shows that you, McCall,
you are a perfect Rosenthal kike ||R:|| fit.
<http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>
wherein he says:
||R:|| We have a solidarity & a closeness to fellow Jews
||R:|| like none other in the world. We Jews are successful
||R:|| because of our unity. And we Jew make make you
||R:|| belief that == Jewish shit don't stink ==
>
||R:|| Anytime this truth comes forth which exposes us, we
||R:|| Jews simply rally our forces -- fellow Jews & the
||R:|| into whom we Jews have placed a guilt complex
||R:|| which makes you afraid to criticize Jewry openly.
||R:|| In much of Europe we enacted laws which throw you
||R:|| Goys in prison if you do not believe or doubt what we
||R:|| Jews say or you say unflattering things about us Jews.
||R:|| We sacrificed some Jews so that our "persecution"
||R:|| propaganda & cries of "Anti-Semite/ism" can continue,
||R:|| Our Jewish beliefs are entirely different from yours.
||R:|| Our Talmud/Nedarim/Kol Nidre = "all vows" are recited
||R:|| each year in the synagogue on the Day of Atonement.
||R:|| It allows all future obligations, oaths or pledges a
||R:|| Jew may engage in to "be deemed absolved, forgiven,
||R:|| annulled, and void, and made of no effect."
||R:|| This allows Jews to lie, subvert, cheat the Goyim.
||R:|| Our culture has raised us that way so it is not a sin
||R:|| for us to take any oath and break it. It's our teaching.
>
Thanks for the laughs, though, Fred, you Dreidel....
ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahahanson
>>>
--
Fred McCalls self-indicting sig:
hanson
Phony Liar "Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
<plonk, because>
>
--
>
hanson wrote:
... McCall, you have been caught with your paints down,
and shown that you are a perfect Rosenthal kike ||R:|| fit.
<http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>
wherein he says:
||R:|| We Jews change our name & mix in your society
||R:|| benefiting from the dumb goy who doesn't realize
||R:|| that these Jews with non-Jew names are Jews.
Brad Guth
> The Japanese space agency sent an orbiter to the moon a few years
> back. Their readings confirmed the NASA Lunar Orbiter readings from
> decades earlier. The Japanese have even taken photos of the Apollo
> landing sites showing the descent stages and footprint tracks.
>
> The Japanese have no great love for the USA and are fond of bizarre
> theories. For example there is a firm minority who believe that the
> Japanese earthquake was caused by a US earthquake weapon after the
> Japanese government stopped buying the requisite quantity of US T-
> bills in December. So, if there was no evidence of a US landing at
> the Apollo sites, that would have been reported without any problem.
>
> Still,
insufficient to identify Apollo squat. They could have accomplished
at least ten fold better with their existing technology of that era,
but either elected or were told not to bother.
Their initial unfiltered HDTV format images of the moon were all quite
bluish hue tinted or excessively blue saturated (as should be expected
from UV secondary/recoil photons). Do you even know what a UV
secondary/recoil photon is?
The hot surrounding sodium of perhaps 128+/cm3 on the surface and 64/
cm3 at 100 km along with the 1220 w/m2 of IR coming off the moon is
what essentially killed their technically underachieving mission that
was also skewed off course by mascon issues.
Japan wouldn't dare officially (outside of silly tabloids) challenge
anything published via NASA/Apollo. However, even our USAF uses the
moon for calibrating their gamma tracking instruments.
Do you really think the one and only trustworthy agency we got going
for us is NASA?
NASA should have been backing all things of Mokenergy as of more than
a decade ago, because according to your very own statements would have
made them into a self-sufficient agency of exceptional profit worth
trillions by now.
That highly paramagnetic and metallicity saturated moon is already
getting charged up to gamma, and it's otherwise naked and fully
reactive to all forms of cosmic, solar and local radiation. Is there
some conditional laws of physics or special voodoo magic as to why
that physically dark and naked moon environment isn't as bad or worse
off than our radiation belts that can easily deliver 2e3 Sv/year while
shielded by 2g/cm2 (5/16" aluminum), and that’s of GSO which is not
even situated within the worst radiation intensive layers?
Brad Guth
Your sudden renewed faith in all things NASA/Apollo is noted. Too bad
there’s still insufficient objective science (outside of our NASA/
Apollo cabal) backing up your team.
Giving our trusty moon an atmosphere of most any sort (even if it were
mostly toxic) would be a whole lot better than nothing, and at least
we could all keep a close eye on the progress. We should consider
selling this opportunity as carbon credits, whereas for every tonne of
CO2 and NOx (plus anything else nasty) delivered to our moon would
offset their local fines for hydrocarbon polluting by as much as
1000:1, meaning a terrestrial coal fired plant could legally disregard
better technology and dump 1000 tonnes of carbon and numerous other
aromatic nasties into our environment for each and every tonne of that
nasty aromatic stuff delivered to the moon.
Of course they’d have to use only your solar produced and clean LH2/
LOx fueled rockets for each export of their frozen CO2 and NOx
tonnage, not that each rocket exhaust wouldn’t create even more NOx,
but at least it’s a step in the right direction. Too bad your
lithium-6 fusion rockets are also not a viable option unless you are
put in charge.
At the ongoing global volumes of industrial, Big Energy and personal
energy usage produced CO2 and NOx that’s artificially polluting our
environment (say at least 100 billion tonnes/year, or conceivably it
could be an all-inclusive trillion tonnes/year), the 0.1% amount of
such CO2 and NOx delivered to the moon is going to become a
substantial enough tonnage to create a sufficient atmosphere for
conventional shuttle aerodynamic landings within a few years. Taking
5 years for getting the first billion tonnes of CO2 to such a place of
only 1/6th gravity should be enough to do the trick at 26 kg/m2 (plus
whatever else can be generated from vaporizing lunar basalt that’ll
yield O2 and 3He as well as some water). There should also be lots of
water by going deeper under that thick crust.
Otherwise, with that moon kept as is, why wouldn’t the physically
dark, naked, paramagnetic and highly gamma charged metallicity surface
of the moon itself attract and hold onto its own fair share of the
very same highly energized solar and cosmic protons as well as attract
and accumulate whatever passing electrons?
However, is that unusually high metallicity surface of our moon inert
(meaning not anti-cathode worthy), or does our moon have some stealth
kind of anti-proton shield, or is it simply so neutron and positron
saturated that whatever protons and even electrons are getting somehow
neutralized???
We kinda know that its physically dark and naked metallicity surface
reacts favorably to cosmic rays because it gives off a very good
signature of gamma (some of which could be from its own highly
radioactive cache of heavy elements, though perhaps most of them gamma
counts/sec would be via interactions with cosmic energy), and
otherwise for good reason our USAF uses moon gamma on a regular basis
in order to calibrate their gamma target detection and tracking
instruments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moon_gamma_rays_egret_instrument_cgro.jpg
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1187952
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060527.html
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/cgro/cgro/egret.html
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.0543v1.pdf
http://www.stsci.edu/jwst/doc-archive/technical-reports/JWST-STScI-000385.pdf
“At L2, the flux for galactic cosmic radiation is 5.1 particles/cm2/
sec.”
With an incoming cosmic ray saturation of perhaps 5/cm2/sec means that
have 9.5e17 cosmic encounters/sec that involve just the nearside of
our anti-cathode worthy moon, so even if only .1% of those cause a
gamma ray to exit the moon, that’s still 1e15/sec, plus others
creating them hard X-rays (not to mention whatever else is locally
capable of generating gamma and X-rays).
Gamma ray spectrometers have been utilized to detect and quantify
various metallicity elements on our moon.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_15/experiments/gamma_ray/
Since the moon has no protective magnetosphere for sustaining any
great belts or layers of terrific particle density, like those nasty
ones surrounding and supposedly protecting our atmosphere, nor having
10 tonnes/m2 as its ultimate gamma shield, thereby virtually all
incoming cosmic rays nail it (unless diverted/absorbed by all that
surrounding sodium that’s detected out to 9r), and subsequently react
by creating those pesky secondary/recoil gamma rays (many of which
react at least once again with local matter in order to create those
hard X-rays and so forth). Therefore indirectly those cosmic rays
that are relatively harmless to our frail human DNA/RNA become a whole
lot more problematic once encountering sufficient metallicity and
converted into gamma and hard X-rays that would be technically
impossible for the likes of Kodak film to not record.
Therefore, the more atmosphere of any kind created for our moon, the
better, and ideally ionized with the reverse polarity so as to
electrostatic cling to the moon’s gravity-well., because not even the
much greater mass of the sodium atom stays with our moon, so perhaps
we’ll need to ship a few billion tonnes of Xenon and Krypton gas to
the moon, or possibly Xenon and krypton can also be obtained by
vaporizing lunar basalt..
William Mook
Agenda 21 is about depopulating the planet to preserve it - and about
500 million humans - all by 2025. So, hanson has that part right.
He also has it right about the use of environmental and legal
roadblocks in the competitive landscape. Its why I'm building on old
surface mines.
The world for example has 500,000 sq km of surface mines in sunny
regions that have not yet been reclaimed. This is enough to produce
8.6 billion tons of hydrogen each year and three companies own half of
that land, eight companies own 90% of the land. This is the hydrogen
equivalent of 200 billion barrels of oil each year. Nearly 5x our
current consumption.
Adding solar power satellites increases this by 16x
One in 6400 atoms is deuterium. So, 2.67 million tons of deuterium is
extracted from the 8.6 billion tons. Enough to make 10.6 million tons
of Lithium Deuteride each year.
At 576 trillion joules per kg this amounts to the equivalent of 1
quadrillion barrels of oil. 33,670x current consumption.
Does this look like die off to you? lol.
Brad Guth
With such near unlimited energy and some of it fully renewable,
perhaps our Eden/Earth could manage to sustain 20+ billion without
blowing another gasket.
However, with some of that energy getting us onto nearby asteroids and
especially the likes of our moon or Ceres and that extremely nearby
planet Venus, means that a large portion of us could manage to survive
off-world with eventually little if anything provided from our home
planet other than cooperation and no risk of being attacked for
whatever bogus or false flag reasons.
William Mook
> Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >benefits from solar farming is technically unfeasible?
>
> >Why not cover up to 10% or even 1% of our state and federal owned
> >deserts or spent mining and quarry sites with Mokenergy solar farms?
>
> pay back is stupid?
>
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
I make solar panels that produce hydrogen for $0.05 per peak watt.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20024019/White-Paper-to-Mok-FINAL-1
At $0.05 per peak watt, when installed in a locale that gets 2,000
Watt-hours per m2 per year produces 2 kWh per watt, 2000 kWh per
kilowatt.
A kilowatt costing $50 installed, produces 2,000 kWh per kilowatt.
$50 borrowed at 8% for 20 years costs $5.09 per year. Dividing this
by 2,000 obtains $0.002546/kWh (1/4 cent per kWh).
It takes my electrolyzer 46,732 kWh to make a ton of hydrogen and
eight tons of oxygen out of nine kilo-liters of water. The water
costs $0.30 per ton. Total cost is $119.
Selling off the oxygen to industrial users like steel mills at market
rates of $200 per tonne creates $1,600 per tonne of hydrogen made -
more than covering the cost of manufacture making the hydrogen free.
In a mature market, hydrogen demand exceeds oxygen demand. So, only
1.2% of the oxygen may be sold in this way - reducing the cost to $100
per ton of hydrogen.
Using hydrogen to turn CO2 to CH4 and water using the Sabatier Process
makes two tons of methane for every ton of hydrogen. When sold at
$4.16 per mcf over $400 is made from hydrogen used this way.
Using hydrogen in an emissionless supercritical boiler to make steam
to drive an old coal fired plant costs $220 per kilowatt conversion
cost and produces 15,094 kWh of AC Electricity on demand. Sold at
$0.06 per kWh this generates $605 more than covering the cost of
hydrogen. The cost of conversion when paid for at 8% over 20 year
costs only $22.41 per year, and when used 8,766 hours per year adds
only $0.002556 per kWh. Profit exceeds $500 per tonne hydrogen used
this way.
Using hydrogen to replace gasoline in an automobile replaces each
gallon of gasoline with one kilogram of hydrogen gas. At $100 per
tonne, this is $0.10 per gallon of gas equivalent. When sold at
competitive rates of $2.10 per kilogram, $2,000 per tonne is made as
profit.
Using hydrogen to replace coal in coal fired power plants is covered
above. Using hydrogen to convert coal to petrol using the Bergius
process also makes money. A ton of hydrogen combined with twelve tons
of coal makes 81 barrels of oil. The coal costs $288 and the hydrogen
$100. At $105 per barrel, the oil is worth $8,505 - the highest
return for a ton of hydrogen.
William Mook
hydrogen and oxygen is make large hydrogen powered rocket engines.
That's because when you start to move around large quantities of these
cryogenic liquids for commercial reasons, you solve the same problems
involved in building big rocket engines - pumps and injectors, storage
tanks and feed lines.
http://www.acdcom.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=solutions.content&cmid=4&gclid=COygwaPq8qkCFQFspAod71ZrZg
So, something like this becomes possible
http://www.scribd.com/doc/45631474/Sea-Dragon-Derived-Launcher
152,000 tonnes of propellant at $119 per ton $18,088,000 per launch.
Seven elements, 9,000 tonnes per element, $5,300 per ton, $333,900,000
for all elements. Applying a discount rate of 8% per year over a 7
year life, is $64,132,974.84. Dividing by 50 flights per year is
$1,282,659.50 per launch. A 1% maintenance and processing cost per
launch is $3,339,000 per launch. Which gives a total cost per launch
of $22,709,659.50 - which is $1,135.48 per tonne - or $1.14 per
kilogram.
Of course another thing that can be done is to extract deuterium and
lithium from seawater, sell off the lithium 7 and keep the lithium 6
combine it with the deuterium making lithium 6 deuteride. Fashion
this into a 'go unit' - while keeping a small amount of deuterium gas
in a 'spark unit' which has deuterium and a lithium 6 encased spark
wire at its center. The thin copper shelled 'spark unit' is encased
in a spherical driver consisting of a thin layer of plastic explosive
in a thicker iron shell. The total mass of this shell and completed
sparker is about 5% the mass of the go unit. These are made in large
quantity on a very small scale using MEMS techniques.
The wire has current pass through it which creates a cloud of
intensely hot lithium, which reacts with the deuterium creating a
spherical explosive wave. The wave ignited the plastic explosive
which sends the copper shell back to the center - compressing the
lithium 6 deuteride reaction products to the point of fusion
detonation. The fusion detonation wave proceeds through the go unit
detonating the entire lithium 6 deuterium unit.
The wave of alpha particles fly from the point of detonation to strike
a parabolic reflector to collimate the alpha particle beam.
Exhaust speeds are 33,000 km/sec.
The SSME is 4.5 km/sec.
The process is repeated to provide continuous thrust.
The speed of repetition varies thrust.
hanson
"William Mook" <mokme...@gmail.com> wrote:
- hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
-- "Brad Guth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ==============================
>
Agenda 21 is about depopulating the planet to preserve it .
>
hanson wrote:
Preserve the planet for whom or what? ... Mookie, listen:
Unadulterated megalomania has taken up residence in
your now twisted mentation...
>
Look at it this way, you twisted sister. Compare the
Alps to similar terrain in the US. Here, in the US these
areas are managed for the last few decades by gun toting,
uniformed Government Green Shits, who made a mess
of it, and who charge you horrendous fees to walk (on
YOUR) public land... and when threatened with pension
reduction,. these arrogant Green Swine.. close access
to your public land... as if THEY, the Green turds, own it.
>
You Green bastards do destroy the planet and then blame
others. Fuck you!
>
In Europe, OTOH, for the last 7 thousand+ years ordinary
local folks have DEVELOPED, beautified & preserved that
mountain turf, by building and living in their quaint villages
or fine hotels, and the money you spend there as a visitor
is well worth it...
>
Bill Mook wrote:
- and [preserve] about 500 million humans - all by 2025.
>
hanson wrote:
.... and YOU and you goons will be the executioners of
the then projected 8.5 Billion folks? Mook, you are worse
than Hitler, Stalin, Mao & Pot Pol combined...ahahaha...
>
Are you maniacal and 3rd degree syphilitic that you
believe that Billions of people will die, unchallenged, for
the Mook agenda?... ahahaha... If your solar panels are
of the same quality as is your Global Genocide Plan, then
nobody will buy even a single piece of merchandise from
you... aqhahahaha..... What's wrong with you, Mookie?
>
Furthermore, Mook, direct you attention to the fact that the
1st time you give a public hint of your intention to cause a
die-off and you scare even one single person, that takes
you serious, with it, then the "man" is gonna come looking
for you, haul you in front of a Grand Jury, the DA, a Jury
and a Judge who will convict you with a long list of of charges
of terrorism and hate crimes... and they will put you away
for the rest of your days into a place where your solar panels
willow NOT charge.... ahahahaha....
>
The only way such a "depopulation may happen is by
natural causes: pandemic, tectonic or cosmic, but it
certainly dose not need any Goons a la Mook... ahaha....
>
Bill Mook wrote:
So, hanson has that part right.
>
If what I just said is the part that you refer to then
"yes", and heed it, Mookie-pookie... ahahahaha...
>
Bill Mook wrote:
Hanson also has it right about the use of environmental
Its why I'm building on old surface mines.
>
If I was right about that, Bill, then heed that too, because
obviously, Mook, you have NOT looked into the legal
enviro status of that. Let me save you a lot of your little
dough that you have and recommend that you investigate
that very thoroughly. IIRC, there are some "cradle to grave"
enviro regulations/statutes that say: "~ if you take possession
and/or intend to make use of such "old surface mine property,
you must first restore it to its original natural condition, as it
was before any initial, long ago, mining took place"...
Mook, stay being a Mook, rather then becoming a Mooch!
... ahahahaha...
>
Mook wrote:
<snip Bill's 100 year ol solar/H2 reguritate> which
amounts to the equivalent of 1 quadrillion barrels of oil.
33,670x current consumption.
hanson wrote:
Bill, this planet is awash in/with available energy.
So, as a biz man that you claim to be, be grateful
that there are as many customers as possible.
Don't be an idiot in/by trying to get get of them.
No customers -- No money -- No Mook projects.
William Mook
> ...
> Now Mookie... you are broke
> and penniless like a churchmouse..
That's right! Exactly as I desire!
The IRS says you need not file a federal income tax return if your
income is below a certain level.
In common law legal systems, a trust is a relationship between three
parties whereby property (real or personal, tangible or intangible) is
transferred by one party to be held by another party for the benefit
of a third party. That third party doesn't have an income even
while the other parties do.
Common purposes for trusts include: Privacy, Wills and Estate
Planning, Investment Vehicle (Unit Trust), Pension Plans, Corporate
Structures, Asset Protection, Tax Planning.
William Mook
> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 8, 12:12 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >So you think Mook's hydrogen or even LH2 + LOx plus a few other
> >> >benefits from solar farming is technically unfeasible?
>
> >> >Why not cover up to 10% or even 1% of our state and federal owned
> >> >deserts or spent mining and quarry sites with Mokenergy solar farms?
>
> >> Because expending large quantities of resources on efforts that don't
> >> pay back is stupid?
>
>
>
> <snip Mookery>
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
Well, that's understandable. But remember, solar flux is measured per
square meter, and we're collecting solar flux with square meters of
panels.
The hydrogen is made using electricity. The electricity is produced
when the sun shines. So the only way to talk about hydrogen in this
context is peak watt cost and hours of insolation to get a total
number of joules collected at a site.
Recall a Watt is the rate of energy use. Its Joules/second. So Watt-
Hour is energy. To be precise 3.6 megajoules. 143 megajoules is in a
kilogram of free hydrogen. Made from water this much hydrogen means
also eight kilograms of oxygen from 9 liters of water.
143 megajoules is the same as 39.7 kWh of energy. Now, the
electrolysis unit is 80% efficient so 49.7 kWh of electricity is
needed. Without any fuel costs or maintenance costs to speak of, the
only cost is the fixed cost of the panel. So, it makes sense to talk
about peak watts and kilograms of hydrogen from liters of water.
Easy.
Now, if you're still having trouble, another way to look at it is to
look at a square meter of collector.
It costs me $16 to build install and operate each square meter. On a
sunny day 1,000 Watts of sunlight illuminate that square meter. Using
Boeing's advanced multi-junction cells,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20024019/White-Paper-to-Mok-FINAL-1
that square meter produces 400 Watts of DC electricity from this
sunlight. That DC electricity makes in the panel 2.24 milligrams of
hydrogen per second per square meter and 17.92 milligrams of oxygen
per second per square meter. The square meter of panel consumes 20.16
milliliters of water per square meter per second.
A hectare is 10,000 square meters. An hour contains 3,600 seconds.
So, in more usual terms, the system costs $160,000 per hectare. Each
hectare produces 80.64 kg/hour of hydrogen, 645.12 kg/hour of oxygen
from 725.76 liter/hour of water.
With a site that receives 2,000 kWh/m2/year this is equivalent to
2,000 hours of full intensity sunlight. So, in a year each hectare
under these conditions produce 161.28 tonnes of hydrogen per year,
1,290.24 tonnes of oxygen per year from 1,451.52 kiloliters of water
per year.
Applying an 8% discount rate and a 20 year life span to the $160,000
worth of equipment the cost is $16,296.35 per year. Ignoring the
oxygen and applying nearly all of the annual cost to the hydrogen
obtains $100 per tonne.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24911642/Report-to-OSTP-EOP-Dec-2004
Consider a 220,000 barrel per day coal to liquid plant. The plant
consumes 32,350 tonnes of coal per day and 2,700 tonnes of hydrogen
per day. So, 6,108 hectares (61.08 sq km) of panels are needed. The
panels costs $0.98 billion. The Bergius reactor costs $4.02 billion.
Other costs total $1.80 billion. Total costs are $6.80 billion.
The total costs are $1.9 million per day applying an 8% discount rate
over 20 years, which make the oil cost less than $9 per barrel.
William Mook
> "William Mook" <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> - hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
> -- "Brad Guth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> --- "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > hanson wrote:
> > > > Now Mookie... after you come down from your
> > > > make belief faith-space faring, and you are broke
For the owners of this planet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXWzSwZ_wPs
There are 10 million millionaires who own $40 trillion in assets.
There are 2000 family trusts that own $18 trillion in assets. These
trusts were set up prior to 1400 AD. This constitutes nearly all the
liquid assets on the planet.
The 10 million work for the 2,000 and the 2,000 run things. These
2000 have determined in the 1890s that there were too many people and
they have arranged things to lower the population to 500 million by
2025.
This was formally adopted by the United Nations at the 1992 Rio
Conference.
Don't believe me? Check out the publication dates on these documents;
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30042334/The-Impact-of-Science-on-Society-by-Bertrand-Russell
http://www.online-literature.com/aldous_huxley/brave_new_world/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_My_Tears,_the_Policeman_Said
... Mookie, listen:
> Unadulterated megalomania has taken up residence in
> your now twisted mentation...
No it hasn't.
> Look at it this way, you twisted sister. Compare the
> Alps to similar terrain in the US. Here, in the US these
> areas are managed for the last few decades by gun toting,
> uniformed Government Green Shits, who made a mess
> of it, and who charge you horrendous fees to walk (on
> YOUR) public land... and when threatened with pension
> reduction,. these arrogant Green Swine.. close access
> to your public land... as if THEY, the Green turds, own it.
The people who own this planet set up groups to fight one another over
pointless bullshit so those groups don't get together and overthrow
the owners.
> You Green bastards do destroy the planet and then blame
> others. Fuck you!
I'm not a Green bastard, funny that you think everyone whom you
disagree with is. That should prove to you that you have been mind
controlled.
> In Europe, OTOH, for the last 7 thousand+ years ordinary
> local folks have DEVELOPED, beautified & preserved that
> mountain turf, by building and living in their quaint villages
> or fine hotels, and the money you spend there as a visitor
> is well worth it...
This rant has nothing to do with what I've said. So, its either a psy
op, or you're nuts.
> Bill Mook wrote:
>
> - and [preserve] about 500 million humans - all by 2025.
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> .... and YOU
I said nothing about myself.
> and you goons
Well the shock troops are the Green troops you've identified.
Unfortunately for them, they'll be killed by folks like you, which is
all part of the plan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us8Yv4YLz9k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0g_Zo8_2vA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhagkySOdoY
> the then projected 8.5 Billion folks?
There are 7.2 billion people alive today. To reach 0.5 billion by
2025 requires the death of 6.8 billion people over the next 14 years.
> Mook, you are worse
> than Hitler, Stalin, Mao & Pot Pol combined...ahahaha...
Nonsense. You are misreading what I've said due to your programming.
I am warning you of a problem that exists and has existed for over a
century.
> Are you maniacal and 3rd degree syphilitic that you
> believe that Billions of people will die,
Haha- you are confused. You talk to me like I'm proposing the death
of billions. I am not. I am against anyone's death. Of course this
doesn't change the program put in place by the owners.
>unchallenged, for
> the Mook agenda?...
I do have an agenda, but you are misrepresenting it. I am proposing
that I be permitted to remove 6.8 billion from the planet rather than
have those 6.8 billion killed.
> ahahaha... If your solar panels are
> of the same quality as is your Global Genocide Plan,
I have no Global Genocide Plan - the UN does, and its not their plan,
it the plan of the owners.
> then
> nobody will buy even a single piece of merchandise from
> you...
That doesn't stop anyone from buying products from folks who are
planning to kill them...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET0UAdzQkpQ
> aqhahahaha.....
??
> What's wrong with you, Mookie?
Nothing. There is however, considerably much wrong with you and your
understanding of what people say.
> Furthermore, Mook, direct you attention to the fact that the
> 1st time you give a public hint of your intention to cause a
> die-off
You misrepresent what I've said. I am warning of the owners' plans to
kill most of us. You have misread that and misrepresent that to mean
just the opposite. So, you're either an idiot or a troll or a shill
for the owners.
> and you scare even one single person,
You're attempting to scare people by making up shit about what I've
said.
> that takes
> you serious, with it, then the "man" is gonna come looking
> for you,
The man is coming to look for all of us.
> haul you in front of a Grand Jury, the DA, a Jury
> and a Judge who will convict you with a long list of of charges
> of terrorism and hate crimes...
No they won't since none of what you falsely accuse me of is true.
> and they will put you away
> for the rest of your days into a place where your solar panels
> willow NOT charge.... ahahahaha....
That might describe your future for trying to incite hatred of me by
telling lies about what I've said and misrepresenting what I've said.
It is the United Nations and the USA that has had a policy of
depopulation for a long long time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy0TJeMQrno
> The only way such a "depopulation may happen is by
> natural causes:
Nonsense. Depopulation of Earth can occur by people leaving Earth in
spaceships to live on space colonies and terraformed worlds. This has
not been fully considered by the owners and I urge them to consider it
now.
> pandemic,
Those are the vaccines Bill Gates is talking about.
> tectonic
Those are the earthquake weapons that have been perfected over the
past 30 years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHSPqw8NdG4
According to the declassified literature one of the major difficulties
in the development of nuclear weapons was that they could not be used
openly, so it became important to develop means of using nuclear
weapons in deniable ways.
> or cosmic, but it
> certainly dose not need any Goons a la Mook... ahaha....
I have no goons. The government has goons and they're coming after
all of us.
> Bill Mook wrote:
>
> So, hanson has that part right.
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> If what I just said is the part that you refer to then
> "yes", and heed it, Mookie-pookie... ahahahaha...
Not at all. You have elided that part and substituted demented
misrepresentations of what I actually said. I am warning against
murder of 9/10th of humanity, and urging the owners to consider
permitting the cancer to fly off world never to return.
> Bill Mook wrote:
>
> Hanson also has it right about the use of environmental
> and legal roadblocks in the competitive landscape.
> Its why I'm building on old surface mines.
>
> hanson worte:
> If I was right about that, Bill, then heed that too, because
> obviously, Mook, you have NOT looked into the legal
> enviro status of that.
Yes I have.
> Let me save you a lot of your little
> dough that you have and recommend that you investigate
> that very thoroughly.
I have.
> IIRC, there are some "cradle to grave"
> enviro regulations/statutes that say: "~ if you take possession
> and/or intend to make use of such "old surface mine property,
> you must first restore it to its original natural condition, as it
> was before any initial, long ago, mining took place"...
See, you don't recall correctly. You must return it to its natural
state if you have no productive use for it. Since the sun will shine
for a long time, the land will be productive for a long time with
solar panels on it.
> Mook, stay being a Mook, rather then becoming a Mooch!
> ... ahahahaha...
Like much of what you have said thus far, this makes no sense
whatever.
> Mook wrote:
>
> <snip Bill's 100 year ol solar/H2 reguritate> which
> amounts to the equivalent of 1 quadrillion barrels of oil.
> 33,670x current consumption.
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> Bill, this planet is awash in/with available energy.
Yet the owners have arranged artificial scarcity as a means to implode
the economy prior to imploding the population. I urge them to
reconsider the risks they run doing this and to consider allowing
those they are planning to kill, to emmigrate off world never to
return without their express permission.
> So, as a biz man that you claim to be, be grateful
> that there are as many customers as possible.
I feel that way, the UN and the USA do not. Since according to the UN
and the USA, growth is not considered 'sustainable' and is opposed by
the owners on that basis.
> Don't be an idiot in/by trying to get get of them.
> No customers -- No money -- No Mook projects.
The owners don't want my projects to succeed since they believe it
sets the stage for 'cancerous growth' (their term).
William Mook
> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 8, 9:18 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jul 8, 12:12 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >So you think Mook's hydrogen or even LH2 + LOx plus a few other
> >> >> >benefits from solar farming is technically unfeasible?
>
> >> >> >Why not cover up to 10% or even 1% of our state and federal owned
> >> >> >deserts or spent mining and quarry sites with Mokenergy solar farms?
>
> >> >> Because expending large quantities of resources on efforts that don't
> >> >> pay back is stupid?
>
> >> >I make solar panels that produce hydrogen for $0.05 per peak watt.
>
> >> I wasn't aware that hydrogen was measured in peak watts.
>
> >> <snip Mookery>
>
>
> Yeah, it IS understandable, since it ISN'T measured in peak watts.
Sadly Fred, you're wrong.
Ask yourself. What isn't measured in peak watts? See, you don't even
know what you're talking about!
I'm talking about the cost of peak watts and how that impacts on the
cost of energy produced by a solar powered system. That's why people
talk about the cost of peak watts.
Now, since energy is the measure how much hydrogen is produced, it is
also the measure of how much that hydrogen costs since its the cost of
energy that determines the cost of hydrogen.
My cost is $0.05 per peak watt - that translates in most locations to
1/5th cent per kWh - and that translates to $100 per ton of
hydrogen.
Easy.
143 GJ / (0.8 * 3.6 MJ) * ($0.002) = $100
>
> <More Mookery Munched>
Ignore the truth all you like Freddie. Doing so won't correct your
errors, or change reality in any way.
Brad Guth
Hanson want's it both ways, but only if nothing ever changes for the
better. His pretending to care and then not really caring at all is
proof of his FUD abilities. Most of the time I honestly can't tell
the difference between the Hanson and Rothschild mindset.
Brad Guth
Just the way you and the Rothschilds want it to remain forever, even
though much cheaper, cleaner and simply all-around better alternatives
have existed and should have been exploited instead of burning our way
through every last tonne of hydrocarbons.
Mokenergy isn't going to eliminate hydrocarbon fuel usage or bring any
abrupt end to nuclear methods (especially not thorium fueled
alternatives).
What you are doing is exactly what Big Energy and the Rothschilds want
you and other FUD-masters to be doing. If you didn't exist privately,
they hire and train individuals to be doing exactly what you have been
accomplishing all along.
Why do you think private agencies with greater power and authority
than CIA/MI6, like Qinetiq-NA even exist?
If President BHO declared a national energy emergency (should have
done that as of day one), at least two dams would get constructed in
the Grand Canyon, and otherwise several hundred thorium fueled
reactors put together along with a few dozen conventional MOX fueled
AP-1000 reactors.
Individuals like Mook and his Mokenergy creating cheap hydrogen and
actually creating its own cache of O2 plus a few other secondary
benefits from utilizing solar energy, should be given 50/50 public
funding for a brief period of time, not to exceed 10 years. Providing
a cheap lease on government owned land is a no brainer, that should
not add more than 0.1 cent/kwhr ($1/MWhr).
Of course you'll oppose any such notions, even if Einstein were asking
for public acceptance and initial funding that could lead to cheaper,
safer and nearly renewable energy. Instead the true all-inclusive
cost of burning hydrocarbons and conventional nuclear energy is
perfectly acceptable to those of your public-funded kind.
Btw; depopulation can be contrived, expedited and even if need be
false flag bogus wars created (just like the mutually perpetrated cold-
war was created and sustained, which got us into the likes of 9/11 and
lots of nasty stuff before and after). It relatively easy for our
government to borrow and spend trillions from the backs of the next
ten plus generations to come, and obviously you are good with that.
http://groups.google.com/group/google-usenet/topics?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet/topics?hl=en
Brad Guth
> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 9, 4:49 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jul 8, 9:18 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Jul 8, 12:12 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >So you think Mook's hydrogen or even LH2 + LOx plus a few other
> >> >> >> >benefits from solar farming is technically unfeasible?
>
> >> >> >> >Why not cover up to 10% or even 1% of our state and federal owned
> >> >> >> >deserts or spent mining and quarry sites with Mokenergy solar farms?
>
> >> >> >> Because expending large quantities of resources on efforts that don't
> >> >> >> pay back is stupid?
>
> >> >> >I make solar panels that produce hydrogen for $0.05 per peak watt.
>
> >> >> I wasn't aware that hydrogen was measured in peak watts.
>
> >> >> <snip Mookery>
>
> >> >Well, that's understandable.
>
> >> Yeah, it IS understandable, since it ISN'T measured in peak watts.
>
> >Sadly Fred, you're wrong.
>
> 'peak watts'. Hydrogen is measured in cubic feet (or other volume
> unit) or BTUs (or other heat unit).
>
> <More Mooking Munched>
You FUD-masters of our CIA/MI6, Qinetiq and Sandia-NL are all alike
with your word games.
William Mook
The USA has covertly supported the drug trade to create situations
that enlarge the power of the USA.
William Mook
> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 9, 4:49 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jul 8, 9:18 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Jul 8, 12:12 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >So you think Mook's hydrogen or even LH2 + LOx plus a few other
> >> >> >> >benefits from solar farming is technically unfeasible?
>
> >> >> >> >Why not cover up to 10% or even 1% of our state and federal owned
> >> >> >> >deserts or spent mining and quarry sites with Mokenergy solar farms?
>
> >> >> >> Because expending large quantities of resources on efforts that don't
> >> >> >> pay back is stupid?
>
> >> >> >I make solar panels that produce hydrogen for $0.05 per peak watt.
>
> >> >> I wasn't aware that hydrogen was measured in peak watts.
>
> >> >> <snip Mookery>
>
> >> >Well, that's understandable.
>
> >> Yeah, it IS understandable, since it ISN'T measured in peak watts.
>
> >Sadly Fred, you're wrong.
>
Really.
> Please show someplace credible that measure hydrogen in
> 'peak watts'.
See, you've got it wrong again Freddie. I'm talking about the cost of
hydrogen in terms of the cost of solar powered equipment used to make
it from water. Namely, that my solar powered equipment costs $0.05
per peak watt, and that means a tonne of hydrogen and eight tonnes of
oxygen is made at $100 per metric ton from nine kilo-liters of
water.
But to answer your question;
Open any physics text - hydrogen contains 143 mega-joules per kilogram
when combined with oxygen. So a flow of 1 kg/sec of hydrogen equals
143 MW of power.
Check it out;
Open any reference on a hydrogen fueled engine like the cluster of
three Space Shuttle Main Engines - the liquid hydrogen feed line flow
rate is 465 lb/s (211 kg/s). The 17 in (430 mm) diameter feed line
permits liquid oxygen to flow at approximately 2,787 lb/s (1264 kg/
s). Now 1,264 kg/s of oxygen combines with 158 kg/s of hydrogen
releasing energy at a rate of 22.6 Giga-watts.
158 kg/sec of hydrogen = 22.6 giga-watts
158 kg/sec x 143 MJ/kg = 22.6 GJ/sec = 22.6 GW
Let's check that.
Again open any reference book, the Space Shuttle Main Engine cluster
on the Space Shuttle produces total power of 19.6 giga-watts and is
86% efficient, meaning that 22.6 GW of chemical energy from 158 kg/s
of hydrogen fuel is converted to 19.6 GW of lifting power.
> Hydrogen is measured in cubic feet (or other volume
> unit)
haha - wrong! volume alone tells you nothing. You must specify
volume at a specific pressure to get an accurate measure of the mass
of hydrogen you have.
> or BTUs (or other heat unit).
Right! You seem not to know that there are 1,054 Joules per BTU and
that Watts are Joules/second. Maybe you don't know that there are 143
megajoules of energy per kilogram of hydrogen. So that might be the
source of your profound confusion.
So, each kg/sec of hydrogen produced represents 143 MW of power.
So, a hectare of panels collecting 10 MW of sunlight and producing
25.2 grams/second of hydrogen from 226.8 mililiters of water per
second, is generating 3.6 MW of useful energy. At a total cost of
$160,000 per hectare this is $0.044 per peak watt.
Got it?
lol.
Brad Guth
The only thing Freddie has got is a firm kosher grip on your private
parts.
Why do you even bother to read his stuff, much less try to educate
such a born-again satanic bastard that only acts/reacts exactly like a
Yemenite Jew.
Have you ever gotten new information or any better ideas out of FUD-
master Freddie?
Brad Guth
No argument, because that's what hiring OBL was all about to begin
with.
I supposed killing those Russians that were trying to put a stop to
our Taliban controlled drug supply of that cold-war era was the only
viable option they had. Too bad it had to backfire all the way up to
9/11.
hanson
"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
-- William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
---- Idiot Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Brad Guth wrote:
So, Fred, you think Mook's hydrogen or even LH2 + LOx plus a
Why not cover up to 10% or even 1% of our state and federal owned
deserts or spent mining and quarry sites with Mokenergy solar farms?
>
Because expending large quantities of resources on efforts that don't
pay back is stupid?
>
I make solar panels that produce hydrogen for $0.05 per peak watt.
>
between Peddler William Mook and Fred Jerk. McCall>
only to arrive at:
Billie wrote:
At a total cost of $160,000 per hectare this is $0.044 per peak watt.
>
hanson wrote:
... ahahahaha... Of course, Fredie got it, but he is either
a stingy Jew, or a cheap Mac, and McCall, the twatt just
can't get over the difference of $0.006 per peak watt.
>
OTOH, Freddie may have a point and worry that $0.006
at a volume of your mentioned 22.6 Giga-watts amounts
still to $136.6 Million, which in no small amount by anyone's
standard... and throws your $160,000 per hectare cost into
question...
>
Brad Guth wrote:
Billie, have you ever gotten new information or any better
on your private parts. Why do you even bother to
exactly like a Yemenite Jew.
>
<http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>
Brad, according to your background information in the
above link, McCall may actually be one, for it says:
||R:|| We Jews laugh about our falsehoods that we spread:
||R:|| We Jews change our name & mix in your society
||R:|| benefiting from the dumb goy who doesn't realize
||R:|| that these Jews with non-Jew names are Jews.
>
hanson wrote:
Letting that theo-political issue be as it may, Brad, you
are quite right in that Fred McJewall, who doesn't archive
his posts, does fit the ||R:|| profile perfectly. Interesting
link, though. Did you or Mookie post that initially?...
>
Now, Brad, it also appears that YOU have appointed
yourself as the point- and hit-man for Mookie, who
gives you only rather lukewarm support. Why is that?
"Oye weh", "Go Figure" and realize that Freedie
is only fugking with Mookie's head. "Trust me!"
>
So, === William Mook === while I have you on
line, here are my comments for you, Mookie:
By example of this post and all the preceding ones,
you peddle your venture the wrong way. There will
be no takers, the way you go at it. For starters,
get rid of associations with ideologs like Guth.
>
Remember, investment/venture capital is SHY!!!.
Investment monies are NOT political contributions.
And then there are other counter productive actions
in your approach to materialize your intents.
>
Maybe Tom Potter, the Grand Old Peddler could
give you some advice how to be successful.
Take care & thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson
Brad Guth
reflect rather badly against certain Jews and fellow conspirators that
always get a piece of the action, just like they did while working for
Hitler.
>
> Now, Brad, it also appears that YOU have appointed
> yourself as the point- and hit-man for Mookie, who
> gives you only rather lukewarm support. Why is that?
Perhaps for the same reason I've given Mook a bad time, yet he still
manages to dig up and share useful information that he doesn't hold
back or play so many need-to-know games with. Mook is kinda bipolar,
in that some days you just can figure him out, acting somewhat like a
loose cannon that's either seriously pissed off or on steroids, and at
other times he's getting downright focused and helpful, as well as a
whole lot more caring about humanity and the frail environment than
the vast majority of GOP/ZNR redneck FUD-masters that we usually have
to put up with.
>
> "Oye weh", "Go Figure" and realize that Freedie
> is only fugking with Mookie's head. "Trust me!"
I've already told Mook that Fred is strictly from the dark side, and
has no intentions of ever being topic positive or constructive.
Although that's also somewhat like yourself, whereas any change or
revision for the greater good doesn't seem to be within your agenda,
because you want nothing of the recorded past to ever get revised
toward telling us the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so I
guess the truth doesn't really matter with you and others of your
kind.
>
> So, === William Mook === while I have you on
> line, here are my comments for you, Mookie:
> By example of this post and all the preceding ones,
> you peddle your venture the wrong way. There will
> be no takers, the way you go at it. For starters,
> get rid of associations with ideologs like Guth.
>
> Remember, investment/venture capital is SHY!!!.
> Investment monies are NOT political contributions.
> And then there are other counter productive actions
> in your approach to materialize your intents.
>
> Maybe Tom Potter, the Grand Old Peddler could
> give you some advice how to be successful.
> Take care & thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson
You sound like just another "ideolog" that's more interested in
sustaining the good old mainstream status-quo than anything else. Why
don't you and your cartel/cabal of wealthy buddies sponsor Mook?
While I've got you on line, why don't you know how to interpret
geology, namely the geology of Venus as compared to that of Earth?
Why do your conditional laws of physics not apply to the planet Venus?
Here’s one of my basic 10:1 resampled enlargements of the very same
area that I’ve pointed out to NASA and others of their Magellan team
for more than the past decade, that’s still a generic composite
derivative like their original because it’s entirely a product of the
original (nothing personal added or subtracted):
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj
If you’d care to focus on anything specific, please go right ahead
and do so, because I’m not certain that my interpretation of what the
image depicts is offering the best or only option.
Btw; why "Billie" instead of William or Mook? (do you think it's
funny?)
http://groups.google.com/group/google-usenet/topics?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet/topics?hl=en
hanson
>
"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
-"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
-- "Brad Guth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm certain Mook posted it several times, along with many
others that reflect rather badly against certain Jews and
fellow conspirators that always get a piece of the action,
just like they did while working for Hitler.
>
I didn't ask you whether Mookie did it "several times".
I asked you whether it was Mookie or yourself, Guth,
that posted it initially. But you are too chicken shit to
admit to it... even after I said that I liked it... ahahaha
>
hanson wrote:
> Now, Brad, it also appears that YOU have appointed
> yourself as the point- and hit-man for Mookie, who
> gives you only rather lukewarm support. Why is that?
Brad Guth wrote:
Perhaps for the same reason I've given Mook a bad time,
yet he still manages to dig up and share useful information
that he doesn't hold back or play so many need-to-know
games with. Mook is kinda bipolar, in that some days you
just can figure him out, acting somewhat like a loose cannon
that's either seriously pissed off or on steroids, and at other
times he's getting downright focused and helpful, as well as
a whole lot more caring about humanity and the frail
environment than the vast majority of GOP/ZNR redneck
FUD-masters that **we** usually have to put up with.
>
hanson wrote:
What is this **we** shit, Guth?... You, your lice and
your crabs? Your para above makes it clear why Billie
is only lukewarm towards you. He should tell you
Brad, to get lost... ahahaha... Thank Billie for being
so kind to you, you two-faced Bolshevik-Bradstard.
>
hanson wrote:
> "Oye weh", "Go Figure" and realize that Freedie
> is only fugking with Mookie's head. "Trust me!"
>
Brad Guth wrote:
I've already told Mook that Fred is strictly from the dark
side, and has no intentions of ever being topic positive.
>
hanson wrote:
"intentions of ever being topic positive or constructive"
means to you, that one must agree with your twisted
dumb-ass-notions, else like you said on 17 Apr-2011,
that:
||| "If I, Brad Guth, were in charge, for the first time in
||| your life you'd have something to fear. I would establish
||| a bounty on those I'm displeased with and gladly hunt
||| you down. [ for not being topic positive... ahahaha ... ]
>
Brad Guth wrote:
Although that's also somewhat like yourself, whereas any
change or revision for the greater good doesn't seem to be
within your agenda, because you want nothing of the
recorded past to ever get revised toward telling us the whole
truth and nothing but the truth, so I guess the truth doesn't
really matter with you and others of your kind.
>
hanson wrote:
... ahahahaha.. AHAHAHAHA.. Bradstard, your meds are
getting to you. What is that "greater good" you are talking
about?.. A fatter welfare/disability check for you?...ahahaha
>
And why do you want me to revisit the "truth" of the past?
I know about that as little as you do, you stupid fuck!...
ahahahahahaha...
History is written by those who win the wars. They get the
exclusive bragging rights. Why should I waste my time in a
futile attempt to change history & archeology? -- There is
no money in that for me. -- If it's a gainfully redeeming job
for you, fine. Do it, but don't ask me to do the digging for
you, you arrogant Bradstard, unless you pay me for my
efforts, in cash and upfront... ahahahaha....
>
hanson wrote:
> So, === William Mook === while I have you on
> line, here are my comments for you, Mookie:
> By example of this post and all the preceding ones,
> you peddle your venture the wrong way. There will
> be no takers, the way you go at it. For starters,
> get rid of associations with ideologs like Guth.
>
> Remember, investment/venture capital is SHY!!!.
> Investment monies are NOT political contributions.
> And then there are other counter productive actions
> in your approach to materialize your intents.
>
> Maybe Tom Potter, the Grand Old Peddler could
> give you some advice how to be successful.
> Take care & thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson
>
Brad Guth wrote:
You sound like just another "ideolog" that's more interested
in ustaining the good old mainstream status-quo than anything
else.
>
hanson wrote:
ahahahaha.. Don't be so loud about making a completely
open & draining asshole out of your self, Brad. Get off the
public dole and make some money for the first time in your
life and you will see and understand that the taxes you pay,
will go to maintain such loud mouthing assholes like yourself.
Do it, Bardstard. Get the feeling and the bitter taste of it.
>
Brad Guth wrote:
Why don't you and your cartel/cabal of wealthy buddies
sponsor Mook?
>
hanson wrote:
Sheesh, Brad, your memory & attention span is fucking
with you ferociously.. and you don't even realize it.
Go to the top of this post and read what Freddie said.
Furthermore, for your benefit, I will elaborate for you:
>
Investors do that constantly, when a "Mookie-type" project
shows with a high degree of certainty that it will produce a
reasonable return on the investment. --- These investments
come from the savings of a multitude of "little" people, and
a "cartel/cabal's" first responsibility is to see that the savings
of these "little folks" is not thrown into the wind...
Of course, Bradastard, you lazy fucker, you do not have
any savings to begin with and so your notion is a fart in
the wind... ahahahaha...
>
Brad Guth wrote:
<snipped illiterate and usless crap by Brad about his peeves
on "geology of Venus" which Brad ended with...
Btw; why "Billie" instead of William or Mook? (do you
think it's funny?)
>
hanson wrote:
Yeah, it's a term of endearment, because Billie tries
hard to make a buck, unlike you, Brad, who is on the
public dole.. and for some irrational reason tries to
bite the hand that feeds and takes care of you...
>
Thanks for the laughs, though... ahahaha... ahahanson
William Mook
> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The USA has covertly supported the drug trade to create situations
> >that enlarge the power of the USA.
>
> your gullibility.
>
>
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fmXaLEvgc0
>
> Doesn't support your claim. Not that anyone is surprised at that....
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
Obviously anyone who doesn't believe the US government supports the
drug trade is the gullible one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USShExxiOvo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG_-9zGXQQg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1E7s7XaV7E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBh_hzU-jdI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oszATUJ4IRE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3TPRhm-vbw&playnext=1&list=PL8BD4FED6D3EA2AF3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6dHqP9wc3k
William Mook
Dude! References? Really? hahaha
You obviously don't understand that Watts = Joules/Sec and that there
are 143 mega-joules per kilogram of hydrogen.
I feel sorry for you dude! I don't know what to say except given your
clear and profound ignorance on this subject its literally impossible
for you to understand the very simple explanation regardless of
reference that each kg/sec of hydrogen production from water
represents 143 mega-watts of energy production.
If you could somehow come to understand this fact which is obvious to
anyone who has completed high-school chemistry, you would also find it
possible to understand that a hectare of panels producing 25.17 grams
of hydrogen per second when illuminated is literally producing 3.6
MW. And since that hectare of panels costs $160,000 fully installed
and operating, its cost is less than $0.05 per peak watt, and that in
a region where 2,000 hours of sunlight fall per year, the cost of
hydrogen is $100 per metric ton.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217170412.htm
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17887/page1/
http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2010/02/15/solar-powered-hydrogen-production/
William Mook
You're the one whose got their head firmly placed up their buttocks
scared to pull it out! lol.