The Cold Equations
tomcat
Why, you ask, would you like a "criticism" of your spaceplane? Because
it named figures and problems that I know can be overcome.
Here is the URL of the best criticism of a 'tomcat style' spaceplane I
have seen:
http://www.physorg.com/news6341.html
When I am done with this 'blurb' you won't be able to accuse me of
being . . . naive. Wrong, maybe, but not naive.
I have pounded my fist on the table saying that the spaceplane, with
the fuel tanks vacuumed, must float! Some probably thought I was
joking. I was not. SSTO requires 13:1 mass ratio (wet:dry). This
'is' obtainable, without the use of "unobtanium". Vacuum is not
unobtainable. Neither is titanium which is stronger than aluminum and
almost as light.
Carbon nanotube fabric (an 18 layer weave of CNT cloth) is extremely
light and strong. It comes close to being . . . "unobtanium". Brad
Guth's basalt fabric is heavier (it is fibrous rock) but can take 82
thousand pounds per square inch of pressure and is extremely insulative
-- an important quality for a spaceplane.
BTW, the 13:1 mass ratio does not include frozen 'atomic' hydrogen fuel
that promises to be 5 times more powerful than liquid LH2.
Also, not mentioned in "The Cold Equations", is the fact that a
waverider spaceplane really does derive energy from the air. Gravity
presses on the air, this presses the molecules together, and the
engines don't have to push the plane as fast to get 'air pressure'
lift. This is real energy.
A spaceplane can 'bank', left or right, in a nebula where the gas
molecules are spread out, but it has to go close to the speed of light
to do it. Not so on Earth where Earth's gravity bunches air molecules
together. How else can a B-29 bomber fly with a thrust to weight ratio
of decimal one?
Vertical/tubular cylinders
And, while I am on the topic of the 'impossible' let me expound on . .
. balloons. Take a deflated balloon. It is folded plastic that falls
to the ground, out of the box. Fill this same plastic with helium and
it floats. Let go of the string and it will fly without any fuel at
all! Smoke and mirrors? No, just physics. Gravity presses down with
1 atmosphere of pressure. The balloon's density, folded, is heavier
than the air surrounding it per square inch. Expanded with helium,
which is lighter than air but not as light as vacuum, the balloon's
density is lighter than the air surrounding it. Therefore, it floats
upward. This is gravity at work. No smoke and mirrors.
Can you do this with a spaceplane? "Why not?" Can you do this with
each and everything that goes into a spaceplane. "Of course." Why are
the Engineers/Physicists having such a difficult time with SSTO.
"Don't know."
tomcat
life...@atlantic.net
tomcat wrote:
> When I am done with this 'blurb' you won't be able to accuse me of
> being . . . naive. Wrong, maybe, but not naive.
Naive is fairly hard to demonstrate, so let's try wrong first.
> I have pounded my fist on the table saying that the spaceplane, with
> the fuel tanks vacuumed, must float! Some probably thought I was
> joking. I was not. SSTO requires 13:1 mass ratio (wet:dry).
Wrong. Myth. Whatever. That was easy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-stage_to_orbit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_equation
> This 'is' obtainable, without the use of "unobtanium".
Wrong again.
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/a_single_stage_to_orbit_thought_experiment.shtml
> Vacuum is not unobtainable.
Sorry, yes it is. You're three for three so far.
> Also, not mentioned in "The Cold Equations"
That's you're problem right there, you believe this shit.
> Why are the Engineers/Physicists having such a difficult time with SSTO.
I'm not having any problems with it. Admittedly, the RLV part of it is
a bit tricky, but a satisfactory result is not unobtainable, it's just
that nobody has tried it yet.
tomcat
life...@atlantic.net wrote:
> > I have pounded my fist on the table saying that the spaceplane, with
> > the fuel tanks vacuumed, must float! Some probably thought I was
> > joking. I was not. SSTO requires 13:1 mass ratio (wet:dry).
>
> Wrong. Myth. Whatever. That was easy.
You have stated "wrong" and "myth" but given no explanation. Please
explain.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-stage_to_orbit
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_equation
>
> > This 'is' obtainable, without the use of "unobtanium".
>
> Wrong again.
Again you have stated "wrong" but given no explanation. Please
explain.
>
> http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/a_single_stage_to_orbit_thought_experiment.shtml
>
> > Vacuum is not unobtainable.
>
> Sorry, yes it is. You're three for three so far.
The only thing I can think of on this issue is that 'perfect' vacuum is
beyond us, but I assure you that a very good vacuum is not.
>
> > Also, not mentioned in "The Cold Equations"
> That's you're problem right there, you believe this shit.
The Cold Equations article seemed to sum up most of the criticisms
either made or unsaid.
> > Why are the Engineers/Physicists having such a difficult time with SSTO.
>
> I'm not having any problems with it. Admittedly, the RLV part of it is
> a bit tricky, but a satisfactory result is not unobtainable, it's just
> that nobody has tried it yet.
With today's technology perhaps it should be tried. Equations, cold or
not, have been holding scientists and engineers back on the SSTO. This
was not the case back in the 70's when the idea was popular, however.
Back then it was lack of technology and knowledge. Hypersonic flight,
and even Outer Space, were largely unknowns. Today, titanium can be
easily machined and manufactured. Today, we know that Corelle and
silica tiles can beat the heat. Add a good hull beneath the tile and
the heat problem is licked.
But it is the tsiolokovsky equation that does more damage than
anything. It does not take into account air foils. It assumes that
all weight has to be lifted by fuel. This is false. 'Wings' can lift
weight and so can 'lighter than air'. Also, I suspect that the
gravitational constant is misused because rockets in Tsiolokovsky's day
did not go into space. Gravity drops off with the square of the
distance and the Moon's gravity counteracts Earth's gravity.
tomcat
life...@atlantic.net
tomcat wrote:
> The Cold Equations article seemed to sum up most of the criticisms
> either made or unsaid.
Without the use of a single equation, that's amazing!
Brad Guth
Because you're not sufficiently pro-extermination and/or pro-pillaging
and pro-raping of all that's Muslim, as such this GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA
usenet cesspool that summarily sucks and blows their mainstream status
quo big-time isn't going to help R&D on behalf your spaceplane notions
one damn bit.
>Carbon nanotube fabric (an 18 layer weave of CNT cloth) is extremely
>light and strong. It comes close to being . . . "unobtanium". Brad
>Guth's basalt fabric is heavier (it is fibrous rock) but can take 82
>thousand pounds per square inch of pressure and is extremely insulative
>-- an important quality for a spaceplane.
That statement is nearly correct. However please remain certain as to
stipulate as to the matter of a basalt composite that can be made into
a highly insulative barrier that's still highly structural and, even
relatively buoyant if need be. If this method were further reinforced
with CNT fibers, that's all the better. Even using a percentage
titanium and/or tungsten fibers is doable and should be incorporated
whenever plasma coatings of metallics isn't quite sufficient.
A sandwich of multiple plasma applied metallic coatings that's layer by
layer structurally insulated at R-1024/m is perhaps one of the most
affordably obtainable spaceplane alternatives we've had available (no
lie) for decades.
Of course, this process requires a good amount of energy as to creating
those raw basalt fibers and of those tiny basalt balloons that float.
Perhaps since China is about the only nation upon Earth that'll soon
have way more than it's fair share of spare energy, as such China could
supply and otherwise entirely R&D as well as construct your nifty
spaceplane.
Brad Guth
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; WAR is WAR, thus "in war there are
no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of having to deal
with the likes of others that haven't been playing by whatever rules,
such as GW Bush.
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
tomcat
Actually I have made some calculations, but not the Tsiolkovsky
equations. The Tsiolkovsky equations are for vertical/tubular rockets,
not spaceplanes.
I know I can pack 7 minutes of burn time, for the SSME, into an
equilateral triangle. That should be good enough for SSTO. Add a
couple of SRB's as RATO units and that SSTO should be capable of escape
velocity.
That 7 minutes of burn time, by the way, is for LH2, not the new
'atomic' hydrogen fuel still undergoing R&D, nor does it include the
new 'slush' tank design. The addition of 'slush' tanks might turn it
into SSTP (Single Stage To the Planets) without the need for RATO
units. But if the SRBs can act as RATO units then why not add them
anyway and get additional fuel for maneuvering and possible VTOL on the
Moon.
tomcat
Brad Guth
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.shuttle/browse_frm/thread/0242fe5916af363c/dfcc92451db91145#dfcc92451db91145
tomcat,
Of that 92% of rocket fuel to orbit is NOT even of what it takes for
going to the moon and back, as that's more like 96~98+% of the total
package, leaving 2~4% for everything else, and it seems as though we
still have nothing as of today that'll come close to that requirement
unless your 20,000 deg. F. capable spaceplane that's 100% composite
becomes real.
http://www.physorg.com/news6341.html
"It's not part of the %92 of GLOW that is fuel burned during ascent to
orbit. It can't even be residual fuel carried by making the take-off
tanks slightly oversized, since these big tanks would be impossible to
keep cold during orbital flight and reentry."
"The second and third stages of the Saturn V actually achieved a dry
mass fraction of about 10%. But these are not complete spacecraft, only
expendable stages without payload or recovery gear."
Face it "tomcat" and to all others that still believe in the tooth
fairy, we never went to the moon (at least not in person), as your very
own math and recent links to other stuff proves there simply wasn't a
sufficient fuel capacity for delivering nearly 50 tonnes to our moon
and of safely getting those folks back, much less alive and without so
much as one new white hair.
For Christ almighty on another stick sake, we didn't even have a viable
fly-by-rocket lander way back then, and guess what else; we still
haven't squat to work with.
Is being continually dumbfounded and is per chance "snookered" your
middle name?
Drastically cutting the inert/dry mass of the SMEs/SRBs is a good
start, and of two staging them SMEs is step No.2. Step three is the
LRn-->Rn-->ION thrusting that doesn't exist because of all the
dumbfounded and thus backward mindset individuals like yourself.
Jeff Findley
<life...@atlantic.net> wrote in message
news:1131825641.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Lots of "facts" thrown around in that article, but a lot of it is
misleading. Here's a quote:
Yet the DC-X had a fuel weight fraction of only 52%! This
is less that that of the V-2 and absurdly short of the 91-92%
projected for the operational Delta Clipper. The DC-X was not
a meaningful prototype of a working spaceship, but merely the
world's most inefficient VTOL aircraft, scarcely more advanced
than the "Flying Bedstead" prototypes of the 1950s.
The DC-X was never intended to show that it's mass fraction could approach
that of an SSTO, so this is an unfair criticism. DC-X showed that VTVL
using only rocket engines for power was more than just fantasy. It gave us
a lot of information on how a very small crew could fly, and refly, a rocket
powered vehicle. It tested various takeoff and landing surfaces for a
rocket powered vehicle. This was all before it became DC-XA and was used to
investigate other technologies.
Most importantly, DC-X flew. NASA had little to do with this program,
having inherited it only after it's initial non-NASA funding ran out. The
fact that X-33 never flew has more to do with NASA picking the design with
the most new technology and poorly running the program than it does with the
"Cold Equations".
At least he's honest when he signs his article:
Jeffrey F. Bell is a former space scientist and recovering pro-space
activist.
He's clearly given up on lowering the cost of access to space and now
believes that NASA is on the right track with the stick and the SDHLV.
Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.
tomcat
> tomcat,
> Of that 92% of rocket fuel to orbit is NOT even of what it takes for
> going to the moon and back, as that's more like 96~98+% of the total
> package, leaving 2~4% for everything else, and it seems as though we
> still have nothing as of today that'll come close to that requirement
> unless your 20,000 deg. F. capable spaceplane that's 100% composite
> becomes real.
It is not as difficult as ice cold mathematics make it seem. It is
amazing how an SSME with 500,000 pounds of thrust can melt those
equations down to size. As for that 13:1 wet:dry mass ration, well, I
think I can do better than that. The Mass Ration comes out of the
Tsiolkovsky equations, anyway. They are designed for vertical/tubular
rockets, not spaceplanes that get a lift from gravity induced air
pressure.
> http://www.physorg.com/news6341.html
> "It's not part of the %92 of GLOW that is fuel burned during ascent to
> orbit. It can't even be residual fuel carried by making the take-off
> tanks slightly oversized, since these big tanks would be impossible to
> keep cold during orbital flight and reentry."
Not so. LH2 flowing around the hull will prevent any heat penetration
into the tanks. Twenty thousand degrees takes getting used to, but it
can be handled with good engineering. As you yourself pointed out, the
Shuttle's silica tiles protect the aluminum skin from anything in
excess of about 600 deg. F. The aluminum would structurally weaken at
750 deg. F. NASA has the problem solved, save a little engineering on
the 'tile adherence system'. Throw in some tile clamps, beef up the
skin to 2500 deg. F. composite, and the 'problem' is solved.
> "The second and third stages of the Saturn V actually achieved a dry
> mass fraction of about 10%. But these are not complete spacecraft, only
> expendable stages without payload or recovery gear."
>
> Face it "tomcat" and to all others that still believe in the tooth
> fairy, we never went to the moon (at least not in person), as your very
> own math and recent links to other stuff proves there simply wasn't a
> sufficient fuel capacity for delivering nearly 50 tonnes to our moon
> and of safely getting those folks back, much less alive and without so
> much as one new white hair.
>
> For Christ almighty on another stick sake, we didn't even have a viable
> fly-by-rocket lander way back then, and guess what else; we still
> haven't squat to work with.
>
> Is being continually dumbfounded and is per chance "snookered" your
> middle name?
>
> Drastically cutting the inert/dry mass of the SMEs/SRBs is a good
> start, and of two staging them SMEs is step No.2. Step three is the
> LRn-->Rn-->ION thrusting that doesn't exist because of all the
> dumbfounded and thus backward mindset individuals like yourself.
"Dumfounded and thus backward" tomcat has his spaceplane design nearly
completed.
It will consist of 20 titanium/composite modules, welded together on
location with it's 10 foot thick skin added afterward, use 2 SRB's as
RATO units, generate 12 million pounds of thrust at takeoff, and weigh
9 million pounds wet and loaded, including the 1/4 million pounds of
cargo in it's hold. Completely dry, with the tanks vacuumed and
without cargo, it will . . . float. It will have to be tethered down!
It will be fully SSTP (Single Stage To the Planets) capable.
tomcat
Brad Guth
a few minutes worth, that is unless you plan upon staying terrestrial
and thus requiring your 20,000 deg.F. spaceplane which will never get
itself into actual space without a few extra (extended capacity)
SMEs/SRBs.
>LH2 flowing around the hull will prevent any heat penetration
>into the tanks. Twenty thousand degrees takes getting used to, but it
>can be handled with good engineering. As you yourself pointed out, the
>Shuttle's silica tiles protect the aluminum skin from anything in
>excess of about 600 deg. F. The aluminum would structurally weaken at
>750 deg. F. NASA has the problem solved, save a little engineering on
>the 'tile adherence system'. Throw in some tile clamps, beef up the
>skin to 2500 deg. F. composite, and the 'problem' is solved.
OK, problem solved. So where's your good buddies of Dick Cheney and GW
Bush with all of their pillaged loot backing this adventure. Like I'd
said before having discovered that you were anti-environment and thus
anti-humanity, therefore otherwise favored the ongoing collateral
damage and wide spread carnage of the innocent over anything else,
whereas before I'd realized all of this is where I would have given
50/50 matching funds with no questions asked and with no limits
because, you and I know the honest values of extracting elements from
our moon, and the values in simply going so much further at much
greater velocity is simply another win-win all the way around.
>It will consist of 20 titanium/composite modules, welded together on
>location with it's 10 foot thick skin added afterward, use 2 SRB's as
>RATO units, generate 12 million pounds of thrust at takeoff, and weigh
>9 million pounds wet and loaded, including the 1/4 million pounds of
>cargo in it's hold. Completely dry, with the tanks vacuumed and
>without cargo, it will . . . float. It will have to be tethered down!
>It will be fully SSTP (Single Stage To the Planets) capable.
I take it all back because, that's hardly inside the box thinking nor
all that dumfounded. In fact it sounds perfectly good to go, although
I'm not exactly sure about the inert floating part.
Of course with having that much external surface area is perhaps why
there's going to be all of that nasty 20,000 degrees of external skin
heating to deal with, as that's certainly going to represent a rather
great deal of atmospheric friction.
BTW; energy-in still = energy-out, thus whatever LH2 taken for hull
cooling is in fact a taking of energy that has to come from somewhere.
Unfortunately, you can't manufacture LH2 on the fly like LRn. Perhaps
the reaction of LRn as a rocket fuel needs to be taken seriously, as
it's certainly another one of those outside the box sort of notions
that's almost as weird and perhaps as unobtainable as your massive
spaceplane.
BTW No.2; why the heck do you suppose that the Third Reich(Skull and
Bones) MI6/NSA~CIA E-men in BLACK of this warm and fuzzy
GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA mainstream status quo serviced and moderated to death
usenet that summarily sucks and blows big-time is still (no freaking
lie folks) hard at their brown-nosed work of delivering their best
spermware into my PC?
Brad Guth
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree far beyond; WAR is WAR, thus "in war
Brad Guth
>Jeffrey F. Bell is a former space scientist and recovering pro-space
>activist.
>He's clearly given up on lowering the cost of access to space and now
>believes that NASA is on the right track with the stick and the SDHLV.
If Jeffrey F. Bell has "given up on lowering the cost of access to
space", then perhaps there's going to become an honest to God tit for
tat contest between the energy consuming "tomcat" spaceplane and of
those spendy and equally if not a whole lot more so polluting big stick
and their SDHLV methods.
How much extra megatonnage worth of terrestrial pollution per year can
Earth take?
I've asked of others that always claim to know all there is to know, as
to how many million barrels of crude oil or equivalent terrestrial
energy it takes (birth to grave) as per having to deploy a given tonne
of whatever into orbit, and obviously that's taking a whole lot more
tonnage if that tonnage delivery is intended for landing whatever upon
our moon. Since there were no responses, obviously the honest ratio of
megatonnage of total crude oil and/or of whatever other energy that's
taken and thus converted into polluting our environment per tonne
deployed in space is a rather significant number, to say the least.
Where do you suppose all of that energy consuming pollution goes?
Whom gets to pay with their lives for the global warming afterbirth
mess?
BTW; why the heck do you suppose that the Third Reich(Skull and Bones)
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
> Your "lift from gravity induced air pressure" is at best good for only
> a few minutes worth, that is unless you plan upon staying terrestrial
> and thus requiring your 20,000 deg.F. spaceplane which will never get
> itself into actual space without a few extra (extended capacity)
> SMEs/SRBs.
What "lift from gravity induced air pressure" means is that enormous
speed can be built up in the 2 1/2 minutes it takes to reach 300,000
feet, unlike vertical/tubular rockets that might touch mach 5 in that
amount of time.
> OK, problem solved. So where's your good buddies of Dick Cheney and GW
> Bush with all of their pillaged loot backing this adventure. Like I'd
> said before having discovered that you were anti-environment and thus
> anti-humanity, therefore otherwise favored the ongoing collateral
> damage and wide spread carnage of the innocent over anything else,
> whereas before I'd realized all of this is where I would have given
> 50/50 matching funds with no questions asked and with no limits
> because, you and I know the honest values of extracting elements from
> our moon, and the values in simply going so much further at much
> greater velocity is simply another win-win all the way around.
I am glad you know that Outer Space is a Win-Win situation. There is
every kind of element known to man waiting for us on those asteroids
and moons. No real need to bug the Martians or Vensuians. Imagine
diamonds and emeralds, the size of rocks, just waiting to be gathered.
Not to even mention the He-3 just laying there on the surface sand.
> I take it all back because, that's hardly inside the box thinking nor
> all that dumfounded. In fact it sounds perfectly good to go, although
> I'm not exactly sure about the inert floating part.
Vacuum is actually lighter than helium. It wasn't used in the old 'air
ships' because they did not have light materials strong enough to
withstand a full vacuum. Today's composite can do exactly that. The
use of vacuum will compensate for 'more' than the weight of the other
materials in Earth's 1 atmosphere of air density.
> Of course with having that much external surface area is perhaps why
> there's going to be all of that nasty 20,000 degrees of external skin
> heating to deal with, as that's certainly going to represent a rather
> great deal of atmospheric friction.
Tomcat's spaceplane will be an equilateral triangle 340 feet to a side.
Each internal triangle module with have 96 thousand cubic feet of
space. The 'topside' modules will be halved cylinders, creating an
appearance similiar to Northrup Grumman's B-2 bomber.
> BTW; energy-in still = energy-out, thus whatever LH2 taken for hull
> cooling is in fact a taking of energy that has to come from somewhere.
> Unfortunately, you can't manufacture LH2 on the fly like LRn. Perhaps
> the reaction of LRn as a rocket fuel needs to be taken seriously, as
> it's certainly another one of those outside the box sort of notions
> that's almost as weird and perhaps as unobtainable as your massive
> spaceplane.
The energy that is being taken out to 'cool' the spaceplane has to be
taken out anyway. LH2 has to be warmed prior to ignition in the
combustion chamber for maximum efficiency. The energy originally comes
from the compression process to liquify the H2 into LH2.
Your LRn ion engine proposal is interesting. Ion engines definitely
have a place on an interplanetary spaceplane. The 2 nuclear reactors
will be located next to the ailerons on the back edges of tomcat's
spaceplane.
> BTW No.2; why the heck do you suppose that the Third Reich(Skull and
> Bones) MI6/NSA~CIA E-men in BLACK of this warm and fuzzy
> GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA mainstream status quo serviced and moderated to death
> usenet that summarily sucks and blows big-time is still (no freaking
> lie folks) hard at their brown-nosed work of delivering their best
> spermware into my PC?
You probably need to 'defragment' your hard drive.
tomcat
Brad Guth
>have a place on an interplanetary spaceplane. The 2 nuclear reactors
>will be located next to the ailerons on the back edges of tomcat's
>spaceplane.
This time around I was NOT speaking of any rocket flatulence of wossy
ions, but of the actual LRn as an element of ROCKET FUEL. As in
rocket-science duh-101.
At a given mixture ratio of elements and given a sufficient ignition
temperature within a suitable environment is where damn near anything
burns, that's including LRn and perhaps LXe, which if combined with
some plasma or laser cannon like fusion method could represent quite a
nice amount of high density worth of rocket bang/kg.
Why not add those two or some other such terrific densities together
and see how close we're getting to fusion or some other terminology of
viable reaction taking place without having to further pollute mother
Earth to a fairlywell.
>You probably need to 'defragment' your hard drive.
You probably have to sop being so easily snookered simply because
you're so brown-nosed dumbfounded by the truth and nothing but the
truth. Good freaking Christ on another stick; is "tomcat" actually that
pathetically arrogant and at the same time stupid?
-
BTW; why the heck do you suppose that the Third Reich(Skull and Bones)
MI6/NSA~CIA E-men in BLACK of this warm and fuzzy GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA
mainstream status quo serviced and moderated to death usenet that
summarily sucks and blows big-time is still (no freaking lie folks)
hard at their brown-nosed work of delivering their best spermware into
my PC?
Brad Guth
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
> >Your LRn ion engine proposal is interesting. Ion engines definitely
> >have a place on an interplanetary spaceplane. The 2 nuclear reactors
> >will be located next to the ailerons on the back edges of tomcat's
> >spaceplane.
> You really need to get another grip.
> This time around I was NOT speaking of any rocket flatulence of wossy
> ions, but of the actual LRn as an element of ROCKET FUEL. As in
> rocket-science duh-101.
Yes, Xenon's 20 thousandths of one pound of thrust is a little . . .
"wossy". Igniting LRn or LXe with plasma or laser cannon fusion sounds
far off. There is great difficulty with that method at the present
time.
This is why I regard ion engines as a supplementary thrust capable of
increasing a spaceplane's speed over the length of a voyage and
providing microgravity at the same time.
> At a given mixture ratio of elements and given a sufficient ignition
> temperature within a suitable environment is where damn near anything
> burns, that's including LRn and perhaps LXe, which if combined with
> some plasma or laser cannon like fusion method could represent quite a
> nice amount of high density worth of rocket bang/kg.
You earlier comments on liquid radon sound interesting but, frankly, I
am not qualified at that level of chemistry/physics to comment. It
also sounds R&D intensive. And, R&D intensive = Time & Money.
'Atomic' hydrogen, on the other hand, I understand. It is just super
compressed H2, compressed to the solid 'slush' state instead of merely
to the liquid state. LHe4 (liquid helium) is thrown in to assist in
the compression by dropping the mixture temperature. Then the LHe4
flows through the combustion chamber to super expand, yielding a super
thrust besides.
Experiment: Have NASA take the Shuttle, equipped with LH2 'slush'
tanks, into the Earth's shadow for 30 minutes or so and, then, full
throttle the SSMEs. I'll bet the SSMEs hold up too. Note: It could
be done more cheaply with a static test. High speed cameras should be
focused on the SSME and the 'slush' tank, in the event of mishap, to
determine it's cause.
> Why not add those two or some other such terrific densities together
> and see how close we're getting to fusion or some other terminology of
> viable reaction taking place without having to further pollute mother
> Earth to a fairlywell.
LH2/LOX is one of the best mixtures to avoid pollution. The reaction
creates pure water.
Your H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) oxidizer interests me. It is fairly
dense and might make various dense flammable fuels more explosive. It
is best to have all of the fuel combust in the combustion chamber and
not in the bell. A rapid flow rate for maximum thrust tends to leave
some fuel unburned as it passes the throat.
tomcat
Brad Guth
Couldn't possibly be from H2O, and we certainly wouldn't want to mess
around with H2O2, or God forbid any of that nastier 2H2O2. Thus there's
certainly no further point in messing around with the likes of LRn.
>LH2/LOX is one of the best mixtures to avoid pollution. The reaction
>creates pure water.
Where the sam freaking hell is either LO2 or LH2 in nature?
The last time I'd checked it took a horrific amounts of energy in order
to create that stuff in the first place, and obviously all of that
required an even greater energy demand for the necessary
infrastructure, then quite a bit more energy applied for the safe
storage and transporting of such. Why don't you just lie to us some
more about all of those WMD, so that you and others you admirer can
continue pillaging, raping and exterminating Muslims, polluting mother
Earth in the process and global-warming away until them phony baloney
NASA/Apollo cows come home.
Is duh and double-duh far too complicated to understand, in that the
more massive a gas element is the more likely potential of energy
conversion there is to being had?
OOPS! I'd forgot all about the industries of thousands upon thousands
of nice folks commuting for years in their 10 mpg Hummers, and then of
the further taking of energy for the necessary R&D and per creating all
of those SMEs/SRBs and of course there's all of the lifetime jobs and
retirement benefits for absolutely everyone involved. Are you
absolutely sure that you're not Hitler, or perhaps worse off by being
related to Cheney or GW Bush?
How much fossil energy does it take to create Rn or even LRn?
By my math it's damn near zero fossil energy demand. In fact, the
Ra-->LRn breeder reactor is a clean and relatively low risk energy
giver. All of that perfectly natural Ra226 has to coexist somewhere, so
why the hell not within a few of those high pressure Ra-->LRn breeder
reactors?
H2, LH2 and even your slush Atomic LH2 is at best a relatively piss
poor energy density substance that needs a good deal of yet another
poor density substance of LO2. Perhaps a good dosage of mixing in LRn
couldn't hurt, especially before that Rn turns itself into lead.
Of course you'd actually need a real rocket-scientist involved, and
since you have no intentions of ever involving any real form of
scientist, and perhaps that's because you already know all there is to
know. Imagine that, our new and improved replacement for God is within
tomcat. I'm highly impressed.
Brad Guth
-
I see that a few of our warm and fuzzy MI6/NSA~CIA spooks are now into
using popular celebrity names as another measure of their usenet ruse,
such as using "Bill Snyder" as one their cloaks in order to carry out
their brown-nosed sucking and blowing plan of action as to their new
and improved levels of incest cloned borgism, of delivering MOS
wag-the-dog and simply as per continuing MOS LLPOF worth of their
ongoing disinformation infomercials.
Why the heck do you suppose that their Third Reich(Skull and Bones)
MI6/NSA~CIA E-Men in BLACK of this warm and fuzzy GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA
mainstream status quo serviced and moderated to death usenet that
summarily sucks and blows big-time is still (no freaking lie folks)
hard at their brown-nosed agenda of each and every day after day
accomplishing their collective workmanship of specifically targeting
and thus delivering their very best spermware into my PC?
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree far beyond; WAR is WAR, thus "in war
there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of honest
folks having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been playing
by whatever the supposed rules, such as our resident warlord(GW Bush).
tomcat
> How much fossil energy does it take to create Rn or even LRn?
>
> By my math it's damn near zero fossil energy demand. In fact, the
> Ra-->LRn breeder reactor is a clean and relatively low risk energy
> giver. All of that perfectly natural Ra226 has to coexist somewhere, so
> why the hell not within a few of those high pressure Ra-->LRn breeder
> reactors?
>
> H2, LH2 and even your slush Atomic LH2 is at best a relatively piss
> poor energy density substance that needs a good deal of yet another
> poor density substance of LO2. Perhaps a good dosage of mixing in LRn
> couldn't hurt, especially before that Rn turns itself into lead.
Slush atomic LH2 may turn out to be the rocket fuel that opens up Outer
Space. But, ion engines should be on any interplanetary spaceplane to
increase speed. With a slingshot and ion engines, 3 weeks to Mars is
possible. A couple of slingshots -- with ion engines -- and 6 weeks to
Pluto might be possible.
Only NASA wants to take several years to reach Mars. Not only will
such long voyages drive the crews nuts, but will require enormous
stocks of food and supplies or, as has been proposed, the 'recycling'
of human 'waste' products for 'consumption'. The astronauts will just
have to 'do it' but NASA may suddenly find a 'shortage' of them.
Space flight is nothing to be afraid of. Good engineering, strong
lightweight materials, and the problems melt away. Sub-orbital, for
example, is just taking an SSME driven spaceplane to 350,000 feet at
mach 25. A 4 minute burn can do this. Once at this altitude and speed
you can reach anyplace on Earth within an hour. There is virtually no
air friction at 350,000 feet. Only residual heat from the sub-orbital
insertion need be considered.
If the Shuttle engineers -- back in the 70's mind you -- had known then
what we know today they simply would have used a titanium skin in place
of aluminum, clamps and cement on the silica tiles, and used additional
'air brakes' for hypersonic braking instead of just the split rudder.
The Shuttle's split rudder, by the way, was intended for slowing just
prior to landing. It had not occurred to the engineers back then that
a beefed up 'air brake' system would have solved the reentry heating
problem.
Also, back in the 70's they thought that you have to do a slow reentry
using that 10 second burn with the heat -- focused -- on the top third
of the underbelly. Not good.
Today, we know that it is best to simply use a 1 second burn, dive
straight down, alter dive angles to distribute the heat based on
observed glow and dazzle of leading surfaces, and have great 'air
brakes' and pump them continually. You will actually have to stop
pumping the 'air brakes' when you reach mach 15 or so in order to reach
your landing area.
tomcat
Brad Guth
This following topic might interest itself as being a partial solution
to your megatonnage spaceplane that supposedly floats because of its
less than paper thin composites. Thus "space flight is nothing to be
afraid of" because of your conditional laws of physics stipulates that
space radiation and debris are apparently as invisible and thus as
harmless as were all of those supposedly nasty WMD that have been
replaced with IEDs, that are actually quite visible but only manage to
kill more than their fair share of innocent folks.
25%c Interstellar Probe in Our Lifetime - by: IsaacKuo
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/a8dc97990c758b23/7d94a24e33c1e2f2#7d94a24e33c1e2f2
I noticed that you couldn't manage to answer as to the megatonnage of
crude oil that's taken in order to place a given tonne into orbit. Why
is that?
Brad Guth
-
Since the spermware/malware flak is still flying, I thought that I'd
keep sharing the latest info that a few of our warm and fuzzy
MI6/NSA~CIA spooks are now into using popular celebrity names as
another soild measure of their usenet ruse, such as using "Bill Snyder"
as one their phony baloney cloaks in order to carry out their
brown-nosed sucking and blowing plan of action as to their new and
improved levels of incest cloned borgism, of delivering MOS wag-the-dog
and simply as per continuing MOS LLPOF worth of their ongoing
disinformation infomercials.
Why the heck do you suppose that their Third Reich(Skull and Bones)
MI6/NSA~CIA E-Men in BLACK of this warm and fuzzy GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA
mainstream status quo serviced and moderated to death usenet that
summarily sucks and blows big-time is still (no freaking lie folks)
hard at their brown-nosed agenda of each and every day after day
accomplishing their collective workmanship of specifically targeting
and thus delivering their very best malware/spermware into my PC?
Unlike The New York Times and of The Washington Post, and of all the
big cannons of NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX and so many other news and publishing
members of our society that often have to tow the line or else, I kid
you not. Even our PBS and NPR have their limits if they don't want
their federal funding further cut and of losing their tax-exempt status
like so many churches have to fear for their honest efforts to inform
others of the truth and nothing but the truth. In other words, it
perfectly OK for government to be telling churches what they can or
can't communicate to others, just as it's perfectly OK for a church to
be utilizing it's resources for being fully supportive of the
administration but, it's apparently not a good situation as to suggest
upon anything that's outside the political agenda box, and this is
coming directly from our very own pagan born again loser of a resident
warlord(GW Bush).
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
> tomcat,
> This following topic might interest itself as being a partial solution
> to your megatonnage spaceplane that supposedly floats because of its
> less than paper thin composites. Thus "space flight is nothing to be
> afraid of" because of your conditional laws of physics stipulates that
> space radiation and debris are apparently as invisible and thus as
> harmless as were all of those supposedly nasty WMD that have been
> replaced with IEDs, that are actually quite visible but only manage to
> kill more than their fair share of innocent folks.
>
> 25%c Interstellar Probe in Our Lifetime - by: IsaacKuo
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/a8dc97990c758b23/7d94a24e33c1e2f2#7d94a24e33c1e2f2
>
> I noticed that you couldn't manage to answer as to the megatonnage of
> crude oil that's taken in order to place a given tonne into orbit. Why
> is that?
Well, Brad, I am not a physicist either. But I will attempt to delve
into it a bit with what little I know.
Atomic Bombs are one thing, and manned spaceplanes are another. The
radiation that nuclear propulsion -- regular type, not your design --
creates would require either very heavy shielding or have to be placed
quite a distance away from the crew quarters so square of the distance
can diminish the intensity of the radiation. (Also, environmentalists
would go 'nuts' if such a thing were launched from the earth.)
Now, your idea is that Radon is less radioactive but still packs a
punch. I suspect, however, that heavy shielding will still be
required. To generate the kind of thrust a rocket needs to break the
bonds of gravity it has got to be producing radiation like crazy.
Correct me if I am wrong on this point.
In fact, I am concerned about the 2 'little' nuclear reactors I would
use to produce electricity for ship operation on an interplanetary
voyage. Putting them in the rear with shielding only on the side
facing the ship cuts the weight, but the environmentalists won't like
it. These 'electricity' producing reactors, however, will be very
small compared to any that would be a primary source of energy for the
main drive.
Atomic hydrogen fuel gets around all this radiation problem because
there is none. It is 'atomic' only in the sense that extreme cold
reduces the hydrogen molecules to atoms. When the atoms recombine into
molecules, which they will do automatically upon warming, enormous heat
is 'instantly' generated. The liquid helium that helps cool the LH2
into slush, and hold it at temperature in the tank, adds greatly to the
thrust when it 'instantly' expands into gas in the combustion chamber.
The only R&D I see here involves the design of well insulated tanks to
insure that proper temperature is maintained. The SSMEs combustion
chamber and throat may have to be reinforced, but might work as is.
Getting back to what I understand of your idea, using your minimal
radiation radon reactor to fuel ion engines might be workable. Ion
engines don't need huge thrust to simply increase a spaceplane's speed
once it has blasted off from the Earth. Therefore, your reactor could
be fairly small -- similiar to my electricity ones -- yet provide
enough power for both the ion engines and shipboard electrical
requirements. Remember, however, if your radon reactor is a new idea
then R&D looms ahead, and that means lots and lots of money and time.
Also, when you speak of using liquid radon products to cool the ships
hull I envision 'radiation' sweeping through the ship in tubes
irradiating everything in sight. Perhaps I am wrong, however. LH2 is
efficient in cooling the interior of the ship because it has to be
warmed prior to combusion anyway. Just as easy to use the ship as it
is to use warming tubes of some kind. The SSME solves this problem, by
the way, by having the fuel flow through the Bell prior to entering the
combustion chamber. This cools the bell and warms the LH2
simultaneously.
Rocketdyne has the SSME fully tested and proven. It is extremely
reliable. It is a high power, non-polluting, rocket engine that is
here and ready today. All of the LH2 and 'slush' tank design has been
done and works. Atomic hydrogen is still in the R&D phase but should
be out of that soon. This is off-the-shelf 'plug it in' equipment.
You can't have R&D hangups and build a SSTP spaceplane in 8 years.
tomcat
Lynndel K. Humphreys
>
> Rocketdyne has the SSME fully tested and proven. It is extremely
> reliable. It is a high power, non-polluting, rocket engine that is
> here and ready today.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Brad Guth
>punch. I suspect, however, that heavy shielding will still be
>required. To generate the kind of thrust a rocket needs to break the
>bonds of gravity it has got to be producing radiation like crazy.
>Correct me if I am wrong on this point.
Yes indeed, lead is a nasty substance, much like all of the terrestrial
pollution created by the industries encharge of providing all of that
LH2/LO2 and of those extremely nasty SMEs/SRBs, not to mention as to
what impact there is enstore for creating your large composite
spaceplane itself is going to represent.
I believe that taking whatever tonnage of Ra226 away from mother Earth
would be a good thing, especially since it's only going to convert
itself into Rn and then into lead, all of which we seem to already have
more than our fair share of. Whereas your method will only further
overload and/or deplete our failing energy resources and summarily
pollute our environment in order to benefit the upper most 0.1% of
humanity, which I do believe was Hitler's idea as well.
>Getting back to what I understand of your idea, using your minimal
>radiation radon reactor to fuel ion engines might be workable. Ion
>engines don't need huge thrust to simply increase a spaceplane's speed
>once it has blasted off from the Earth. Therefore, your reactor could
>be fairly small -- similiar to my electricity ones -- yet provide
>enough power for both the ion engines and shipboard electrical
>requirements. Remember, however, if your radon reactor is a new idea
>then R&D looms ahead, and that means lots and lots of money and time.
That's why this should all be accomplished by those really smart if not
sufficiently mad German scientist and engineers, along with the
expertise and affordable R&D capability that's offered by China at 2
cents on the shrinking US dollar, whereas soon they'll have the most
clean energy to burn while major communities within the US that are
already suffering to death upon spendy fossil fuel powered generators
that have been continually polluting our environment with absolute
loads of radiation plus some of the other worse known poisons, as these
same pathetic methods of badly creating energy will be into MOS rolling
black-outs as a standard method of surviving.
>Also, when you speak of using liquid radon products to cool the ships
>hull I envision 'radiation' sweeping through the ship in tubes
>irradiating everything in sight.
Contained LRn or just Rn gas is safer than water. Tens of thousands of
innocent folks die per year from too much or of simply too polluted
water than die from raw Radon running amuck. LRn-->Rn as a cooling
freon like element, as well as a ion fuel, is every bit as safe as
you'd like to make it.
What do you suppose is going to happen to your spaceplane when your
Atomic LH2-->H2 is running amuck throught the interior, and/or so
easily leaking itself into space?
>This is off-the-shelf 'plug it in' equipment.
At 10,000 (per installed) lbs/SSME isn't so bad off. As then you
certainly don't need any of those pesky scientist nor engineer types
getting involved, just MOS LLPOF good buddies of your's that'll gladly
spend whatever it takes for keeping those NASA/Apollo cows from ever
coming home, and otherwise for keeping Muslims as poor and/or as dead
as possible.
Brad Guth
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
> It's converting itself into lead, which would have transpired anyway.
> Yes indeed, lead is a nasty substance, much like all of the terrestrial
> pollution created by the industries encharge of providing all of that
> LH2/LO2 and of those extremely nasty SMEs/SRBs, not to mention as to
> what impact there is enstore for creating your large composite
> spaceplane itself is going to represent.
Radium was taken out of wristwatches. But is, I believe, a good deal
safer than plutonium. (Never buy a wristwatch with a plutonium dial!)
So, if sufficient energy can be produced in the breakdown of radium
into radon then it sounds like a good idea. It also sounds like a very
R&D intensive idea, however.
> I believe that taking whatever tonnage of Ra226 away from mother Earth
> would be a good thing, especially since it's only going to convert
> itself into Rn and then into lead, all of which we seem to already have
> more than our fair share of.
In space, a spaceplane can eject radioactive waste without a single
environmentalist ever finding out. So, faintly radioactive lead should
pose no problem.
> That's why this should all be accomplished by those really smart if not
> sufficiently mad German scientist and engineers, along with the
> expertise and affordable R&D capability that's offered by China at 2
> cents on the shrinking US dollar, whereas soon they'll have the most
> clean energy to burn while major communities within the US that are
> already suffering to death upon spendy fossil fuel powered generators
> that have been continually polluting our environment with absolute
> loads of radiation plus some of the other worse known poisons, as these
> same pathetic methods of badly creating energy will be into MOS rolling
> black-outs as a standard method of surviving.
This is one of the best things about NASA, that it has both the time
and money to R&D. We need to go back in time and get some more of
those "mad German scientist and engineers." We are running out! This
is why -- I suspect -- it is going to take 12 years to do what can be
done in 6.
> Contained LRn or just Rn gas is safer than water. Tens of thousands of
> innocent folks die per year from too much or of simply too polluted
> water than die from raw Radon running amuck. LRn-->Rn as a cooling
> freon like element, as well as a ion fuel, is every bit as safe as
> you'd like to make it.
Brad, have an ice cold glass of raw Radon! Then have my glass too!
Just ate dinner, you know. And, I have the hiccups.
> What do you suppose is going to happen to your spaceplane when your
> Atomic LH2-->H2 is running amuck throught the interior, and/or so
> easily leaking itself into space?
Good engineering is required. "Do it right the first time."
> At 10,000 (per installed) lbs/SSME isn't so bad off. As then you
> certainly don't need any of those pesky scientist nor engineer types
> getting involved, just MOS LLPOF good buddies of your's that'll gladly
> spend whatever it takes for keeping those NASA/Apollo cows from ever
> coming home, and otherwise for keeping Muslims as poor and/or as dead
> as possible.
I can't speak for my "good buddies," but I am not anti-Muslim. I am,
however, anti-Terror, and the people trying to nuke U.S. cities aren't
my buddies at all. 'Damnation' to them!
tomcat
Brad Guth
>Radium was taken out of wristwatches. But is, I believe, a good deal
>safer than plutonium. (Never buy a wristwatch with a plutonium dial!)
>So, if sufficient energy can be produced in the breakdown of radium
>into radon then it sounds like a good idea. It also sounds like a very
>R&D intensive idea, however.
survive in spite of what's transpiring, thus demanding somewhat of a
thriving form of intelligent design up until we have to waste most of
our resources and talents in order to deal with the ongoing collateral
damage and carnage of the innocent as inflicted by the highly
unintelligent design workmanship (born again greed, arrogance and
bigotry w/o remorse) as having been provided by the likes of your best
terrorist friends GW Bush and Dick Cheney that actually had and
utilized WMD.
What's "tomcat's" personal definition(s) of being a terrorist?
Is being a born again liar and pants on fire moron to boot worth
anything?
How much provocation would it take in order to get yourself pissed off
enough to fight back?
BTW; radium as well as plutonium are relatively safe as long as they're
kept within that watch or for another example as a heart-pacer power
source. In fact, most of what's artificially made and/or concentrated
into sufficiently radioactive substances, if those are being utilized
properly is perfectly safe to being around 24/7. It's primarily the
spectrums of all those secondary/recoil hard-x-rays that'll summarily
nail your DNA/RNA to a fairlywell.
>In space, a spaceplane can eject radioactive waste without a single
>environmentalist ever finding out. So, faintly radioactive lead should
>pose no problem.
Since Rn-->lead isn't creating anything that wouldn't have transpired
within our global environment anyway, perhaps there's nothing to lose.
Of whatever Rn or lead tries to reenter the environment of mother Earth
may have to transform itself once more before landing upon the surface,
although I'm certain that someone with another typically
anti-everything under the sun bleeding heart will only assume the
absolute worse possible outcomes no matters what. Thus using up to the
equivalency of a million barrels of crude oil (136.4e6 kg) per each
tonne that's R&D plus having been deployed into orbiting Earth is
perhaps the one and only alternative until the very last drop of such
oil and/or blood is taken.
>This is one of the best things about NASA, that it has both the time
>and money to R&D. We need to go back in time and get some more of
>those "mad German scientist and engineers." We are running out! This
>is why -- I suspect -- it is going to take 12 years to do what can be
>done in 6.
You're still talking to your pagan blood sucking tooth fairy, are you
not?
Sorry tomcat, as lo and behold; NASA DOES NOT HAVE THE TIME AND/OR THE
MONEY TO ACCOMPLISH SQUAT.
Each of their lies begets another and another, whereas each lie is
worse off than the one before. Most of their honest capabilities were
lost once they excluded and/or exterminated all those souls that
potentially knew too much. If your perpetrated cold-war nondisclosure
loyalty couldn't be bought or otherwise insured, you were soon made WMD
invisible or quite dead.
Clearly you still believe in whatever crapolla our MI6/NSA~CIA (aka
NASA) publish and/or place their NASA cloak and dagger stamp of
approval upon. That's rather sad that we have so many snookered fools
that are so easily dumbfounded about nearly everything under the sun.
Thus it's no wonder it'll take 12+ years just to get anything
whatsoever deployed upon our moon.
>Good engineering is required. "Do it right the first time."
You should have told that one to NASA before we roasted our last batch
of astronauts. Either that or having informed DoD that it wasn't going
to be such good timing as for their utilizing an incoming shuttle as
yet another ABL testing opportunity.
>I can't speak for my "good buddies," but I am not anti-Muslim. I am,
>however, anti-Terror, and the people trying to nuke U.S. cities aren't
>my buddies at all. 'Damnation' to them!
In that case, perhaps you're no longer pleased with the ongoing
terrorist methods as having been utilized by the US and Jews upon
exterminating all of our 6-Day war prisoners, not to mention the USN
LIBERTY fiasco?
How about the warm and fuzzy way that we're setting the global example
by how we're accommodating our illegally perpetrated war prisoners as
of today?
Brad Guth
-
I thought that I'd keep sharing in the latest info that a few of our
warm and fuzzy MI6/NSA~CIA spooks are now into their using popular
celebrity names as yet another soild measure of their usenet ruse, such
as using "Bill Snyder" as one their phony baloney cloaks in order to
carry out more of their brown-nosed sucking and blowing plan of action
as to their new and improved levels of incest cloned borgism, of
delivering MOS wag-the-dog and simply as per continuing MOS LLPOF worth
of their ongoing disinformation infomercials.
Why the heck do you suppose that their Third Reich(Skull and Bones)
MI6/NSA~CIA E-Men in BLACK of this warm and fuzzy GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA
mainstream status quo, as having serviced and moderated to death upon
this usenet that summarily sucks and blows big-time is still (no
freaking lie folks) hard at their brown-nosed agenda of each and every
day after day accomplishing their collective workmanship of
specifically targeting and thus delivering their very best
malware/spermware (MI6/NSA~CIA fuckware) into my PC?
Unlike The New York Times and of The Washington Post, and of all the
big cannons of NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX and so many other news and publishing
members of our society that often have to tow the line or else, at
least I kid you not. Even our PBS and NPR have their limits if they
don't want their federal funding further cut and/or losing their
tax-exempt status like so many churches have to fear for their honest
efforts to inform us of the truth and nothing but the truth. In other
words, it's perfectly OK for government to be telling churches what
they can or can't communicate to others, just as it's perfectly OK for
a church to be utilizing it's resources and talents for being fully
supportive of the administration but, it's apparently not a good
situation as to suggest upon anything that's outside the political
agenda box, as this is exactly what has been coming directly from our
tomcat
> Life itself is a "very R&D intensive idea", especially if you intend to
Yes, "Life itself is a 'very R&D intensive idea', especially if you
intend to survive . . .". That is why NASA and the Military needs more
funding and more technology. We, the human race, have made it thus far
because of technology increase. We can't stop now! Despite the
enormous costs of R&D we must forge ahead, gain the advantage, take the
high ground, for whatever is "transpiring."
Our universe is filled with things "transpiring", things 'waiting',
things 'watching', from out there in Outer Space. Things capable of
'mind control', advanced weapons technology, things that may be devoid
of human emotions, things that might simply be 'computers' programmed
eons ago by some Alien Race. Or, 'things' filled with hatred and
vengence -- for reasons unknown -- with regard to our 'human race'.
> What's "tomcat's" personal definition(s) of being a terrorist?
> Is being a born again liar and pants on fire moron to boot worth
> anything?
> How much provocation would it take in order to get yourself pissed off
> enough to fight back?
A terroist is anyone that gets me 'ticked off'. And, yes, 'born again
liar(s)' and 'pants on fire moron(s) do 'tick me off'. And, I "fight
back" by advocating Super Technology the likes of which have never been
seen before on Earth. Technology so great it can defeat any opponent,
anywhere, at anytime. What other rational alternative is there?
> BTW; radium as well as plutonium are relatively safe as long as they're
> kept within that watch or for another example as a heart-pacer power
> source. In fact, most of what's artificially made and/or concentrated
> into sufficiently radioactive substances, if those are being utilized
> properly is perfectly safe to being around 24/7. It's primarily the
> spectrums of all those secondary/recoil hard-x-rays that'll summarily
> nail your DNA/RNA to a fairlywell.
Anything, handled properly, is safe. It is 'handling properly' that
has to be examined because it has to protect people from the effects of
whatever toxic substance happens to be present.
Usually, the handling of radioactive materials 'requires' massive
shielding to be 'handled properly'. Massive shielding weighs a lot and
is expensive.
By the way, it is a polyethalene derivative that stops radiation.
Polyethalene plastic is very light and quite strong but can't take heat
very well.
> Sorry tomcat, as lo and behold; NASA DOES NOT HAVE THE TIME AND/OR THE
> MONEY TO ACCOMPLISH SQUAT.
> Each of their lies begets another and another, whereas each lie is
> worse off than the one before. Most of their honest capabilities were
> lost once they excluded and/or exterminated all those souls that
> potentially knew too much. If your perpetrated cold-war nondisclosure
> loyalty couldn't be bought or otherwise insured, you were soon made WMD
> invisible or quite dead.
There have been a lot of lies, of late. Hard to know what is going on.
America works best on a steady diet of Truth. Get everyone 'stomping
mad' and Americans seem to know what to do.
NASA's job is to push the envelope in science/technology, not sneak
back into capsules with parachutes and hope for the best. America is
capable of more.
tomcat
Brad Guth
>NASA's job is to push the envelope in science/technology, not sneak
>back into capsules with parachutes and hope for the best. America is
>capable of more.
persist, especially if it's been taking 90% of their budget and talents
in order to reinforce their wagging of so many dogs in order to sustain
the necessary levels of infomercial disinformation along with all of
the subsequent damage-control.
>There have been a lot of lies, of late. Hard to know what is going on.
>America works best on a steady diet of Truth. Get everyone 'stomping
>mad' and Americans seem to know what to do.
As I've said before; America has been and continues to work best upon
liars telling dumbfounded fools like yourself lies upon lies, in that
snookered folks like yourself keep taking such lies to the bank as
though everything is just fine and dandy. So, what's so hard about
knowing that which has been going on ever since we created the
perpetrated cold-war of the century that isn't over until the fat lady
sings.
>By the way, it is a polyethalene derivative that stops radiation.
>Polyethalene plastic is very light and quite strong but can't take heat
>very well.
BTW sir fool on the hill; it's only mass and/or a great deal of an
electromagnetic induced field that attenuates radiation. The atmosphere
of Earth represents 50 layers of 0.7" sheets of lead, each of which
cutting the potentially lethal TBI dosage of hard-X-rays by half. If
there's not a volumetric problem of your having run yourself out of
viable internal space within your Atomic Hydrogen (slush H2O2 or
perhaps 2H2O2) fueled spaceplane, as only then is when your
"polyethalene derivative" affords essentially the very same primary
radiation influx attenuation/gm/cm2 (similar to water) but, along with
such having created fewer of those nasty secondary/recoil amounts of
hard-X-rays due to the matter of having utilized a much lower density
product to start with.
Actually, being placed as entirely surrounded by your Atomic Slush
Hydrogen might suggest the best possible location to being safely
accommodated. Think about having all crew and passenger accommodations
suspended within the center of your massive fuel storage tanks, which
isn't such a bad notion since if anything goes wrong it really isn't
going to matter where the crew and passengers are located. Of course,
the more fuel consumed the worse off the TBI factors get, so what's the
difference?
Why is it that you're so totally snookered and thereby dumbfounded
about hard radiation matter of facts?
>A terroist is anyone that gets me 'ticked off'. And, yes, 'born again
>liar(s)' and 'pants on fire moron(s) do 'tick me off'. And, I "fight
>back" by advocating Super Technology the likes of which have never been
>seen before on Earth. Technology so great it can defeat any opponent,
>anywhere, at anytime. What other rational alternative is there?
Stop brown-nosing the mainstream status quo. Stop sucking up to the
upper most 0.1% of humanity. Stop lying to yourself and everyone else
you come in contact with. Start giving a tinkers damn about the lower
99.9% of humanity.
If you haven't gotten half the world so freaking pissed off at whatever
you've been doing all along, such as per what our resent warlord(GW
Bush) had been doing to our environment and of the humanity sequestered
within, chances are fairly good that folks (including Muslims) would
not have been having those notions of their having to kick your sorry
butt.
Perhaps you and your lover Dick Cheney need to focus your all-knowing
spermware talents and whatever expertise upon inventing more of those
invisible WMD. Get it? I didn't think so.
Tell us a bit more about your spaceplane from hell that'll essentially
burn off every last drop of oil and otherwise taking every last cubic
meter of NG and coal in the process of your entertaining the upper most
0.1% of humanity, that is whenever you've managed to get yourself and
your extremely brown-nose disconnected from your Skull and Bones
buttology collective.
I could easily say the very same things about ESE/LiftPort freaks but,
I've already been there and done that.
Brad Guth
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
> Our NASA can't possibly accomplish their job when so many liars
> persist, especially if it's been taking 90% of their budget and talents
> in order to reinforce their wagging of so many dogs in order to sustain
> the necessary levels of infomercial disinformation along with all of
> the subsequent damage-control.
> liars telling dumbfounded fools like yourself lies upon lies, in that
> snookered folks like yourself keep taking such lies to the bank as
> though everything is just fine and dandy. So, what's so hard about
> knowing that which has been going on ever since we created the
> perpetrated cold-war of the century that isn't over until the fat lady
> sings.
Lies, lies, lies, all I ever hear are lies, the media lies, the
government lies, people lie. Everybody except 'tomcat' that is.
I tell the truth and nothing but the truth. "Thou shalt not bear false
witness." If everyone observed that religious commandment America
would get coordinated once again. Until then, take everything you hear
with a "grain of salt."
> BTW sir fool on the hill; it's only mass and/or a great deal of an
> electromagnetic induced field that attenuates radiation. The atmosphere
> of Earth represents 50 layers of 0.7" sheets of lead, each of which
> cutting the potentially lethal TBI dosage of hard-X-rays by half. If
> there's not a volumetric problem of your having run yourself out of
> viable internal space within your Atomic Hydrogen (slush H2O2 or
> perhaps 2H2O2) fueled spaceplane, as only then is when your
> "polyethalene derivative" affords essentially the very same primary
> radiation influx attenuation/gm/cm2 (similar to water) but, along with
> such having created fewer of those nasty secondary/recoil amounts of
> hard-X-rays due to the matter of having utilized a much lower density
> product to start with.
The polyethalene derivitive is not spaceplane material, though it might
be a good spacesuit radiation blocker. It is a flammable material.
Best, is to jacket the crewquarters and cockpit with LH2. This will
stop radiation. Then use the LH2 radiation jacket -- about 10 feet
thick -- for your final retrofire fuel. It also solves the
crewquarters and cockpit cooling problem. Two birds with one stone.
> Actually, being placed as entirely surrounded by your Atomic Slush
> Hydrogen might suggest the best possible location to being safely
> accommodated. Think about having all crew and passenger accommodations
> suspended within the center of your massive fuel storage tanks, which
> isn't such a bad notion since if anything goes wrong it really isn't
> going to matter where the crew and passengers are located. Of course,
> the more fuel consumed the worse off the TBI factors get, so what's the
> difference?
We are thinking along the same lines with regard to the radiation
problem.
> If you haven't gotten half the world so freaking pissed off at whatever
> you've been doing all along, such as per what our resent warlord(GW
> Bush) had been doing to our environment and of the humanity sequestered
> within, chances are fairly good that folks (including Muslims) would
> not have been having those notions of their having to kick your sorry
> butt.
The muslim extremists are being mind controlled by Aliens. They don't
know it. There is no other explanation for chanting "death to America"
in the Iranian parliment, or flying planes into New York City
skyscrapers.
Check out the number of UFO sightings in the Middle East and Iran area
in the last 5 years.
> Tell us a bit more about your spaceplane from hell that'll essentially
> burn off every last drop of oil and otherwise taking every last cubic
> meter of NG and coal in the process of your entertaining the upper most
> 0.1% of humanity, that is whenever you've managed to get yourself and
> your extremely brown-nose disconnected from your Skull and Bones
> buttology collective.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Skull and Bones
Club.
As far as tomcat's spaceplane is concerned the first 'very rough'
design has been completed.
It will be an equilateral triangle 340 feet to a side. It will be
powered by 11 SSME engines generating 5 million pounds of thrust and
supplemented by 2 SRBs generating another 6.6 million pounds of thrust
for a total of 11.6 million pounds of thrust at takeoff. Fully loaded
and fueled it will weight about 9 million pounds and have a cargo
capability of 1/4 million pounds.
Crew quarters and cockpit will be spacious and designed for a maximum
of 4 astronauts. Food and supplies for 2 years will be standard
regardless of mission length, thus allowing for an emergency reserve.
If the minimum crew requirement of 2 astronauts is onboard then the
reserve will extend to 4 years. No recycling of human waste will be
required. It gets dumped with the rest of the garbage.
The primary structural metal will be titanium. 2 nuclear reactors will
be located in the rear engine area with shielding to the spaceplane
side. They will provide electricity when the engines are idle. Ion
engines will also be in the engine area providing additional thrust
when the SSMEs are dormant. Both Corelle and silica tiles will be used
to reflect heat on the external hull. Carbon nanotube fabric will be
used if available for the outer hull underneath the tiles. It will be
used elsewhere where insulation is not a factor because it is thermally
conductive.
tomcat
Brad Guth
>government lies, people lie. Everybody except 'tomcat' that is.
obtainable as of decades ago, as only then will the furture have
meaning. Even lies become meaning once such are identified as lies.
>I tell the truth and nothing but the truth. "Thou shalt not bear false
>witness." If everyone observed that religious commandment America
>would get coordinated once again. Until then, take everything you hear
>with a "grain of salt."
I agree totally, except for that "grain of salt" is actually worth far
more than a good too many lies that have had us nearly into WW-III.
>Best, is to jacket the crewquarters and cockpit with LH2. This will
>stop radiation. Then use the LH2 radiation jacket -- about 10 feet
>thick -- for your final retrofire fuel. It also solves the
>crewquarters and cockpit cooling problem. Two birds with one stone.
Now you're talking, even if the thickness needs to become 10 meters
worth of LH2 or perhaps Atomic LH2.
It seems as though Atomic Hydrogen = slush H2O2 or perhaps even 2H2O2
on ice.
http://www.lenntech.com/Periodic-chart-elements/H-en.htm
"Although in general it's diatomic, molecular hydrogen dissociates
into free atoms at high temperatures. Atomic hydrogen is a powerful
reductive agent, even at ambient temperature. It reacts with the oxides
and chlorides of many metals, like silver, copper, lead, bismuth and
mercury, to produce free metals. It reduces some salts to their
metallic state, like nitrates, nitrites and sodium and potassium
cyanide. It reacts with a number of elements, metals and non-metals, to
produce hydrides, like NAH, KH, H2S and PH3. Atomic hydrogen produces
hydrogen peroxide, H2O2, with oxygen. With organic compounds Atomic
hydrogen reacts with organic compounds to form a complex mixture of
products; with etilene, C2H4, for instance, the products are ethane,
C2H6, and butane, C4H10. The heat released when the hydrogen atoms
recombine to form the hydrogen molecules is used to obtain high
temperatures in atomic hydrogen welding."
>The muslim extremists are being mind controlled by Aliens. They don't
>know it. There is no other explanation for chanting "death to America"
>in the Iranian parliment, or flying planes into New York City
>skyscrapers.
Unfortunately, those Aliens seem to look and act exactly like our
resident warlord(GW Bush). Of course, that would also explain quite a
bit about his actions as well as the remorseless actions of a few
others as having been using that sorry bastard as another one of their
puppets.
>It will be an equilateral triangle 340 feet to a side. It will be
>powered by 11 SSME engines generating 5 million pounds of thrust and
>supplemented by 2 SRBs generating another 6.6 million pounds of thrust
>for a total of 11.6 million pounds of thrust at takeoff. Fully loaded
>and fueled it will weight about 9 million pounds and have a cargo
>capability of 1/4 million pounds.
>Crew quarters and cockpit will be spacious and designed for a maximum
>of 4 astronauts. Food and supplies for 2 years will be standard
>regardless of mission length, thus allowing for an emergency reserve.
>If the minimum crew requirement of 2 astronauts is onboard then the
>reserve will extend to 4 years. No recycling of human waste will be
>required. It gets dumped with the rest of the garbage.
>The primary structural metal will be titanium. 2 nuclear reactors will
>be located in the rear engine area with shielding to the spaceplane
>side. They will provide electricity when the engines are idle. Ion
>engines will also be in the engine area providing additional thrust
>when the SSMEs are dormant. Both Corelle and silica tiles will be used
>to reflect heat on the external hull. Carbon nanotube fabric will be
>used if available for the outer hull underneath the tiles. It will be
>used elsewhere where insulation is not a factor because it is thermally
>conductive.
Absolutely impressive, though obviously this spaceplane isn't for at
least another decade, whereas perhaps by then we'll actually have
something better off than massive SSMEs and the likes of CNT that'll
become a bit more affordable and otherwise not so gosh darn slippery as
per whatever complex CNT binders come into play. Meanwhile, good old
and reliable composite basalt products will have long been a standard
of spacecraft, SMEs and you name it.
BTW; it's good to hear that you're not an assimilated member of the
Skull and Bones cult, which also insures that you'll not be getting a
red cent of public support. Thus private investors is the only
alternative unless you can convince DoD of the lethal capability of
your spaceplane on behalf of targeting Muslims or anyone else sitting
on another oily rock, especially an oily rock that's hiding another one
of those nasty WMD, whereas in which case the sky is the limit for
publicly funding your spaceplane.
Brad Guth;
- - - - - - If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it.
tomcat
> I agree totally, except for that "grain of salt" is actually worth far
> more than a good too many lies that have had us nearly into WW-III.
World War III is being orchestrated by the Aliens. "Divide and
conquer." They are up there . . . watching and waiting.
> It seems as though Atomic Hydrogen = slush H2O2 or perhaps even 2H2O2
> on ice.
Are there any thrust figures on H2O2? Is it really the equal of Atomic
Hydrogen?
I am suspicious that the new Atomic Hydrogen fuel gets some of its
kick from the helium expansion that comes with it. I wonder if 'helium
expansion' can be used with other fuels?
Helium may turn out to be a thrust booster even if it doesn't 'explode'
in a fiery sense.
> Absolutely impressive, though obviously this spaceplane isn't for at
> least another decade, whereas perhaps by then we'll actually have
> something better off than massive SSMEs and the likes of CNT that'll
> become a bit more affordable and otherwise not so gosh darn slippery as
> per whatever complex CNT binders come into play. Meanwhile, good old
> and reliable composite basalt products will have long been a standard
> of spacecraft, SMEs and you name it.
I agree that basalt is the material of the future. It is enormously
strong and insulative as well. Can you imagine a basalt fabric
lamination using graphite or boron epoxy. The composite strength of
the two materials would be fantastic.
BTW, insulation is an absolute necessity when working with cryogenic
fuels. Hydrogen tank innards are normally layered with waffled glass.
Ditto for LOX tanks.
tomcat
Brad Guth
If I'm the only available village idiot that your topic can manage to
get a reply out of, and considering upon the supposed vast wealth of
expertise and all-knowing wizards that otherwise coexist within this
Usenet that sucks and blows their disinformation infomercials like so
much used toilet paper, then what exactly does that tell yourself about
your impressive 11 SSME and Atomic Hydrogen powered spaceplane?
As I said before, it's likely doable and may essentially be of what's
ongoing underground at Area-51.
I happen to think of Ra-->LRn--Rn-->ion thrust that'll essentially
become lead is about as good of a use-it or lose-it reaction bang and
highly trustworthy thrust/kw as well as per kg as energy to thrust
conversion gets. Adding in a touch of Xe could even prove a bit testy
since the Rn/Xe-->ion matrix would become capable of exceeding what a
nuclear reaction involves. Such powerful ion thrusters may some day
become a whole lot better off than the conventional SSME alternatives,
especially for accommodating flights getting entirely away from the
gravity influence of mother Earth.
>Are there any thrust figures on H2O2? Is it really the equal of Atomic
>Hydrogen?
SR-71 was essentially a German H2O2/C12H26 rocket ship as having few
problems other than atmospheric heating and of getting enough refueling
while on the fly wasn't exactly end-user friendly failsafe, nor cheap.
Slush H2O2/C12H26 has been a viable rocket fuel matrix that's well
documented on the web.
Solid (100%) H2O2 and whatever you'd like to otherwise consume hasn't
been all that invisible.
>Helium may turn out to be a thrust booster even if it doesn't 'explode'
>in a fiery sense.
At those horrific combustion temperatures, almost anything becomes
thrust worthy, as possibly even LRn could help put the rocket thrust
peddle to the metal.
>I agree that basalt is the material of the future. It is enormously
>strong and insulative as well. Can you imagine a basalt fabric
>lamination using graphite or boron epoxy. The composite strength of
>the two materials would be fantastic.
What future? Basalt R&D as well as for all of the hard-science and laws
of physics involved haven't been new and/or improved upon for decades.
Basalt composites are right here and now. The "fabric laminations using
graphite or boron epoxy" as well as for any of that spendy and
otherwise slippery CNT is also what I'd call a win-win for this
composite gipper situation.
>BTW, insulation is an absolute necessity when working with cryogenic
>fuels. Hydrogen tank innards are normally layered with waffled glass.
>Ditto for LOX tanks.
As I've said dozens of times before, that a structural insulative
composite of basalt can be made worth R-1024/m, and far better yet if
it's just a dry balloon filler which is going to offer the capability
of exceeding R-2048/m if not approaching R-4096/m. Other than
representing a pesky factor of buoyancy; How good is that?
-
"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
-Stanislaus I
"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes,
but having new eyes."
-Marcel Proust
"Truth is given, not to be contemplated, but to be done. Life is an
action, not a thought."
-F.W. Robertson
Lynndel K. Humphreys
the intellectual intelligentsia.
"Brad Guth" <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133057495.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
Brad Guth
They(MicroSoft) can't even make their X-Box-360 survive from the
get-go, thus whatever's PC related is like having a barn with all four
sides wide open, then putting a hungry fox that had been supplied from
MI6/NSA~CIA encharge of security for all of your chickens.
>It tells me the Microsoft idiots do not know how to program
>to get away from the intellectual intelligentsia.
Lynndel K. Humphreys
Off topic but I plan to get a new PC (used Gateway but switching to Dell)
with Windows XP Media Center 2005. Don't know what I am getting into but I
live isolated so I pretty much have to go by their specs. The powerful Dell
models all have Media Center in their 600 XPS .
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
Brad Guth
I'm not at all sure if whatever "Media Center in their 600 XPS" is good
or bad, as other than LINUX there's no apparent alternative than having
a good hardware firewall interface that's essentially blocking all but
ascii and a limited amount of whatever HTML/hypertext from getting
through. Most of the so called improvements in operating systems and
PCs are designed specifically for improving the interactive gaming
alternatives, thus if anything you're getting worse off than without.
The more game capable your PC becomes, the more wide open to whatever
external spermware/malware (aka PC fuckware) you're getting, and
MicroSoft as well as MI6/NSA~CIA certainly knows all of that much if
not a whole lot more than they're willing to share.
It's like the ongoing crapolla being forced upon us by the likes of Art
Deco, Bookman, William Mook or all-knowing wizards such as "tomcat"
that are simply chuck full of themselves to the point of no return, and
these are just the very tip of their cesspool iceberg that's sucking
humanity into an early grave.
It's not that some of what "tomcat" and lord 'Mook' have to say isn't
obtainable, it's just that most of the rest of us minions get to either
pay for all it or die as we're trying.
Whereas my notions of Ra-->LRn-->Rn-->ion thrusting is just one of many
viable examples of getting the task of thrusting whatever accomplish
without inflicting nearly so much collateral damage and carnage of the
innocent, which is also much like my LSE-CM/ISS and of the other life
that's coexisting upon Venus is all about our having the capability of
achieving great things at a fraction of the environmental impact and at
a fraction of human and natural resources sacrificed along the way.
Along such lines of accomplishing something/anything that actually
matters, is there some expertise that you or of someone other you know
of could contribute?
William Mook
he or anyone who didn't want to should pay for anything. Only said
that using technology we have today we can make some serious effort to
develop off world resources with a good chance of making a profit, and
from that profit expand our space based culture.
As for radioactive decay of radium into radon - what Brad says is utter
nonsense. Natural radioactive decay proceeds according to the
half-life of the isotopes involved - and is essentially uncontrollable.
Fission and fusion can be controlled and can be made into some sort of
engine. Natural radioactive decay cannot be made into a usable engine.
Look up the terms fission, fusion, and radioactive decay and half-life
in Wikpedia for an understanding of why this is so;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life
It should also be noted that Brad, being seriously deranged, promotes
these insane ideas (i.e using radioactive decay of Radium to produce
some sort of nuclear rocket) that don't at core have any basis in
physical reality! So, should be written off entirely.
Of course, when you point this out to him he says you are thinking in a
small box. Yes, that small box is reality as we understand it today.
Brad then points out that he thinks in a larger box- the reality of the
future. Yes, that's perfectly understandable, but its not clear a) how
Brad can predict what we might know or not know in the future, b) how
Brad explains violating what is known today. I mean, while it may be
true that Einsteinian relativitiy is quite different than Newtonian
relativity, it is also true that in the limit - all of Newton's
predictions and calculations are supported by Einstein. and c) how Brad
expects anyone to use an unknown process to achieve anything today.
When these reasonable objections are pointed out to Brad he is the type
of person who then uses very bad language and asserts your parentage is
suspect.
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <1133380168....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
> Natural radioactive decay cannot be made into a usable engine.
Not an "engine" per se but certainly into a usable power source (e.g.,
RTGs).
--
"Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever." ~Anonymous
"I believe as little as possible and know as much as I can."
~Todd Stuart Phillips
<www.angryherb.net>
William Mook
produce low levels of power over long periods due to long half-lifes.
Radium to Radon to Lead emitting ions to produce thrust would produce a
low to lower level of thrust halving their output every 10 days or so -
which isn't something we can use as a magic bullet that will give us
general access to space all by itself, especially since its difficult
to imagine a way to generate more than 1/100th gee with them even when
starting out with pure radium at first.
Brad Guth
>he says you are thinking in a small box.
1) you're not pointing much of anything out by way of quoting from some
bible of conditional physics.
2) I never stipulated the Ra-->LRn-->Rn-->ions process as intended for
being the prime mover.
3) Earth has lots of Ra and thereby more than it's fair share of Rn
than it knows what to do with, so much so that we're prematurely dying
from all of it turning into lead.
4) a good cash of LRn could be made available for an accumulated
booster shot of extra thrust, possibly even reacting along with
something other like a good dosage of LXe-->Xe-->ions, that if combined
with the Rn-->ions should manage to contribute quite a bit of thrust
per MJ, GJ or even TJ that might become the launch phase of energy
influx to ponder.
5) once external to Earth's gravity is where the 1600 year half life of
an Ra-->LRn breeder reactor is just the best ticket to fly. Of course,
I'm thinking of employing a fairly large array of such ion thrusters
that might involve 100 m2 per rigid-airship/shuttle craft, with each m2
capable of accepting a MJ worth of energy influx that'll subsequently
convert a fair amount of the available Rn into those soon to become
lead ions.
>c) how Brad expects anyone to use an unknown process to achieve anything today.
All that I expect is a reasonable look-see at the options that I'm
suggesting. If I had wanted everything that I've had to say, as per
such getting summarily bashed and/or banished, I'd have requested that
form of topic/author bashing response the very get-go.
>It should also be noted that Brad, being seriously deranged, promotes
>these insane ideas (i.e using radioactive decay of Radium to produce
>some sort of nuclear rocket) that don't at core have any basis in
>physical reality! So, should be written off entirely.
It should be noted that all of the sudden we have lord/wizard Mook
that's becoming all-knowing again. Imagine that, and on-again,
off-again Mook. Perhaps Mook "should be written off entirely".
BTW; the likes of Tessla and even a few times Einstein was "seriously
deranged" or at least unhinged.
BTW No.2; How much would folks pay us to get rid of a few tonnes of Ra,
thus eliminating the Rn-->lead demise of life as we know it?
Dr John Stockton
, dated Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:11:24 local, seen in news:sci.space.shuttle,
William Mook <willia...@mokindustries.com> posted :
>
>Radium to Radon to Lead emitting ions to produce thrust would produce a
>low to lower level of thrust halving their output every 10 days or so -
The half-life of Radium is about 1620 years; such an engine would
correspondingly have longer service life and lesser thrust, each by a
factor of around 50000.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. *@merlyn.demon.co.uk / ??.Stoc...@physics.org ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Correct <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (SoRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SoRFC1036)
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
> tomcat,
> If I'm the only available village idiot that your topic can manage to
> get a reply out of, and considering upon the supposed vast wealth of
> expertise and all-knowing wizards that otherwise coexist within this
> Usenet that sucks and blows their disinformation infomercials like so
> much used toilet paper, then what exactly does that tell yourself about
> your impressive 11 SSME and Atomic Hydrogen powered spaceplane?
The things I am writing about regarding a SSTP HTOL spaceplane is
shocking to the Usenet. They regard it as naivete. It is not.
It is commonsense. The tiles work. They have been used on many, many
successful Shuttle flights. Are the tiles perfect? No. Nothing is
perfect.
NASA is knocking titanium because it is covering up an error made back
in the 70's. Titanium, back then, was an extremely expensive and
difficult to work with metal. The tremendous heat of hypersonic flight
in an atmosphere was underestimated as well.
Another problem that 'appears' unsolvable is the necessity of large
amounts of LH2 to achieve orbit or escape velocity.
First, it does not take 20 minutes of thrust to achieve orbit or escape
velocity. With a proper thrust to weight ratio, initially 1:1, a
spaceplane can achieve orbit within 4 minutes. The 1:1 quickly becomes
2:1 as the fuel is consumed, then 3:1, and so forth.
Second, the equilateral triangle design accommodates more fuel storage
than most designs. This is probably why Venture Star was roughly an
equilateral triangle. I believe that 7 minutes of LH2 is possible with
this design. Slush tanks may double the amount of 'burn' time.
Third, I am not a purist. Two SRBs generate 6.6 million pounds of
thrust and cost, a diminishing, 2 million pounds in weight. That
amounts to 4.6 million pounds of usable, additional thrust. One
possibility is to retain the RATO SRBs instead of jettisoning them.
With a spaceplane extreme hypersonic speed will be accomplished in the
atmosphere where SRB turbulance and heating is to be avoided.
So, the problems are solvable afterall. My solutions to modify the
tiles, change the shape, and use Horizontal takeoff and land solve the
Shuttle problems.
The Shuttle situation reminds me of the Vietnam strategy problem.
Search and destroy was the American alternative to the French forts.
It worked. It threw the enemy off balance so that a concentrated
attack on American bases was all but impossible. But the executive
demands of not taking the war to the North led to a chronic ongoing war
that the American people did not want.
'Institutional momentum' dictated that Search and Destroy continue
because it had worked to preserve operational bases while preventing
South Vietnam from being overrun. Anyone opposing Search and Destroy
was 'eliminated' from the officer corps. How dare anyone have a
different idea!
With total in country troop strength at 700,000 men in the 1968 time
frame it would have been possible to 'seal' the border using artillery
bases along the border with North Vietnam. Once established such a
barrier would have required far fewer troops. The war would have wound
down. The North's takeover would have been stopped.
But, ideas of this type were called 'Maginot Line" theories and gunned
down . . . or ignored all together. (Pretty much the same as SSTO HTOL
is today) The culprit: Institutional Momentum. Search and Destroy
had become the holy of holies. Thou shalt not speak against it!
The continuence of 'Search and Destroy' cost America the holding action
against the North's communist takeover. Search and Destroy, so potent
in the early stages of the war when American troop strength was
marginal, had lost the war when conditions had changed.
NASA's Space Program is in a similiar fix. The situation has changed.
New, fully developed technology has made the SSTP HTOL possible. Back
in the 70's technology and knowledge of hypersonics was not advanced
enough for the concept. Banks would not fund the many designs, such as
Star Raker and Venture Star. The bankers were right -- for that time
frame.
Today, both the technology and knowledge of hypersonics exists.
Titanium is a moderately expensive, very machinable metal. Slush tanks
have solved the LH2 capacity problem so that the useless weight of
jets, scrams (not developed in the 70's), as well as rockets is no
longer necessary. The SSME can pretty much do the job, with the SRBs
as additional insurance of reaching escape velocity quickly enough to
have a significant fuel reserve remaining.
The situation has changed. But the 'Institutional Momentum' of the
Usenet has not.
tomcat
Brad Guth
As I've contributed on your behalf before, I have no doubts that your
nuclear impulse formulated rockets are going to fly, as perhaps a
controlled series of small H-bombs worth of directed thrust that should
manage to get damn near anything launched and if need be entirely away
from the gravity influence of mother Earth, and I'd certainly much
rather see that nasty stuff of whatever U235 being utilized for that
sort of task than for creating MOS nuclear WMD that can only lead us
into deeper terrestrial fiascos than imaginable.
I wonder, why haven't we been utilizing this relatively old and at
least technically proven technology?
The great and supposedly powerful 'US of A' hasn't exactly given an
honest tinker squat about what others have had to say for decades, so
why haven't we been using your "Orion Lite" that you've suggested as
being such a technological done-deal as of a decade ago?
Utilizing nuke-impulse watever as main launch energy is certainly going
to become great for accomplishing the task of tossing seriously big
tonnage and/or longer hauls into space, even though such a nuclear
impulse method of a rocket engine isn't exactly what the doctor ordered
for actually getting folks and their technology safely to/from the
nasty earthshine illuminated surface of our moon, nor with regard to
achieving a safe and sane deployment upon most any other low
atmospheric density orb. However, it certainly would do just fine and
dandy for the task of deploying of our first minimal tethered CM/ISS
module as placed into the one and only LL1/ME-L1 station-keeping mode,
as for perhaps being situated at roughly 64,000 km off the lunar deck,
a bit closer depending upon the secondary tether dipole element
extension that's trailing back directly towards mother Earth. After
all, 64,000 km of a basalt composite tether is still going to weigh
something fearse, as even if it's initially all the way down to a
slinder kg/km, as that's still 64 tonnes plus the initial CM/ISS
starter platform and anchor probe that should bring the starter package
up to at least 100 tonnes, or roughly double what those NASA/Apollo
efforts achieved.
However, it seems a bit more than likely that we'd be looking at at 10
kg/km for this first tether deployment, thus a composite of involving
640 tonnes plus a fairly substantial anchor probe and of the initial
robotic science platform that's going to be kept somewhat interactively
situated at 64,000 km off the lunar deck is certainly where a good
sequence of H-bomb impulse powered rocket thrust might become our one
and only alternative.
Even though the LL1/ME-L1 is supposedly 84.86% of the distance to the
moon, making the raw nullification or gravity-well as merely Lr-22
(38,236 km) away from the lunar center and thereby Er-54.275 (346,166
km) away from the center of Earth, meaning that the true LL1/ME-L1
interactive sweet-spot involves other forces being at play that'll keep
certain nervous folks awake at their CPU intensive consoles
sufficiently busy while all of this is tether establishing effort is
settling in for the long haul.
LL1/ME-L1 = 15.14% (84.86% from Earth)
http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/gravity3.htm#CLL
LL1/ME-L1 = 58,198 km (using 384,400 km average distance)
For the initial bit of good tether tensioning measure, as this is why I
was thinking outside the box of establishing an offset towards Earth as
ME-L1.1 = 16.665% = 64,060 km
Perhaps because I'm such a village idiot that I simply don't know any
better, nor has my need-to-know access to learning of whatever others
claim to know having been all that usable from those of such gosh darn
all-knowing wizardology, whereas in lue of my not being informed
otherwise is why I've therefore suggested an initial target level of
establishing 64,000 km off the deck, as for being good enough for
argument sake, thereby we're now tethered what should become the 1.28
km borg like CM/ISS sphere at a capably good enough tension by way of
being 65,738 away the lunar core. Whereas the CM/ISS volume and mass
increases by perhaps 10 fold per year, and the tether dipole element
gets equally a bit more massive to suit, whereas this form of give and
take should allow a somewhat closer interactive distance from the moon.
Once established and having a robotic base of lunar surface operations
ongoing, as this is when there's no apparent limits as to further
improving upon the fully operational LSE-CM/ISS, of which I'll
obviously have to further edit and update most of my pages upon this
topic by way of my having to accomplish this task pretty much alone
because, it seems folks like yourselves have been too afraid of the big
bad wolf that's not me, therefore I obviously can't share credits other
than for all the flak I've received.
Because of the interactive 'tether dipole element' and a few other
interactive factors, the actual final CM/ISS(1.28 km orb w/1e9 m3 ISS
depot/abode within) placement can eventually become established a bit
closer to the lunar surface, as possibly configured at 60,000 km off
the deck. However, I don't suppose that your automatic naysay mindset
even comes close to understanding this form of a technical challenge,
much less caring enough to contribute as to such numbers?
Forbid the thought that folks might honestly consider, what could such
an operational Lunar Space Elevator achieve, of it's primary tethers
and tether dipole element possibly contribute to the future salvation
of humanity and of our environment, much less for contributing
Earth-science, moon-science, the advancement of safe and efficient
space-travel, and obviously affording extreme astronomy?
Brad Guth
>The things I am writing about regarding a SSTP HTOL spaceplane is
>shocking to the Usenet. They regard it as naivete. It is not.
alternatives of space wizard "William Mook" are worth doing, and
thereby of honest folks contributing by way of their sharing in a
constructive positive way of contributing their two cents worth of
talent and expertise is all that we're asking for, but lo and behold it
isn't going to come without their WW-III tagging along for the ride. As
I've told you and so many other snookered and thus dumbfounded fools,
this MI6/NSA~CIA Usenet that obviously brown-nose sucks and blows on
behalf of entirely benefiting their perpetrated cold-wars and now on
behalf of their GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA rusemaster saving thy butts via as
much dog wagging, infomercial disinformation spin and otherwise the
likes of WMD damage-control, that as such there's no way of honest
ideas or even the discovery of other significant life having been
coexisting upon Venus seeing the light of day, as such simply isn't
going to fly on their watch.
>The situation has changed. But the 'Institutional Momentum' of the
>Usenet has not.
How freaking true, that we're now situated so much deeper into the
nearest space-toilet and otherwise sequestered onboard their good ship
LOLLIPOP that's been sinking into their own cesspools of sanctimonious
arrogance, greed and otherwise nasty cloak and dagger pot loads of
disinformation.
This time around I'm taking a strong liking to many of your
interpretations and approprate analogies that are perhaps offering
folks a wee bit too much of the truth and nothing but the truth.
Instead of our going in twelve different directions at once, would you
care to focus upon accomplishing something constructive? Whereas if you
can manage to help me, I'll certainly be obliged as to returning the
favor.
-
"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
-Stanislaus I
"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes,
but having new eyes."
-Marcel Proust
"Truth is given, not to be contemplated, but to be done. Life is an
action, not a thought."
-F.W. Robertson
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree far beyond; WAR is WAR, thus "in war
there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of honest
folks having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been playing
by whatever the supposed rules, such as our resident LLPOF warlord(GW
Jorge R. Frank
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> NASA is knocking titanium because it is covering up an error made back
> in the 70's.
Really? I don't suppose you could produce a single citation of NASA
"knocking" titanium, could you?
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Brad Guth
There's been quite a bit that "tomcat" can't manage to produce.
However, at least his intentions are sufficiently truth-worthy and
certainly worth having contributed some positive reinforcements and/or
of sharing a few alternatives that might actually help.
I don't entirely agree with his every notions of using such an array of
those fuel sucking SSMEs for his do-everything spaceplane, but I do
agree that some of his spaceplane notions are as well founded as they
can be, considering the degree of disinformation and need-to-know
environment that has been the case.
NASA's shunning of titanium is somewhat the truth, whereas other than
ceramic tiles and of pyrex windows, aluminum usage is seemingly 99% of
just about everything that goes to/from space. Thus I agree that such
super alloys of titanium and especially of basalt composites are being
kept on the back burner if not entirely banished without just cause.
Private enterprise has already been forced into using such super alloys
and the likes of basalt composites because they'll take a serious
licking and keep on ticking, thus offering the most investment bang for
the buck while otherwise impacting the given spaceplane by their
contributing the least amount of mass. Therefore "tomcat" isn't even
reinventing the wheel, as for the most part he's just re-utilizing the
existing wheels that others have long since achieved.
-
"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
-Stanislaus I
"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes,
but having new eyes."
-Marcel Proust
"Truth is given, not to be contemplated, but to be done. Life is an
action, not a thought."
-F.W. Robertson
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree far beyond; WAR is WAR, thus "in war
there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of honest
folks having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been playing
by whatever the supposed rules, such as our resident LLPOF warlord(GW
tomcat
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
> "tomcat" <jla...@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:1133476681.252722.276050
> @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>
> > NASA is knocking titanium because it is covering up an error made back
> > in the 70's.
>
> Really? I don't suppose you could produce a single citation of NASA
> "knocking" titanium, could you?
NASA pointed out, probably accurately, that if titanium had been used
for Shuttle Columbia's skin the 'skin melt' would only have taken 13
seconds longer. Aluminum melts at about 1000 deg. F., while titanium
can hold out to about 2000 deg. F.
Long ago, circa 1970, NASA had quite a feud over using 'steel' rather
than aluminum for the Shuttle. Whether or not this was 'titanium
steel' they were considering is uncertain. Steel, though denser than
aluminum, is much stronger than aluminum as well. Steel can be,
therefore, thinned to half the thickness of aluminum resulting in very
little, if any, weight increase for the required strength.
Aluminum was in vogue back in the 70's. It could be purchased cheaply
and was easy to work with. The aviation industry was used to working
with 'aircraft grade' aluminum. The cost of the Shuttle was of
concern. So, a decision was made to go with aluminum, not steel.
Today, we know that 'steel' would have been the better choice. Today,
we also know that 'composite' is superior even to steel for most
applications. The B-2 bomber and the F-22 are both made of composite
materials.
Niconel and ablatives are used on the Shuttle for heat dissipation as
well as the ceramic tiles. It makes one wonder that if titanium had
been used under the ablative blanket in the wheel well, if it might
have held up. NASA says "no." And, frankly, I don't know.
Today, we know that the extreme air friction of hypersonic flight was
not exaggerated in the physics calculations. It takes careful
engineering and the use of ceramics to defeat it. But it can be done.
tomcat
Jorge R. Frank
news:1133582763.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>> "tomcat" <jla...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
>> news:1133476681.252722.276050 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > NASA is knocking titanium because it is covering up an error made
>> > back in the 70's.
>>
>> Really? I don't suppose you could produce a single citation of NASA
>> "knocking" titanium, could you?
>
>
>
> NASA pointed out, probably accurately, that if titanium had been used
> for Shuttle Columbia's skin the 'skin melt' would only have taken 13
> seconds longer. Aluminum melts at about 1000 deg. F., while titanium
> can hold out to about 2000 deg. F.
Really? Where did "NASA" point that out? That 13-second number came from
the CAIB, not NASA.
> Long ago, circa 1970, NASA had quite a feud over using 'steel' rather
> than aluminum for the Shuttle. Whether or not this was 'titanium
> steel' they were considering is uncertain. Steel, though denser than
> aluminum, is much stronger than aluminum as well. Steel can be,
> therefore, thinned to half the thickness of aluminum resulting in very
> little, if any, weight increase for the required strength.
>
> Aluminum was in vogue back in the 70's. It could be purchased cheaply
> and was easy to work with. The aviation industry was used to working
> with 'aircraft grade' aluminum. The cost of the Shuttle was of
> concern. So, a decision was made to go with aluminum, not steel.
>
> Today, we know that 'steel' would have been the better choice.
No, you don't "know" that. And stop using 'steel' as your codeword for
titanium; we all know what your particular hobby-horse is. As Henry
Spencer pointed out, titanium has poor thermal conductivity compared to
aluminum. When exposed to localized heating, as in the case of Columbia,
aluminum tends to spread the heat out a lot more, so although it has a
much lower melting point, it tends to reach that melting point more
slowly.
> Today,
> we also know that 'composite' is superior even to steel for most
> applications. The B-2 bomber and the F-22 are both made of composite
> materials.
Neither of them experience temperatures anywhere near what the shuttle
experiences.
> Niconel and ablatives are used on the Shuttle for heat dissipation as
> well as the ceramic tiles. It makes one wonder that if titanium had
> been used under the ablative blanket in the wheel well, if it might
> have held up. NASA says "no."
No, the CAIB says "no", unless you can produce a quote from NASA saying
otherwise.
> And, frankly, I don't know.
I'm not surprised. There's a lot you don't know.
> Today, we know that the extreme air friction of hypersonic flight was
> not exaggerated in the physics calculations. It takes careful
> engineering and the use of ceramics to defeat it. But it can be done.
It might help if you actually applied some careful engineering rather
than pulling ideas out of your ass.
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
> I totally agree, that what yourself and even the nuclear impulse
> alternatives of space wizard "William Mook" are worth doing, and
> thereby of honest folks contributing by way of their sharing in a
> constructive positive way of contributing their two cents worth of
> talent and expertise is all that we're asking for, but lo and behold it
> isn't going to come without their WW-III tagging along for the ride.
World War III is being perpetrated by Aliens. They are using 'Divide
and Conquer' on the Earth. And, we are like "Little Red Riding Hood"
remarking about the 'big eyes' and 'big teeth' Grandma has.
The Aliens are superior to us at 'Mind Control'. Don't trust your
thoughts!
> This time around I'm taking a strong liking to many of your
> interpretations and approprate analogies that are perhaps offering
> folks a wee bit too much of the truth and nothing but the truth.
>
> Instead of our going in twelve different directions at once, would you
> care to focus upon accomplishing something constructive? Whereas if you
> can manage to help me, I'll certainly be obliged as to returning the
> favor.
Imagine, Brad, wrapping basalt fabric around hollow aluminum columns
and boxes, using JB-WELD as the binder. Then, pumping the air out so
that they float up to the floors under construction. Or, if they are
to be used as supporting structures, instead of walls and the like,
they have compressed air added to them making them enormously strong
with little added weight.
World wide construction might need a 'trillion dollars' or so a year of
that stuff. Not a bad market! Aluminum, basalt, and JB-WELD are the
materials of the future!
tomcat
Brad Guth
Usenet contributor "tomcat" isn't nearly as perfect as the likes of
yourself. However, even though I do not agree with the basis of many of
his suggestions, he dose own and pretty much operate by way of whatever
his pagan lord and master's (aka NASA) bible has to offer. Whereas his
spaceplane and notions of using the likes of titanium alloys along with
the 4.84 GPa basalt and perhaps even a bit of spendy CNT composites
isn't without just cause, taken from perfectly honest research and
thoughts that are obviously the sorts of free thoughts outlawed within
NASA, whereas knowing too much about anything and especially about many
things is potentially lethal.
1) there's no such thing as one and only one formulated alloy as being
titanium, as there are dozens of such titanium alloys, each tailored to
suit a given application.
2) It's an alloy of titanium and not one of aluminum that's utilized
throughout most all hot sections of a jet/turbine engine that are
associated with the sorts of thermal plasma, as well as most likely of
what's involved within all critical thermal plasma related workings of
any SSME.
3) there are a few other thermally tough allows than having the
"titanium" tag, that are even somewhat better yet, none of which
involves your beloved "aluminum" unless you're talking about a
sacrificial application.
4) thermal heat transferring is a two-way ticket to ride. Whereas it's
a wee but better off having an isolated hot-spot or two that can be
easily shield form affected the internal workings and crew, that a
whole lot better than having total structural failures running amuck.
5) taking "tomcat's" information out of context and using it as
leverage in order to improve upon your point of argument is exactly the
sort of proof-positive that you're every bit as brown-nosed and
intellectually incest cloned as they come.
6) It might help if you actually applied some careful engineering
rather than pulling ideas out of your mainstream status quo ass, such
as using hard-science and the regular laws of physics for a change,
although that'll mean picking out your extremely brown-nose, as clean
enough to breath again.
7) Depending upon the alloy and thickness of titanium, I'd have to
place the reentry thermal tolerance at 130 seconds better off than
aluminum, therefore way more than the 13 seconds as suggested by
NASA/CAIB, thus affording enough time to have said the Lord's Prayer.
Somewhat thicker applications of composite layers of titanium and
basalt composites as for providing insulative inter-layer binders
should become capable of offering 1300 seconds to the untiled
burn-through criteria of achieving total structural failure.
8) Criminal negligence of homicide needs to be placed upon the backs of
those responsible for their piss-poor inspections and deficient
servicing of the protective thermal tiles, as well as per the R&D teams
as having their butt-protecting 'so what's the difference' policy of
essentially not doing their jobs.
9) There's no excuse for the shuttle not having a composite covered
hull of mostly titanium that's ceramic coated and/or as having scale
like ceramic tiles that are mechanically associated with the primary
hull, then also having an internal backing of a thermal barrier which
could also have been of a light weight but otherwise structural basalt
composite. Essentially a matrix of composite barrer layers that if
damaged would sufficiently survive reentry.
10) Regardless of the quality and thermal capability of the outer hull,
as for so much as running into an empty beer-can at such velocity is
not an acceptable option by which a single all-or-nothing design can
survive.
The sorts of advanced spaceplanes being suggested by "Robert Mook" as
having no mass limitations and otherwise especially that of what
"tomcat" has proposed as inert becoming darn near buoyant will require
a fully serviceable primary, secondary and possibly even a third viable
barrier on behalf of at least protecting the crew, that which combined
will essentially take a horrific physical and thermal licking and keep
on ticking. Whereas your butt-saving insistence that only aluminum
alloys need be involved as the primary hull, as covered by essentially
ceramic post-it notes with lose gap fillers that together remain as
non-structural items of each tile thus individually ultra critical as
being all or nothing simply is not acceptable.
Obviously a singular paper thin layer of whatever titanium hull, or of
most any alternative ultra-alloy, isn't going to be survivable as naked
of tiles unless there are a few survivable layers backing that up. A
reduction in reentry mass/m3 is certainly another worthy look-see, as
proposed by the "tomcat" ultralite spaceplane that would have become
nearly if not potentially buoyant at 50,000'. In other words, depending
upon whatever returning payload, the ultralite spaceplane as
essentially being a rigid-airship would have to allow atmosphere into
the massive volumes of essentially empty tanks enclosing the near
vacuum of space in order to land. Applying this very same concept to
Venus and you'll get my ultralite spaceplane drift, or perhaps you're
simply too dumbfounded for even considering that much.
Of course, I personaly feel that manned space flights as a whole are
unacceptable investments no matters what, especially since we still
haven't a viable fly-by-rocket lander, nor a space-station-depot that's
LL1/ME-L1 situated and much less having been tethered to the moon as
our one and only viable home away from home. Space flights via robotics
isn't 0.1% the investment of anything manned, nor are robotics going to
take 10% the time in order to have achieved the given task and goals
that are needed for the near future. The only reason we'd need to
personally leave Earth is because of the likes of certain LLPOF fools
what would justify our past, present and future as based upon
perpetrating whatever it takes in order to get us unto WW-III.
There is not actually any shortage of easily accessible clean energy
within the environment of Earth, whereas the green/renewable
alternatives of obtaining a footprint worthy of 25 kw/m2 isn't
insurmountable, that is other than the nearly insurmountable mainstream
arrogance, greed and intellectual plus biological bigotry that's still
running us amuck, which has cased wars in the past, of the present and
will most likely involve even nastier wars as based upon the lack of
and spendy remainders of fossil/geological and of nuclear fuels in the
near future, all of which are rather nasty and spendy to obtain in the
first place, extra spendy in order to safely process, as per storage
thereof and/or lifetime berrials thereof, physical transportings and to
otherwise safely distribute/transmit such energy to the end-users.
Jorge R. Frank
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> 5) taking "tomcat's" information out of context and using it as
> leverage in order to improve upon your point of argument is exactly the
> sort of proof-positive that you're every bit as brown-nosed and
> intellectually incest cloned as they come.
Awright! I made the list!
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <Xns97228254...@216.196.97.131>):
> "Brad Guth" <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1133721842.669027.16620
> @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> 5) taking "tomcat's" information out of context and using it as
>> leverage in order to improve upon your point of argument is exactly the
>> sort of proof-positive that you're every bit as brown-nosed and
>> intellectually incest cloned as they come.
>
> Awright! I made the list!
>
>
Guth's the biggest loon on sci.space, and darn near the biggest loon in
the Western Hemisphere. You've hit the big time, Jorge.
Willia...@gmail.com
half-lives you mention. This means they have correspondingly lower
power levels to weight, hence thrust to weight.
Willia...@gmail.com
Besides, we're already engaged in a global conflict - its called War on
Terror.
I suppose you mean by World War 3 - a global nuclear conflagration. I
think that very unlikely. More likely, but still of low probability is
a limited nuclear conflict on the India sub-continent. Along with this
we might perhaps see a few cities outside this region destroyed by
terrorist nukes over the same period. These nukes will most likely be
supplied by the likes of Korea, or even the former Soviet Union
stockpiles likely by way of Pakistan.
Our response to these outcomes should they occur are likely to be to
engage in programs that take centralized control of all nuclear
materials throughout the world. That is, the US and its allies (which
will include Russia, and other former Soviet Republics) will view the
mere possession of nuclear materials or the capacity to process nuclear
materials as an act of war. They will create an international army to
carry out this program.
This will lead to the generall abandonment of nuclear weapons and
nuclear power plants altogether and an international army dedicated to
rooting out and eliminating nuclear capabilities. If this army is paid
for by taxes imposed on those they 'protect' - this system of
international control could be called the first global empire - whose
first rule of order is to secure nuclear peace. Anti-terror,
anti-crime, anti-pollution, anti-disease, disaster relief, efforts
could naturally be added to this primary directive.
If this happens it will be a latter day version of the Baruch Plan
offered to the UN after the second world war.
Its easy to see that such an international policing body will also
easily acquire new political goals shared by everyone - for example,
global pollution, global diseases, global catastrophes of any type -
could be added to the mix of things this new international body would
ultimately take responsibility for.
These are all outcomes not of a vast global consipracy - but of the
natural working out of general wide spread access to high technology -
and our natural response to the problems this creates resulting in the
global paradigms those technologies impose. This will also be the end
of today's modern nation-state, with only the US having any real
international powers.
Generally speaking, assuming market principles are adhered to world
wide, if humanity has access to sufficient amounts of energy and other
strategic materials at reasonable cost - we can expect rapid and
continuous progress and a general improvement in living conditions on
Earth. This will ultimately result in a period of declining
populations and very high living standards. This will be supported
largely by off world resources found in interplanetary space.
Accelerating development along the lines favorable to the highest
ultimate outcome would pay huge dividends today. Adopting elements of
a Baruch like plan today would result in less loss of life over the
next half century. Arranging for more private capital flow to
interplanetary development will result in higher living standards being
arrived at more quickly.
Greater space investment can efficiently achieved by proper arrangement
of tax laws, changes in regulatory environment, and changes in
availability of now classified information related to nuclear and
rocket technologies - making them available to qualified vendors.
Afaict we are not presently being visited by aliens, and there is no
vast international conspiracy to do anything. Aliens certainly exist -
but according to the best available evidence ETIs are common on the
scale of the universe, and rare on the scale of galaxies - so
interstellar visits are very unlikely - otherwise we'd get far more
positive response to NASA's SETI and Harvard's BETA programs. UFO
sitings, like the sitings of ghosts and spirits in the past, have been
shown to be the result of psychological and psycho-pharmacological
phenomenon. This is especially clear when one reads about the effects
of DMT and other psychoactive substances on the perception of subjects
exposed to these substances.
Now, there are vast international efforts to support the illegal
distribution of drugs as well as international efforts at supporting a
variety of national covert interests - but these have little to do with
the sorts of things imagined by Brad in his posts. That is the US does
indeed use the CIA where appropriate to enforce its global military and
economic hegemony - this is not to be confused with the sort of
fantasies imagined by Brad in his posts.
Brad Guth
the hard and honest workmanship of so many others, as based upon well
accepted matter of facts as further and supported by the regular laws
of physics is considered as how folks like myself are to be taken as
That must represent that Einstein and Tessla are seriously big loosers
in your good book (aka MI6/NSA~CIA bible/koran).
Brad Guth
limits might offer a bit more of a LRn cash to work with. Thus more
volume of Rn getting matched up with a few hunderd MJ or perhaps a GJ
of applied energy ott to get those extra hefty atoms of Rn-->lead as
ions going rather quickly.
Rn is already a fairly active element, thus the applied energy of
inducing another MJ/m2 worth of creating ion thrust should become
impressive.
What's the maximum energy influx per m2 of ion thruster before
everything melts itself down to nothing?
Brad Guth
"Natural radioactive decay" can be taken advantage of before it's too
late.
Venting and the usual or customary burn-off of spare methanes and of
natural gas that's usually somewhat loaded with nasty amounts of
radiation, as transpiring at the wellheads and refineries is also an
example of a use-it or lose-it situation. There's currently no law that
requires us to utilize the MJ per minute or perhaps even per second
that's being nearly continually wasted as we speak, but that doesn't
represent that someone might come along suggesting otherwise, as to
utilizing such energy for perfectly good intentions.
Radiun(Ra)-->Radon(Rn)-->lead is simply another use-it or lose-it
opportunity, in that there's no law forcing us to do anything with such
highly reactive substances that are eventually going to turn into lead.
What parts of our already badly polluted and artificially
global-warming surface environment is in need of receiving the warm and
fuzzy benefits of more Rn-->lead?
Dr John Stockton
, dated Sun, 4 Dec 2005 11:34:04 local, seen in news:sci.space.shuttle,
Willia...@gmail.com posted :
>Depends on the isotopes - but, yes, there are isotopes wih the
>half-lives you mention. This means they have correspondingly lower
>power levels to weight, hence thrust to weight.
>
>Dr John Stockton wrote:
>> JRS: In article <1133388684.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>> , dated Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:11:24 local, seen in news:sci.space.shuttle,
>> William Mook <willia...@mokindustries.com> posted :
>> >
>> >Radium to Radon to Lead emitting ions to produce thrust would produce a
>> >low to lower level of thrust halving their output every 10 days or so -
>>
>> The half-life of Radium is about 1620 years; such an engine would
>> correspondingly have longer service life and lesser thrust, each by a
>> factor of around 50000.
>>
>> --
>> ©
Don't quote signatures.
Respond after trimmed quotes.
Don't keep changing your E-identity; it is a discourtesy to users of
kill-files.
The term "Radium" without qualification means the natural isotope,
Rn 226, which has a half-life of 1620 years or so.
Radon is a direct decay product of Rn 226.
tomcat
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
> Really? Where did "NASA" point that out? That 13-second number came from
> the CAIB, not NASA.
>From my point of view, whether the "13 seconds" came from NASA or CAIB
is immaterial. My statements were an analysis, not NASA knocking.
> > Today, we know that 'steel' would have been the better choice.
> No, you don't "know" that. And stop using 'steel' as your codeword for
> titanium; we all know what your particular hobby-horse is. As Henry
> Spencer pointed out, titanium has poor thermal conductivity compared to
> aluminum. When exposed to localized heating, as in the case of Columbia,
> aluminum tends to spread the heat out a lot more, so although it has a
> much lower melting point, it tends to reach that melting point more
> slowly.
The X-15 program had a similiar problem. Certain fittings were made of
copper because copper was highly thermal conductive and would "spread
the heat out a lot more . . .". The copper, however, melted anyway.
Then they developed niconel X.
Put simply: Aluminum is not a good material for high temperature
applications.
tomcat
Jorge R. Frank
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>> Really? Where did "NASA" point that out? That 13-second number came from
>> the CAIB, not NASA.
>
> From my point of view, whether the "13 seconds" came from NASA or CAIB
> is immaterial. My statements were an analysis, not NASA knocking.
Incorrect. You have stated that NASA "knocked" titanium, when in fact the
source was the CAIB and that the CAIB didn't "knock" titanium, they merely
stated the results of their *analysis* that Columbia would have survived
only 13 seconds longer had it been made of titanium. You have presented no
*analysis* to the contrary. If you have actually performed analysis, now is
the time to present it.
William Mook
Dr John Stockton wrote:
> JRS: In article <1133724844.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
> , dated Sun, 4 Dec 2005 11:34:04 local, seen in news:sci.space.shuttle,
> Willia...@gmail.com posted :
> >Depends on the isotopes - but, yes, there are isotopes wih the
> >half-lives you mention. This means they have correspondingly lower
> >power levels to weight, hence thrust to weight.
> >
> >Dr John Stockton wrote:
> >> JRS: In article <1133388684.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> >> , dated Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:11:24 local, seen in news:sci.space.shuttle,
> >> William Mook <willia...@mokindustries.com> posted :
> >> >
> >> >Radium to Radon to Lead emitting ions to produce thrust would produce a
> >> >low to lower level of thrust halving their output every 10 days or so -
> >>
> >> The half-life of Radium is about 1620 years; such an engine would
> >> correspondingly have longer service life and lesser thrust, each by a
> >> factor of around 50000.
> >>
> >> --
> >> ©
>
>
> Don't quote signatures.
Don't tell me what to do.
>
> Respond after trimmed quotes.
Don't tell me what to do.
> Don't keep changing your E-identity; it is a discourtesy to users of
> kill-files.
Nonsense.
>
> The term "Radium" without qualification means the natural isotope,
> Rn 226, which has a half-life of 1620 years or so.
No it doesn't. The term radium without qualifiers means radium without
qualifiers.
> Radon is a direct decay product of Rn 226.
Um, 'Rn' is the symbol for Radon, I believe you mean Ra 226 don't you?
Sheez.
Bud, there are only two isotopes of radium that have half-lives greater
than 1 year - and are of concern to the Department of Energy
Environmental Management Agency;
Ra 226 1600 yrs 1 Ci/g alpha (4.8 MEV)
Ra 228 5.8 yrs 280 Ci/g beta (170 kEV)
Its hard to tell from the original post whether or not the proposed
rocket was to use alpha particles (helium nuclei) or beta particles
(electrons) for the production of thrust.
But, there are other isotopes that are much more highly radioactive -
and these proceed by alpha decay.
These isotopes have vanishingly short half-lives, and correspondingly
greater activity. High activity means a far greater power to weight
ratio. High power to weight means a far higher thrust to weight ratio.
High thrust to weight makes them more suitable for a rocket
application.
Despite this, NONE appear suitable as a practical rocket. Which is my
point from the beginning. Nothing you say changes that. The most
favorable radium isotope for rocket applications appears to be;
Ra 224 3.7 days 160,000 Ci/g alpha (5.7 MEV)
Radon as the original post pointed out also decays radioactively by
releasing alpha particles. These have very short half lives as well -
one has nearly the exact same half life and activity as the Radium 224;
Rn 222 3.8 days 160,000 Ci/g alpha (5.5 MEV)
So, since the original post mentioned both Radium and Radon as thrust
producers, this combination came to mind, and so I talked about *that*.
But there are MORE active materials than Radium and Radon - check it
out;
Rn 220 56 sec 930 million Ci/g alpha (6.3 MEV)
One king of natural radioactivity is an isotope of Polonium that has an
astoundingly high rate of radioactive decay - Po 212 - which has a half
life of 310 nanoseconds an a radioactivity of 180,000 TRILLION Ci/g
Po 212 310 ns 180,000 trillion Ci/g alpha (8.8 MEV)
Which is a TRILLION times more active than the highest activity
Radium/Radon combination - but its very hard to store in any quantity
any length of time!
Here's my source of information;
http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/radium.pdf
LooseChanj
> "Brad Guth" <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1133721842.669027.16620
> @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> 5) taking "tomcat's" information out of context and using it as
>> leverage in order to improve upon your point of argument is exactly the
>> sort of proof-positive that you're every bit as brown-nosed and
>> intellectually incest cloned as they come.
>
> Awright! I made the list!
You're tomcat? Well why didn't anyone tell me this sooner?!?
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen
Jorge R. Frank
news:3J2mf.21014$8d.2...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
> On or about Sun, 04 Dec 2005 12:48:42 -0600, Jorge R. Frank
> <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> made the sensational claim that:
>> "Brad Guth" <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:1133721842.669027.16620 @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> 5) taking "tomcat's" information out of context and using it as
>>> leverage in order to improve upon your point of argument is exactly
>>> the sort of proof-positive that you're every bit as brown-nosed and
>>> intellectually incest cloned as they come.
>>
>> Awright! I made the list!
>
> You're tomcat? Well why didn't anyone tell me this sooner?!?
Damn split personality acting up again. Did I tell you I'm also Jim Oberg?
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <Xns9726CC3C...@216.196.97.131>):
> LooseChanj <Loose...@aol.com> wrote in
> news:3J2mf.21014$8d.2...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
>
>> On or about Sun, 04 Dec 2005 12:48:42 -0600, Jorge R. Frank
>> <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> made the sensational claim that:
>>> "Brad Guth" <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>> news:1133721842.669027.16620 @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> 5) taking "tomcat's" information out of context and using it as
>>>> leverage in order to improve upon your point of argument is exactly
>>>> the sort of proof-positive that you're every bit as brown-nosed and
>>>> intellectually incest cloned as they come.
>>>
>>> Awright! I made the list!
>>
>> You're tomcat? Well why didn't anyone tell me this sooner?!?
>
> Damn split personality acting up again. Did I tell you I'm also Jim Oberg?
>
We are all Jim Oberg.
Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)
> Today, we know that the extreme air friction of hypersonic flight was
> not exaggerated in the physics calculations. It takes careful
> engineering and the use of ceramics to defeat it. But it can be done.
Maybe you're just finding it out, but NASA knew it in the '60s, when
it had been flying hypersonic vehicles for a decades.
Mary
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
reunite....@gmail.com or mil...@qnet.com
snidely
Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer) wrote:
> Maybe you're just finding it out, but NASA knew it in the '60s, when
> it had been flying hypersonic vehicles for a decades.
Aha! And how much buffetting does the Space Shuttle experience on
reentry? NASA pub # will do as an answer ;-)
/dps
> Mary
(Modest Goddess)
tomcat
Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer) wrote:
>
>
> > Today, we know that the extreme air friction of hypersonic flight was
> > not exaggerated in the physics calculations. It takes careful
> > engineering and the use of ceramics to defeat it. But it can be done.
>
> Maybe you're just finding it out, but NASA knew it in the '60s, when
> it had been flying hypersonic vehicles for a decades.
The SR-71 was flying in 1958 along with the X-15. Both were into air
friction engineering. But, are you speaking of them, of vertical
rockets, or of . . . something else?
tomcat
Brad Guth
Sorry "tomcat". You clearly do not have a sufficient amount of
NASA/Apollo crapolla dripping off your nose to suit these MI6/NSA~CIA
rusemasters. You have questioned their almighty lordship and pagan
saviour of their born again resident warlord(GW Bush). Butt saving is
still their deadly game, and bashing the likes of "tomcat" is just
another part of their game.
You've been on their shit-list for receiving disinformation from nearly
the very get-go, and you're still too dumbfounded to realize when
you're being summarily screwed by your own kind. At best, you'll have
to make due with whatever taboo/nondisclosure info you can uncover by
yourself. At worse you could become quite dead and gone by morning.
What part of double-duh is too complicated for your still dumbfounded
brain to understand that our NASA is every bit into their grand
ruse/sting of the century.
There's no question that pound per pound is where aluminum makes for a
rather poor structural alloy application between yourself and such a
wide area or zone of reentry fire. However, this Usenet forum that
sucks and blows isn't where you'll find any support. Other super-alloys
(as having been used on the extremely old SR-71) have proven to being
superior. Along with basalt composites, stopping most forms of radiant
and conductive modes of heat transfer is simple, reliable, of low cost
and otherwise weight effective. Adding layers of ceramic fibers and/or
balloons is simply obvious. A 100% composite inner/primary hull as
having a few thin metallic (plasma applied) layers where necessary
seems rather obvious.
tomcat
I never expected to live very long. That I have made it to gray hair
amazes me!
> What part of double-duh is too complicated for your still dumbfounded
> brain to understand that our NASA is every bit into their grand
> ruse/sting of the century.
It is true that they don't seem to understand the concept of . . .
wings.
> There's no question that pound per pound is where aluminum makes for a
> rather poor structural alloy application between yourself and such a
> wide area or zone of reentry fire. However, this Usenet forum that
> sucks and blows isn't where you'll find any support. Other super-alloys
> (as having been used on the extremely old SR-71) have proven to being
> superior. Along with basalt composites, stopping most forms of radiant
> and conductive modes of heat transfer is simple, reliable, of low cost
> and otherwise weight effective. Adding layers of ceramic fibers and/or
> balloons is simply obvious. A 100% composite inner/primary hull as
> having a few thin metallic (plasma applied) layers where necessary
> seems rather obvious.
Perhaps if they wrapped their 'tubes' in vacuum bags and floated them
up to where their lack of wings wouldn't matter. Or use a bunch of
helium filled mylar bags, real big ones, attached by ropes to the
rockets, and let go of the tethers. It really does improve performance
to use what gravity and air give us for free.
Aluminum, BTW, has had metal fatigue problems as well as melting ones.
Not a good material for rockets of any kind. Titanium, on the other
hand, is extremely stress tolerant.
Ceramic can be laser applied -- with a molecular bond -- to metal.
And, you say, that metal can be plasma applied to composite. So,
ceramic on composite with metal as the binder may be possible, even
desirable. It could even be done in layers. Interesting.
tomcat
Brad Guth
>Not a good material for rockets of any kind. Titanium, on the other
>hand, is extremely stress tolerant.
>Ceramic can be laser applied -- with a molecular bond -- to metal.
>And, you say, that metal can be plasma applied to composite. So,
>ceramic on composite with metal as the binder may be possible, even
>desirable. It could even be done in layers. Interesting.
That's all very true. The problem clearly isn't with these concepts, as
it's the gauntlet of disinformation and/or the taboo/nondisclosure
(need-to-know) basis within this incest of such a brown-nosed cesspool
of bigotry, arrogance and greed that has more Usenet heathen potential
than Hitler and of a Pope going postal over Cathars.
We need our own semi-private and thus moderated work groups that'll
seek out and essentially recruit from the better half of this
intellectual cesspool. Actually, we might be limited to just 1% of
what's available, since at least 99% seem to be on a mainstream status
quo vendetta of their knowing thy enemy so as to be continually
snookering thy humanity.
Personally, I believe your rigid-spaceship has potential of being all
it can be. What we need are commercial investors with vision and a
serious need for speed, which may or may not involve those SSMEs. A
serious prototype shouldn't be all that insurmountable.
-
"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
-Stanislaus I
"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes,
but having new eyes."
-Marcel Proust
"Truth is given, not to be contemplated, but to be done. Life is an
action, not a thought."
-F.W. Robertson
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree far beyond; WAR is WAR, thus "in war
there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of honest
folks having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been playing
by whatever the supposed rules, such as our resident LLPOF warlord(GW
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
> >Aluminum, BTW, has had metal fatigue problems as well as melting ones.
> >Not a good material for rockets of any kind. Titanium, on the other
> >hand, is extremely stress tolerant.
>
> >Ceramic can be laser applied -- with a molecular bond -- to metal.
> >And, you say, that metal can be plasma applied to composite. So,
> >ceramic on composite with metal as the binder may be possible, even
> >desirable. It could even be done in layers. Interesting.
> That's all very true. The problem clearly isn't with these concepts, as
> it's the gauntlet of disinformation and/or the taboo/nondisclosure
> (need-to-know) basis within this incest of such a brown-nosed cesspool
> of bigotry, arrogance and greed that has more Usenet heathen potential
> than Hitler and of a Pope going postal over Cathars.
'Some' usenet users aren't endowed with adequate thinking facilities.
They see pictures of aliens and say that they can't see anything.
Maybe they didn't put their glasses on. Old age, bad diet, and
forgetting can become a problem.
New materials confuse 'some' of them as well. Aluminum replaced wood
and canvass as the material of choice for aircraft. Now that we are
into space vehicles we need to go one better and use titanium alloy
along with composite and ceramic.
> We need our own semi-private and thus moderated work groups that'll
> seek out and essentially recruit from the better half of this
> intellectual cesspool. Actually, we might be limited to just 1% of
> what's available, since at least 99% seem to be on a mainstream status
> quo vendetta of their knowing thy enemy so as to be continually
> snookering thy humanity.
>
> Personally, I believe your rigid-spaceship has potential of being all
> it can be. What we need are commercial investors with vision and a
> serious need for speed, which may or may not involve those SSMEs. A
> serious prototype shouldn't be all that insurmountable.
Eight billion dollars is cheap compared to what NASA is charging
Congress for some 'old' capsule and parachute rigs. For 50 billion
dollars I'll not only build a couple of interplanetary ships but fight
the Aliens for landing rights on Mars and Venus.
NASA wants 105 billion and 12 years to build the parachute/capsules.
tomcat
Brad Guth
Besides sustaining their ruse/sting of the century by wagging their
perpetrated cold-war dogs to death, it's called brown-nosed butt saving
and thus job security.
Titanium alloys and of insulative basalt composites are each way too
complicated to work with, as they can't even manage to keep foam
attached to their shuttle ET, or ceramic tiles glued upon their
extremely old and inefficient aluminum shuttles.
Not that this is best suited for the higher temperatures:
A super-alloy of Nickel and Titanium, this metallic composition has
superelasticity having a property which is described as remembering
its shape, so a change of temperature will make it spring back into
the shape it was.
Perhaps a little inconel/titanium or tungsten/titanium super-alloy
composite is best suited for mastering the upper end of being thermally
tolerant without losing too much of the structural performance
capabilities.
Inconel-625 Melting Point/Range: 1290-1350°C (2350-2460°F)
Tungsten, W, 74 - Melting point 3695 K 3422°C (6192°F)
Titanium, Ti, 22 - Melting point 1941 K 1668°C (3034°F)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium
Obviously there's no way our troops are setting a moonsuit boot upon
the moon. Whereas China or perhaps Russia will soon manage to do just
that if they're not too busy with mutually constructing their
LSE-CM/ISS.
-
"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
-Stanislaus I
"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes,
but having new eyes."
-Marcel Proust
"Truth is given, not to be contemplated, but to be done. Life is an
action, not a thought."
-F.W. Robertson
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree far beyond; WAR is WAR, thus "in war
there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of honest
folks having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been playing
by whatever the supposed rules, such as our resident warlord(GW Bush).
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
> >NASA wants 105 billion and 12 years to build their parachute/capsules.
> Besides sustaining their ruse/sting of the century by wagging their
> perpetrated cold-war dogs to death, it's called brown-nosed butt saving
> and thus job security.
>
> Titanium alloys and of insulative basalt composites are each way too
> complicated to work with, as they can't even manage to keep foam
> attached to their shuttle ET, or ceramic tiles glued upon their
> extremely old and inefficient aluminum shuttles.
>
> Not that this is best suited for the higher temperatures:
> A super-alloy of Nickel and Titanium, this metallic composition has
> superelasticity having a property which is described as remembering
> its shape, so a change of temperature will make it spring back into
> the shape it was.
>
> Perhaps a little inconel/titanium or tungsten/titanium super-alloy
> composite is best suited for mastering the upper end of being thermally
> tolerant without losing too much of the structural performance
> capabilities.
>
> Inconel-625 Melting Point/Range: 1290-1350°C (2350-2460°F)
> Tungsten, W, 74 - Melting point 3695 K 3422°C (6192°F)
> Titanium, Ti, 22 - Melting point 1941 K 1668°C (3034°F)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium
There is a lot that is new and good but NASA doesn't seem to be using
it. Titanium probably isn't necessary for vertical tubular rockets
that will destroy themselves sending satellites into orbit. A
spaceplane, however, should be made to last. A spaceplane has to
endure repeated use and high temperature.
It is important to note that most metals 'weaken' about 500 deg. F.
prior to melt. So, titanium is 'good' to about 2500 deg. F.
I notice you didn't mention aluminum. Too low on the scale I bet.
Aluminum melts at less than 1000 deg. F. I believe, however, that
titanium/aluminum alloy may be an excellent metal for subsonic
aircraft. Better than aluminum by itself at any rate.
Composite is still gaining ground with the addition of Carbon Nanotube
Fabric. Once in full manufacture it will be the material of choice for
many composite applications. As far as binders are concerned, graphite
epoxy and boron epoxy both measure up for spaceplane applications.
Mix either of these two binders with CNT and you get an extremely high
thermal capacity with extremes of thermal conductivity. Mix either of
them with basalt fabric and you get high strength with thermal
insulation, excellent for cryogenic fuel tanks and as a base for the
CNT composite that would stop heat from penetrating deep down into the
spaceplane.
> Obviously there's no way our troops are setting a moonsuit boot upon
> the moon. Whereas China or perhaps Russia will soon manage to do just
> that if they're not too busy with mutually constructing their
> LSE-CM/ISS.
NASA may plan on taking 12 years to return to the Moon, but Russia and
China will probably be there in 4 or 5 years. The U.S. is heading for
quite an . . . embarrassment. I wouldn't want to be in the NASA
program when that happens! The American public will 'clean house'.
tomcat
Brad Guth
>China will probably be there in 4 or 5 years. The U.S. is heading for
>quite an . . . embarrassment. I wouldn't want to be in the NASA
>program when that happens! The American public will 'clean house'.
surface of our moon in the first place, whereas you're suggesting that
we keep on perpetrating cold-wars and thus creating 911's if not
WW-III, and having to accept all sorts of things that simply are not
true.
Going to the surface of the moon isn't worth 0.0001% of whomever
manages to first establish the LL1/ME-L1 sweet-spot on behalf of their
creating and sustaining the one and only LSE-CM/ISS. Obviously you
haven't gotten this punch-line because your dumbfounded head remains
firmly stuck way too deep into whatever's the nearest space-toilet that
supports your pagan NASA. That's a good million to one greater worth in
establishing the LSE-CM/ISS than for all the worth of folks walking on
the moon.
With regard to our moving forward, and to things getting smaller
becoming better. Here's my recent reply to what was offered by
"tinplated", as a good faith gesture on his part of merely taking my
word that we'd been summarily snookered by those having "the right
stuff" from the very get-go. After all folks, our perpetrated cold-war
with the USSR was 90% smoke and mirrors all along.
>tinplated; - Ok. You've convinced me. Now...
>What next?
>Is there any, _ANY_ plan for the next step? Do you intend to *do*
>anything other than posting angry screed to Usenet? So you have the
>truth, as you say in your signature. What do you want to do with this
>truth that you have?
>Now what?
The "next step" is for others to stop wasting time, talents and
resources on pretending that we've been there and done that moon
walking thing. Getting ourselves past all of that pretentious cold-war
gauntlet should allow folks to focus upon delivering a slew of smaller
satellites, and the likes of getting those LUNAR-A impact probes
deployed.
Of course, this would also represent that whenever ideas as to
alternative methods of accomplishing our moon or whatever else becomes
posted, that as such they're given the royal treatment of positive
respect as shared along with all the think-tank talent and expertise
instead of being summarily bashed because they're a little outside the
NASA/Apollo box.
For example; - Deploying a serious batch of microsatellites should soon
become the relatively cheap and fast-track deployment alternative to
the otherwise typically big and complex multi-tonne sorts of satellites
that could never get safely onto the lunar deck, whereas getting
smaller is potentially what's capable of affording these much lower
density items into surviving after their orbit decay which leaves us
with but one final alternative, of our actually getting a few of these
interactive instruments deployed into if not situated upon the dark and
nasty surface of such a moon-dust covered terrain.
I'm thinking along the lines of creating 100 units of a 618 mm thick
and 2 meter diameter saucer shaped microsatellite of perhaps an
elliptosphere or that of an elliptoid flying saucer, as per each having
a cubic meter in volume, of their shape based upon a ratio of 2 Phi
(3.236068:1), thus lots of interior space for the sorts of tough basalt
micro balloon packing and composite reinforcements that shouldn't
hardly weigh anything. Perhaps as little as 309 mm by one meter
diameter might get interesting.
There are countless expansive lunar terrain areas and even of
sufficiently large diameter craters hosting miles upon miles of their
relatively smooth moon-dust filled ponds that'll make for a little
interesting micro-lithobreaking form of a final moon-dust landing. I'll
suggest a 10 kg satellite that's taking up a cubic meter by volume just
might represent a surface tension compression factor of less than 0.325
g/cm2, thus actually end up floating itself on top of that nasty
moon-dust. I can think of all sorts of drag inducing methods of getting
such low density items down to a reasonable final landing velocity
that's sufficient as to surviving their arrivals upon such a low
surface-tension capable substance. These days, of satellites that could
become their own surface probes need not be large and bulky items,
whereas 10 kg is actually affording quite a bit of a viable satellite
package that's capable of obtaining a good deal of science and even
multiple camera instruments within.
Until we have achieved a proven set of fly-by-rocket landers (robotic
as well as manned) under our moonsuit belts, whereas even the notions
of an earthshine illuminated landing site is going to remain testy if
not physically taboo. Therefore, the only manned applications I foresee
are those related to our accomplishing a little preliminary
station-keeping and thus all around butt-saving mission critical
location claiming at LL1/ME-L1 (that's supposedly a sweet-spot 60,000
km above the lunar deck, as per that zone remaining gravity-well
aligned as keeping relatively in dead-center alignment with Earth, +/-
a certain amount of the interactive gravity-well halo/parallel parking
factor).
So, I believe there's a lot to do and a great deal at stake for
whomever gets to hold onto this one and only LL1/ME-L1 worthy zone,
especially since there can be only one such LSE-CM/ISS. If that's not
good enough, in which case I have lots of other affordable and
obtainable plans of action that are absolute win-win opportunities for
our futures.
-
Brad Guth
tomcat
Dear Brad:
You are right about those cloned types! My computer crashed big time.
I no longer have outlook express messaging capability though I can
still be reached at: jla...@bellsouth.net
I never had a chance to respond to your email on the pictures. Please
resend that email. It was lost in the disaster. It will now go to a
different mailing server.
Somebody is 'hot' about the Mars pictures. Wonder who?
tomcat
Brad Guth
I know what you mean, as right now they're doing every dirty little
malware/fuckware trick within their MIB books to nail my PC. It's not
just "Mars pictures", as it's their usual damage control applied via
cloaks and daggers upon anything that's outside their mainstream status
quo box.
I'm not exactly sure that I'd saved a email copy, but if not I'll just
start another reply from scratch as to the best of whatever I can
remember. Perhaps I'll just post it right here in Usenet hell.
Of rocket science;
can you independently figure out or otherwise uncover what the Isp of
98%-H2O2/C3H40 is worth?
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
I found my original text of that email. Perhaps posting it here is a
safer bet than chancing my sharing off another MI6/NSA~CIA PC infection
via email.
I agree that the Sol 633 image looks very much like a miniature Martian
village, and since size means very little as to being worthy of hosting
intelligent life or not, I'm not going to reject the notions of what
could easily be the case for somewhat small stature Martians. In fact,
smaller should be somewhat better off if the life upon Mars had been
having to survive within such minimal conditions.
BTW; your PhotoShop enlargement of the Sol 633 image was terrific.
However, of realizing that the large rock within the center of what
looks like an artificially created setting is perhaps all of one meter
by half a meter high (if not representing as little as half that scale
of dimensions), this size tends to establish the viable scale by which
we're having to work with.
Yourself and a few others have pointed to this same image many times,
plus having offered similar topics as to this Sol 633 image, suggesting
that it's worthy of our taking a closer look-see at whatever Mars has
to offer, and I too agree that it's extremely interesting even if the
scale of such artificial looking patterns is likely of being quite a
miniature form of having hosted some other past form(s) of Martian
life.
Just for being a good sport, would you like to apply the very same
PhotoShop expertise to roughly 5% of an image obtained of Venus that's
likely hosting a community setting of what is most certainly of a
considerably larger scale?
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
Instead of having but one CCD scan/look-see per pixel as offered by Sol
633, the image of Venus that's extremely interesting to myself is
having been represented by 36 looks/pixel, plus 8-bits per radar look
for each of those imaging pixel to start with, plus having the nearly
3D advantage angle of viewing the terrain from a 43° angle is simply
good icing on the observationology cake. Thus no optical nor solar
illumination distortions or even weird shadows other than those having
been generated via radar signals, thereby the radar illumination is
about as good as it gets. The raw scale of this "mgn_c115s095_1.gif"
composite image is 225 m/pixel, although there are 75 m/pixel offering
just four looks per 8-bit pixel if you'd care to PhotoShop process on a
few of those. At least upon Venus, of being extremely large as a
perfectly viable form of other life isn't a problem.
BTW; it's usually best to crop out just the area of prime interest
prior to accomplishing extensive PhotoShop enlarging, and if need be
converting the original GIF format to a JPG format without excessive if
any compression or smoothing applied.
If my PC and ISP/Usenet channel weren't being so cloak and dagger
terminated and otherwise MI6/NSA~CIA malware/fuckware infected, as such
I could manage to contribute much more. Such as right now there's no
significant problems with my utilizing other than GOOGLE/Usenet
internet functions. Naturally each of my email accounts are continually
made chuck full of their malware/fuckware efforts to further terminate
my PC. Gee whiz folks, I guess there must be some interesting reasons
as to why we're being so obviously attacked. There's even a good chance
that my outgoing emails are being diverted and having their
malware/fuckware attached.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
offering a real boost for any spaceplane:
In spite of what the likes of most any other Usenet infomercial spooks
(aka Art Deco, Bookman and countless others) have to say, which usually
is of absolutely no honest worth to the given topic, whereas here's
some interesting info of what the likes of perhaps yourself, Rusty,
Henry Spencer and so many other supposedly smart folks must already
have known about using 98%-H2O2 along with a little something else,
plus some of what's apparently been need-to-know and/or Usenet taboo
that's delivering a whole lot better Isp than plain old H2O2/RP-1.
RP-1 = C12H24 (H2O2/RP-1 is thereby not quite as good as for using H2O2
along with plain old Kerosene/hexadecane C12H26), and it seems that
each of those are seriously dragging rocket butt when it comes down to
using H2O2/C3H4O.
PROPARGYL ALCOHOL / Acrolein = C3H40
2-Propyn-1-ol as C3H4O / CH CCH2OH having the molecular mass: 56.1
http://www.emsdiasum.com/microscopy/technical/msds/10100.pdf
PRODUCT NAME: ? propargyl alcohol
CAS NO. 107-02-8
MOLECULAR FORMULA: C3H40
VAPOR DENSITY: 1.94
SPECIFIC GRAVITY: 0.839
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/MHMI/mmg124.html
http://www.dunnspace.com/alternate_ssto_propellants.htm
H2O2/propargyl alcohol yields roughly 40% more payload than H2O2/RP-1
H2O2/C3H40 is perhaps where my latest SWAG has shifted, as per
suggesting where the most serious rocket thrust or Isp/kg is to being
found (short of going first stage SRB or something thermal nuclear), as
well as per volume as being the best push comes to shove argument.
Short of what modern SRBs should still outperform as on behalf of the
first stage, it looks as though H2O2/C3H40 is a viable formulation of
keen interest, of a final do-everything solution that could make for a
two stage delivery to the moon as good as 25:1, meaning 25 tonnes worth
of rocket and payload liftoff mass (including the first stage SRB) per
tonne of the actual payload is about as good as it gets.
Taking the fullest advantage of the modern SRB for the initial thrust
to nearly if not a bit better than half LEO escape velocity, plus a
mostly composite upper stage that simply isn't going to represent all
that much inert/dry mass, especially since either H2O2 or C3H40 need be
pressurized nor sub-frozen like LH2/LO2. Therefore little if any
insulation demands, and of storage tanks of a composite basalt fiber
and microballoons which can't weigh 50% of what traditional tankage
involves.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
just like having any other form of a gas in a liquid form.
Can LRn ever become cold enough and/or compressed sufficiently to being
a solid, much like CO2 becomes dry-ice or xenon becomes frozen solid?
How much volume or kg could a substantial Ra-->Rn breeder reactor breed
of Rn or perhaps LRn per day?
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/radium.pdf
>One king of natural radioactivity is an isotope of Polonium that has an
>astoundingly high rate of radioactive decay - Po 212 - which has a half
>life of 310 nanoseconds an a radioactivity of 180,000 TRILLION Ci/g
> Po 212 310 ns 180,000 trillion Ci/g alpha (8.8 MEV)
>Which is a TRILLION times more active than the highest activity
>Radium/Radon combination - but its very hard to store in any quantity
>any length of time!
Why bother storing it if you can directly utilize it on the fly as is?
I'm sure that whatever ion thruster is not going to mind having to
utilize whatever's coming along the pike, especially as for
representing yet another use-it or lose-it bit of something as active
as Po212.
If there's an onboard Ra-->Rn-->Po breader reactor feeding the array of
ion thrusters; where's the ion thruster's promlem in just utilizing
whatever's within the matrix of Ra226/Ra228 decay that becomes
available?
Seems like another perfectly good waste-not want-not situation to me.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
>distribution of drugs as well as international efforts at supporting a
>variety of national covert interests - but these have little to do with
>the sorts of things imagined by Brad in his posts. That is the US does
>indeed use the CIA where appropriate to enforce its global military and
>economic hegemony - this is not to be confused with the sort of
>fantasies imagined by Brad in his posts.
At least I can still imagne quite nicely without my having to process
my every thought thourgh a collective of MIB. How about yourself?
BTW; no ET in their right mind would dare contact a human like
yourself, as you only believe in WMD that clearly don't exist. Besides,
you couldn't possibly be any more anti-intelligent design, as well as
anti-ET if you tried. Obviously ETs are not listed within your CIA
World Fact Book, so they obviously don't exist or otherwise matter any
more than another Muslim sitting upon an oily rock.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
I suppose, you could always use aluminum as a very thick plate, say 1"
thick should hold up fairly well to the trauma of your spaceplane
having to survive extreme heat?
I believe that's why tanks have utilized 6" worth of thick
armor-plating. It's called saving your butt.
-
Brad Guth
tomcat
Not aluminum. Great material though, for buildings and such, but not
for spaceplanes. The meltpoint is too low. Use titanium instead.
I don't know of any tank using aluminum. At least not a main line
tank. Tanks are fascinating things, however.
A super tank could be built using an atomic power unit. Case hardened
steel wrapped in composite should protect the crew against whatever.
All future tanks must be fully stealthed.
Weapons have reached the point where to 'see' a target is to 'destroy'
a target. Stealth is everything in today's military. Everything needs
to be stealthed, the ships, submarines, airplanes, missiles, bases --
everything.
Why? Because of nukes and terrawatt lasers, along with pinpoint
accuracy.
tomcat
tomcat
I have not finished analyzing the picture of Venus. A
brightness/contrast shadow erasure turned those blackish areas into . .
. forests! Forests on Venus? Well, it is too early in my photo
analysis to be sure, but if it was an Earth photo I would swear it was
groups of trees I was looking at.
I can see the outlines of your excellent enlargement. It does not
appear natural to me. Too fancy and vertical. The lines crisscross
like streets.
tomcat
Brad Guth
That's sort of what I'd thought, but I was already getting seriously
nailed to the wall by all the typical flat-Earth naysayers of this
Usenet that sucks and blows.
>It does not appear natural to me. Too fancy and vertical.
>The lines crisscross like streets.
I think you're on the right track. Taking at most 10% of the total
image, and perhaps keeping your resampling down to the dull roar of 3X
is good enough, as that's 9 fold as many pixels to manage within your
PhotoShop filters, which as you realise can be a little over-done, thus
distortions can be introduced if that's your intentions.
My version of PhotoShop has been extremely outdated, and I tend to over
magnify by resampling at 6+, which is quite interesting but getting a
wee bit PC image processing intensive. The complex tarmac seems rather
impressive, as do all of the nearby complex and highrise structures.
Just don't try offering any of that to our all-knowing lords and wizard
masters within NASA, much less to their incest cloned cesspool of their
uplink.space.com infomercial damage control spooks, of which I've been
excluded from contributing anything, but you should be able to get a
few kind words into their cult on our mutual behalf.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
your spaceplane can't afford to melt nor weigh as much as aluminum
usage would involve. However, armored tanks do utilize a great deal of
aluminum because it dissipates incoming rounds of heat. That plus
aluminum is relatively nice to work with.
This is what I've recently contributed to the topic of "What to do on
the moon?" by Allen Thomson.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/6fcb5caa16a14dd8/dceae8785718d819#dceae8785718d819
I truly believe there's just about anything but gold in them thar lunar
hills.
This outdated study/report was accomplished back when terrestrial oil
was dirt cheap, and we weren't nearly as at war with half the world or
otherwise having to survive the horrific wrath of our very own global
warming fiascos.
http://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.html
>About 25 tonnes of He3 would power the United States
>for 1 year at our current rate of energy consumption.
>To extract He3 from the lunar soil, we heat the dust
>to about 600 degrees C.
To get the oxygen out, we'll turn up the furnace to
>about 900 deg C.
NASA He3 infomercial: http://www.nuenergy.org/video/helium3.rm
Of course D-He3/fusion as a interplanetary spaceplane energy resource
on behalf of whatever Ra-->LRn-->ion thrust might actually suggest a
good method of affordably using just about any of the highly reactive
go-between decay elements of Radium, as a viable resource of producing
such into relatively harmless ions. At least taking as much Radium as
far away form our global environment is yet another win-win for
humanity and most all other forms of life upon Earth.
The low estimate of a million tonnes worth of available He3 is being
highly conservative about what the moon has to offer. Besides He3,
there's also a good inventory of other radioactive elements, plus an
abundance of titanium and the makings for good old aluminum, plus at
least another dirty dozen worth of nifty alloys. There's is no shortage
of local energy influx by which to mine and process whatever, and
that's including our processing the nearly unlimited supply of basalt
which can easily become those 4.84 GPa fibers and extremely nifty
microballoons that'll represent the vast majority of whatever needs to
get constructed in terms of large hollow storage spheres for the export
of items such as He3. If there's sequestered ice or most likely salty
brines within geode like pockets, or possibly concealed within sealed
hollow rilles is where the ultimate payoff should be for viably
creating underground habitats that are every bit as large and spacious
as you can imagine. Of course, drilling for whatever water on the moon
would be an extremely lethal situation should any of that substance
gets anywhere near the vacuum of the earthshine/nighttime surface,
whereas a solar illuminated environment of such vacuum should become as
good as setting off atomic bombs as that salty water escapes from
within.
With a degree of applied technology, and in spite of all the usual
flat-Earth naysayers, human life within the moon could actually become
rather desirable, especially with our Earth becoming so downright nasty
but otherwise being so nearby as the mothership that's got whatever it
takes for keeping her moon well provisioned and even somewhat surface
terraformed if need be. A slight atmosphere that'll yield a few
millibars is way more than sufficient for efficiently getting supplies
and mostly robotic technology imported from Earth, as otherwise spendy
and terribly inefficient fly-by-rocket landers can manage the task with
or without a lunar atmosphere. Once the tethered LSE-CM/ISS and other
related components are up and running, as then the vast reserves of
clean energy and of the to/from aspects of human life upon and within
our moon becomes a done deal.
When oil was kept below $10/barrel (as it could have been as of today,
but simply isn't possible because of all the greed and corruption), He3
was worth merely $3 billion per tonne. However, oil at $100+/barrel,
plus due to all the terrestrial wars (including thermal nuclear), along
with wide spread plundering and pillaging that'll have been running
amuck, as such He3 should become worth $60 billion per tonne. Of course
by then, just the US will be requiring most all of 100 tonnes/year of
He3, thus taking $6 trillion worth per year, with perhaps 2/3 of that
going into the MI6/NSA~CIA-->DoD efforts of defending ourselves from
all the Muslims that seem to have become a little miffed after seeing
their last affordable drop of oil as having been sucked out of their
wells and having been exported at $1000/barrel to America and/or
American (non muslim) interest. Of course, it shouldn't be costing 10%
of that $6 trillion per year in order to obtain this lunar He3, thus a
1000% profit margin excludes any need of government involvement, unless
global domination is still our true plan of action.
2025 - If the global demand for He3 became 200 tonnes per year, at $60
billion per tonne is merely $12 trillion global dollars/year, of which
by the year 2025 a happy meal being worth $100 as nearly the same value
of any gallon of fuel oil. Of course by then we should have established
all of those 25 kw/m2 footprints of clean solar and wind derived energy
as capable of making lots of H2O2 and otherwise on behalf of processing
most any waste organic products into C3H4O, whereas most terrestrial
forms of transportation could be operating 100% via H2O2/C3H4O as just
the best ever energy density of nearly zero pollution, as in being the
greenest and renewable local energy derived ticket to ride (Hummers
could easily have a clean 1000 SHP under their hoods, and corporate as
well as public rocket-jets [nearly spaceplanes] capable of relatively
fast global excursions should have become the norm).
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
My somewhat overloaded and Usenet abused topic of "MICROSATELLITES; how
small? How cheap?" is perhaps gotten into sharing what's a bit
nondisclosure/taboo, but at least the recent parts about H2O2/C3H4O
have been getting real interesting, with the likes of "Mike Lorrey"
sharing his expertise and somewhat small make-due spaceplane prototype
notions that could easily be converted for accommodating the much
higher deerdy density of H2O2/C3H4O, all without his going pro-NASA
postal is refreshing.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/cf44a7ab4ce942aa/97e6441adf37a640?lnk=st&q=h2o2%2Fc3h4o&rnum=2#97e6441adf37a640
I've also updated a similar packet of info of some interest as to the
"Successful Ariane 5 Launch", whereas the Ariane5 is already packing a
serious GSO capability that's only going to get better.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/dc41cbedd43b187f/1258bb1ddb011aa1?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=10#1258bb1ddb011aa1
Then we have recently obtained some Ra-->LRn-->ion info that's
improving my ion outlook, as posted within your own topic of "The Cold
Equations", whereas it seems that we have obtained some perfectly
interesting chart of Ra228 and Ra226 decay element feedback from
William Mook. I'd posted this following reply, of which I'm reasonably
certain Lord Mook is going to remain too high and almighty as to even
respond any further. At any rate, this is what I'd contributed on
behalf of what Mook so kindly shared with us:
Thanks for all of the good information, and this link:
http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/radium.pdf
>William Mook;
>One king of natural radioactivity is an isotope of Polonium that has an
>astoundingly high rate of radioactive decay - Po 212 - which has a half
>life of 310 nanoseconds an a radioactivity of 180,000 TRILLION Ci/g
> Po 212 310 ns 180,000 trillion Ci/g alpha (8.8 MEV)
>Which is a TRILLION times more active than the highest activity
>Radium/Radon combination - but its very hard to store in any quantity
>any length of time!
Why bother storing if you can directly utilize it on the fly as is?
I'm sure that whatever ion thruster is not going to mind having to
utilize whatever's coming along the pike, especially as for
representing yet another use-it or lose-it bit of something as active
as Po212.
If there's an onboard Ra-->Rn-->Po breader reactor feeding the array of
ion thrusters; where's the ion thruster's promlem in just utilizing
whatever's within the matrix of Ra226/Ra228 decay that becomes
available?
Seems like another perfectly good waste-not want-not situation to me.
- - - - - - - - - -
This was the nother fairly old Rn energy-->potential ion thrust related
contribution that I'd extracted from an obscure report, that I'd made
available as of several months ago:
http://www.nuenergy.org/alt/statement99.htm
"When radium transforms, a great deal of energy is liberated
continuously as heat. The amount of stored energy in this
transformation is of a very high magnitude. One gram of radium evolves
about 134 calories per hour, and the total heat available is over
2,000,000,000 calories. One quarter of the generated energy comes from
the decay of radium into radon gas. The remaining three quarters comes
from the decay of the radon gas. One gram of radon, therefore
represents 1,500,000,000 calories per gram. This translates into 5,944
BTUs per gram. Therefore, one pound will generate 2,698,825,592 BTUs.
The radioactive fuel in a nuclear power plant generates 200,000,000
BTUs per pound. This means that radon gas generates 13.5 times more
BTUs than nuclear reactors pound for pound of material."
-
note; 1 cal/g = 4.1868 joule/g, thus Rn222 @1.5e9 cal/g = 6.28e9
joules/g, and there's certainly a sserious bunch of grams/m3 of LRn to
go around.
Combining of this information along with what the previous contribution
had to share and, lo and behold:
http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/radium.pdf
-
Brad Guth
William Mook
polonium you have an inefficient variation of a nuclear reactor powered
rocket. Consider the power of the reactor needed to provide the
Polonium you need to power your rocket. Divide the power of the rocket
by the power of the reactor and you'll see you'll never do better than
about 1 watt of rocket power per watt of reactor power. Since both
cost a lot in terms of mass, your thrust to weight ratio is very tiny.
So, you system is inefficient.
If you want to read about small rockets, you might want to check out a
thread I started back in the summer of 2001. SODA CAN SSTO. You can
also check out MEMS ROCKETS on the web.
Using MEMS technology we can make very tiny rockets. Imagine a sheet
of tungsten chemically etched with millions of tiny holes. These holes
are precisely shaped - into delaval type rocket nozzles. The nozzles
are precisely fed rocket fuel one drop at a time by ink jet print
cartridge type technology Instead of four inks of different colors, we
have two oxidizer fuel combos. One hypergolic. The other high
specific impulse. The hypergolic is used as a sparkplug. We have
propellant cartridges packed solid behind the delivery nozzles, facing
a paper thin tungsten screen with precisely shaped holes. This entire
system, several inches thick, can be shaped into any shape to create
what is known as a PROPULSIVE SKIN. The same technology that delivers
HDTV pictures by precisely controlling millions of pixels across a
plasma screen, can be adapted to deliver precise thrust vectors across
this propulsive skin - and make tiny, lightweight vehicles of immense
capacity.
Imagine a 10 foot tall cone tapering so that it is 3 feet across at its
base. It weighs about 2,000 pounds, and consists mostly of
LOX/Kerosine. It can put 40 pounds into LEO, operating in two stages.
Or it can operate with three stages and place a 10 pound payload on the
surface of the moon - or into orbit around mars. This is perfectly
doable. There are about 200 pounds of RFNA and UDMH on board to spark
the LOX/kerosene engines. Each stage is 2' 6" tall, The top stage for
interplanetary flight is 2' 6" tall and 9" across at the base and
carries 10 pounds. The LEO payload is 5' tall and 18" across at the
base and carries 40 pounds.
A small nuclear pulse rocket is possible using MEMS technology. The
same technology that is used to compress fusion pellets can be used to
compress plutonium pellets. As you increase peak density relative to
resting density, you can decrease critical mass by the square of the
ratio of the two. So, if conventional C4 compression can detonate 2 kg
of Pu to produce 8.8 TJ of energy, when compressing it to a peak
density 3x greater than resting density - electromagnetic compression
of a 20 gram (1 oz) Pu wire can produce 88 GJ of energy when compressed
to 30x peak density. If advanced techniques could compress the Pu to
300x peak density - the Pu wire would be reduced to 200 milligrams -
and the entire device would be smaller than a 45 caliber round -
massing around 15 grams. These would be organized into a dozen clips
of 176 each and precisely fired with onboard MEMS rockets to a region
within the parabolic pusher plate to produce efficient thrust at high
exhaust speed and thrust for the vehicle.
A round like this when detonated behind a 3 foot diameter pusher plate
- parabolically shaped to redirect most of the blast in the preferred
direction - and allowing another 15 grams of vaporized steel to be
added to the exhaust stream would produce a vehicle very similar in
size to the three stage vehicle described above, but this 2,000 pound
vehicle could push 600 pounds through a delta vee of 20 km/sec!!! A
single stage interplanetary cruiser! Using 2,112 rounds to achieve
maximal speed. This is sufficient to go to Mars in a few weeks, land
there, and return a few weeks later.
Using the fission reaction as a spark to a fusion reaction would allow
the vehicle to be multiplied in size by about 10,000 times without
increasing the amount of Pu used (200 grams per launch) - This would
result in a vehicle that lifted 6,000,000 pounds across the solar
system while massing 20 million pounds! But the core technology would
remain largely unchanged - but a 6,000,000 pound payload is enough to
place a small city on Mars or the Moon -and supply it and expand it!
Why don't we have this technology broadly available today?
Well, consider the weapons potential of this technology.
A single stage chemical rocket of the type described, equipped with a
40 pound payload, enough to house 5 clips, with nearly a thousand
nuclear weapons - with a 2 ton TNT equivalent yeild - could deliver
these precisely MIRV fashion across a large region from any point on
Earth. A handful of these weapons could overwhelm any nation or group
of nations on Earth. A 2 ton TNT yeild is equivalent to a block buster
of WWII. Imagine delivering 1,000 of these precisely using GPS
simultaneously anywhere on Earth. Buildings and installations would be
vaporized across large regions very precisely. Multiply the yeilds
of the tiny rounds 10,000 fold and you could wipe out entire nations in
an afternoon with a handful of vehicles adapted to weapons systems.
This is why the fantasy of space travel must remain a fantasy for now.
Its not technology that's the problem. Its us.
William Mook
say a dozen interplanetary cruisers each carrying 30 warheads. Each
warhead carrying upto 2000 submunitions -and the yeild of each
submunition can be dialed through a range of 2 tons to 20,000 tons
equivalent yeild. Imagine these 12 vehicles launch into an ascent
trajectory carrying them to high orbit. From this location using
advanced sensing technology, they acquire targets around the Earth.
They deploy on their ascent sensing and communications and navigation
satellites which they can use to provide command and control of their
operation. From high orbit - geosynch and beyond - they drop down
into highly elliptical trajectories and release one of their MIRVED
warheads, and depart quickly again to high orbit, and stay there. The
mirved warhead carries out a precise and overwhelming program of
attack! Releasing 2,000 precisely sized and positioned detonations all
at once across very large areas.
A small force such as this could without fear of retaliation,
militarily dominate the Earth. For example, the US Navy has about 600
heavy ships. The rest of the world has an equal number. The US Army
has around 6,700 military installations world wide. The rest of the
world has about twice this number - a total of 20,000 military
installations. A dozen warheads - one from each of the force described
here - would wipe all of these out in a single instant. After
destroying all heavy ships and all military installations throughout
the world, and with 29 more warheads in each ship described here - the
nations of the world would have no recourse but to comply with the
demands of the people controlling the forces described here.
Clearly such technical capacities cannot be allowed to be developed and
deployed generally. We cannot have a 21st century Colt firearms
company develop and build interplanetary cruisers and spacecraft for
this very reason.
tomcat
We certainly have agreement here!
Outer Space is where riches await us. Yes, the Moon has He-3,
titanium, aluminum, and even oxygen, in abundance. So, do the
asteroids and comets, not to even mention the many other moons in our
solar system. You could dip down into menthane atmospheres and suck up
rocket fuel, or suck up hydrogen, or whatever. Everything needed for
civilization is in Outer Space.
Outer Space is wide open. Even I can design a waverider spaceplane
that could take men into Outer Space. Established technology can do
it. Speeds of 100,000+ mph are possible, not the mere escape velocity
calculations of so many people. Current techonology has opened up our
solar system.
Why, then, are we waiting? Is it because the big bad indians await us
up there? So what if there are Aliens running around up there. Wake
up! We are Aliens too! We need to take our little red wagons and go
after the goodies too. And, if we have to fight for it, well, what
else is new? We have always fought for everything.
It might be wise, however, to leave Mars and Venus alone. At least for
a while. Our Outer Space capabilities need to be developed before . .
. dropping in on them. We should be developing our capabilities
rapidly, not waiting on NASA.
NASA is dreaming of the past when Americans waited breathlessly while
vertical tube rockets launched from the Cape. We cannot go back.
Moving forward means spaceplanes with large cargo holds capable of
placing habitats and mining equipment on moons and asteroids. NASA,
however, is dreaming of long -- just barely escape velocity -- voyages
where astronauts get to know each other intimately and reprocess their
urine and feces. Yuk!
Free Enterprise has to save us. Thank God for Sir Branson and Mr.
Rutan, and all men of vision. Outer Space is wide open. It is time to
do what we have to do: "Let it be so" and go "that a way" and explore
the . . . unknown.
tomcat
Brad Guth
Tell me why you're all the sudden back into avoiding any topic or
sub-topic regarding our moon and Venus, thus excluding our two closest
and most 'zone of life' worthy orbs besides Earth. It seems as though,
going after some other distant moons and of otherwise snagging
asteroids that from time to time so happen to be passing nearby isn't
such a sure bet as per pillaging and plundering our local cash of lunar
He3, being of the most essential portion of the fusion formula that'll
soon become worth 30 billion if not 40 billions per tonne, thus
excluding our moon and even that of Venus simply is not nearly as good
of investment payback for such an energy depleted and thereby fuel
starved Earth, that which obviously isn't smart enough as to figuring
out how to extract clean energy from wind and solar at a foundation
footprint density of 25 kw/m2. By way of excluding those two extremely
nearby recousces of eaw elements and all of the energy by which to
mine, process and exportt back to Earth, as such it seems asthough
you're getting especially SpacePlane extra spendy considering the
honest birth to grave impact upon the terrestrial environment, as per
R&D, prototyping and final creation of each SpacePlane that'll need
absolute loads of H2O2/C3H4O and/or SRBs in order to launch by way of
11xSSMEs, that which SSMEs alone will not likely have a sufficient
liftoff ratio if limited to the extremely poor volumetric diet of
merely burning off vast tonnage od LOX/LH2 instead of H2O2/C3H4O. Why
is that?
>Why, then, are we waiting? Is it because the big bad indians await us
>up there? So what if there are Aliens running around up there. Wake
>up! We are Aliens too! We need to take our little red wagons and go
>after the goodies too. And, if we have to fight for it, well, what
>else is new? We have always fought for everything.
We're waiting pretty much because of folks exactly like yourself, that
still don't believe that we can't really accomplish what we've been
told, at least not as per getting folks or even substantial robotics
safely onto the likes of Mars or Mercury, and thereby most certainly
we've not accomplished such upon the nearly vacuum environment of our
moon that still representing a good deal of gravity, by which only a
fly-by-rocket can overcome. Guess what Sir fool(aka tomcat) on the
hill, we still haven't a viable fly-by-rocket lander. Even the Mars
robotics are a mere fraction of the mass as to what supposedly got
deployed upon our moon. Try doing the math, along with taking into
account that at least the Mars atmosphere had 7+ millibars worth of an
aerobreaking atmosphere that absolutely saved the day, whereas our moon
has nearly zilch if not supposedly 3e-15 bar, whish sucks the life out
of our getting anything soft-landed upon that extremely reactive moon
of ours.
I do believe that's all very true about taking our wagons along for the
ride, going way out there for obtaining our fair share, as well as for
rubbing elbows with all those "Aliens running around up there" doing
the very same with their wagons. I'd have to suppose, that even if we
could trade fairly, that we could always and perhaps would much rather
tell another pack of perpetrated cold-war lies about those ETs, such as
going for the proven WMD classic and then using our "so what's the
difference" policy that sucks and blows without a stitch of remorse, so
that we could just takeover whatever we damn well felt like, whereas
either via taking or having otherwise simply made whatever too damn
spendy or too risky for others to get their hands on, by which
essentially accomplishes nearly the same ultimate goal as for our
stealing at 10 cents on the dollar.
Of course, there's a perfectly good chance that ETs would much rather
want samples of fresh body organs in exchange for whatever. I'll gladly
offer those of our resident warlord(GW Bush), plus any number of fresh
organs as harvested on demand from his extremely brown-nosed Third
Reich minions to boot. Maybe there's an ET version of Ebay for body
parts, so that we can list such inventories of living body organs
that'll benefit an ET host.
>It might be wise, however, to leave Mars and Venus alone. At least for
>a while. Our Outer Space capabilities need to be developed before . .
>. dropping in on them. We should be developing our capabilities
>rapidly, not waiting on NASA.
Mars is a pathetic lose-lose situation, at least for us humans. It's
generaly too damn far away, it is generally too damn cold, there's
hardly any viable amount of solar energy to draw upon, there's been no
identified geothermal energy of any significance to draw upon, it has
almost no magnetic field, hardly any atmosphere (there are moons having
a kazoo more worth of atmosphere), thereby loads of cosmic and the
truly bad sorts of solar influx that'll nail your DNA/RNA that'll
likely be more than half terminated just by the time you've arrived, as
well as Mars hosting next to nothing in the way of viable rocket fuel
that at best would require the import of more energy from Earth than
can be locally extracted and/or processed into viable CO/O2. In other
words, Mars sucks, not to mention without notice of at any moment
getting seriously pulverized by incoming debris that isn't hardly
slowing down until it impacts something.
Venus is on the other hand absolutely chuck full of easily accessable
mineral elements, loads of geothermal energy, unlimited green/renewable
energy as easily taken on demand from the vertical pressure and thermal
differentials, the atmosphere is sufficiently thick enough that next to
nothing gets through fast enough to cause any harm, plus most any rigid
airship (even if it were made out of iron) would float quite nicely
before contacting the deck. There's even less harmful cosmic and solar
radiation getting through to the surface than upon Earth, whereas
there's not even all that much of the visible spectrum of photon energy
reaching the surface that's toasty in spots. Most, the vast majority,
of the environment heat has been geothermal, and thereby it's
relatively easly to avoid the truly hot-spots. Since Venus is offering
a relatively dry surface (excluding active volcanic erruptions,
whatever hot mud flows or surface reservoir stored petro chemicals),
the likes of whatever salts, sulphurs, acids or even CO2 isn't
representing hardly if any insurmountable biological problem nor zilch
worth of insurmountable robotic technology applications whatsoever.
Since there's unlimited green/renewable energy that'll be easy to
extract, making CO2-->CO/O2 is a done deal. There's actually more than
sufficient fresh water for sustaining thousands if not hundreds of
thousans of human like folks (though being exoskeletal should have the
advantage), of H2O that can be simply distilled and thus extracted from
the relatively cool nighttime season worth of such thick (25 km worth)
and of such a chemically composite rich resource of acidic clouds (tru
to remember that there's no local energy shortages). Thermal insulation
certainly isn't a problem, at a structural worth of R-1024/m from
locally produced basalt composites. With such a vast amount of local
energy at your disposal, all sorts of chemical processes and product
conversions can be accomplished without your having to import one
joule. Venus is also extremely nearby, at times as little as 100 fold
the distance to our moon, therefore each 19 month flyby cycle that's
close enough to being nearly classified as a worthy NEO, whereas such
timing offers that extremely nearby window of oppertunity with
essentially the same face of Venus looking at Earth (is that good or
what?), by which a shuttle/spaceplane craft should not have any problem
whatsoever accomplishing the to/from task. Actually, the to/from part
of having to exit and of returning to mother Earth should be more
energy demanding and more thermally risky than any nighttime season of
getting your spaceplane to/from the Venus surface. Venus offers a rigid
spaceplane friendly as well as a human friendly planet because, there's
so much available that's technically managable and thus safely doable
as is. Venus is certainly a whole lot easier for getting most any form
of human transports onto and away from the deck than of having to
accomplish the moon. Of course, there's already a viable tarmac on
Venus, with nearby reserviors containing something that's fluid, plus a
rather significant community that's extremely complex and of a fairly
large scale to boot.
Therefore, I totally agree that "we should be developing our
capabilities rapidly, not waiting on NASA".
>NASA is dreaming of the past when Americans waited breathlessly
>while vertical tube rockets launched from the Cape.
What the hell are you still saying? - Our NASA is nothing but a cloak
on behalf of MI6/NSA~CIA ulterior motives plus a rather nasty load of a
perpetrated cold-war, as their brown-nosed rusemaster of a LLPOF fiasco
that's Apollo bogus and as phony baloney as a three dollar bill.
>Moving forward means spaceplanes with large cargo holds capable
>of placing habitats and mining equipment on moons and asteroids.
I couldn't have said it any better. Forward without limitations or
being snookered and thereby dumbfounded by our past.
>Free Enterprise has to save us. Thank God for Sir Branson and
>Mr. Rutan, and all men of vision.
I totally 100+% agree. However, first we might have to survive WW-III,
$100/gallon fuel and keeping our distance from at least half the world
that seriously hates each of our energy sucking, polluting and global
warming butts. That's not going to be easy nor cheap.
Going for Venus is the absolute next best thing to unprotected sex,
except without any chance of getting AIDS or even getting burned as
long as you knew enough of physics-101 basics in order to tie your own
shoe laces. Only the dumb and dumber couldn't manage to survive upon
Venus. It's that simple, We leave the dumbfounded folks upon Earth to
fend for themselves, taking those of us smart enough to where it's
rather toasty warm but hardly the least bit insurmountable once you've
gotten established.
What would you like to specifically talk about accomplishing first,
while your spaceplane has safely arrived into the extremely buoyant
atmosphere and of the bit cooler nighttime season of Venus, say
cruising efficiently (nearly effortlessly) along at 20~25 km off the
deck. I'll vote for the CO2-->CO/O2 task, then going for robotically
extracting a few tonnes worth of fresh water might be a wee bit better
off than having to directly recycle sweat and urine, especially if once
upon the surface you wanted to establish good sized hot-tubs worth of
fresh water to play around in, or as for having established an ice
skating arena combined with a HOOTERS bar that's serving Venus
environmentally baked pizza and ice cold beer that could put a good
healthy spin on the notion of what's entirely doable once situated upon
Venus, managing quite nicely for better than 15 months at a time if you
subtracted the portion of to/from travel that'll get folks between
Earth and Venus, and subsequently back home via the "Tomcat
Spaceplane", within a short time with less fuss and fewer complications
than for going anywhere near Mars.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
into consideration, then reply if I have sufficient questions that
relate specifically to such matters of rocket-science, or of our
accomplishing whatever's necessary for that of achieving the
LSE-CM/ISS, walking upon the moon itself and on behalf of our exploring
the extremely nearby planet of Venus in person.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.tech/browse_frm/thread/78dad3bb3098a2a4/ac0299c403610478?lnk=st&q=SODA+CAN+SSTO&rnum=2&hl=en#ac0299c403610478
>A small ablative coated rocket engine with blow down propellant feed
>burning H2O2 and Jet Fuel - would then ignite at altitude. It might
>even spin to pressurize the rocket engine - ala Cyclojet.
I'd like this Cyclojet SSTO notion even more if you'd go along with
H2O2/C3H4O, as well as for making that soda can a wee bit longer and as
constructed out of basalt and carbon composites so that the inert/dry
mass is next to nothing, thus a small payload of a microsatellite might
even get sufficiently past the SSOT, whereas if need be a second stage
that hopefully cruises past the SSTGSO and thereby off towards briefly
orbiting the moon. From GSO on, along with utilizing the nearby
alignment of our moon at closest range is actually representing quite a
substantial pull of gravity that'll get the LL1/ME-L1 not only much
closer to Earth but of otherwise minimizing the tug of mother Earth as
for the small rocket and of it's microsatellite payload being headed
almost directly towards our moon.
>A prize from coke, to launch into orbit a standard coke-can
>would be interesting :)
I'll offer unlimited 50/50 matching funds, that is if you'll 50/50
share and share alike.
I'd like to understand the rocket/payload ratios, as to what's
currently doable as per accomplishing GSO, and of what's possible to
improve upon without getting exterminated in the process.
How much further have you gotten with the following?
>I think a three stage (1Kg payload, 5Kg/25Kg/125Kg total loaded
>mass) launcher would be quite possible.
>In the design I'm progressing (very slowly) on, there would be an
>extra 625Kg stage, to make the margins looser. (or, a 1Kg stage
>with 200g payload.)
-
Brad Guth
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
> Tell me why you're all the sudden back into avoiding any topic or
> sub-topic regarding our moon and Venus, thus excluding our two closest
> and most 'zone of life' worthy orbs besides Earth. It seems as though,
> going after some other distant moons and of otherwise snagging
> asteroids that from time to time so happen to be passing nearby isn't
> such a sure bet as per pillaging and plundering our local cash of lunar
> He3, being of the most essential portion of the fusion formula that'll
Based on my pictures of Mars and our Moon we are dealing with Aliens.
( See: http://stardot.blogspot.com/ )
I also did an enlargement of a picture taken of the Moon on the ISS.
It shows two unquestionable rectangular areas of very large size, one
with two large circles in it. It appears that the Martians have their
'little red wagons' on our Moon. It is likely they are scraping He-3
off the surface. There would be little reason for such a mammoth
project of making a huge rectangle on the surface unless it was to
obtain a valuable resource.
I believe it is wise to stay clear of their home planets unless
invited. But our Moon is OUR Moon. It is part of the Earth-Moon
system. We need to find out what is going on up there.
I believe this is the responsibility of the USAF. The USAF needs to
get rid of it's out-of-date vehicles asap and begin building armed
spaceplanes to recon the Moon. The only quality combat aircraft it has
at present are the F-22 Raptor and the B-2 Spirit. And, they need
spaceplanes too!
> We're waiting pretty much because of folks exactly like yourself, that
> still don't believe that we can't really accomplish what we've been
> told, at least not as per getting folks or even substantial robotics
> safely onto the likes of Mars or Mercury, and thereby most certainly
> we've not accomplished such upon the nearly vacuum environment of our
> moon that still representing a good deal of gravity, by which only a
> fly-by-rocket can overcome. Guess what Sir fool(aka tomcat) on the
> hill, we still haven't a viable fly-by-rocket lander. Even the Mars
> robotics are a mere fraction of the mass as to what supposedly got
> deployed upon our moon. Try doing the math, along with taking into
> account that at least the Mars atmosphere had 7+ millibars worth of an
> aerobreaking atmosphere that absolutely saved the day, whereas our moon
> has nearly zilch if not supposedly 3e-15 bar, whish sucks the life out
> of our getting anything soft-landed upon that extremely reactive moon
> of ours.
Remember that the Moon has only 1/6th the gravity of Earth. So, it is
still an easy land and takeoff. It is rich with He-3, titanium,
aluminum, and oxygen. Well worth the trip. BTW, there are large
amounts of water ice in shady craters as well!
> Of course, there's a perfectly good chance that ETs would much rather
> want samples of fresh body organs in exchange for whatever. I'll gladly
> offer those of our resident warlord(GW Bush), plus any number of fresh
> organs as harvested on demand from his extremely brown-nosed Third
> Reich minions to boot. Maybe there's an ET version of Ebay for body
> parts, so that we can list such inventories of living body organs
> that'll benefit an ET host.
I don't know what to think about the 'body parts' rumors floating
around.
We are very close to being able to snythesize our food from inorganic
and plant compounds. There is even the possibility of 'replicating'
plant and animal cells using entanglement and terrabyte computer
memories.
"Tea, Earl Gray, hot."
If these Aliens need our body parts then they are a bit behind us
technology wise. I wonder if they can defend against terrawatt lasers?
If 1/10th of 1 percent gets through a forcefield you're fried!
Forcefields aren't perfect. Ask any nuclear fusion physicist.
> Mars is a pathetic lose-lose situation, at least for us humans. It's
> generaly too damn far away, it is generally too damn cold, there's
> hardly any viable amount of solar energy to draw upon, there's been no
> identified geothermal energy of any significance to draw upon, it has
> almost no magnetic field, hardly any atmosphere (there are moons having
> a kazoo more worth of atmosphere), thereby loads of cosmic and the
> truly bad sorts of solar influx that'll nail your DNA/RNA that'll
> likely be more than half terminated just by the time you've arrived, as
> well as Mars hosting next to nothing in the way of viable rocket fuel
> that at best would require the import of more energy from Earth than
> can be locally extracted and/or processed into viable CO/O2. In other
> words, Mars sucks, not to mention without notice of at any moment
> getting seriously pulverized by incoming debris that isn't hardly
> slowing down until it impacts something.
Mars has mostly iron in it's soil. And, Earth has ample quantities of
iron. What we really need from Mars is technology. Careful negoiation
with the Martians is indicated here.
Venus has an atmosphere of about 100 atmospheres. That means it is
immersed in a liquid of some kind. If you put a lander down in one of
Earth's oceans you would get a similiar reading.
Their civilization is probably on their mountain tops. We need to
communicate with and tread carefully with the Venusians, if there is a
civilized people there. Your pictures tend to indicate that there are
designed structures. That is enough to be careful.
Once again, our USAF needs to get up-to-date quickly. The F-22's and
B-2's need to be supplemented with armed spaceplanes.
> However, first we might have to survive WW-III,
> $100/gallon fuel and keeping our distance from at least half the world
> that seriously hates each of our energy sucking, polluting and global
> warming butts. That's not going to be easy nor cheap.
Earth has to pull together. Divided we are weak. There are new worlds
to conquer. It could turn out to be 'killed or be killed'. Don't
underestimate the Martians or the Venusians. They didn't get to where
they are by being 'nice guys'.
"Baked pizza and ice cold beer" on Venus! And the beautiful Venusian
forests seen through 1 inch thick Lexan bulletproof glass. A single
'tomcat spaceplane' passenger would willingly pay 10 million or so for
the visit.
They would stay overnight in the Venus Hilton located on top of a
mountain overlooking the ocean. Replicated steaks and caviar would be
served for dinner. Gambling in tomcat's casino would include free
drinks served by beautiful young ladies. That would probably net
another 10 million per passenger.
The adventurous would hike down the mountain dressed in official NASA
spacesuits.
NASA, itself, would still be doing the finishing touches on their CEV
in hopes of getting to the Moon. A bit behind Free Enterprise, but
trying hard none-the-less.
tomcat
Brad Guth
>( See: http://stardot.blogspot.com/ )
>I believe it is wise to stay clear of their home planets unless
>invited. But our Moon is OUR Moon.
But Venus already has way more green/renewable energy that's easily
obtainable, thus Venusians need not He3. Perhaps a lunar base of
logistics on behalf of their invasion of Earth?
>I believe this is the responsibility of the USAF.
OOPS!, now we're right back in deep trouble, as in River City (aka
pun).
Why are you pretending at being so in need of sharing those rather
obvious facts about our moon, while otherwise avoiding anything that's
honestly related to exploring the planet Venus, or even of sharing what
the Venus EXPRESS mission should have to represent?
>Venus has an atmosphere of about 100 atmospheres.
>That means it is immersed in a liquid of some kind.
YES and most certainly NO. Are you kidding or just actually that
dumbfounded?
>Their civilization is probably on their mountain tops. We need to
>communicate with and tread carefully with the Venusians, if there is a
>civilized people there. Your pictures tend to indicate that there are
>designed structures. That is enough to be careful.
This I totally agree with, and I have extremely affordable alternatives
to otherwise physically going there in person, which could certainly be
a bad move on our part if those Venusians are having to survive yet
another bad day or even a relatively cooler but still somewhat nasty
nightime season.
>Once again, our USAF needs to get up-to-date quickly.
>The F-22's and B-2's need to be supplemented with armed spaceplanes.
Now you're going postal on us again. Back way off here and take another
fresh look-see at the big picture. Try for once to start off on a
positive note, rather than planning upon starting our first and perhaps
our last interplanetary war of the worlds. As bad off as heathen
exoskeletal Venusians could be, whereas they can't possibly be as dumb
and dumber nor as LLPOF bad off as our resident warlord(GW Bush), and
of his extremely brown-nosed minions that continually suck and blow at
just about everything.
>Earth has to pull together. Divided we are weak. There are new worlds
>to conquer. It could turn out to be 'killed or be killed'. Don't
>underestimate the Martians or the Venusians. They didn't get to where
>they are by being 'nice guys'.
You could be right. However, hopefully Venusian Cathars could be
exactly what our good old polluted and global warming Earth needs. A
good ET worthy kick in our sorry butts of greed, arrogance and bigotry
for starters.
-
Brad Guth
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
> But Venus already has way more green/renewable energy that's easily
> obtainable, thus Venusians need not He3. Perhaps a lunar base of
> logistics on behalf of their invasion of Earth?
>
>
> obvious facts about our moon, while otherwise avoiding anything that's
> honestly related to exploring the planet Venus, or even of sharing what
> the Venus EXPRESS mission should have to represent?
> >Venus has an atmosphere of about 100 atmospheres.
> >That means it is immersed in a liquid of some kind.
> YES and most certainly NO. Are you kidding or just actually that
> dumbfounded?
One hundred atmospheres of pressure is so great that whatever it is
must be either a liquid of nearly so.
.
> This I totally agree with, and I have extremely affordable alternatives
> to otherwise physically going there in person, which could certainly be
> a bad move on our part if those Venusians are having to survive yet
> another bad day or even a relatively cooler but still somewhat nasty
> nightime season.
>
> Now you're going postal on us again. Back way off here and take another
> fresh look-see at the big picture. Try for once to start off on a
> positive note, rather than planning upon starting our first and perhaps
> our last interplanetary war of the worlds. As bad off as heathen
> exoskeletal Venusians could be, whereas they can't possibly be as dumb
> and dumber nor as LLPOF bad off as our resident warlord(GW Bush), and
> of his extremely brown-nosed minions that continually suck and blow at
> just about everything.
How do you know they have exoskeletons? An assumption based on their
atmospheric pressure?
> You could be right. However, hopefully Venusian Cathars could be
> exactly what our good old polluted and global warming Earth needs. A
> good ET worthy kick in our sorry butts of greed, arrogance and bigotry
> for starters.
> -
> Brad Guth
It probably sounds strange to many that we are talking of Aliens, sight
unseen. But you have to follow the logic trail. I have pictures of
unquestionable buildings and beings on Mars from enlarged Spirit Rover
pictures. (Ref: http://stardot.blogspot.com/ )
I also have the rectangles from an enlarged ISS photograph. I don't
believe it is a lens aberration because the lines of the rectangles
stop and turn right at the foot of mountain chains on the Moon. There
are two such rectangles and this is true of both. The width of the
'lines' suggests strip mining, not fences or such.
Your pictures of Venus clearly suggest an advanced civilization with
very large buildings, roads, and port facilities.
It is reasonable, then, to assume that Martians and Venusians exist.
Their possible presence on our Moon is worrisome. It is our Earth/Moon
system. With so many moons and asteroids available it makes me wonder
'why' they are on our Moon. A bit too close for comfort, I'm afraid.
Prior to our landing on the Moon in July of 1969, a shadow across one
of the craters that could only be the result of an unnatural bridge was
observed by astronomers. The implication is clear: We are being
watched!
The number of UFO sightings also suggest that recon is underway of our
planet. The USAF has to respond by building bigger, better, more
sophisticated vehicles than the . . . Aliens. And, no 'ifs' 'ands' or
'buts' are allowed. Just build them.
I'll be glad to assist --- for a price. Three million dollars to be
exact.
Absolute stealth is absolutely necessary for all U.S. armed forces. To
be seen is to be destroyed. "First look, first kill," is the order of
the day. Unfortunately, however, the U.S. Navy has . . . 'wakes'.
But, their subs don't. Ergo, the U.S. Navy must go beneath the waves
--- no 'ifs', 'ands', or 'buts'.
tomcat
Craig Fink
>
> Brad Guth wrote:
WWhaaatttt?????????????????????????
Cold Equations????????????????????????????????
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBe...@GMail.Com
Brad Guth
>that whatever it is must be either a liquid of nearly so.
certain elements such as oil/tars, volcanic mud flows, pools of high
density sulphur/acids and perhaps good old H2O2 as remaining nearly as
a stable fluids in the open. However, in case you hadn't noticed, it's
rather toasty warm if not in places a wee bit hotter than hell on or
even near the deck (I would not exactly advise your walking upon active
lava/mud flows), and even within the season of nighttime it's simply
not a whole lot cooler unless you've got some altitude to work with.
Thereby, it's extremely unlikely that even a salty brine would coexist
for long without requiring something extra of a protective layer,
containment and/or of pressurising it a bit greater than 100 bar.
Otherwise, there's absolutely no problem of artificially containing the
likes of H2O or most any other element you can think of. It's called
physics, as in duh-101 physics, which otherwise means so what if Venus
has become highly pressurized and hot.
>How do you know they have exoskeletons?
>An assumption based on their atmospheric pressure?
First of all, I'm not another one of those all-knowing naysay mutated
clones of your mainstream status quo, thereby "assumption" is my
middle name, as for either my having taken that one or "exaggeration"
as being just about as good for that of accommodating my good
intentions of deductively assuming on behalf of appreciating the best
alternatives for such folks as having survived upon their home planet,
that unfortunately went from tropical to downright hot and nasty within
just no geological time at all (meaning that existing craters are what
proves that Venus simply wasn't always that atmospherically thick and
subsequently extra hot). Thus if it wasn't by way of intelligent
design, chances are better than not for such local forms of life to
have developed/evolved into a more biologically efficient form that
could sustain an internal worth of pressure differential, while losing
the least amount of sweat (if any) and, preying to God or of their
intelligent designers that their DNA/RNA code is not stuck with having
such a wossy skin along with all of those pesky nerve endings within
every square mm. Good grief; how many pours plus surface nerve endings
do we have, and why?
Atmospheric pressure is nearly a nonissue with regard to being
exoskeletal or not. Pressure is actually a good thing to have, whereas
pressure is much more adaptable to, rather than a vacuum or even a near
vacuum as existing upon Mars that'll literally suck the life right out
of your soft SpongeBob like porous body, whereas a good exoskeletal
alternative form of life might even survive at one millibar as well as
it should adapt quite nicely to surviving at 100 bar without either
case involving an environmental suit. Exoskeletal pressure differential
management can be accommodated in many ways that are far superior to
what we humans have to work with. Humanity simply is NOT the leader of
the intellectual nor biological pack, and obviously we'd just as soon
kill our own kind as not (so much for morality or remorse).
Of course, sufficiently smart visiting ETs (meaning interplanetary if
not interstellar capable travelers) that are only there upon Venus for
extracting goodies would obviously have applied whatever necessary
technology so as to safely function while having to live and work upon
that geothermal heated deck of Venus, at least that's pretty much
exactly what we'd have to do. Therefore such ETs could be somewhat
physiologically human (just don't count on it).
I'm thinking there's some of each, meaning local exoskeletal Venusians
and technologically advanced ETs that could possible be somewhat like
us, just a whole lot smarter.
>Your pictures of Venus clearly suggest an advanced civilization
>with very large buildings, roads, and port facilities.
Make those "port facilities" into large rigid airship facilities and
you've got youself a winning deal. Venus is totally surrounded by a
crystal clear ocean that's rather nicely buoyant to something better
than 65 kg/m3 to whatever's situated sufficiently below the 25 km thick
cloud deck plus layers of haze, whereas it's relatively calm below
those thick clouds, but otherwise nicely retrograde that's providing
next to nothing of a velocity near the deck. Ridid airship or even
"tomcat spaceplane" speaking, that's yet another win-win.
>It is reasonable, then, to assume that Martians and Venusians
>exist. Their possible presence on our Moon is worrisome.
I agree, that if extremely small ETs from Mare or a somewhat large
exoskeletal variety from Venus are a possibility. Though I'm thinking
somewhat doubtful, whereas if either of those two nearby worlds have
set up camp upon our moon, as such we're seriously screwed to a
fairlywell. Give me that link to your moon "rectangles" again, and I'll
see whatever it is that I can see, as there are those extremely close
plus 10X telephoto images (that's image recordings of essentially
38,400:1 magnification worth of Kodak moments upon high resolution
56x56 mm film) obtained from the orbital phase of those NASA/Apollo
missions that are perfectly believable as well as sharing an impressive
look-see at what's so nasty about our moon.
>Prior to our landing on the Moon in July of 1969,
Now here's the real dumbfounded root of the problem. You're absolutely
way too snookered and thus dumbfounded past the point of no-return. Fix
that nasty problem and perhaps we can talk intelligently as well as
technically about ETs camping upon our moon. Until then, forget it. Try
putting in the 'supposedly' qualifier of - Prior to our SUPPOSEDLY
landing on the Moon", whereas at least that gives us some common room
for a reality check, not to mention as based upon hard-science which so
happens to entirely lack any viable fly-by-rocket landers, and as
having avoiding the regular laws of physics that so happens to includes
Kodak moments that couldn't possibly have been obtained from any lunar
surface EVA situation. What parts of duh and double duh is still over
your head?
>Absolute stealth is absolutely necessary for all U.S. armed forces.
>To be seen is to be destroyed. "First look, first kill," is the order
>of the day.
In that case we're summaril screwed unless we hire the likes of Saddam,
just like we'd previously hired all of those Third Reich and otherwise
smart German SS rocket scientist that were essentially Hitter's
minions, as subsequently reutilized in order to pull off snookering the
likes of yourself (obviously it worked). So therefore, by having Saddam
R&D for us in total secret, plus accomplish all of the prototype
testing and then construct all of those 100% stealth WMD, that since
velocity is an important factor (you can't coast these suckers to the
moon) and since we don't have the ideal equator launch capability for
such massive rockets, whereas such modern items might require something
greater than a 100:1 ratio of rocket/payload, in which case once these
nifty weapons are built is when no such smart ET and thereby much less
ourselves can possibly relocate so much as one out of supposedly
thousands of WMD. Fortunately, at the going labor cost of what the
stealth expertise of Iraq charges, we could have these nifty suckers at
roughly less than ten cents on the dollar. Is that a good outsourcing
technological win-win for the old gipper, or what?
BTW; if ETs have already established their tactical and logistics upon
or within our moon, as for our being stealth is simply way too little
too late. Besides all of that, I'm certain ETs have a whole lot better
internet/Usenet access than myself. So, what's the point of going
stealth?
BTW No.2: I've already told you and other folks (thus ETs must already
know) that my LSE-CM/ISS offers the best one-and-only do-everything
plus star-wars capability, as well as representing the most terrific
anti-ET solution in town, as being initially tethered roughly 60,000 km
away from the lunar surface for all of us to see (it get's situated
closer to the moon as mass is increased). Providing a fairly spacious
CM/ISS platform situated a little bit towards the earthly pull as being
within the LL1/ME-L1 nullification zone of our mutual interactive
gravity well (for God's sake, do the math), that which has been
entirely doable with our past and existing technology. This lunar space
elevator is NOT A JOKE, though obviously yourself and most others are.
-
Brad Guth
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
> I agree with the regular laws of physics that should have made for
> certain elements such as oil/tars, volcanic mud flows, pools of high
> density sulphur/acids and perhaps good old H2O2 as remaining nearly as
> a stable fluids in the open. However, in case you hadn't noticed, it's
> rather toasty warm if not in places a wee bit hotter than hell on or
> even near the deck (I would not exactly advise your walking upon active
> lava/mud flows), and even within the season of nighttime it's simply
> not a whole lot cooler unless you've got some altitude to work with.
> Thereby, it's extremely unlikely that even a salty brine would coexist
> for long without requiring something extra of a protective layer,
> containment and/or of pressurising it a bit greater than 100 bar.
> Otherwise, there's absolutely no problem of artificially containing the
> likes of H2O or most any other element you can think of. It's called
> physics, as in duh-101 physics, which otherwise means so what if Venus
> has become highly pressurized and hot.
I have seen closeup photos of Venus taken by the Russian Lander. It
looks normal: rocks and dirt. Yet we hear of 100 atmospheres of
pressure, immense heat, rivers of sulphur.
The Venus Orbiter radar picture seems to show buildings and forests on
the sides of mountains. All this in 100 atmospheres of pressure and
immense heat?
What gives?
Brad, you don't have an exoskeleton, do you? Some beings are built
that way. It's just mother nature.
> Of course, sufficiently smart visiting ETs (meaning interplanetary if
> not interstellar capable travelers) that are only there upon Venus for
> extracting goodies would obviously have applied whatever necessary
> technology so as to safely function while having to live and work upon
> that geothermal heated deck of Venus, at least that's pretty much
> exactly what we'd have to do. Therefore such ETs could be somewhat
> physiologically human (just don't count on it).
>
> I'm thinking there's some of each, meaning local exoskeletal Venusians
> and technologically advanced ETs that could possible be somewhat like
> us, just a whole lot smarter.
ET's tend to be the 'smart types'. Maybe Earth should promote the
'smart types' too. The 'other types' are something else.
> Make those "port facilities" into large rigid airship facilities and
> you've got youself a winning deal. Venus is totally surrounded by a
> crystal clear ocean that's rather nicely buoyant to something better
> than 65 kg/m3 to whatever's situated sufficiently below the 25 km thick
> cloud deck plus layers of haze, whereas it's relatively calm below
> those thick clouds, but otherwise nicely retrograde that's providing
> next to nothing of a velocity near the deck. Ridid airship or even
> "tomcat spaceplane" speaking, that's yet another win-win.
A few years ago, it was thought that landing on a 'fast moving'
asteroid would be impossible. A bullet hitting another bullet and all
that.
Since then, it has 'proven' to be quite easy. A little math digested
by a computer and you're hovering right over the asteroid. A little
more math, or pilot manipulation, and it's a nice clean landing. Piece
of cake!
I suspect the same is true of the planets. A Mars landing seems so
difficult, but is probably no more difficult than an Earth landing.
Ditto for Venus, and other celestial bodies.
Thick atmospheres and low gravity can actually be an excellent assist
to a 'good landing'. On the Moon, for instance, you retrofire until
you stop about 100 feet above the surface, then just drop down into the
Moon dust. The low gravity, plus ultra strong composite, protect the
ship and pilot from damage. (Hopefully you have shock absorbers on the
titanium landing struts.)
Outer Space is wide open! The scaredy cats are just afraid, that's
all. All you got to do is slap ole tomcat's spaceplane together and go
do it. And, so what if the Aliens hit you with a terrawatt laser. We
all go sometime anyway.
The Vikings slapped their Dragon Ships together using tree sap, hopped
in, and off they went! They weren't afraid of anything. The old
nautical charts always noted on their parchment edges: "Lest thar be
Dragons."
What happened to "Ho, Ho, Ho, and a bottle of Rum"?
> I agree, that if extremely small ETs from Mare or a somewhat large
> exoskeletal variety from Venus are a possibility. Though I'm thinking
> somewhat doubtful, whereas if either of those two nearby worlds have
> set up camp upon our moon, as such we're seriously screwed to a
> fairlywell. Give me that link to your moon "rectangles" again, and I'll
> see whatever it is that I can see, as there are those extremely close
> plus 10X telephoto images (that's image recordings of essentially
> 38,400:1 magnification worth of Kodak moments upon high resolution
> 56x56 mm film) obtained from the orbital phase of those NASA/Apollo
> missions that are perfectly believable as well as sharing an impressive
> look-see at what's so nasty about our moon.
I don't have the ISS photo on the web. Check 'Google Images' for ISS
and you may spot it. It is just a good standard photo of the Moon shot
through an ISS window. Enlarge it and then the rectangles appear.
> >Absolute stealth is absolutely necessary for all U.S. armed forces.
> >To be seen is to be destroyed. "First look, first kill," is the order
> >of the day.
> In that case we're summaril screwed unless we hire the likes of Saddam,
> just like we'd previously hired all of those Third Reich and otherwise
> smart German SS rocket scientist that were essentially Hitter's
> minions, as subsequently reutilized in order to pull off snookering the
> likes of yourself (obviously it worked). So therefore, by having Saddam
> R&D for us in total secret, plus accomplish all of the prototype
> testing and then construct all of those 100% stealth WMD, that since
> velocity is an important factor (you can't coast these suckers to the
> moon) and since we don't have the ideal equator launch capability for
> such massive rockets, whereas such modern items might require something
> greater than a 100:1 ratio of rocket/payload, in which case once these
> nifty weapons are built is when no such smart ET and thereby much less
> ourselves can possibly relocate so much as one out of supposedly
> thousands of WMD. Fortunately, at the going labor cost of what the
> stealth expertise of Iraq charges, we could have these nifty suckers at
> roughly less than ten cents on the dollar. Is that a good outsourcing
> technological win-win for the old gipper, or what?
"To Be or Not to Be, that is the Question." No getting around it, the
situation is dire. Earth has to pull together --- or else.
> BTW; if ETs have already established their tactical and logistics upon
> or within our moon, as for our being stealth is simply way too little
> too late. Besides all of that, I'm certain ETs have a whole lot better
> internet/Usenet access than myself. So, what's the point of going
> stealth?
We must be hidden and visible at the same time. Be at one place but
appear to be at another. Communicate, discombobulate, and manipulate.
Hold out the olive branch, hide the club, and be prepared for whatever
happens.
We must wrap our enemies in images, let them strike out in vain, judge
the truth of it, and do whatever has to be done, always invisible,
always fleeting. Stealth, stealth, and more stealth! Camoflage and
cover delivering the 'unfelt' death. Instant vaporization from the
unknown depths of space.
"To Be or Not to Be." Will Earth learn. Will Earth prepare. Will
Earth fight. . . . I don't know.
> BTW No.2: I've already told you and other folks (thus ETs must already
> know) that my LSE-CM/ISS offers the best one-and-only do-everything
> plus star-wars capability, as well as representing the most terrific
> anti-ET solution in town, as being initially tethered roughly 60,000 km
> away from the lunar surface for all of us to see (it get's situated
> closer to the moon as mass is increased). Providing a fairly spacious
> CM/ISS platform situated a little bit towards the earthly pull as being
> within the LL1/ME-L1 nullification zone of our mutual interactive
> gravity well (for God's sake, do the math), that which has been
> entirely doable with our past and existing technology. This lunar space
> elevator is NOT A JOKE, though obviously yourself and most others are.
Terrawatt lasers in Outer Space is a pretty powerful punch. And it is
doable, using today's technology. Solar power and/or He-3 can provide
the energy. Now, if we can just make them 'invisible' besides.
Quantum Vacuum, and all that, you know!
tomcat
Brad Guth
First of all, as pertaining to some of your previous contributions; If
there are ET's as having taken up living within our moon, chances are
more than likely they'd rather not chance getting their superior
DNA/RNA infected by the insurmountable arrogance, greed and pure
stupidity of such a bigoted to death Earth. I mean to suggest, if you
had such nifty interplanetary travel capability, why would you bother
and much less care about what little Earth has to offer, as opposed to
the nearly certain death-wish upon whatever ET set a foolish foot upon
our badly polluted and otherwise chance getting a nasty butt load of
our biologically incest mutated as well as artificially engineered
forms of Earthly microbes? I'd thought you had agreed that ET were
smart, or at least smarter than that?
>I have seen closeup photos of Venus taken by the Russian Lander. It
>looks normal: rocks and dirt. Yet we hear of 100 atmospheres of
>pressure, immense heat, rivers of sulphur.
I tend to agree that the surface of Venus looks somewhat normal, though
still rather toasty hot, but only because it's such a dry heat means
that it really isn't so nasty. Within that pressure, as little as 0.1%
O2 could become sufficient for accommodating the local forms of life,
whereas we might require at most 0.5% O2. Such bone-dry CO2 isn't
nearly the threat as per here upon this extremely wet Earth, and even
the likes of dry sulpher powder is entirely passive. I believe the
ongoing Venus EXPRESS mission should soon put a few more nails in the
naysay coffins.
Remember that such pressure alone is not technically nor even the least
bit biologically insurmountable, and even such a dry heat is rather
easily isolated without taking all that much of an effort. Just don't
try taking a whizzz or much less dumping a load upon mother nature if
you're outside.
>The Venus Orbiter radar picture seems to show buildings and forests on
>the sides of mountains. All this in 100 atmospheres of pressure and
>immense heat?
>What gives?
What gives is that the local environment had become obviously somewhat
recently a geologically hot and nasty situation, although as of lately
Venus has been cooling itself off quite nicely. As long as nothing
horrific runs itself into Venus, all is perfectly well and good,
especially good for those having evolved into having an exoskeletal
body plus having an actual brain that's not nearly as dumbfounded as
most of us bigoted humans have to work with. With such an abundance of
green/renewable energy at their disposal, such energy makes all sorts
of nifty things possible, including hybrid vegetation that is
sufficiently radar signal energy absorbing, just as you've pointed out.
However, you simply can NOT survive upon Venus if you're dumb and much
less humanly naked, whereas Earth offers nearly unlimited opportunities
for the incurably dumb and dumber souls that haven't a clue, much less
a stitch of remorse to spare. Would you like a substantial listing of
those I'd consider most worthy of their remaining sequestered upon
Earth, as not otherwise entitled to Venus?
>Brad, you don't have an exoskeleton, do you? Some beings are built
>that way. It's just mother nature.
Tomcat, at times it seems as though you don't have half a brain, do
you? I guess some beings are built wossy and without even so much as
half a brain, and with whatever they have to work with being summarily
dumbfounded and intellectually mindset into the nearest space-toilet,
as well as having ulterior motives and hidden agendas up the kazoo.
Unlike yourself, I do not limit my intellectual nor biological
horizons, I also do not care to be living upon such an intellectually
flat Earth which employs book burnings and mind-control as our national
pastime, and otherwise God forbid, I'm not even opposed to what most
honest religions have to contribute by way of their actions. How about
yourself?
>ET's tend to be the 'smart types'. Maybe Earth should promote the
>'smart types' too. The 'other types' are something else.
Be specific, as to what "smart types" do we have to work with that are
not totally dumbfounded or other wise mainstream status quo skewed from
the very get go. Certainly you've been offering us yourself as any
viable example. So, please do share and share alike, as I'd truly take
to introducing myself, and I'd even put in a few good words on your
behalf, as to my communicating the best I can with those supposed
"smart types". Got a clue?
>A few years ago, it was thought that landing on a 'fast moving'
>asteroid would be impossible. A bullet hitting another bullet and all
>that.
>Since then, it has 'proven' to be quite easy. A little math digested
>by a computer and you're hovering right over the asteroid. A little
>more math, or pilot manipulation, and it's a nice clean landing. Piece
>of cake!
What "asteroid" are you talking about, and by whom?
I believe that Japan has recently come the closest to their efforts
accomplishing a soft landing upon an asteroid, but close doesn't cut
it.
Please let me know as soon as anyone or rather of whatever their
AI/robotics actually accomplishes that supposed "'proven' to be quite
easy" soft landing upon such a "Piece of cake!" asteroid. Docking at
ISS is still not quite such a "Piece of cake!", although perhaps it's
getting cupcake wise as representing that it's nearly a robotic
fly-by-rocket done deal, though that's only because of such having to
manage with essentially zilch worth of gravity factors.
>I suspect the same is true of the planets. A Mars landing seems so
>difficult, but is probably no more difficult than an Earth landing.
>Ditto for Venus, and other celestial bodies.
You really can't do basic math or kite worthy aerodynamics, so why are
you pretending at being so spaceplane worthy and all-knowing?
Clearly you haven't obtained a freaking clue nor appreciation as to the
vast difference between landings upon Mars as opposed to those upon
Venus, neither of which are anything remotely similar to landing upon
Earth. Especially of any fly-by-rocket landing upon our moon would be
rather lethal at cutting the thrust 100' off the deck, whereas at 1.623
m/s/s of what your spaceplane should still have to weigh-in at perhaps
the very least a hundred lunar tonnes, isn't going to represent a soft
landing unless it's moderated by the 10+ meters worth of thick
moon-dust which because of being near vacuum bone-dry and at 1/6th G
might not represent a surface tention that's worthy of 5 g/cm2 (I
believe it's called lithobreaking). perhaps cutting the SSME trust at
most 2~3 meters off the deck is going to be pushing the upper limits of
what's bound to be a horrifically dusty down-range arrival (purely via
3D radar imaging), but otherwise potentially survivable.
>I don't have the ISS photo on the web. Check 'Google Images' for ISS
>and you may spot it. It is just a good standard photo of the Moon shot
>through an ISS window. Enlarge it and then the rectangles appear.
I'm afraid that unless they were into using a 1000 fold telephoto and
having recorded such upon the one micron/grain worth of quality film,
that as such any ISS window shots are going to become somewhat easily
interpreted to mean whatever you'd like. You do realize that ISS is a
moving camera tripod, whereas the NASA/Apollo shots from lunar orbit
are truly impressive for their being 3,840 times closer and, some of
those having utilized a 10X telephoto lens to boot makes those shots
worth 38,400:1 better off any most any ISS look-see. You do realize
that I have little if any problem with such closeup photos that depicts
such a dark and nasty lunar terrain, of which I do believe there's far
more worthy signs of what's potentially ET than of any supposed Apollo
lander sites to being seen. Seems rather odd that not so much as one
out of thousands of such closeup look-sees obtained anything remotely
landing site worthy, especially weird since some of those missions
supposedly involved 72 nearby orbits of the moon, that which had to
have been passing directly over each of their specific sites, if not
having passed over more than one of their previous deployment landing
sites. I believe that's getting at least ten fold if not a whole lot
better resolution than the best of what team KECK has to offer.
>"To Be or Not to Be, that is the Question." No getting around it, the
>situation is dire. Earth has to pull together --- or else.
You already have solutions, as well as I have specific solutions, and
there's more available from where others can accomplish great and
meaningful alternatives to global pollution and of our subsequently
having to exterminate one another over the last spendy drops of oil and
nasty tonne of coal. Even NG is actually an environmentally negative
impact, as well as being directly toxic to life as we know it in far
more ways than just being chemically nasty, or didn't you know that
besides badly consuming our atmosphere that's mostly N2, thus creating
megatonnes of NOx, that we're also venting the likes of poisons plus
having extracted and surface disposed of heavy metals that includes
mercury, and then radium gets dumped directly into our environment by
the tonnes, thus bringing up vast amounts of decay elements which
besides their radiation is what eventually becomes the likes of good
old lead. No wonder we're getting dumb and dumber, or is that simply
too much information?
>We must be hidden and visible at the same time. Be at one place but
>appear to be at another. Communicate, discombobulate, and manipulate.
>Hold out the olive branch, hide the club, and be prepared for whatever
>happens.
But that's the current and ongoing mainstream status quo. Though
obviously we weren't the least bit prepared for the likes of creating
911's or even of our own artificially induced global warming. All that
we've accomplished is to further deplete the global energy reserves,
thereby raised the cost of living by several notches and otherwise
pissed off nearly half the world in the process, while otherwise having
ignored the clean and totally renewable 25 kw/m2 that's offering an
obtainable energy footprint with existing technology. So, what's your
point?
>"To Be or Not to Be." Will Earth learn. Will Earth prepare. Will
>Earth fight. . . . I don't know.
We'll fight, even if there's a need to first invent the ruse/sting of
ETs having WMD.
>Terrawatt lasers in Outer Space is a pretty powerful punch. And it is
>doable, using today's technology. Solar power and/or He-3 can provide
>the energy. Now, if we can just make them 'invisible' besides.
>Quantum Vacuum, and all that, you know!
Try 100 GW laser cannons to start with, whereas the initial 5 mr beam
is quite sufficient for taking out any of those lunar based ETs.
Enhance that down to 0.5 mr and we're talking about seriously pissing
off those Venusians or of their visiting ETs.
The very nature of establishing and sustaining a laser cannon is hardly
going to remain stealth, especially if there's an array of 12 such
laser cannons that are being utilized for transferring clean energy
away from the LSE-CM/ISS tethered dipole element that has got those
suckers cruising to within 25 km of mother Earth (I wouldn't dare allow
much closer unless the interactively tethered platform can actively
manage the lunar range that shifts quite a bit). Actually, the most
ideal range from Earth might become the terrestrial distance of our
GSO, whereas much closer might involve dodging and/or having to
vaporise a few too many satellites, plus otherwise active Ion thrusting
almost continuously.
-
Brad Guth
tomcat
Brad Guth wrote:
> Unlike yourself, I do not limit my intellectual nor biological
> horizons, I also do not care to be living upon such an intellectually
> flat Earth which employs book burnings and mind-control as our national
> pastime, and otherwise God forbid, I'm not even opposed to what most
> honest religions have to contribute by way of their actions. How about
> yourself?
Amercian Academe went so far to the left, to the very fringes of
Marxism, that they alienated the American People. While actual "book
burnings" have been few, the reaction to a communist/facist state ---
yes, both at once --- that began forming some years ago has limited
academe's ability to vector the brilliant to the needs of our society.
Remember the Officer's Oath: To defend the United States against 'all'
enemies, 'both' foreign and domestic.
The American Right Wing became incensed at the 'bloodless coup' being
perpetrated by academe. A horrible, twisted, tortuous battle ensued
between the right and the left. It has left the United States
exhausted.
Richard Nixon was forced to resign. Gerald Ford completed his term,
but lost the race to Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter served only one term.
Ronald Reagan served two terms and refurbished America's greatness in
world affairs, but during a period of domestic 'unrest'. George H. W.
Bush served only one term. Bill Clinton served two terms but was
impeached and nearly forced from office. George W. bush is now in his
second term.
In somewhat exaggerated terms, it was the march of communism versus
'book burnings' with 'mind control' being used by BOTH sides.
The upshot was a divided America watching the World Trade Towers
crumble into dust. America began to wake up. We were in danger. And,
now a healing of our politics is taking place. The lefts and rights
began pulling together. Afghanistan and Iraq were subdued.
Today, the real menace is from . . . Outer Space. Once again we must
pull together. All of Earth must pull together. We must conquer
science and project our power into the . . . unknown. To remain bound
to the Earth is to die. Adventurers must lead the way --- where others
fear to tread.
> Be specific, as to what "smart types" do we have to work with that are
> not totally dumbfounded or other wise mainstream status quo skewed from
> the very get go. Certainly you've been offering us yourself as any
> viable example. So, please do share and share alike, as I'd truly take
> to introducing myself, and I'd even put in a few good words on your
> behalf, as to my communicating the best I can with those supposed
> "smart types". Got a clue?
We must break free of the shackles of 'mind control' through the
enactment of laws controlling 'microwave devices' and their use. The
brilliant must be permitted to dream and achieve in the Military, the
Marketplace, and in Academe.
For so long to achieve a high score on an I.Q. test was to be secretly
condemned. If this continues it will be the end of Mankind.
The Aliens didn't develop space capability by stopping their brilliant.
They promoted them. And now their technological prowess is feared by
Earth. They possess ships that glow and float and make a mockery of
our jets. They accelerate so fast that it is regarded as a violation
of basic physics. They make right angle turns that should crush their
occupants. And, sometimes, our jet fighters just . . . disappear.
> What "asteroid" are you talking about, and by whom?
> I believe that Japan has recently come the closest to their efforts
> accomplishing a soft landing upon an asteroid, but close doesn't cut
> it.
Planetfall is planetfall, whether Earth or elsewhere. Relative
velocities are what count close in, not math generated celestial paths
to destination. Math will take you to the general location, but
landing is another matter. Ask any pilot.
> Please let me know as soon as anyone or rather of whatever their
> AI/robotics actually accomplishes that supposed "'proven' to be quite
> easy" soft landing upon such a "Piece of cake!" asteroid. Docking at
> ISS is still not quite such a "Piece of cake!", although perhaps it's
> getting cupcake wise as representing that it's nearly a robotic
> fly-by-rocket done deal, though that's only because of such having to
> manage with essentially zilch worth of gravity factors.
Just look at where you are going and forget the stick. Commonsense
will guide you, not the complex math of it.
> You really can't do basic math or kite worthy aerodynamics, so why are
> you pretending at being so spaceplane worthy and all-knowing?
"In God we trust, all else we monitor."
> I'm afraid that unless they were into using a 1000 fold telephoto and
> having recorded such upon the one micron/grain worth of quality film,
> that as such any ISS window shots are going to become somewhat easily
> interpreted to mean whatever you'd like. You do realize that ISS is a
> moving camera tripod, whereas the NASA/Apollo shots from lunar orbit
> are truly impressive for their being 3,840 times closer and, some of
> those having utilized a 10X telephoto lens to boot makes those shots
> worth 38,400:1 better off any most any ISS look-see. You do realize
> that I have little if any problem with such closeup photos that depicts
> such a dark and nasty lunar terrain, of which I do believe there's far
> more worthy signs of what's potentially ET than of any supposed Apollo
> lander sites to being seen. Seems rather odd that not so much as one
> out of thousands of such closeup look-sees obtained anything remotely
> landing site worthy, especially weird since some of those missions
> supposedly involved 72 nearby orbits of the moon, that which had to
> have been passing directly over each of their specific sites, if not
> having passed over more than one of their previous deployment landing
> sites. I believe that's getting at least ten fold if not a whole lot
> better resolution than the best of what team KECK has to offer.
The resolution wasn't good but the lines were there. And, what about
the famous bridge shadow?
> Even NG is actually an environmentally negative
> impact, as well as being directly toxic to life as we know it in far
> more ways than just being chemically nasty, or didn't you know that
> besides badly consuming our atmosphere that's mostly N2, thus creating
> megatonnes of NOx, that we're also venting the likes of poisons plus
> having extracted and surface disposed of heavy metals that includes
> mercury, and then radium gets dumped directly into our environment by
> the tonnes, thus bringing up vast amounts of decay elements which
> besides their radiation is what eventually becomes the likes of good
> old lead. No wonder we're getting dumb and dumber, or is that simply
> too much information?
Hydrocarbon fuels are on their way out. Burning dead dinosaur oil was
bound to cause smoke and soot. He-3, hydrogen fuel cells, and
solar/wind power are on their way in.
> Try 100 GW laser cannons to start with, whereas the initial 5 mr beam
> is quite sufficient for taking out any of those lunar based ETs.
> Enhance that down to 0.5 mr and we're talking about seriously pissing
> off those Venusians or of their visiting ETs.
Terrawatt lasers exist. They are used to zap things and do
spectroscopy. They are used to ignite fusion processes.
They don't use much energy either! A terrawatt shot can do more damage
in a trillionth of a second than your 100 GW laser cannon can do in a
second.
A hundred targets equals 100 trillionths of a second of terrawatt
power. And, those hundred targets take only a single, blinding,
blue-white flash. Only a computer will know the targets were spread
out in various directions and ranges.
> The very nature of establishing and sustaining a laser cannon is hardly
> going to remain stealth, especially if there's an array of 12 such
> laser cannons that are being utilized for transferring clean energy
> away from the LSE-CM/ISS tethered dipole element that has got those
> suckers cruising to within 25 km of mother Earth (I wouldn't dare allow
> much closer unless the interactively tethered platform can actively
> manage the lunar range that shifts quite a bit). Actually, the most
> ideal range from Earth might become the terrestrial distance of our
> GSO, whereas much closer might involve dodging and/or having to
> vaporise a few too many satellites, plus otherwise active Ion thrusting
> almost continuously.
Who will know? There will be only the solitude of space.
tomcat