On Apr 3, 1:31*am, BradGuth wrote:
Your anti-thorium, anti-h2o2, anti-Selene/moon L1 and anti most
anything else that's not your mindset idea to start with, is noted.

Merely pointing out the reality that thorium is a minor constituent of
the world's 2000 tons of fissile material, that thorium is more deadly
than uranium or plutonium, and that the use of any fissile material in
any form within Earth's biosphere perpetuates a deadly risk to all
life on Earth is not being anti -anything. Its merely pointing out
reality - something you have difficulty with apparently. That's your
problem, not mine, or reality's. H2O2 is vastly less energetic than
any other fuel, less stable, has a shorter shelf life, and is more
costly - this doesn't make ME anything - these are the realities about
hydrogen peroxide as fuels. Notwithstanding these shortcomings, H2O2
is more energetic and less costly and less polluting than batteries.
So, this is an obvious application - which again is a minor
constituent in our total energy picture - a reality I was also careful
to point out. Lagrange point 1 is useful as a communications
satellite locale - nothing more. The grandiose schemes you have
imagined for it are not reality based. Pointing this out is not anti-
anything - merely reporting what is real and what is not. So your
comment is again flawed.


Good thing there's no chance in hell of you ever being in charge of
NASA, DARPA, DoE or anything else that matters. *

All that matters to me is what I think and do and achieve on my own.
Interesting that you alternately hold up the very agencies you pillory
in other posts - this suggests you are mentally unstable - and should
really examine your beliefs more closely.


God forbid should you
even be within any related think-tank, other than as world dictator.

This makes no sense whatever - which isn't surprising since your other
statements make little sense and are totally unhinged from reality.

Your CIA World FactBook bible

A bible is faith based. The CIA World Factbook is fact based. If
there are errors in the factbook - why don't you spell them out? I
am certain it would make quite a stir. If you know of not even a
single error in the factbook - why do you insist it is faith based and
not fact based? You really don't make any sense whatever. Of course
you know that.

is more than enough reason to avoid the
bipolar mindset of Mook. *

What evidence do you have that I am bipolar? I consistently answer
your inane claims by pointing out the reality of the situation and
suggest reality based answers to the questions you ask that make any
sense.

Can we now assume you are a born-again
Scientology member in good standing?

I have said nothing about scientology - so, again it makes absolutely
no sense for you to bring it up - except as an attempt to avoid
talking about the obvious reality that you don't know what the hell
you're talking about.
*~ BG

On Apr 2, 9:08*pm, wrote:

On Mar 19, 10:44*pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Mar 18, 11:56*am, wrote:

Umm... ridding the world of nuclear materials and nuclear weapons
improves life on Earth.

For the most part that true, although it would be a shame not to use
our fair share of thorium for the clean energy that it can deliver.

Thorium is a minor constituent at best, and would supply very little
power - while perpetuating a system that continues at great risk to
public safety. *Best to rid the world of ALL nuclear materials and
place ALL nuclear materials under international control whose only use
is space propulsion and space power - with rockets stationed on the
lunar surface, and the only nuclear research is done on the moon's
surface.

Using nuclear pulse engines built around old weapons materials to
orbit large solar power satellites that beam infrared laser energy to
users anywhere on demand, improves life on Earth, by lowering the cost
of energy, making energy more widely available and more abundant, and
ending the endless pollution of our air b ending the use of
conventional fuels.

Can't argue against that, except we don't have another century to
wait.

What makes you think it would take a century? *Classified reports as
early as 1955 showed these vehicles could be built within 5 years of
the decision to do so. *We could build the fleet of 200 ships each
50,000 ton payload capacity in this time frame - all that is required
is the will to do it.

Putting in place a large network of multi-point comsats to turn the
world into a global wireless hotspot, that supports billions of
biometric and VR signalling channels, does the same thing. *Humanoid
robots like ASIMO work anywhere driven by workers who live anywhere -
this immediately improves life on Earth by providing meaningful and
profitable work for all.

Again, if we manage to survive the next century and you manage to pull
everything off without a hitch.

Once the rockets are available putting up the satellites is easy.
Mass producing 600 satellites over the same 5 year period is easy. *At
20 tonnes each that's 12,000 tonnes - less than 1/4 the lift capacity
of a single 50,000 ton ship. *The network would be put up as part of a
shakedown cruise of the first ship sometime 3 to 4 years from the
start of the project.

Capturing rich asteroids, using nuclear pulse techniques to bring them
into Earth orbit, and using nuclear pulse lifters to place significant
remotely controlled factories on them to manufacture stuff and deliver
it anwhere its needed on Earth at extremely low cost - dramatically
improves life on Earth.

Now you're talking of multiple centuries from now,

Why do you say that? *It takes a nuclear pulse ship less than 90 days
to cruise to any point inside the orbit of Jupiter. *Over the 5 year
period of construction and development, smaller survey ships are
built, along with sensor satellites to survey all the small bodies of
the solar system. *The richest of these will have been identified and
recovery techniques worked out and ready when the first ships are
ready. *A minimum energy transfer orbit from the vicinity of the
asteroid belt to Earth takes less than 7 years. *So, 12 years from the
day we decide to do it, to the arrival of the asteroidal bodies is the
reasonable time to consider. *Of course during that 7 year transfer
time we use the lift capacity to put up remotely operated factories
that will use the incoming asteroidal mass as feedstock so we can hit
the ground running - and with learning curve effects achieve maximum
productivity with full employment on Earth, and $100,000 per person
per year income - within 15 years of making the decision to move
ahead.

unless of course
you decide to include our Selene/moon as a viable asteroid to plunder,

The moon as already stated must be mined and is at the bottom of a
gravity well - neither apply to asteroids and other small bodies which
make them easier to mine - and so will be mined first. *Beyond 15
years, the moon will be developed - and its gravity well makes it a
good repository for nuclear pulse fleet, nuclear research and
production reactiors, and nuclear industry for space power
applications and space propulsion and nuclear medicine
.

as after all it is rather big and nearby as is, even it it were
relocated to Earth L1.

Earth/Luna L1 is good for a communications satellite that's all.
Earth/Sol L1 is good for a sunshade, and a high intensity solar
collector array.

*or at least within our Selene/
moon.

The moon is not particularly rich when compared to some asteroids,
riches on the moon are buried deep within the moon and must be
extracted, the moon sits at the bottom of a substantial gravity well
that without aerobraking adds significant cost to getting materials
out of the moon and back to Earth, the moon is more than 1 light
second away which means we cannot use present telerobotic techniques
as effectively as we can within 1/5th light second of Earth. *The moon
will one day be a valuable resource, and one day be a vital inhabited
world, using the moon to resolve our materials issues on Earth quickly
is more problematical than asteroid capture and processing on orbit as
described above.

If you say so,

Only because it is so.

because the physics and science we have thus far
doesn't agree with your interpretation.

Yes it does. * Its far easier to find, capture and transport rich
asteroids than to survey the entire moon including its interior, find
the rich bits, dig them out, drag them to the surface, and launch them
back to Earth. *Its far easier to fabricate stuff on orbit by remote
control than to have populations living on the surface of the moon.
This will happen, but it will not happen before teleoperated factories
on orbit happen.

*Much like Earth, our Selene/moon even has a sufficient core of
geothermal energy.

No it does not.

Again, your science

Science is science - everything I say is firmly rooted in reality.

is certainly all alone,

No I am not.

as here you don't even
agree with NASA or a dozen other interpretations.

I agree with NASA that Apollo sent brave explorers to the moon in
1960s and 70s

Too bad we still do not have a viable fly-by-rocket lander for getting
ourselves safely to/from our Selene/moon

Your boneheaded contention that the Apollo flights did not occur as
described marks you as a profoundly troubled personality.

Are you saying that we can use the William Mook fly-by-rocket lander?

No, I am saying that Apollo sent a handful of astronauts to the moon
in 1969-72

(because the R&D related to our NASA/Apollo one doesn't seem to exist)

See?

and its nifty L1.

Lagrange point 1 between Earth and Sol is more important. *Lunar/Earth
L1 is a good place for a communications satellite - that's about it..

Where's that Mook imagination? (is Mook going brain-dead on us)

Rooted firmly in reality - recall we are speaking of what can be done
in the next 10 to 15 years. *L1 is a comsat point nothing more.

You do realize that Clarke Station and the Boeing OASIS are each
engineered to work just perfectly fine and dandy, not to mention my
LSE-CM/ISS.

You realize that the only practical use we will make of Earth/Luna L1
in the next 10 to 15 years is a comsat point nothing more.

*I guess we
can only go so far on a given cesspool of mainstream lies.

The only cesspool of lies are yours sir. *You love projecting your
reality to those outside you. *Fortunately, no one is fooled - except
perhaps for you.

The cold hard truths of physics and the best available science differs
with your negative and often bipolar mindset.

I have said nothing negative only pointed out the obvious.

Since there's most of everything we need on or within our Selene/moon,
what exactly are we waiting for?

Please explain in detail how you would proceed and why it would be
less expensive speedier and more reliable than what I have described?

I've already done that,

No you haven't.

and you cared less because you're stuck in
naysay mode.

You have yet to learn that someone telling you something won't work
because it won't work is not being negative. *They're trying to
educate you.

*My terrestrial wind energy alone puts your solar PV
farms to shame,

No they don't. *Wind energy will never equal solar energy on a
fundamental basis. *Wind energy is caused by differential heating of
the air by sunlight - for that reason it is never more than 1% of
sunlight. *On the other hand, sunlight is already converted to energy
with over 40% efficiency.

not to mention my battery of thorium reactors.

The world is safer with no reactors whatever within its biosphere.
Solar panels and solar power

...

read more »