Il giorno sabato 16 maggio 2020 23:35:54 UTC+2, ha scritto:
Il giorno sabato 16 maggio 2020 08:57:35 UTC+2, ha scritto:

www.asps.it

Il giorno sabato 16 maggio 2020 20:45:02 UTC+2, Phantom_View ha scritto:
On Fri, 15 May 2020 23:58:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


NASA/MUSK should stop before starting with the Artemis project which in my opinion is more dangerous than the space shuttle project.

Since 50 years rocketry is not able to perform manned outposts on the Moon and Mars for the simple fact that not even 1% of the Apollo 11 mass returned to earth.

www.asps.it

Chemical rockets suck, that is the truth of it. Dreadfully
inefficient and prone to catastrophic failures.

For a "short" hop like the moon however, they could just
barely serve. This is especially true once hydrogen and
oxygen begin to get extracted from lunar soil.

So, booster recovery/reuse combined with getting a refill
at the ExxonLuna station could easily push the mass-
returned figure up to five percent or more. Depending on
WHAT you return, platinum and helium-3 for example,
we could be looking at a profitible enterprise.

Humans are more expensive to move, robots/androids will
be cheaper. So, assume a 100:1 robot/human ratio for a
profitible lunar colony.

But beyond the moon, forget it. Much more efficient "rocket"
tech will be required to break-even. Problem is, there ain't no
such thing and weird ideas about boosting stuff with gigawatt
lasers is just idiocy. We need a whole new view about "quantum
spacetime" before we will overcome these transportation issues.

There are simply no material resources, except perhaps high
quality diamonds, that will pay for trips to Mars or asteroids.
Going there to check things out is a worthwhile endeavor, but
after that ................ even 'bots cannot make it all worth it.

The missile system does not physically allow any permanent conquest in space ... as proof of the 50 years since Apollo 11, there is an ISS orbital station ... which is 1/1000 of the distance the moon is at!

The latest ISS comedy is that the supply rockets (automatically) failed 2 out of 3 launches!
The poor wretches in the orbital vomiter risked starving!
Think what will happen with the supplies for the moon that is 1000 times further away even if ALL the rest is OK! :-)

Now, after 14 astronauts died with the space shuttle, they are preparing to kill new astronauts with the lunar project Artemis ... only that NASA has become smart and will have them killed by deluded ones like Musk and Bezos :-(

Il giorno domenica 17 maggio 2020 03:40:02 UTC+2, Phantom_View ha scritto:
On Sat, 16 May 2020 14:33:01 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Il giorno sabato 16 maggio 2020 20:45:02 UTC+2, Phantom_View ha scritto:
On Fri, 15 May 2020 23:58:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


NASA/MUSK should stop before starting with the Artemis project which in my opinion is more dangerous than the space shuttle project.

Since 50 years rocketry is not able to perform manned outposts on the Moon and Mars for the simple fact that not even 1% of the Apollo 11 mass returned to earth.

www.asps.it

Chemical rockets suck, that is the truth of it. Dreadfully
inefficient and prone to catastrophic failures.

For a "short" hop like the moon however, they could just
barely serve. This is especially true once hydrogen and
oxygen begin to get extracted from lunar soil.

So, booster recovery/reuse combined with getting a refill
at the ExxonLuna station could easily push the mass-
returned figure up to five percent or more. Depending on
WHAT you return, platinum and helium-3 for example,
we could be looking at a profitible enterprise.

Humans are more expensive to move, robots/androids will
be cheaper. So, assume a 100:1 robot/human ratio for a
profitible lunar colony.

But beyond the moon, forget it. Much more efficient "rocket"
tech will be required to break-even. Problem is, there ain't no
such thing and weird ideas about boosting stuff with gigawatt
lasers is just idiocy. We need a whole new view about "quantum
spacetime" before we will overcome these transportation issues.

There are simply no material resources, except perhaps high
quality diamonds, that will pay for trips to Mars or asteroids.
Going there to check things out is a worthwhile endeavor, but
after that ................ even 'bots cannot make it all worth it.

The missile system does not physically allow any permanent conquest in space ... as proof of the 50 years since Apollo 11, there is an ISS orbital station ... which is 1/1000 of the distance the moon is at!

The latest ISS comedy is that the supply rockets (automatically) failed 2 out of 3 launches!
The poor wretches in the orbital vomiter risked starving!
Think what will happen with the supplies for the moon that is 1000 times further away even if ALL the rest is OK! :-)

Now, after 14 astronauts died with the space shuttle, they are preparing to kill new astronauts with the lunar project Artemis ... only that NASA has become smart and will have them killed by deluded ones like Musk and Bezos :-(


Sell recruits on the "It's An Adventure" thing ... then danger
(and some casualties) are expected.

Anyway, we need vastly more efficient propulsion tech if we
really want to move off this rock in any significant way. It will
not involve Newton - probably some neat-o hyperspace
tricks instead, assuming that is even possible.

Ooooh ... ! What if there ARE NO neat-o tricks at all, ever ?
We and any aliens would be stuck in our own backyards
for all time. What happens when we discover there is no
way out and resources are dwindling ?

This year I will show you that with PNN, the alternative solution to the trombetta astronautics exists.