|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#731
|
|||
|
|||
NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture
yeah get launch costs reasonable and everything else will go go go.
tying the US to the faster reuse of solids and SSME just drags things down futher. |
#732
|
|||
|
|||
NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture
Marko Horvat wrote: What Burt Rutan and Sir Richard Branson are doing is magnificent! Outer Space is wide open. And, 'The Spaceship Company' is gearing up for the Space Rush. Yes it's wonderful, magnificent and inspiring, but... they haven't sill achieved 7.9 km/sec - the 1st orbital speed. Lowering the launch costs is the problem number one for ongoing exploration of space. Imagine how would Portuguese, Spanish, or English explore the world seas, and the entire globe, from 15th until 19th century if a pound of their boat would have cost 5,000 USD? That would be impossible, and this is the primary reason that is hampering our exploration of space. There exists a multi-billion dollar market for satellites. Any vehicle with a 200,000 pound cargo capability could launch multiple satellites simultaneously. Lowering the launch costs is the problem number one for ongoing exploration of space. Lowering launch costs is a major problem, but not an impossible one. Why it takes so long and costs so much to build the Shuttle, I don't know. It was new technology back in the 70's and R&D is very expensive. Time should be added to the list of expenses, and is partially responsible for the extreme expense of R&D. Using straight lines, not curves, decreases expense of parts and decreases the amount of time to put the parts together. Curves look nice and have some utility in shedding the shock wave, but are not necessary. The X-43a had fairly straight lines. An equilateral triangle has even straighter lines, though some curves may be necessary on the top surface to insure proper lift. R&D is required everytime off-the-shelf isn't used. Today, this is a requirement for the hull, but not for anything else. R&D means: designs, design changes, design approvals, testing, failures, new designs, design changes, design approvals, testing, . . . , n designs, n design changes, n design approvals, n testing, n failures -- ad infinitum. Very expensive! So, do your designs in 6 months. Prepare your outdoor spaceship building site while designing. (You barbeque steaks outside don't you?) Hire your workers and pay them well -- and expect them to . . . work. Let Rocketdyne build the SSME's. They already know how, so it won't take them long. Subcontract fuel tank construction, so you put them together like leggo toys at your 'outdoor' construction site. Don't test anything -- except the hull -- because store bought is supposed to work. And, glue it all together with gobs of epoxy. No! You don't have to use calculus and robots to put the epoxy on. Just slop it on like tree sap on a Viking Dragon Ship! And you don't have to weigh each part before installation. If you have to tether the spaceplane down so it doesn't float off, it's ok. Hire a brave test pilot. tomcat |
#733
|
|||
|
|||
NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture
"tomcat" wrote:
There exists a multi-billion dollar market for satellites. Any vehicle with a 200,000 pound cargo capability could launch multiple satellites simultaneously. The problem becomes one of finding multiple satellites that want to be sent to the same place, and customers that don't mind sharing. R&D is required everytime off-the-shelf isn't used. Today, this is a requirement for the hull, but not for anything else. R&D means: designs, design changes, design approvals, testing, failures, new designs, design changes, design approvals, testing, . . . , n designs, n design changes, n design approvals, n testing, n failures -- ad infinitum. Very expensive! I don't actually see any "R" described there, just "D". Don't test anything -- except the hull -- because store bought is supposed to work. And, glue it all together with gobs of epoxy. I hope you're being facetious. |
#734
|
|||
|
|||
NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture
Alan Anderson wrote in
: "tomcat" wrote: There exists a multi-billion dollar market for satellites. Any vehicle with a 200,000 pound cargo capability could launch multiple satellites simultaneously. The problem becomes one of finding multiple satellites that want to be sent to the same place, and customers that don't mind sharing. R&D is required everytime off-the-shelf isn't used. Today, this is a requirement for the hull, but not for anything else. R&D means: designs, design changes, design approvals, testing, failures, new designs, design changes, design approvals, testing, . . . , n designs, n design changes, n design approvals, n testing, n failures -- ad infinitum. Very expensive! I don't actually see any "R" described there, just "D". Don't test anything -- except the hull -- because store bought is supposed to work. And, glue it all together with gobs of epoxy. I hope you're being facetious. He's being ludicrous. Does that a lot. --Damon |
#735
|
|||
|
|||
NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture
tomcat and Marko Horvat,
Yes it's wonderful, magnificent and inspiring, but... they haven't sill achieved 7.9 km/sec - the 1st orbital speed. As per usual, they(scaled & SS2/WK2) are certainly not receiving any viable support from our MI6/NSA~NASA, instead only the lack of sharing rocket-science and otherwise need-to-know info upon so much other science which is simply MOS "high standards and accountability" of our NASA status quo of evidence exclusions. This is why private ventures have to tough it out by way of making due with far less cloak and dagger spookology (meaning you can't have the cloaked advantage of having three sets of the usual Arthur Andersen cooked books). Perhaps China, Russia or India might spare a few affordably honest SBRs, that plus helping to create their CNT/Basalt composite spaceplane for ten cents on the dollar, and if made large enough may become just as commercially doable as the C380 R&D required. If using a similar two-step(SS1) launch method like before, I'm thinking it'll involve at least 100+ billion for accomplishing something that'll accommodate the likes of hundreds of folks per flight for achieving those multiple extended LEOs (possibly 7 days and nights spent aloft) and safely back to Earth. In this case, I believe bigger is better. Thus an extremely large spaceplane as touted by "tomcat" and others is most likely the best do-everything and all-around ticket to ride. If going a bit further out than LEO, once in orbit is where the massive outer protective shell of a mostly basalt composite layer of interlocking armor can be re-attached and, then it's off they safely go into the wild black yonder. I see no insurmountable payloads of achieving 200,000 lbs, although the initial launch phase of getting the entire spaceplane along with it's full payload to an initial cruising altitude of even 47,000' is going to be impressive by itself, if not pushing a good many known limits well past the red-line. Once going past the point of no return and thus obviously having sped through the Van Allen badlands, of their slowing down into going merely 1+ km/s is somewhat of a coasting velocity that's slightly better off than a parallel parking speed. From that point on the likes of Radium(Ra226)--Radon(Rn222) ion thrusters should get real interesting, with possibly a Xenon/Radon ion cocktail that might offer a little more push per MJ. Our moon is only making 1.023+/- km/s, whereas of the ME-L1/EM-L2 zone of our mutual gravity-well is getting the velocity requirement down to less than 860 m/s, thus chasing after the moon is more or less about putting on the breaks, and especially once having somewhat coasted (retro-thrusting) into being reasonably situated within the interactive nullification zone, as this is where next to hardly any energy/tonne can keep that interactive status quo until it's time to return home for their banked bone marrow injections. The ME-L1 station-keeping zone should be relatively safe enough of and external environment (averaging an extra 5 mr/day up to 5 rem/day as secondary/recoil radiation derived off the solar impacted moon) for more than a year at a time unless the sun gets seriously nasty along with whatever pico-flak/m3 within those 1200~2400 km/s winds, in which case advanced warnings should permit the option of returning home which should not take but 12 hours at averaging 27 km/s by way of using the moon itself as a near-miss flyby of having first thrusted nearly directly down towards the moon and plan-A being thrust diverted just enough off to the lunar horizon of this spaceplane becoming less than 10 km off the deck should make for the gravity assisted phase of going extremely fast a rather simple and energy efficient task (not to mention quite a second by second thrill), as otherwise the Spaceplane could simply ion thrust itself out of the comfort zone of ME-L1 in order to temporarily relocate to the solar backside of the moon for a little timely safe keeping until the worse of the solar flak plus primary and secondary worth of TBI threat gets past. Then maneuvering itself back into the relatively safe and sane Earth-side pocket, as well as being the most energy efficient zone, as this mode of station-keeping within the ME-L1 sweet-spot should do quite nicely untill it's time to return to Earth. Since some of the lunar terrain could be worth 8 km, permitting their speed-run of cruising this extremely large spaceplane twice past the lunar surface at perhaps 10 km off the nasty deck might get a little testy, but that's where computers and TOP-GUN piloting along with those powerful Radon(Rn222) ion thrusters and full usage of the onboard multi-hundred MJ energy resources gets to accomplish their thing. Either that or having a few spare SBRs just in case. I'll have to believe that I'm not entirely sure that most folks even remotely appreciate the truly horrific importance and primo relevance of the mutual gravity-well/nullification zone that's always situated between Earth and our moon, supposedly at roughly 84% the distance towards the moon or 16% the distance towards Earth (+/- solar gravity and just a wee bit of extra influence from Venus every 18 months). Thus perhaps all of what I'm suggesting is simply going way over thy head and clean through thy legs. I've attempted many a time as to getting such a topic regarding this ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot into this Usenet and many other forums, with essentially a zero return factor, other than my having to take MOS mainstream status quo flak. So, I guess this is another taboo/nondisclosure and/or need-to-know facet that's lethally enforced by those MI6/NSA (aka Skull and Bones) MEN-in-BLACK. ~ 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 |
#736
|
|||
|
|||
NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture
Einstein was nearly always being "ludicrous" about something, and if he
wasn't so well backed by the almighty might and supreme power of the Jewish religion, plus a few extremely wealthy and thus powerful Jewish banks, Einstein probably wouldn't have amounted to squat. What if Einstein was a Muslim; then what? ~ 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 |
#737
|
|||
|
|||
NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture
Alan Anderson wrote: I don't actually see any "R" described there, just "D". Don't test anything -- except the hull -- because store bought is supposed to work. And, glue it all together with gobs of epoxy. I hope you're being facetious. Not facetious, just admiring the way the Vikings built their Dragon Ships. No fooling around. They were the 'can do' types. Cut the trees, split them, take out the splinters, groove them together and nail them with wooden dowels. And, cement, seal, and finish with tree sap. And, off they go! I admire them and their accomplishment because 'it worked'! They beat up on everybody with those ships, not to mention swords and mace. And, I bet they drank beer while they worked. Real gusto! For some reason, however, the United States is going to take 12 years to do what it already did back in 1969? It is going to cost 105 billion dollars? Gusto? I think not. There are probably some that think building a spaceship in a cow pasture is impossible. It is not. Put a tarp up to keep rain off the epoxy while it is curing (drying). When the sun is shining take the tarp away because sunlight will speed things up. After all the fuel tanks and crew and cargo modules have been "snapped" together, complete the double hull. Up to now there has been exposure to humidity -- out in the desert that it minimal -- and sunlight but now the delicate aeronautical equipment can be installed with the shelter of the spaceship hull. Piece of cake. So, if a nice big hanger is around for all this so much the better, but it is not an absolute necessity. tomcat |
#738
|
|||
|
|||
NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture
tomcat,
I totally agree that bigger is better. Because you're absolutely right about what's new and always getting improved about rocket engines and of the fuel they burn, and even SBRs are getting into delivering more reliable bang for their tonage. Per usable volume of interior, the CNT spaceplanes of the future should outperform the existing shuttles by at least 2:1. Here's a bit more of what a Radon ION thruster might suggest. It's actually getting a little embarrassingly super terrific as compared to Xenon, but that may be entirely related to my math running amuck as suggesting far more than what's actually obtainable. But even if I'm only 0.1% right, it's still impressive. First look at the proven Xenon/ion method; Xenon - Atomic Mass: 131.29 Amu Xenon ION thrust velocity @30 km/s http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/X/XIPS.html "These investigations showed that xenon offered the highest thrust of any non-reactive gas; Ions ejected by XIPS travel in a stream at a speed of 30 km/s (62,900 mph), nearly 10 times that of a conventional chemical thruster." Unlike the non-reactive(dead) aspects of Xenon, obviously Radon(Rn222) might otherwise be considered as a highly reactive form of gas, as such it seems entirely possible that the Radon ions should become nearly photon ejected at half 'c', thus conceivably 150e3 km/s could be suggesting a 5000:1 exit velocity improvement which should therefore represent a rather impressive 5e6:1 improvement in the KE worth of thrust potential and, Radon having the Amu of 222 is certainly much denser than Xenon at the Amu of 131.3, so as to start with being worth another 1.69:1 No matters what, besides Xenon having to be artificially obtained and then highly insulated as a sequestered sub-frozen mass, of whatever mass of Xenon is eventually going to run out, whereas a cash of Radium(Ra226) that's creating Radon(Rn222) on the fly is good for a half life of 1600 years. Boeing 702: 25 centimeters in diameter = 165 mN of thrust "Boeing Electron Dynamic Devices (702 Thruster), XIPS is 10 times more efficient than conventional liquid fuel systems." The 702 offers an individual range of power consumption up to 4.5 kW that obtains 3500 seconds/kg of Xenon ISP for creating 165 mN worth of thrust. I'm certainly not the Radon(Rn222) ion thruster wizard but, I'm thinking the amount of required energy as to ionize Rn222 that's already somewhat on the go isn't going to be nearly as great as per the none-reactive and thus passive Xenon. Therefore, the auxiliary power source of electrons as being derived via PV cells, tether dipole or that of an onboard reactor might be relatively slight on behalf of energising ions from Radon. If my reverse engineering is worth yet another bad example: Xenon ION thrust at 165e-3/4.5e3 = 36.666e-6 N per J Radon ION thrust 36.666e-6 * 5e6 * 1.69 = 309.8 N per J Thus a MJ applied for creating a Radon ION thrust might be good for 309.8e6 N The thrust per MJ in terms of Kgf becomes 309.8e6 * 0.101972 = 31.59375e6 Kgf Obviously 36.6e6 Kgf of ION thrust per MJ seems a bit much. Therefore perhaps the actual improvement in Ra222 ion exit velocity isn't going to become worth the 5000:1 over Xenon ions, that is unless it somehow turns into a laser cannon form of ion thruster, in which case the ion velocity improvement could reach 10,000:1. This radon/ion notion still represents having a rather sizable cash of having to haul Radium(Ra226) about, perhaps several tonnes worth unless there's some viable method of expediting the rate of decay into becoming Rn222. Possibly forcing the decay of Ra226 within a reactor might suggest upon one method of generating the onboard auxiliary energy at the same time as per expediting the production of Rn222. Otherwise having a continuously usable ISP of 3500 * 1600 years = 5.6e6 seems rather interesting. Not that the basis of any kg worth of Xenon under continuous usage is going to be good for more than an hour, therefore the actual Radium(Ra226)--Radon(Rn222) ISP half-life gets way further past the mark of 5.6e6 * 8.736e3 = 48.9e9 Of course, as per the added mass of the external basalt composite shield which need not come and go from earth, as equally for the cash of Radium(Ra226) tonnage need not be onboard for the launch or reentry phase. Having robotically pre-launched the Radium and whatever reactor and/or Radon(Rn222) extractor into orbit is the same logic as to having the basalt composite shielding pre-established in orbit, thus why the spaceplane need not physically carry the added mass upon launch or reentry. However, since there's no apparent shortage of Radon(Rn222) to being had upon Earth, this is why a good amount of that element as a frozen gas (possibly as a liquid or solid) could be utilized as a portion of their launch thrusting energy via ion thrusters, although I'd expect that in addition to whatever terrestrial heavy lift aerodynamic transporter as was utilized in the SS1 case, a few SBRs would remain the norm if the large spaceplane launch mass is essentially representing several hundred tonnes in need of exiting Earth's gravity at 8 km/s. If the LSE-CM/ISS were established, as then parking the spaceplane along side this 50e6 tonne CM(counter mass) as having the 1e6 m3 ISS within is just the best ever spaceplane depot/pitstop you can imagine, providing a good 50t/m2 worth of physical and radiation shielding that should take whatever the sun has to offer without measurably impacting the spaceplane crew and passenges that would simply vacate their moderately shielded ride and wait it out within that relative safety of the CM/ISS. - As per the usual, each and every day (as soon as my I get my PC reconnected to this Usenet that sucks and blows, as such it's been getting worse off than ever, as I seem to have attracted more than my fair share of the almighty GOOGLE/NOVA V-Chip of automated seek and destroy via spermware/malware as a gauntlet that's having been specifically associated with my MI6/NSA Usenet interactions, thus nearly always I'm having to frequently reboot because of their ongoing efforts as to damage and/or eliminate my existence as far as my having any public Usenet access or even so much as a working PC. This is still the absolute ongoing truth and nothing but the truth that's easily 100% provable, which seems only to further demonstrate that I'm essentially right about most everything, thus apparently I'm worth targeting on behalf of mainstream damage-control. The typical excuses that it's all my fault, in that GOOGLE/NOVA and their partners of MI6/NSA in crimes against humanity can't possibly avoid nor otherwise track a given source of such spermware/malware, much less block it, is yet another LLPOF proof-positive that I'm right about something that's apparently not supposed to be public knowledge. ~ 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 |
#739
|
|||
|
|||
NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture
tomcat,
Some math corrections that only seems to have turned out a bit more fantastic than before, with each applied MJ worth of Radon ions suggesting KE = 158e6 Kgf is getting into a level of nuclear thrust if enough Radon(Rn222) gas can be supplied into the arrays of thrusters without everything melting down upon the launch pad. Although this is still purely mad-science speculation as based upon an theoretical ion velocity of 150e3 km/s, though doing the math on just 150 km/s isn't entirely without merit at delivering 158 Kgf/MJ. However, I'll still have to totally agree that bigger is better. Because you're absolutely right about what's new and always getting improved about rocket engines and of the fuel they burn, and even SBRs are getting into delivering more reliable bang for their tonnage. Per usable volume of interior, the CNT spaceplanes of the future should outperform the existing usable volume as provided by our NASA shuttle, I'm thinking by at least 2:1 if not 4:1 seems doable. Here's an improvement upon what a Radon ion thruster might suggest. I must say that it's actually getting a little embarrassingly super terrific as compared to Xenon, but that may be entirely related to my math running amuck as suggesting far more ion velocity capability than what's actually obtainable. But even if I'm only 0.1% right, it's still going to offer an impressive number. First look at the proven Xenon/ion method; Xenon - Atomic Mass: 131.29 Amu Xenon ION thrust exit velocity @30 km/s http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/X/XIPS.html "These investigations showed that xenon offered the highest thrust of any non-reactive gas; Ions ejected by XIPS travel in a stream at a speed of 30 km/s (62,900 mph), nearly 10 times that of a conventional chemical thruster." Unlike the non-reactive(dead) aspects of Xenon, obviously Radon(Rn222) might otherwise be considered as a highly reactive form of gas, as such it seems entirely possible that Radon ions should become nearly photon ejected at half 'c', thus conceivably 150e3 km/s could be suggesting a 5000:1 exit velocity improvement, of which V2 should therefore represent a rather impressive 25e6:1 improvement in the KE worth of thrust potential and, Radon having the Amu of 222 is certainly much denser than any Xenon Amu of 131.3, so as to start off with being worth another 1.69:1 No matters what, besides the factor of Xe having to be just as artificially obtained, sub-frozen and then highly insulated as a sequestered sub-frozen mass of Xe, and of whatever mass of this Xe is eventually going to run out, whereas accommodating a sufficient cash of Radium(Ra226) that's creating Radon(Rn222) on the fly is good for a half life of 1600 years. Boeing 702: 25 centimeters in diameter = 165 mN of thrust "Boeing Electron Dynamic Devices (702 Thruster), XIPS is 10 times more efficient than conventional liquid fuel systems." The 702 offers an individual range of power consumption up to 4.5 kW that obtains 3500 seconds/kg worth of Xenon ISP for creating 165 mN of thrust. I'm certainly not the Radon(Rn222) ion thruster wizard but, I'm thinking the amount of required energy as to ionize Rn222 that's already somewhat on the go isn't going to be nearly as great as per the none-reactive and thus passive Xenon. Therefore, the auxiliary power source of electrons as being derived via PV cells, tether dipole or that of an onboard reactor might be relatively slight on behalf of energising ions from Radon. See if my reverse engineering and not so great math is worth yet another bad example: Xenon ION thrust at 165e-3/4.5e3 = 36.666e-6 N per J Based upon a 5000:1 increase in velocity represents a KE mutiplier factor of 25e6 At good vacuum, Radon ION thrust 36.666e-6 * 25e6 * 1.69 = 1549 N per J Thus a MJ applied for creating a Radon ION thrust might be good for 1549e6 N The thrust per MJ in terms of Kgf becomes 1549e6 * 0.101972 = 157.95e6 Kgf Obviously 158e6 Kgf of ION thrust per MJ of auxiliary applied energy seems a bit much. Therefore perhaps the actual improvement in Ra222 ion exit velocity isn't going to become worth the 5000:1 over the velocity of Xenon ions, that is unless it somehow turns into a laser cannon form of ion thruster, in which case the ion velocity improvement could reach 10,000:1. Otherwise if achieving just 150 km/s of ion thrust would cut the results down to 158 Kgf/MJ, which still isn't all that bad. This radon/ion notion still represents having a rather sizable cash of which the spaceplane is having to haul Radium(Ra226) about, perhaps several tonnes worth unless there's some viable method of expediting the rate of decay into becoming Rn222. Possibly forcing the decay of Ra226 within a reactor might suggest upon one method of generating the onboard auxiliary energy at the same time as per expediting the production of Rn222. Otherwise having a continuously usable ISP of 3500 * 1600 years = 5.6e6 seems rather interesting. Not that using the basis of any kg worth of Xenon under continuous usage is going to be good for more than an hour/kg, therefore the actual Radium(Ra226)--Radon(Rn222) ISP half-life gets this way further past the mark of 5.6e6 * 8.736e3 = 48.9e9 Of course, as per the added mass of the external basalt composite shield which need not come and go from earth, as equally for the cash of Radium(Ra226) tonnage need not be onboard for the launch or reentry phase. Having robotically pre-launched the Radium and whatever reactor and/or Radon(Rn222) extractor into orbit is the same logic as to having the basalt composite shielding pre-established in orbit, thus why the spaceplane need not physically carry the added mass upon launch or reentry. However, since there's no apparent shortage of Radon(Rn222) to being had upon Earth, this is why a good amount of that element as a frozen gas (possibly as a liquid or solid) could be utilized as a portion of their launch thrusting energy via ion thrusters, although I'd expect that in addition to whatever terrestrial heavy lift aerodynamic transporter as was utilized in the SS1 case, a few SBRs would remain the norm if the large spaceplane launch mass is essentially representing several hundred tonnes in need of exiting Earth's gravity at 8 km/s. If the LSE-CM/ISS were established, as then parking the spaceplane along side this 50e6 tonne CM(counter mass) as having the 1e6 m3 ISS within is just the best ever spaceplane depot/pitstop you can imagine, providing a good 50t/m2 worth of physical and radiation shielding that should take whatever the sun has to offer without measurably impacting the spaceplane crew and passengers that would simply vacate their moderately shielded ride and wait it out within that relative safety of the CM/ISS. In closing, I may not have fully considered the ramifications of actually using Radon within our terrestrial environment, as I'm re-thinking this Radon(Rn222) ion thruster might somehow represent a situation that's somewhat like pumping out a whole lot better density than lead at 150,000 km/s, whereas the down-wind of thruster exhaust might become a wee bit lethal until the final decay of whatever volume of Rn222 becomes actual lead, as for then whomever's still alive gets to prematurely die from lead poising. - As per the usual, each and every day (as soon as my I get my PC reconnected to this Usenet that sucks and blows, as such it's been getting worse off than ever, as I seem to have attracted more than my fair share of the almighty GOOGLE/NOVA V-Chip of automated seek and destroy via spermware/malware as a gauntlet that's having been specifically associated with my MI6/NSA Usenet interactions, thus nearly always I'm having to frequently reboot because of their ongoing efforts as to damage and/or eliminate my existence as far as my having any public Usenet access or even so much as a working PC. This is still the absolute ongoing truth and nothing but the truth that's easily 100% provable, which seems only to further demonstrate that I'm essentially right about most everything, thus apparently I'm worth targeting on behalf of mainstream damage-control. The typical excuses that it's all my fault, in that GOOGLE/NOVA and their partners of MI6/NSA in crimes against humanity can't possibly avoid nor otherwise track a given source of such spermware/malware, much less block it, is yet another LLPOF proof-positive that I'm right about something that's apparently not supposed to be public knowledge. ~ 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | July 4th 05 07:50 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 5th 04 01:36 AM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) | Nathan Jones | Misc | 6 | July 29th 04 06:14 AM |
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) | Nathan Jones | Astronomy Misc | 8 | February 4th 04 06:48 PM |
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) | Nathan Jones | Misc | 8 | February 4th 04 06:48 PM |