Space Travel from a Future that Never Was

http://milo.com/blog/vintage-space-travel/

On Oct 23, 10:40*pm, Andrew Nowicki
wrote:
http://milo.com/blog/vintage-space-travel/

I grew up on Clarke's EXPLORATION OF SPACE, Colliers' articles MAN
WILL CONQUER SPACE SOON by VonBraun, and Disney's TV shows and movies
that vividly portrayed our future in space!

http://www.brooklynbooks.us/si/8oo60.html
http://home.flash.net/~aajiv/bd/colliers.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBi69V8oNuw

The 1950s would lead to landing on the moon in the 1960s, and thence
to opening of the solar system in the 1970s where we would have
limitless energy and materials to feed an ever growing economy and end
war, poverty, hunger, privation and ignorance forever - fulfilling the
promise of technology by the end of the second millennium.

Arthur Clarke said in 1951:

"The crossing of space ... may do much to turn men's minds outwards
and away from their present tribal squabbles. In this sense, the
rocket, far from being one of the destroyers of civilisation, may
provide the safety-value that is needed to preserve it."

Which echoed the writings of Jules Verne in 1865

"In spite of the opinions of certain narrow-minded people, who would
shut up the human race upon this globe, as within some magic circle
which it must never outstep, we shall one day travel to the moon, the
planets, and the stars, with the same facility, rapidity, and
certainty as we now make the voyage from Liverpool to New York."

When will we do it?

Now!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO

William Mook wrote: When will we do it? Now!

We have to reduce the cost of Earth-to-orbit transportation at least
by one order of magnitude before we can debate the practicability of
space colonization. Some useful ideas are posted in my on-line book -
Earth-to-Orbit Transportation Bibliography: http://www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio/

I believe that the first step on the path to space colonization is
robotic fabrication of small, reusable, liquid propellant rocket
modules. You can find more info about these modules in my old book. I
am working on a new rapid fabrication system. If it works, it can
reduce the cost of liquid propellant rocket engines.

Popular Science Apr 1952 has an article about Moon colony:
http://books.google.com/books?id=oiE...colony&f=false

By the way, I have been working on diverse projects: science,
technology, even linguistics. You can find my Ygyde auxlang (auxiliary
language, much better than Esperanto) he http://www.ygyde.neostrada.pl/

William Mook wrote:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum

You can use wings on the first, and maybe on the second stage rockets,
to slow down descent, but parachutes are cheaper. The solid rocket
boosters of the Space Shuttle use parachutes to slow down before
splashdown.

Technical posts belong in sci.space.tech.

On Oct 26, 6:16*pm, Andrew Nowicki
wrote:
William Mook wrote:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum

You can use wings on the first, and maybe on the second stage rockets,
to slow down descent, but parachutes are cheaper. The solid rocket
boosters of the Space Shuttle use parachutes to slow down before
splashdown.

Technical posts belong in sci.space.tech.

Stick with wings, and fly those spent units right back to where they
started.

With Mook's spare or surplus amount of thrust, apparently there's not
an inert mass problem. Otherwise simply mass produce and toss
everything away is almost as good or even a little better than the
parachute and water recovery options.

~ BG

On Oct 26, 6:16*pm, Andrew Nowicki
wrote:
William Mook wrote:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum

You can use wings on the first, and maybe on the second stage rockets,
to slow down descent, but parachutes are cheaper. The solid rocket
boosters of the Space Shuttle use parachutes to slow down before
splashdown.

Technical posts belong in sci.space.tech.

Yes, and being moderated means that Mook isn't so easily allowed,
while certain jackasses are free as a bird to topic/author stalk and
trash whomever they like. But you are right, that topics and replies
like those of Mook should be published in such moderated groups that
mean business rather than foolishness.

~ BG

In article 0c09a87b-662e-4e90-a3b9-5154bc00eed9
@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, says...

Yes, and being moderated means that Mook isn't so easily allowed,
while certain jackasses are free as a bird to topic/author stalk and
trash whomever they like. But you are right, that topics and replies
like those of Mook should be published in such moderated groups that
mean business rather than foolishness.

Yea that's it, "the man" is keeping Mook down. Too bad you can't see me
rolling my eyes as I type this.

What is keeping Mook down are his insane "designs" which first require
that a miracle happen giving him tens of billions of dollars of funding
just to get his crazy development program started. That's never going
to happen.

Jeff
--
42

On Oct 27, 8:32*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 0c09a87b-662e-4e90-a3b9-5154bc00eed9
@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, says...



Yes, and being moderated means that Mook isn't so easily allowed,
while certain jackasses are free as a bird to topic/author stalk and
trash whomever they like. *But you are right, that topics and replies
like those of Mook should be published in such moderated groups that
mean business rather than foolishness.

Yea that's it, "the man" is keeping Mook down. *Too bad you can't see me
rolling my eyes as I type this.

What is keeping Mook down are his insane "designs" which first require
that a miracle happen giving him tens of billions of dollars of funding
just to get his crazy development program started. *That's never going
to happen.

Jeff
--
42

Your better and assuming less crazy solution is?

~ BG

In article db229aed-e88d-4a56-8a94-d4ee72451455
@k22g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, says...

On Oct 27, 8:32*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 0c09a87b-662e-4e90-a3b9-5154bc00eed9
@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, says...



Yes, and being moderated means that Mook isn't so easily allowed,
while certain jackasses are free as a bird to topic/author stalk and
trash whomever they like. *But you are right, that topics and replies
like those of Mook should be published in such moderated groups that
mean business rather than foolishness.

Yea that's it, "the man" is keeping Mook down. *Too bad you can't see me
rolling my eyes as I type this.

What is keeping Mook down are his insane "designs" which first require
that a miracle happen giving him tens of billions of dollars of funding
just to get his crazy development program started. *That's never going
to happen.

Jeff
--
42

Your better and assuming less crazy solution is?

In commercial space (which is where Mook seems to want to play), my
solution is to let the free market sort it all out. There is zero
demand for a vehicle as big as Mook proposes. Mook thinks that it's
"obvious" that space based power is the market, but that market does not
yet exist. I'd like to see NASA supporting commercial space more than
it already is. I'd like to see commercial ISS resupply happening today.

In government funded space (where NASA plays), I'm happy to see NASA
being told to build something sane, which looks to be something along
the lines of what Direct has been pushing all along. Ares I was too
small for an orbital Orion and Ares V was too big to be affordable.

I'd like to see large segmented solids disappear from spaceflight
completely, but that's not happening anytime soon. For some reason it's
still politically acceptable to keep the pork flowing to ATK.

Jeff
--
42

On Oct 27, 3:58*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article db229aed-e88d-4a56-8a94-d4ee72451455
@k22g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, says...





On Oct 27, 8:32*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 0c09a87b-662e-4e90-a3b9-5154bc00eed9
@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, says...

Yes, and being moderated means that Mook isn't so easily allowed,
while certain jackasses are free as a bird to topic/author stalk and
trash whomever they like. *But you are right, that topics and replies
like those of Mook should be published in such moderated groups that
mean business rather than foolishness.

Yea that's it, "the man" is keeping Mook down. *Too bad you can't see me
rolling my eyes as I type this.

What is keeping Mook down are his insane "designs" which first require
that a miracle happen giving him tens of billions of dollars of funding
just to get his crazy development program started. *That's never going
to happen.

Jeff
--
42

Your better and assuming less crazy solution is?

In commercial space (which is where Mook seems to want to play), my
solution is to let the free market sort it all out.

Public funded NASA is not "free market", more like just the opposite.

Mook's fly-by-rocket version seems perfectly doable, if not a whole
lot cheaper and much cleaner than existing alternatives.

*There is zero
demand for a vehicle as big as Mook proposes.
Not true. You obviously have no idea what developing the interior of
our moon, my LSE-CM/ISS, or that of relocating our moon to Earth L1
involves?

*Mook thinks that it's
"obvious" that space based power is the market, but that market does not
yet exist.
We're starving for any surplus of clean energy. Spare energy means
everything, especially if it's clean, renewable and as cheap or
cheaper than Mook energy.


*I'd like to see NASA supporting commercial space more than
it already is. *I'd like to see commercial ISS resupply happening today..
We can't afford NASA or their pet/insider contractors. Mook can
replace each of those, as well as doing it faster and cheaper to boot.


In government funded space (where NASA plays), I'm happy to see NASA
being told to build something sane, which looks to be something along
the lines of what Direct has been pushing all along. *Ares I was too
small for an orbital Orion and Ares V was too big to be affordable.

I'd like to see large segmented solids disappear from spaceflight
completely, but that's not happening anytime soon. *For some reason it's
still politically acceptable to keep the pork flowing to ATK.

Jeff

You obviously like government increased spending of their already
decades red (meaning broke/bankrupt) budget to increase substantially,
and for continued global pollution from all those SRBs (including
their productions) to increase as though the environment and its
biodiversity can survive in spite of whatever such toxic methods do to
it. You and your friends must be at least indirectly public funded.

I would make Mook 50/50 (public/private funded).

~ BG