The Ion Interstellar Spaceship, from Hell to Sirius

On Feb 27, 1:11 pm, Saul Levy wrote:
Do you buy into anything with sanity in it,Brad? lmao!

Saul Levy

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:24:58 -0800 (PST), BradGuth

wrote:
On Feb 26, 3:41 pm, Saul Levy wrote:
You really are a total loon,Brad! lmao!

I couldn't give a damn about NASA. Whatever gave you that idea? It's
YOU and the WartPlugs who constantly repeat themselves over and over
and over! What jerks that makes you look like! lmao!

I use my REAL NAME, fool! IsBradGoofball your real name? lmao!

Your continued harping on atheism (whatever kind) is getting even
stupider! lmao!

**** off, Mr. Goofball! lmao!

Saul Levy

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:46:50 -0800 (PST), BradGuth

wrote:

On Feb 25, 11:14 am, Saul Levy wrote:
Is all you can do,Brad, is repeat yourself endlessly? lmao!

My kind? What kind is that? I'm not cutting out anything.

You can stop referring to atheism. It's just plain stupid now.

Saul Levy

Doesn't your pretend atheist God (aka NASA) or whatever government
agency of global domination faith tend to repeat their crap endlessly?

BTW, since yourself and others of your brown-nosed kind refuse to
place your real name along with whatever faith-based group makes you
into happy campers, the pretend atheism analogy so that you can fence
jump all you want is pretty much all that's left for the rest of us
village idiots to work with, in trying to figure out whatever's
actually in charge of your mindset and your private parts.

Why don't you stick with at least two or three of those faith-based
groups that don't continually **** you off. Most honest folks have
that one nailed down to just one or possibly two faith-based groups
they'll directly associate and/or interact with, because all the
others are just plain and simple dead-wrong about something that
doesn't sit well enough within their private mindset of whatever their
idea of faith is all about.
. -BradGuth

BradGuthand the God Hole

Of 3.56e80 m3 and supposedly only 1e80 atoms is suggesting that on
average we have far less than one atom per cubic meter. I don't
exactly buy into that low number because, so many new forms of red-
dwarf, brown-dwarf and possibly even black-dwarf stars as black holes
seem to be uncovered all the time as our technology improves and
intellectual scope takes such into account.

The complex soup of space is anything but a vacuum. The physical
vacuum seems entirely full of energy that's fluid and interactive, as
seen in the UV and night-vision or starlight video taken by various
shuttle missions, as well as by those of ISS using unfiltered camera
optics and having sufficient dynamic range (terrific FWC along with
minimal dark noise is what yields DR), and especially if shooting such
video at 1/16th second scan or exposure per frame is going to record
far more spectrum and of those weak photons, allowing the human eye to
see into this realm of space thought as being a vacuum.

Lets say for the argument/rant sake that we have 1e100 all-inclusive
stars within our ever expanding universe, including those newish of UV
+ and oldies of IR- status.

If on average there were only one photon/sec arriving per star into a
given ISM m3, as such this might rather easily suggest a population of
1e100 photons/atom if there were but only one ISM atom/m3.

As best we think we know about the ISM(inter stellar medium), for the
most part there's more than likely at least 100+ atoms/m3, and as I
might otherwise surmise there's also going to be well over 100e100
photons/sec/m3, if not several thousand e100s of those all-inclusive
photons/sec/m3 to work with, because that's the complex interactive
soup or elastic binder of what makes our universe tick.

On yet another universe soup/binder related topic, is to ponder as to
how big was the original BH(black hole) or GH(God hole) of our
universe:

If our sun is of the average at 2e30 kg, and if given 1e100 stars =
2e130 kg

2e130 kg compacted down to a thousand fold greater density than a
white dwarf isn't so terribly large, especially if the ultimate core
of that BH/GH was offering a good million fold more density than a
white dwarf, as such would make our initial BH/GH imaginable and thus
capable of being supercomputer simulated within a very 3D interactive
format.

There's no argument that such photons take the all-inclusive X-prize
for being the greater worth of what our universe is all about.
Unfortunately, our human vision isn't capable of directly interpreting
such because, it seems our visual perception isn't worth 0.0001% of
detecting what's out there in the supposed vacuum of space, and far
too many intellectual humans simply do not accept whatever good
physics and science detects because it's not of what their terrestrial
limited God permits.


Obvious errors corrected on behalf of my last paragraph, but then Saul
Levy is so all-knowing that nothing really matters, does it.

-
Sirius-B as a nearly earth-sized white dwarf offers an average density
of 1e9 kg/m3, so a thousand fold worth of 1e12 kg/m3 could become our
average God Hole density, with a nucleus core of perhaps 1e18 kg/m3 if
not greater, of which might suggest a fairly small GH that'll
represent the initial universe.

Of course this means there's far more to our complex universe than
meets the naked human eye, or even by way of the best instruments our
eyes can interpret.
-

In addition to Venus being so gosh darn nearby and very much alive and
kicking, our moon having been global warming us ever since the last
ice-age Earth will ever see, as well as our solar system headed back
towards Sirius, I'm still working on my God Hole(GH) theory, not that
your conventional BH, DM and DE don't exist as is.
.. - Brad Guth

On Feb 27, 9:26 pm, Saul Levy wrote:
So what, Brad? lmao!

I posted the first signs of global COOLING. It's happening.

Sirius is far enough away that I'm not worried about it.

Saul Levy


On Feb 27, 9:31 pm, Saul Levy wrote:
Nothing you worry so much about, Brad, is worth anything! lmao! But
you just can't see that, can you?

If you correct something, then SHOW THE CHANGES, MORON! What kind of
stupid way to show errors is that?

Last ice age on Earth? I doubt that very much, Brad. A new one has
started. lmao!

You really need to get a LOT SMARTER, a LOT FASTER!

Saul Levy

Your physics, your peer replicated science, your holy grail clue as
based upon your superior Old Testament thumping peckerology is?

Obviously you're not the least bit ion propulsion smart, yet you claim
to know all there is to know of what other smart folks don't about
global warming (rather the lack thereof), but then you can't even
manage to tell us where the hell our NASA/Apollo team of Semitic Third
Reich wizards were capable of hiding Venus.
.. - Brad Guth

On Feb 29, 6:05 pm, chatnoir wrote:
On Feb 29, 6:01 pm, Art Deco wrote:

Saul Levy wrote:
Blah!

Brad sees me everywhere as a result of my applying many clue-by-fours

The only four you can relate to is that you walk on all fours

http://www.world-science.net/exclusi...unertanfrm.htm

headline:

"Backward evolution" spawns ape-like people

Feb. 21, 2006
Special to World Science

An editor of a noted scientific journal says he has discovered a
genetic defect that seems to set back the clock on human evolution by
more than a million years.

Special Report

Its victims walk on all fours and mouth a primitive language, the
scientist reported. He added that the syndrome may literally undo eons
of evolution, and thus reflect with some accuracy what our ape-like
ancestors were like.

The researcher, Uner Tan of Cukurova University Medical School in
Adana, Turkey, has posted an online video clip of an affected woman
walking on all fours, her face blurred.

The idea that evolution can run backward isn't new; some scientists
say there have been confirmed cases of it in animals. But it's also a
controversial subject, and considered hard to prove in any given
case. ... (cont)

and

Are are de-evolving into the true slime mold you behave as!

to his kookscreeds. His hindside must still be smarting from all those
kook awards he garnered.

Saul Levy

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:14:14 -0800 (PST), BradGuth
wrote:

On Feb 29, 10:47 am, Saul Levy wrote:
Another repeat, Brad.

Very boring!

Saul Levy

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:58:21 -0800 (PST), BradGuth

wrote:
On Feb 27, 9:26 pm, Saul Levy wrote:
So what, Brad? lmao!

I posted the first signs of global COOLING. It's happening.

Sirius is far enough away that I'm not worried about it.

Saul Levy

On Feb 27, 9:31 pm, Saul Levy wrote:
Nothing you worry so much about, Brad, is worth anything! lmao! But
you just can't see that, can you?

If you correct something, then SHOW THE CHANGES, MORON! What kind of
stupid way to show errors is that?

Last ice age on Earth? I doubt that very much, Brad. A new one has
started. lmao!

You really need to get a LOT SMARTER, a LOT FASTER!

Saul Levy

Your physics, your peer replicated science, your holy grail clue as
based upon your superior Old Testament thumping peckerology is?

Obviously you're not the least bit ion propulsion smart, yet you claim
to know all there is to know of what other smart folks don't about
global warming (rather the lack thereof), but then you can't even
manage to tell us where the hell our NASA/Apollo team of Semitic Third
Reich wizards were capable of hiding Venus.
. - Brad Guth

How very Art Deco of yourself.
. - Brad Guth

--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

"Are are de-evolving into the true slime mold you behave as!"

Rabbi Art Deco and company has already been there and done that slime
mold thing, as of recently, proving that de-evolution of such sperm
sucking perverts is a sure thing.
.. - Brad Guth

On Feb 9, 6:41*am, BradGuth wrote:
At least Robert Clark isn't against our use of ions for thrust, and of
notions for storing enough of such ions for creating a fairly
substantial amount of volume sustained thrust if given the necessary
energy for accelerating such ions is part of the package deal. *Of
course, I've had to correct those usual robo-moderated words as having
been run together, so that a normal key word search would even turn up
this "Stored ionized gas for ion drives" contribution of his, stating
that such ion exhaust/exit shouldn't have any difficulties in
obtaining 10,000 km/s. *Whereas I'm thinking the 16.7e3 km/s of the
natural 5.6 MeV radium alpha/ion particle itself is perhaps not half
of what a electrostatic boosted and magnetic focused Rn222 ion could
muster, therefore its potential exit velocity of 34,000 km/s (that's
better than 0.1'c') seems entirely doable, and of the much greater
mass of the Rn222 ion should by rights benefit the thrust potential
without ignoring any of those laws of physics.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...frm/thread/109...
From: Robert Clark
Date: Sep 28 2007, 4:53 pm
Subject: *Stored ionized gas for ion drives.
To:sci.space.policy, sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity,
sci.physics.fusion

On Sep 20, 4:47 pm, Robert Clark wrote: *This page gives a formula for the exhaust speed of an ion engine in
terms of the charge on the ions and the voltage driving the ion flow:

Ionthruster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster#Energy_usage







*The exhaust speed increases with the charge on the ions and decreases
with their mass. You would think then that a light gas like hydrogen
would be ideal since heavier gases even when fully ionized would still
contain approximately equal numbers of neutrons as protons which would
not contribute to the charge but would approximately double the mass.

*Yet it is the heavier gases like cesium and more recently xenon that
are used. The explanation is that of the energy it takes to ionize the
gas used as fuel. The figure on this page shows the energy to ionize a
light gas such as hydrogen is relatively high compared to the heavier
gases:

Ionization Energies.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...al/ionize.html

*The figure gives the energy per mole which is high in itself. It is
even worse when you consider this on a per mass basis since the mass
amount of hydrogen would be so small compared to the amount of energy
needed to ionize it.

*So could we instead store the hydrogen or some other light gas
already in ionized form so we would not have to supply power to ionize
the gas, only to accelerate it?

*If you used ionized hydrogen, so you would be accelerating protons,
then using 6 x 10^18 protons to make one 1 Coulomb, and a mass of 1.6
x 10^-27 kg for a proton, and V representing the voltage in volts, the
speed on the ions (protons) would be about (10^4)sqrt(2*V) in meters/
second.

*If we made the voltage be 5,000 V we would get 1,000,000 m/s speed
much higher than any currentiondrive. Also, there are power supplies
that convert low voltage high amperage power into high voltage, low
amperage power, even up to 500,000 V. Then we could get 10,000,000
m/s = 10,000 km/s exhaust speed.

*The question is could we get light weight means of storing large
amounts of ionized gas? Note that is this for space based propulsion
not launch from Earth. You would have a possibly large energy
generating station that remained in low Earth orbit to supply the
power to ionize the gas once the spacecraft was placed in orbit. The
power generator would be left behind in orbit. Then the volume of the
gas container could be large to keep the density of the gas low. This
would allow very thin container walls. Note the low density would also
allow the electrostatic repulsion of the positively charged ions to be
more easily constrained.

*A possible problem though is the charged ions contacting the walls
could lead to a loss of ionization. You might be able to use a low
level magnetic field to prevent the ions contacting the walls. Low
density of the gas would insure the strength of the magnetic field
required would be low. It might even be accomplished by thin permanent
magnets so you would not need to use extra power.

*Some questions: what would be the electrostatic pressure produced by
a low density highly ionized gas? What strength magnetic field would
you need to contain it?

*Note that with an exhaust speed of say 10,000 km/s, by the rocket
equation we could get the rocket itself up to relativistic speeds with
acceptable mass ratios.

*Then this would provide a means of testing relativistic effects on
*macroscopic bodies.
* *Bob Clark

There is a lot of research on containing charged particles of only
one charge, that is, all positive or all negative, because of fusion
research. These are called "non-neutral" plasmas.

There is a limit on the number of charged particles you can contain
in a magnetic trap based on the strength of the magnetic field called
the "Brillouin limit."

However, some researchers have argued it is possible to exceed
This limit:

Confinement Of PureIonPlasma In A Cylindrical Current Sheet.
http://www.pppl.gov/pub_report//2000/PPPL-3403.pdf
*Bob Clark

Perhaps others might care to ponder and subsequently offer their best
swag(scientific wild ass guess) as to our getting the most out of ion
thrust, not that Ra226-Rn222 need be the one and only alternative.
However, with that nearby and gamma saturated moon of ours might
actually suggest there's a good amount of Radium to behold, and at a
$1M/gram seems entirely worth going after, more so than whatever 3He.
(why the hell not accomplish extracting both?)
. - Brad Guth

On Feb 8, 7:59 am, BradGuth wrote:



A good source of thruster ions that'll keep coming is from the likes
of Radium that creates the Radon (Rn222) gas. *Radium is somewhat
rare, but it is not as an element uncommon. *However, of what's most
uncommon is any public disclosures or education about Radium.

Apparently the element of Radium is officially taboo/nondisclosure
rated, especially as far as to who has what and at whatever current
market value. *Essentially, this need-to-know market price of Radium
is at least a thousand fold more government cartel hocus-pocus price
fixed than anything of fossil fuels or even of yellowcake, though the
formal extraction process of obtaining roughly 100 milligrams per
yellowcake tonne is essentially a robotic task from start to finish.
For the most part, Radium is actually another one of those discarded
elements within spent nuclear fuel, as well as found at less
concentrations within most mineral tailings or otherwise given as a
slight part of most all fossil fuels, that which the fossil energy
industry as a whole do not bother to extract or otherwise divert this
element from the subsequent CO2/Nox laced combustion soot, much of
which simply goes either directly into our atmosphere or if in full
clean-air compliance merely gets relocated into various landfills
that'll eventually end up eroding and/or blending back into the
general environment. *Of course none of the valuable 3He has been
collected either, so what the hell.

Naturally-occurring radioactive materials (NORM)http://www.eoearth.org/article/Natur...oactive_materi...)
A *great amount of Radium and subsequently Radon comes into our
surface environment though fossil fuel extractions and subsequent
usage, and much of whatever's initially kept from being
atmospherically dispersed as CO2 and NOx contaminated soot that's
laced with a slight trace of Radium is simply buried in relatively
shallow graves or in some cases utilized as fill for open pit mining
site recovery. *In other words, most all of the mined elements of
radioactive fuel that used to be safely sequestered far enough
underground, essentially away from our frail DNA and surface
environment, has been systematically and artificially reintroduced
into our life sustaining environment, along with as little public
education as possible so that folks are simply snookered into being
unaware of these surrounding concentrations and dosage levels that we
all have to cope within.

Radon gas; "reportedly causes 21,000 lung cancer deaths per year in
the United States alone."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon
If that be the case, then by any global/world standard could be
looking at as many as 400,000 Radon gas related deaths per year, if
not an all-inclusive 500,000 in radiation contamination related deaths
per year (keeping in mind that fewer than 500 pandemic deaths per year
would become a world health alert with multiple quarantines imposed).
Therefore, rounding up as much of the spare/surplus Radium as possible
seems like a perfectly good sort of task worth doing, so that it can
be either put safely away or at least properly utilized in a manner
that doesn't further traumatize our frail DNA and badly failing
environment any more than absolutely necessary. *Like U238 yellowcake
of 80% grade, whereas perhaps the 100 mg/tonne of 90~97% extracted
grade of this refined Radium ore doesn't amount to all that much by
volume, but clearly what there is of it has become extremely valuable
as well as humanly lethal if continually ignored as is, not to mention
what adverse affects are imposed upon all other plant, animal and
microbe forms of life that surrounds and benefits us, and in one way
or another gets involved and/or consumed by us humans.

Radium is roughly 60 fold more radioactive than Uranium, is also of at
least 6 million fold greater worth per

...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't know what the big deal is about keeping ionic
propulsion top secret. The cold war has been over for some time and
the Communists propably invented them before we did anyway. Its not
that complicated. You take the guts out of a microwave oven, mount a
parabolic reflector behing the tube so that it concentrate the
mocrowave energy into a point inject a little water into that point at
the same time you push the thrust button and volia you have thrust.
When you run out of water you can stick just about anything in there
and it will ionize it. When you are close enough to other star sstems
for yoursolar cells to work you will ionic propulsion. You would think
it was rocket science! I lived twelve miles north of Cape Canaveral
and watched Werner Von Brun's team put the first satellite in orbit.
We owned two large parcels of land and they kicked everybody off Merit
Island so that they could pretend to put men on the Moon.
Ionic propulsion has been around before the cold war. When
I was twelve Popular Science and National Geographic both showed
pictures of gold plated ion rocket cubes attached to satellites with
five nozzels pointing in five diferent directions controlled by a
solonoid valve for manovering purposes. They even had manually
controlled ones for the astronauts operated by a four-way toggle
switch. When I was going to college whenever I would mention ionic
propulsion the teacher would clam up. When I would aske anyone from
NASA or JPL about ion engines they would clam up and give me strange
look.
Ionic propulsion is the only way we move around in space
using conventional technology. Until we have mass reduction technology
and can alter time and warp space (some of us can already do this) we
have to stick with what works.
What I have been working on lately is mutural gravity
alignment bubbles between multiple star systems. Using our
conventional ionic propulsion technology we might be able to sustain
1/10 earth gravity acceleration so there would be fairly large spaces
between stars where a spaceship could navigate using ionic propulsion.
If you went outside this envelop you would have to use your rocket
power to get back in. In a real dire emergency you would have to use
nuclear to get back into the safe zones. At the present time mankind
has the coputational capability to create three dimensional maps of
the mutural gravity points dictated by the capability of our ionic
propulsion rockets. Teh software already exists but they won't let us
use it. The Berkley-JPL Labritory has a 2048 CPU with terrabites of
memory but us common folk aren't allowed to use it even though we paid
for it.
Those of you who have an inkling of what Brad and I are
talking about know that our sun reached a mutural gravity point at
apogee about ten to twelve thousand years ago in its orbit around the
Sirius system and we (our sun) is traveling (accelerating) toward
Sirius A & B at 7.5 kilometer per second. We (our sun) exists in an
oblong star cluster of 100 stars about 15 light years by 100 light
years ruled by two the giants Sirius and Procyon which are several
billion years older than our sun. We obviously didn't come from the
same place. Our sun was born in Orion--a birthing place for stars 1330
light years to the south. Both Sirius and Procyon have white dwarfs
with masses larger than our sun. Sirius A and B is the object that
started advance multicellular life forms on Earth. Sirius B orbits
Sirius A every 54 years. There are many other larger star clusters
around us; some containing 2500 stars.
To make a very long story short after our sun was born in
Orion with about 40 other stars. The planets formed from extra
material and we drifted out away from Orion for three billion years.
Earth had a 1450 pound per square inch atmosphere and 1/3 of it was
CO2. Earth had an Ice Age that lasted over a billion years and finally
we drifted between Procyon and Sirius into a mutural gravity alignment
point. Sirius B with 1.5 solar masses that orbits Sirius A every 54
years came around and put our Sun into orbit around Sirius while our
sister stars kept going and are in a much larger orbit. The aditional
light and heat from these very old stars took Earth out of it's
billion-year-long ice age and the intense light from Sirius B which
puts out from 100 to 1000 times more UV than our sun started plants
growning on the surface of the oceans. It took the intense light from
a neutron or white dwarf to penetrate earth's 1450 pound per square
inch atmosphere and start laying down coal, oil and limesone with
plant growth. 650-million years of this took earth's atmospher down to
14.5 pound per square inch giving us free oxygen, coal, oil and
limestone. You can't drive a car without a neutron star! You can read
the entire book in a couple months by ordering it from Trafford of
Victoria British Columbia, Amazon.com Boarders, Bokers Etc., Etc.
You can read a dsylexic version of it right now by
going to my web site www.alaskapublishing.com. It can be downloaded
for $4.00. I got my directions backward in regards to which way we are
heading for Sirius. The mainstream information I have to work with is
not that good. The book itself will be awsome with over twenty
wonderful, full-page, full-color images and graphs. WWW.ALASKAPUBLISHING.COM
BEST WISHES, HANK

You can always post on top portion of the given reply, as that way
your text isn't hidden off-page. And you don't always have to include
the entire body of other text if you'd like keeping the given reply
more readable by those dropping in for a quick look-see.

Ion propulsion or ion thrusters are becoming the ultimate alternative
for the future of faster and more extended space travels, although the
usual topic taboo or nondisclosure nature of this Usenet and of most
other web forums is truly impressive, as in don't ask and don't tell,
or else they'll kick our butts.

Of second to ion propulsion is gravity, and big nasty star/solar
systems do tend to pull upon whatever is on their side of the
interstellar L1, especially if such an item as a spacecraft or robotic
probe were getting ion thrusted towards that given star at even as
little as 0.000001 Gee.

BTW, they supposedly don't much care for a direct sales pitch of items
within Usenet, but compared to everything else they allow, what the
hell. Giving a link to an external web page of items for sale might
be a little safer bet.
.. - Brad Guth


On Mar 5, 2:13 pm, Hank Kroll wrote:
I don't know what the big deal is about keeping ionic
propulsion top secret. The cold war has been over for some time and
the Communists propably invented them before we did anyway. Its not
that complicated. You take the guts out of a microwave oven, mount a
parabolic reflector behing the tube so that it concentrate the
mocrowave energy into a point inject a little water into that point at
the same time you push the thrust button and volia you have thrust.
When you run out of water you can stick just about anything in there
and it will ionize it. When you are close enough to other star sstems
for yoursolar cells to work you will ionic propulsion. You would think
it was rocket science! I lived twelve miles north of Cape Canaveral
and watched Werner Von Brun's team put the first satellite in orbit.
We owned two large parcels of land and they kicked everybody off Merit
Island so that they could pretend to put men on the Moon.
Ionic propulsion has been around before the cold war. When
I was twelve Popular Science and National Geographic both showed
pictures of gold plated ion rocket cubes attached to satellites with
five nozzels pointing in five diferent directions controlled by a
solonoid valve for manovering purposes. They even had manually
controlled ones for the astronauts operated by a four-way toggle
switch. When I was going to college whenever I would mention ionic
propulsion the teacher would clam up. When I would aske anyone from
NASA or JPL about ion engines they would clam up and give me strange
look.
Ionic propulsion is the only way we move around in space
using conventional technology. Until we have mass reduction technology
and can alter time and warp space (some of us can already do this) we
have to stick with what works.
What I have been working on lately is mutural gravity
alignment bubbles between multiple star systems. Using our
conventional ionic propulsion technology we might be able to sustain
1/10 earth gravity acceleration so there would be fairly large spaces
between stars where a spaceship could navigate using ionic propulsion.
If you went outside this envelop you would have to use your rocket
power to get back in. In a real dire emergency you would have to use
nuclear to get back into the safe zones. At the present time mankind
has the coputational capability to create three dimensional maps of
the mutural gravity points dictated by the capability of our ionic
propulsion rockets. Teh software already exists but they won't let us
use it. The Berkley-JPL Labritory has a 2048 CPU with terrabites of
memory but us common folk aren't allowed to use it even though we paid
for it.
Those of you who have an inkling of what Brad and I are
talking about know that our sun reached a mutural gravity point at
apogee about ten to twelve thousand years ago in its orbit around the
Sirius system and we (our sun) is traveling (accelerating) toward
Sirius A & B at 7.5 kilometer per second. We (our sun) exists in an
oblong star cluster of 100 stars about 15 light years by 100 light
years ruled by two the giants Sirius and Procyon which are several
billion years older than our sun. We obviously didn't come from the
same place. Our sun was born in Orion--a birthing place for stars 1330
light years to the south. Both Sirius and Procyon have white dwarfs
with masses larger than our sun. Sirius A and B is the object that
started advance multicellular life forms on Earth. Sirius B orbits
Sirius A every 54 years. There are many other larger star clusters
around us; some containing 2500 stars.
To make a very long story short after our sun was born in
Orion with about 40 other stars. The planets formed from extra
material and we drifted out away from Orion for three billion years.
Earth had a 1450 pound per square inch atmosphere and 1/3 of it was
CO2. Earth had an Ice Age that lasted over a billion years and finally
we drifted between Procyon and Sirius into a mutural gravity alignment
point. Sirius B with 1.5 solar masses that orbits Sirius A every 54
years came around and put our Sun into orbit around Sirius while our
sister stars kept going and are in a much larger orbit. The aditional
light and heat from these very old stars took Earth out of it's
billion-year-long ice age and the intense light from Sirius B which
puts out from 100 to 1000 times more UV than our sun started plants
growning on the surface of the oceans. It took the intense light from
a neutron or white dwarf to penetrate earth's 1450 pound per square
inch atmosphere and start laying down coal, oil and limesone with
plant growth. 650-million years of this took earth's atmospher down to
14.5 pound per square inch giving us free oxygen, coal, oil and
limestone. You can't drive a car without a neutron star! You can read
the entire book in a couple months by ordering it from Trafford of
Victoria British Columbia, Amazon.com Boarders, Bokers Etc., Etc.
You can read a dsylexic version of it right now by
going to my web sitewww.alaskapublishing.com. It can be downloaded
for $4.00. I got my directions backward in regards to which way we are
heading for Sirius. The mainstream information I have to work with is
not that good. The book itself will be awsome with over twenty
wonderful, full-page, full-color images and graphs. WWW.ALASKAPUBLISHING.COM
BEST WISHES, HANK

On Mar 6, 5:14 pm, Saul Levy wrote:
Your astronomy is total ****, Hank.

The Sun is NOT in orbit around Sirius. Sirius and Procyon are not
giant stars, but are main sequence stars with Procyon moving into the
subgiant stage. Procyon will become a red giant in 10-100 million
years. Both are much younger than the Sun. They are more massive
than the Sun and live much shorter lives. This is from Wikipedia.

Where you got the rest of this **** from is beyond me and just as
questionable. Ah, it's magic! That explains it all! lmao!

No wonder Brad believes it! lmao!

Saul Levy


Your all-knowing physics and science without actual physics or science
expertise is impressive.

BTW, everything of our known universe (including a supposed rogue star
or BH) is either in orbit around something, or being orbited by
something. Sorry about that, it's another one of those pesky physics
kind of things.
.. - Brad Guth


On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 14:13:35 -0800 (PST), Hank Kroll



wrote:
Those of you who have an inkling of what Brad and I are
talking about know that our sun reached a mutural gravity point at
apogee about ten to twelve thousand years ago in its orbit around the
Sirius system and we (our sun) is traveling (accelerating) toward
Sirius A & B at 7.5 kilometer per second. We (our sun) exists in an
oblong star cluster of 100 stars about 15 light years by 100 light
years ruled by two the giants Sirius and Procyon which are several
billion years older than our sun. We obviously didn't come from the
same place. Our sun was born in Orion--a birthing place for stars 1330
light years to the south. Both Sirius and Procyon have white dwarfs
with masses larger than our sun. Sirius A and B is the object that
started advance multicellular life forms on Earth. Sirius B orbits
Sirius A every 54 years. There are many other larger star clusters
around us; some containing 2500 stars.
To make a very long story short after our sun was born in
Orion with about 40 other stars. The planets formed from extra
material and we drifted out away from Orion for three billion years.
Earth had a 1450 pound per square inch atmosphere and 1/3 of it was
CO2. Earth had an Ice Age that lasted over a billion years and finally
we drifted between Procyon and Sirius into a mutural gravity alignment
point. Sirius B with 1.5 solar masses that orbits Sirius A every 54
years came around and put our Sun into orbit around Sirius while our
sister stars kept going and are in a much larger orbit. The aditional
light and heat from these very old stars took Earth out of it's
billion-year-long ice age and the intense light from Sirius B which
puts out from 100 to 1000 times more UV than our sun started plants
growning on the surface of the oceans. It took the intense light from
a neutron or white dwarf to penetrate earth's 1450 pound per square
inch atmosphere and start laying down coal, oil and limesone with
plant growth. 650-million years of this took earth's atmospher down to
14.5 pound per square inch giving us free oxygen, coal, oil and
limestone. You can't drive a car without a neutron star! You can read
the entire book in a couple months by ordering it from Trafford of
Victoria British Columbia, Amazon.com Boarders, Bokers Etc., Etc.
You can read a dsylexic version of it right now by
going to my web sitewww.alaskapublishing.com. It can be downloaded
for $4.00. I got my directions backward in regards to which way we are
heading for Sirius. The mainstream information I have to work with is
not that good. The book itself will be awsome with over twenty
wonderful, full-page, full-color images and graphs. WWW.ALASKAPUBLISHING.COM
BEST WISHES, HANK

On Feb 7, 10:40 am, BradGuth wrote:
What if instead of our going with whatever's small, extremely cheap,
fast and rad-hard robotic, what if going with larger is nearly always
better?

Perhaps this new and improved topic of "Building Spaceships" for
accommodating us frail humans on interstellar treks, and of those
multi generation habitat spacecraft being extensively ion thrusted,
along with the wizardly help of William Mook and those few of us
unafraid of whatever's out there, as such may be a little easier said
than done, not to mention folks having to deal with my dyslexic
encryption and frequent typos that can't always manage to keep those
numbers or terminology half straight.

Perhaps such a large scale ion thrusted spacecraft isn't quite as
insurmountable as we've been told, and it's not that a pair or quad
worth of substantial LRBs would not have to help get this rather
substantial package off the pad (in modules if need be, and assembled
at the moon's L1). However, upon launch and of once reaching the cool
upper most atmosphere is where the potential of ion thrusting could
start to contribute w/o Radon saturating Earth in the process, and
obviously from whatever LEO point onward is where the real potential
of ion thrust becomes impressive, especially since this method of
electro-rocket thrust can be sustained for as long as the given cache
of ions and electrical energy holds out. (with radium-radon there's a
failsafe worth of 1600+ years before reaching half-life, so there's
never a total lack of those Rn222 alpha/ions, and there's even some
electron energy derived from the Radium-Rn breeder reactor)

Given a sufficient cache of hefty ions and a sufficient onboard supply
of electron energy for artificially accelerating and redirecting those
ions into a narrow exit trajectory, and if this thrust is the direct
result of a given ion flow rate or mass of whatever ion particles per
second times the exit velocity squared, as then where's the
insurmountable problem, other than your not standing anywhere behind
those ion thrusters.

Radon just so happens to make for a very good cache of substantially
massive ions that are already quite active/reactive and supposedly
going places as is, at roughly 1.63e7 m/sec. Liquid Radon or LRn222
represents a nifty fluid cache of a easily stored concentration of
Radon gas (though because of its short half-life it's still very much
one of those use it or lose it substances, with possibly an extended
life within a near solid 0 K storage), of which I believe this cache
of Rn222 can be electrically induced or excited into exiting this ion
thruster at a velocity as great as 0.1'c' (perhaps an exit velocity of
0.5'c' is technically doable if we're talking about a radon pumped
laser cannon).

Similar to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_eng...ColettiMPD.pdf
Our lord all-knowing (aka World FactBook) Mook says; "Check it out"
Here is how much thrust a rocket engine produces;
F = mdot * Ve
where mdot = mass flow rate, as kg/sec
Ve = exhaust speed m/sec
F = force (newtons) kg m/sec/sec

Here is how much power a rocket engine's jet produces
P = 1/2 * mdot * Ve^2
That is, the rate at which energy must be added to the exhaust jet is
the kinetic energy of the parts.
- - - -

Of course this is not about any Mook passive alpha particle directing
application, instead taking efficiency of the overall electrical and
ion tossing system into account (such as thermal energy losses) adds
to this existing amount of ion worth via applied electrical and
magnetic energy that'll focus and accelerate those ions. So, it is not
nearly as simple to express as one as Mook might suggest.

However, at the notion of our getting rid of this initial tonne worth
of our liquid cache of LRn222, at the ion mass flow rate of 1 kg/s,
whereas the kinetic power or energy worth of thrust supposedly
becomes:

If the 1 kg/s flow of Rn ions and the exit Ve were made as great as
10%'c' = 3e7 m/s

P = .5 * 9e14 = 4.5e14 kgf

At utilizing this ion exit velocity of 0.1'c' (3e7 m/s)
A metric tonne of LRn that'll essentially become just plain old Rn gas
of pure Rn222 ions, at using up one kg/s = 1000 seconds worth of
creating 4.5e14 kgf, of which this substance would push a 4.5e12 kg
(4.5 gigatonne) spacecraft at 100 gee in relationship to the gravity
at the surface of Earth.

At the more realistic ion exit velocity of 1% light speed is
0.01'c' (3e6 m/s)
A metric tonne of LRn that'll essentially become just plain old Rn gas
of pure Rn222 ions, at using one kg/s = 1000 seconds worth of 4.5e12
kgf, of which would push a 4.5e10 kg (45 megatonne) spacecraft at 100
gee in relationship to gravity at the surface of Earth.

Of course the 45 megatonne spacecraft isn't hardly any more likely
than human DNA or whatever spacecraft structurally surviving 100 gee.

So, to start off with we'd likely have ourselves a whole lot smaller
than 45 megatonne spacecraft, such as perhaps only as great as 4.5
megatonnes that'll exit away from Earth at perhaps as great as 10 gee,
then once 10r (63,730 km and just 1% Earth gravity) is reached,
whereas this is when the ion exit velocity could be safely punched up
from 0.001'c' to 0.01'c', and eventually the maximum of 0.1'c' could
be applied to as little as using a gram of Rn222 per second, because
at 0.1'c' or better exit velocity is where you really do not require
all that much mass flow per second.

0.1% light speed is 0.001'c' = 3e5 m/s

1 kg/sec at 3e5 m/s = .5 * 9e10 = 4.5e10 kgf

4.5e10 kgf would push a 4.5e6 tonne spacecraft along at 10 gee

Using a gram/sec:
4.5e7 kgf would push a 4.5e6 tonne spacecraft along at 0.1 gee

I believe that 1000 seconds of 10 gee acceleration is worth 78.4 km/s,
though of course we'd be past the 10r of Earth within the first 600
seconds, and thereby able to ion whiz past that 78.4 km/s mark like it
was standing still.

This next part is often where my math takes yet another nose dive, but
since I do not have the fly-by-rocket software and none others that
claim as always being all-knowing are seldom willing to share, is why
I'll just have to make do, especially since even the warm and fuzzy
likes of Mook always takes the lowest road possible in order diminish
and/or disqualify whatever isn't of his idea to start off with,
excluding just enough of the good stuff in order to foil any further
thought process.

The required energy for a given thousand seconds worth of accelerating
those Rn222 ions up to 3e5 m/s isn't exactly insignificant, demanding
perhaps at least 245.2 GW.h (8.826 e14 J) for accommodating all 16.7
minutes worth of ion thrust. However, due to the overall efficiency
of this energy transfer into accelerating those Rn ions is why it'll
more than likely demand somewhat greater energy for accomplishing this
task of tossing out the entire tonne worth those Rn222 alpha ions at
the rate of one kg/s, even if that's initially accomplished at this
minimal 0.001"c". However, since the existing Rn alpha particle
velocity is already self motivated at 1.6e7 m/s(.054'c'), perhaps
along with given another 5.6 MeV boost is where the required energy
can be limited as to whatever's necessary for accomplishing a good
exit focus or creating that laser cannon like beam, in which case the
required ion thruster energy could become relatively minimal for
accomplishing an impressive exit ion velocity of 3.26e7 m/s.

At times this spacecraft is going to require a hole lot more
electrical energy than any cache of Radium to Radon reactor could
manage at 32 kw/Ra tonne, or even 320 kw/breeder Ra tonne. However,
at a gross spacecraft mass of 4.5e6 tonnes, there's no problem with
incorporating an h2o2/aluminum fuel cell of 100 GW.h capacity, or
accommodating whatever Lithium nanotube ion battery storage, nuclear
reactors or fusion alternatives.

Once trekking off into interstellar space, and especially upon getting
this craft past our nearest interstellar L1, and of the other gravity
pulling us towards the likes of the relatively massive Sirius star/
solar system that we're already in blueshift as headed towards Sirius,
as this is when as little as a mdot microgram/sec of Rn222 at the exit
velocity of 0.2'c' would be more than sufficient ion thrust for
continually accelerating this 4.5e6 tonne spacecraft towards the
gravity pull of Sirius.

For a one microgram/sec of Rn222 mdot at 0.2'c' example:
P = .5e-9 * 3.6e15 = 1.5e6 kgf (1,500 tonnes/s of thrust, or in this
case 0.000333 gee)

The next problem gets down to the business of continually building up
another cache of LRn from the Ra-Rn breeder reactor while on the fly,
on behalf of that pesky matter of our having to ion retrothrust long
before overshooting the intended target. At 4.5e9 kg, stopping this
sucker that's by now going like a bat out of hell (possibly having
reached 0.1'c') is going to take some doings. Of course, there would
be generations of new and improved minds onboard in order to figure
most of this out before arriving into the Sirius star/solar system,
not to mention whatever could have been transmitted from Earth over
the past century.

BTW, at this point of topic argument sake, this mission to Sirius is a
one way ticket to ride, with absolutely no travel package guaranties
or ticket refunds allowed, because we may not be able to sufficiently
retrothrust in order to save any of those brave souls, and a purely
gravity-well trajectory turn-around or that of sufficiently
aerobraking is at best iffy, although a substantial solar wind
parachute as brake might eventually work. Also, recall the sheer size
of these required ion thrust nacelles, as being somewhat Star Trek
Enterprise like, and for all we know in need of those lithium crystals
or perhaps lithium nanotubes as part of their function (after all, any
good science fiction uses the regular laws of physics and the best
available science, and for all we know lithium could still be part of
it).
. - Brad Guth

How the heck did ions become so taboo/nondisclosure rated?
.. - Brad Guth

Good grief, what's with all the topic/author banishment over ion
thrusting?
.. - Brad Guth

BradGuth wrote:
On Feb 7, 10:40 am, BradGuth wrote:
What if instead of our going with whatever's small, extremely cheap,
fast and rad-hard robotic, what if going with larger is nearly always
better?

Perhaps this new and improved topic of "Building Spaceships" for
accommodating us frail humans on interstellar treks, and of those
multi generation habitat spacecraft being extensively ion thrusted,
along with the wizardly help of William Mook and those few of us
unafraid of whatever's out there, as such may be a little easier said
than done, not to mention folks having to deal with my dyslexic
encryption and frequent typos that can't always manage to keep those
numbers or terminology half straight.

Perhaps such a large scale ion thrusted spacecraft isn't quite as
insurmountable as we've been told, and it's not that a pair or quad
worth of substantial LRBs would not have to help get this rather
substantial package off the pad (in modules if need be, and assembled
at the moon's L1). However, upon launch and of once reaching the cool
upper most atmosphere is where the potential of ion thrusting could
start to contribute w/o Radon saturating Earth in the process, and
obviously from whatever LEO point onward is where the real potential
of ion thrust becomes impressive, especially since this method of
electro-rocket thrust can be sustained for as long as the given cache
of ions and electrical energy holds out. (with radium-radon there's a
failsafe worth of 1600+ years before reaching half-life, so there's
never a total lack of those Rn222 alpha/ions, and there's even some
electron energy derived from the Radium-Rn breeder reactor)

Given a sufficient cache of hefty ions and a sufficient onboard supply
of electron energy for artificially accelerating and redirecting those
ions into a narrow exit trajectory, and if this thrust is the direct
result of a given ion flow rate or mass of whatever ion particles per
second times the exit velocity squared, as then where's the
insurmountable problem, other than your not standing anywhere behind
those ion thrusters.

Radon just so happens to make for a very good cache of substantially
massive ions that are already quite active/reactive and supposedly
going places as is, at roughly 1.63e7 m/sec. Liquid Radon or LRn222
represents a nifty fluid cache of a easily stored concentration of
Radon gas (though because of its short half-life it's still very much
one of those use it or lose it substances, with possibly an extended
life within a near solid 0 K storage), of which I believe this cache
of Rn222 can be electrically induced or excited into exiting this ion
thruster at a velocity as great as 0.1'c' (perhaps an exit velocity of
0.5'c' is technically doable if we're talking about a radon pumped
laser cannon).

Similar to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_eng...ColettiMPD.pdf
Our lord all-knowing (aka World FactBook) Mook says; "Check it out"
Here is how much thrust a rocket engine produces;
F = mdot * Ve
where mdot = mass flow rate, as kg/sec
Ve = exhaust speed m/sec
F = force (newtons) kg m/sec/sec

Here is how much power a rocket engine's jet produces
P = 1/2 * mdot * Ve^2
That is, the rate at which energy must be added to the exhaust jet is
the kinetic energy of the parts.
- - - -

Of course this is not about any Mook passive alpha particle directing
application, instead taking efficiency of the overall electrical and
ion tossing system into account (such as thermal energy losses) adds
to this existing amount of ion worth via applied electrical and
magnetic energy that'll focus and accelerate those ions. So, it is not
nearly as simple to express as one as Mook might suggest.

However, at the notion of our getting rid of this initial tonne worth
of our liquid cache of LRn222, at the ion mass flow rate of 1 kg/s,
whereas the kinetic power or energy worth of thrust supposedly
becomes:

If the 1 kg/s flow of Rn ions and the exit Ve were made as great as
10%'c' = 3e7 m/s

P = .5 * 9e14 = 4.5e14 kgf

At utilizing this ion exit velocity of 0.1'c' (3e7 m/s)
A metric tonne of LRn that'll essentially become just plain old Rn gas
of pure Rn222 ions, at using up one kg/s = 1000 seconds worth of
creating 4.5e14 kgf, of which this substance would push a 4.5e12 kg
(4.5 gigatonne) spacecraft at 100 gee in relationship to the gravity
at the surface of Earth.

At the more realistic ion exit velocity of 1% light speed is
0.01'c' (3e6 m/s)
A metric tonne of LRn that'll essentially become just plain old Rn gas
of pure Rn222 ions, at using one kg/s = 1000 seconds worth of 4.5e12
kgf, of which would push a 4.5e10 kg (45 megatonne) spacecraft at 100
gee in relationship to gravity at the surface of Earth.

Of course the 45 megatonne spacecraft isn't hardly any more likely
than human DNA or whatever spacecraft structurally surviving 100 gee.

So, to start off with we'd likely have ourselves a whole lot smaller
than 45 megatonne spacecraft, such as perhaps only as great as 4.5
megatonnes that'll exit away from Earth at perhaps as great as 10 gee,
then once 10r (63,730 km and just 1% Earth gravity) is reached,
whereas this is when the ion exit velocity could be safely punched up
from 0.001'c' to 0.01'c', and eventually the maximum of 0.1'c' could
be applied to as little as using a gram of Rn222 per second, because
at 0.1'c' or better exit velocity is where you really do not require
all that much mass flow per second.

0.1% light speed is 0.001'c' = 3e5 m/s

1 kg/sec at 3e5 m/s = .5 * 9e10 = 4.5e10 kgf

4.5e10 kgf would push a 4.5e6 tonne spacecraft along at 10 gee

Using a gram/sec:
4.5e7 kgf would push a 4.5e6 tonne spacecraft along at 0.1 gee

I believe that 1000 seconds of 10 gee acceleration is worth 78.4 km/s,
though of course we'd be past the 10r of Earth within the first 600
seconds, and thereby able to ion whiz past that 78.4 km/s mark like it
was standing still.

This next part is often where my math takes yet another nose dive, but
since I do not have the fly-by-rocket software and none others that
claim as always being all-knowing are seldom willing to share, is why
I'll just have to make do, especially since even the warm and fuzzy
likes of Mook always takes the lowest road possible in order diminish
and/or disqualify whatever isn't of his idea to start off with,
excluding just enough of the good stuff in order to foil any further
thought process.

The required energy for a given thousand seconds worth of accelerating
those Rn222 ions up to 3e5 m/s isn't exactly insignificant, demanding
perhaps at least 245.2 GW.h (8.826 e14 J) for accommodating all 16.7
minutes worth of ion thrust. However, due to the overall efficiency
of this energy transfer into accelerating those Rn ions is why it'll
more than likely demand somewhat greater energy for accomplishing this
task of tossing out the entire tonne worth those Rn222 alpha ions at
the rate of one kg/s, even if that's initially accomplished at this
minimal 0.001"c". However, since the existing Rn alpha particle
velocity is already self motivated at 1.6e7 m/s(.054'c'), perhaps
along with given another 5.6 MeV boost is where the required energy
can be limited as to whatever's necessary for accomplishing a good
exit focus or creating that laser cannon like beam, in which case the
required ion thruster energy could become relatively minimal for
accomplishing an impressive exit ion velocity of 3.26e7 m/s.

At times this spacecraft is going to require a hole lot more
electrical energy than any cache of Radium to Radon reactor could
manage at 32 kw/Ra tonne, or even 320 kw/breeder Ra tonne. However,
at a gross spacecraft mass of 4.5e6 tonnes, there's no problem with
incorporating an h2o2/aluminum fuel cell of 100 GW.h capacity, or
accommodating whatever Lithium nanotube ion battery storage, nuclear
reactors or fusion alternatives.

Once trekking off into interstellar space, and especially upon getting
this craft past our nearest interstellar L1, and of the other gravity
pulling us towards the likes of the relatively massive Sirius star/
solar system that we're already in blueshift as headed towards Sirius,
as this is when as little as a mdot microgram/sec of Rn222 at the exit
velocity of 0.2'c' would be more than sufficient ion thrust for
continually accelerating this 4.5e6 tonne spacecraft towards the
gravity pull of Sirius.

For a one microgram/sec of Rn222 mdot at 0.2'c' example:
P = .5e-9 * 3.6e15 = 1.5e6 kgf (1,500 tonnes/s of thrust, or in this
case 0.000333 gee)

The next problem gets down to the business of continually building up
another cache of LRn from the Ra-Rn breeder reactor while on the fly,
on behalf of that pesky matter of our having to ion retrothrust long
before overshooting the intended target. At 4.5e9 kg, stopping this
sucker that's by now going like a bat out of hell (possibly having
reached 0.1'c') is going to take some doings. Of course, there would
be generations of new and improved minds onboard in order to figure
most of this out before arriving into the Sirius star/solar system,
not to mention whatever could have been transmitted from Earth over
the past century.

BTW, at this point of topic argument sake, this mission to Sirius is a
one way ticket to ride, with absolutely no travel package guaranties
or ticket refunds allowed, because we may not be able to sufficiently
retrothrust in order to save any of those brave souls, and a purely
gravity-well trajectory turn-around or that of sufficiently
aerobraking is at best iffy, although a substantial solar wind
parachute as brake might eventually work. Also, recall the sheer size
of these required ion thrust nacelles, as being somewhat Star Trek
Enterprise like, and for all we know in need of those lithium crystals
or perhaps lithium nanotubes as part of their function (after all, any
good science fiction uses the regular laws of physics and the best
available science, and for all we know lithium could still be part of
it).
. - Brad Guth

How the heck did ions become so taboo/nondisclosure rated?
. - Brad Guth

If upon average there were merely 150e6 atoms of Rn222 per m3 of
air, seems to suggest that a good amount of Ra226 can't be all that
too far away. In places the intensity or occurrence of Ra226 that's
creating such atoms of Ra222 is of course much greater than 150e6/m3,
primarily because radon is a heavy gas is why it hugs the surface at
much greater occurrence or population by a good hundred fold = 1.5e10/
m3, meaning that in many places the background of Radium(Ra226) is
hard at work in the natural decay process, as is naturally making
enough Rn222 available for creating and sustaining a good supply of
commercial liquid radon (LRn222) for ion thrust applications a very
doable thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon
"At standard temperature and pressure, radon forms a monoatomic gas
with a density of 9.73 kg/m3, about 8 times the surface density of the
Earth's atmosphere, 1.217 kg/m3, and is one of the heaviest gases at
room temperature and the heaviest of the noble gases (excluding
ununoctium). At standard temperature and pressure radon is a colorless
gas, but when it is cooled below its freezing point (202 K ; -71 °C ;
-96 °F) it has a brilliant phosphorescence which turns yellow as the
temperature is lowered, and becomes orange-red at the temperatures air
liquefies (below 93 K ; -180 °C). Upon condensation, radon also glows
because of the intense radiation it produces."

"At standard temperature and pressure, radon forms a monoatomic gas
with a density of 9.73 kg/m3"

"Radon collects over samples of radium 226 at the rate of around 0.001
cm3/day per g of radium."

Therefore, per kg of Ra226 you'll get 1 cm3/day, and per tonne of
Ra226 you'll obtain a liter of Rn222 that's worth 9.73 mg, of which
doesn't sound like all that much until it's made to exit the ion
thruster a 0.5 c, or roughly 150,000 km/s = 219 TN.m or TJ
(teraJoules), or if you like 23.34e12 kgf.m of reactive force.

Note that radon gas has been officially identified as the primary
cause of 21,000 lung cancer deaths per year in America alone, and
we're not even as nearly at risk as other more radium/radon saturated
areas around the planet, so we can safely extrapolate our 21,000
deaths caused by radon to a global annual death impact rate of
462,000 per year. In epidemic or pandemic terms, even 462 global
deaths from a given toxin or nasty microbe would be extremely
alarming, but oddly 462,000 deaths/year from the affects via radium/
radon is not given a mainstream hoot worth of consideration.

Of course fossil fuel drilling extractions, of mining solids and of
various transporting, processing and the final consumption that
unavoidably deposits such raw elements as radium and thus places a
continuous supply of radon into our surface environment via the mostly
invisible soot of combustion that includes CO2 and NOx that's laced
with radium/radon isn't exactly helping, especially since little if
any efforts are made to extract any of the radium prior to combustion
or even from the vest bulk of exhaust which covers and unavoidably
pollutes our entire global environment.

So, it's all rather odd that the all-knowing folks like our William
Mook (aka willie.moo) seems as though entirely unconcerned as to these
extensively artificially introduced toxins of radium/radon, that
represents such a well-known cancer causing element that's existing in
nature as well as getting so freely dumped into our frail environment,
instead of being easily identified, gathered up and properly utilized
in a perfectly safe and highly energy efficient application on behalf
of ion thrusters. Of course the same argument of our policy of having
ignored the "waste-not want-not" aspects of 3He that's continually
going to waste, all because it too hasn't been extracted from surface
minerals or from fossil fuels.

Is it just myself that cares about the future of humanity and of most
all other life on Earth via salvaging our frail environment that's
getting industrially traumatized before our mostly "no child left
behind" dumbfounded nation of village idiots, while at the same time
doing perfectly good things with radium/radon?
. - Brad Guth


BradGuth wrote:
On Feb 7, 10:40 am, BradGuth wrote:
What if instead of our going with whatever's small, extremely cheap,
fast and rad-hard robotic, what if going with larger is nearly always
better?

Perhaps this new and improved topic of "Building Spaceships" for
accommodating us frail humans on interstellar treks, and of those
multi generation habitat spacecraft being extensively ion thrusted,
along with the wizardly help of William Mook and those few of us
unafraid of whatever's out there, as such may be a little easier said
than done, not to mention folks having to deal with my dyslexic
encryption and frequent typos that can't always manage to keep those
numbers or terminology half straight.

Perhaps such a large scale ion thrusted spacecraft isn't quite as
insurmountable as we've been told, and it's not that a pair or quad
worth of substantial LRBs would not have to help get this rather
substantial package off the pad (in modules if need be, and assembled
at the moon's L1). However, upon launch and of once reaching the cool
upper most atmosphere is where the potential of ion thrusting could
start to contribute w/o Radon saturating Earth in the process, and
obviously from whatever LEO point onward is where the real potential
of ion thrust becomes impressive, especially since this method of
electro-rocket thrust can be sustained for as long as the given cache
of ions and electrical energy holds out. (with radium-radon there's a
failsafe worth of 1600+ years before reaching half-life, so there's
never a total lack of those Rn222 alpha/ions, and there's even some
electron energy derived from the Radium-Rn breeder reactor)

Given a sufficient cache of hefty ions and a sufficient onboard supply
of electron energy for artificially accelerating and redirecting those
ions into a narrow exit trajectory, and if this thrust is the direct
result of a given ion flow rate or mass of whatever ion particles per
second times the exit velocity squared, as then where's the
insurmountable problem, other than your not standing anywhere behind
those ion thrusters.

Radon just so happens to make for a very good cache of substantially
massive ions that are already quite active/reactive and supposedly
going places as is, at roughly 1.63e7 m/sec. Liquid Radon or LRn222
represents a nifty fluid cache of a easily stored concentration of
Radon gas (though because of its short half-life it's still very much
one of those use it or lose it substances, with possibly an extended
life within a near solid 0 K storage), of which I believe this cache
of Rn222 can be electrically induced or excited into exiting this ion
thruster at a velocity as great as 0.1'c' (perhaps an exit velocity of
0.5'c' is technically doable if we're talking about a radon pumped
laser cannon).

Similar to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_eng...ColettiMPD.pdf
Our lord all-knowing (aka World FactBook) Mook says; "Check it out"
Here is how much thrust a rocket engine produces;
F = mdot * Ve
where mdot = mass flow rate, as kg/sec
Ve = exhaust speed m/sec
F = force (newtons) kg m/sec/sec

Here is how much power a rocket engine's jet produces
P = 1/2 * mdot * Ve^2
That is, the rate at which energy must be added to the exhaust jet is
the kinetic energy of the parts.
- - - -

Of course this is not about any Mook passive alpha particle directing
application, instead taking efficiency of the overall electrical and
ion tossing system into account (such as thermal energy losses) adds
to this existing amount of ion worth via applied electrical and
magnetic energy that'll focus and accelerate those ions. So, it is not
nearly as simple to express as one as Mook might suggest.

However, at the notion of our getting rid of this initial tonne worth
of our liquid cache of LRn222, at the ion mass flow rate of 1 kg/s,
whereas the kinetic power or energy worth of thrust supposedly
becomes:

If the 1 kg/s flow of Rn ions and the exit Ve were made as great as
10%'c' = 3e7 m/s

P = .5 * 9e14 = 4.5e14 kgf

At utilizing this ion exit velocity of 0.1'c' (3e7 m/s)
A metric tonne of LRn that'll essentially become just plain old Rn gas
of pure Rn222 ions, at using up one kg/s = 1000 seconds worth of
creating 4.5e14 kgf, of which this substance would push a 4.5e12 kg
(4.5 gigatonne) spacecraft at 100 gee in relationship to the gravity
at the surface of Earth.

At the more realistic ion exit velocity of 1% light speed is
0.01'c' (3e6 m/s)
A metric tonne of LRn that'll essentially become just plain old Rn gas
of pure Rn222 ions, at using one kg/s = 1000 seconds worth of 4.5e12
kgf, of which would push a 4.5e10 kg (45 megatonne) spacecraft at 100
gee in relationship to gravity at the surface of Earth.

Of course the 45 megatonne spacecraft isn't hardly any more likely
than human DNA or whatever spacecraft structurally surviving 100 gee.

So, to start off with we'd likely have ourselves a whole lot smaller
than 45 megatonne spacecraft, such as perhaps only as great as 4.5
megatonnes that'll exit away from Earth at perhaps as great as 10 gee,
then once 10r (63,730 km and just 1% Earth gravity) is reached,
whereas this is when the ion exit velocity could be safely punched up
from 0.001'c' to 0.01'c', and eventually the maximum of 0.1'c' could
be applied to as little as using a gram of Rn222 per second, because
at 0.1'c' or better exit velocity is where you really do not require
all that much mass flow per second.

0.1% light speed is 0.001'c' = 3e5 m/s

1 kg/sec at 3e5 m/s = .5 * 9e10 = 4.5e10 kgf

4.5e10 kgf would push a 4.5e6 tonne spacecraft along at 10 gee

Using a gram/sec:
4.5e7 kgf would push a 4.5e6 tonne spacecraft along at 0.1 gee

I believe that 1000 seconds of 10 gee acceleration is worth 78.4 km/s,
though of course we'd be past the 10r of Earth within the first 600
seconds, and thereby able to ion whiz past that 78.4 km/s mark like it
was standing still.

This next part is often where my math takes yet another nose dive, but
since I do not have the fly-by-rocket software and none others that
claim as always being all-knowing are seldom willing to share, is why
I'll just have to make do, especially since even the warm and fuzzy
likes of Mook always takes the lowest road possible in order diminish
and/or disqualify whatever isn't of his idea to start off with,
excluding just enough of the good stuff in order to foil any further
thought process.

The required energy for a given thousand seconds worth of accelerating
those Rn222 ions up to 3e5 m/s isn't exactly insignificant, demanding
perhaps at least 245.2 GW.h (8.826 e14 J) for accommodating all 16.7
minutes worth of ion thrust. However, due to the overall efficiency
of this energy transfer into accelerating those Rn ions is why it'll
more than likely demand somewhat greater energy for accomplishing this
task of tossing out the entire tonne worth those Rn222 alpha ions at
the rate of one kg/s, even if that's initially accomplished at this
minimal 0.001"c". However, since the existing Rn alpha particle
velocity is already self motivated at 1.6e7 m/s(.054'c'), perhaps
along with given another 5.6 MeV boost is where the required energy
can be limited as to whatever's necessary for accomplishing a good
exit focus or creating that laser cannon like beam, in which case the
required ion thruster energy could become relatively minimal for
accomplishing an impressive exit ion velocity of 3.26e7 m/s.

At times this spacecraft is going to require a hole lot more
electrical energy than any cache of Radium to Radon reactor could
manage at 32 kw/Ra tonne, or even 320 kw/breeder Ra tonne. However,
at a gross spacecraft mass of 4.5e6 tonnes, there's no problem with
incorporating an h2o2/aluminum fuel cell of 100 GW.h capacity, or
accommodating whatever Lithium nanotube ion battery storage, nuclear
reactors or fusion alternatives.

Once trekking off into interstellar space, and especially upon getting
this craft past our nearest interstellar L1, and of the other gravity
pulling us towards the likes of the relatively massive Sirius star/
solar system that we're already in blueshift as headed towards Sirius,
as this is when as little as a mdot microgram/sec of Rn222 at the exit
velocity of 0.2'c' would be more than sufficient ion thrust for
continually accelerating this 4.5e6 tonne spacecraft towards the
gravity pull of Sirius.

For a one microgram/sec of Rn222 mdot at 0.2'c' example:
P = .5e-9 * 3.6e15 = 1.5e6 kgf (1,500 tonnes/s of thrust, or in this
case 0.000333 gee)

The next problem gets down to the business of continually building up
another cache of LRn from the Ra-Rn breeder reactor while on the fly,
on behalf of that pesky matter of our having to ion retrothrust long
before overshooting the intended target. At 4.5e9 kg, stopping this
sucker that's by now going like a bat out of hell (possibly having
reached 0.1'c') is going to take some doings. Of course, there would
be generations of new and improved minds onboard in order to figure
most of this out before arriving into the Sirius star/solar system,
not to mention whatever could have been transmitted from Earth over
the past century.

BTW, at this point of topic argument sake, this mission to Sirius is a
one way ticket to ride, with absolutely no travel package guaranties
or ticket refunds allowed, because we may not be able to sufficiently
retrothrust in order to save any of those brave souls, and a purely
gravity-well trajectory turn-around or that of sufficiently
aerobraking is at best iffy, although a substantial solar wind
parachute as brake might eventually work. Also, recall the sheer size
of these required ion thrust nacelles, as being somewhat Star Trek
Enterprise like, and for all we know in need of those lithium crystals
or perhaps lithium nanotubes as part of their function (after all, any
good science fiction uses the regular laws of physics and the best
available science, and for all we know lithium could still be part of
it).
. - Brad Guth

I've top-posted for the benefit of others.
. - BG

Rn222 atoms are another one of those pesky 'use it' or 'lose it' kind
of things. Seems whenever I do my best at uncovering the potential
worth of such matters, lo and behold shortly thereafter the Googol/
NOVA Usenet group server bites the dust. ("GOOGLE Server Error" I'm
terribly sorry about that)

In trying to accomplish my very own math without the help or supposed
good wisdom of the all-knowing likes of William Mook, whereas there
could be some unintentional errors or even somewhat dyslexic
consequences to my deductive but otherwise wishful mindset. So, with
your better math and expertise, perhaps contributing whatever comes to
your trained mind is what this topic of interstellar ion thrusting
needs.

If upon average there were merely 150e6 atoms of Rn222 per m3 of
air, seems to suggest that a good amount of Ra226 can't be all that
too far away. In places the intensity or occurrence of Ra226 that's
creating such atoms of Ra222 is of course much greater than 150e6/m3,
primarily because radon is a heavy gas is why it hugs the surface or
underground at much greater occurrence or population by a good hundred
fold = 1.5e10/m3, meaning that in many places the background raw
element of Radium(Ra226) is hard at work in the natural decay process,
as is naturally making enough Rn222 available for creating and
sustaining a good supply of commercial liquid radon (LRn222) for ion
thrust applications, into a very doable thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon
"At standard temperature and pressure, radon forms a monoatomic gas
with a density of 9.73 kg/m3, about 8 times the surface density of the
Earth's atmosphere, 1.217 kg/m3, and is one of the heaviest gases at
room temperature and the heaviest of the noble gases (excluding
ununoctium). At standard temperature and pressure radon is a colorless
gas, but when it is cooled below its freezing point (202 K ; -71 °C ;
-96 °F) it has a brilliant phosphorescence which turns yellow as the
temperature is lowered, and becomes orange-red at the temperatures air
liquefies (below 93 K ; -180 °C). Upon condensation, radon also glows
because of the intense radiation it produces."

"At standard temperature and pressure, radon forms a monoatomic gas
with a density of 9.73 kg/m3"

"Radon collects over samples of radium 226 at the rate of around 0.001
cm3/day per g of radium."

Therefore, per kg of Ra226 you'll get 1 cm3/day, and per tonne of
Ra226 you'll obtain a liter of Rn222 that's worth 9.73 mg, of which
doesn't sound like all that much until it's made to exit the ion
thruster a 0.5 c, or roughly 150,000 km/s = 219 TN.m or TJ
(teraJoules), or if you like 23.34e12 kgf.m of reactive force.

Taking this one down to the amount of available ion thrust as
formulated upon a continuous thrusting basis, as per fully utilizing
that amount of 9.73 mg in Rn222 that's being continually produced per
day from a given tonne of radium, that can then be made to produce
23.34e12 kgf.m, whereas if this reactive force were divided by 8.64e4
= 2.7014e8 kgf.s (same as 270.14 thousand tonnes of force per second),
of which can further suggest that we might not require nearly as much
Ra226 within the breeder reactor of what's creating LRn222, as you
might think.

Keeping in mind that a reactor core of merely one tonne of Radium
(Ra226) isn't even terribly volumetric, although a conventional
Thorium reactor as started up with a few rods of Pu238 would likely
have to go along for the ride, and as such it too creates a small
amount of Radium as the natural process of its decay. So, all and
all, there's hardly any shortage of those Rn222 atoms as becoming
nifty ions that our electrified thruster/laser cannons can toss out
the rear at the 0.5 'c' velocity of 150,000 km/s, eventually giving
us the potential 75,000 km/s worth of added trek velocity to our
interstellar craft or robotic probe(s).

Obviously the existing R&D as to this ion exit velocity is a good
thousand fold away from hitting the150,000 km/s mark. However, in a
laser cannon pumped format is where such highly energized ions of
Rn222 that can be so nicely and efficiently focused or aligned into
merging along with the laser beam formulated conduit, as such might
reach this goal, if not a little better.

This was another one of my 'use it' or 'lose it' mindset notions, as
to the likes of utilizing Radium and of the secondary Radon that's
already highly charged and going places as is. Seems a darn shame to
continually ignore or otherwise waste such a good thing.

If you can add a little something in the way of corrections or merely
being topic constructive and thus technically informative, have at
it.
. - Brad Guth