Building spaceships

Lord all-knowing Mook says; “Check it out�
Here is how much thrust a rocket engine produces;
F = mdot * Ve
where mdot = mass flow rate, and 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.

At the notion of our getting rid of our liquid cache of LRn222 @1 kg/s

If the ion exit Ve(velocity) were made as great as 10%’c’ = 3e7 m/s

P = .5 * 9e14 = 4.5e14 kgf

At utilizing the 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 one kg/s = 1000 seconds worth of 4.5e14 kgf, of
which this substance would push a 4.5e12 kg (4.5 gigatonne) spacecraft
at 100g in relationship to 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 one kg/s = 1000 seconds worth of 4.5e12 kgf, of
which would push a 4.5e10 kg (45 megatonne) spacecraft at 100g in
relationship to gravity at the surface of Earth.

Of course the 45 megatonne spacecraft isn’t hardly any more likely
than human DNA surviving 100g.

So, to start with we’d likely have ourselves a whole lot smaller than
45 megatonne spacecraft, such as one of perhaps only as great as 4.5
megatonnes that’ll exit away from Earth at perhaps as great as 10g,
then once 10r (63,730 km and just 1% Earth gravity) is reached, as
this is when the ion exit velocity could be safely punched up from
0.001’c’ to 0.1’c’, and eventually the maximum of 0.1’c’ could be
applied to as little as using a gram of Rn222 per second.

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

.5 * 9e10 = 4.5e10 kgf

4.5e10 kgf would push a 4.5e6 tonne spacecraft at 10g

Of course 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 9 teraWatts for 16.7 seconds
(.06 hr) = 540 GW.h. However, more than likely it’ll demand a full
TW.h of applied energy for accomplishing this task of tossing out the
entire tonne worth those Rn222 ions at the rate of a full kg/s at just
the 0.1% speed of light velocity.

Obviously this spacecraft is going to require a hole lot more
electrical energy than any cache of mere radium to radon breeder
reactor could manage. However, at 4.5e6 tonnes, there’s no problem
with accommodating whatever nuclear reactor or fusion alternative.
. – Brad Guth


On Feb 4, 5:19 am, wrote:
On Feb 3, 10:51 pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Feb 3, 5:18 pm, BradGuth wrote:

Nothing wrong with using Mook fusion, although, going by the amounts
of free Radon (Rn222) that can be found within our terrestrial
environment, as such there's plenty of good old Radium to go around,
that which most folks on Earth would wisely just as soon get rid of.
I'm thinking they'd pay us at least a $billion per kg of Radium,
especially if we could put such nasty stuff into our spacecraft that's
headed away from Earth.

Radon ions moving out at 0.1c (such as within a radon laser cannon
format) should be utilized, simply because of the terrific stored
energy density and the LRn fluid density is also rather terrific.
Meaning that not all that much volume is required for accommodating a
tonne of LRn that can subsequently become those extremely fast moving
Rn222 ions that exit each ion thruster at perhaps as great as 10% the
speed of light.
. - BradGuth

wrote:
On Feb 3, 3:22�pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Feb 3, 11:13 am, wrote:

On Feb 2, 11:22 pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Feb 2, 7:15 am, Bombardier Planetary

wrote:
On Jan 27, 6:49 pm, "Jason Maxwell" wrote:

"lal_truckee" wrote in message

t... William December Starr wrote:

It got me thinking -- how often does sf even _mention_ where its big
ships were built, and under what conditions?

I really like the insanity of building anOriondrive ship in the
Seattle yards in "Footfall." No need to clean up the yard after takeoff...

Bellingham, WA actually. �I lived there when I read the book.

Jason

Here's an adjustable map with initial overpressure overlayed on the
city.

http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com...-wa-michael-la...

A Radium to Radon Ion drive is perfectly doable, and good for a half-
life of at least 1650 years.
. - BradGuth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Brad,

You know me, you know I am straight with you about these things. �I
told you you were not all wet about hydrogen peroxide as a fuel. �I
showed you howh2o2is better than batteries - not quite up to
hydrogen or gasoline - but with the right sort of micro-device - could
make a dandy portable generator that fits on a postage stamp. �60%
h2o2could replace batteries worldwide, and you could make billions
per year.

So, I'm not out to get ya son.

But this radium rocket idea won't fly. �And I'll take the trouble to
tell you why

We spoke of this before, and you never got it. �Radium rockets don't
work.

Here's why;

The don't produce any thrust! �That's because radium doesn't produce
enough power to generate signficant thrust.

Take a look at the relation between specific impulse thrust and
power. �Now look at the power output of a block of radium. �You will
find that there is little thrust from a plug of radium.

Check it out

Here is how much thrust a rocket engine produces;

� F = mdot * Ve

where mdot = mass flow rate, and �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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioac...wikipedia..org...

So, here's the deal about radium

A slug of pure radium 226 decays at a rate of 37 billion
disintigrations per second per gram of material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_particles

They have an kinetic energy of about 5.5 MeV - which means they travel
at 1.63e7 m/sec

So, lets say you've got a gram of the stuff - a sphere 7 mm in
diameter - at the center of a field coil that acts like a big
parabolic dish, deflecting all the alpha particles in one direction.

Lets say that the field coil is a superconducting super material that
masses only one gram as well and is strong enough and small enough to
efficiently direct all the alpha particles.

So, we have a two gram engine - that produces 37 billion reactions
that throw 37 billion alpha particles per second massing 6.64e-27 kg
each - at an exhaust velocity of 1.63e7 m/sec.

How much thrust do you get?

� �Well the mass flow rate is

� � � 3.7e10 + 6.64e-27 = 2.46e-16 kg/sec

� � Exhaust speed is

� � � 1.63e7

� � F = mdot * Ve
� � � �= 2.46e-16 kg/sec * 1.63e+7 m/sec = 4e-9 newtons

Now with a mass of two grams - one gram for the radium, and one gram
for the deflector - your radium rocket accelerates at

� � � �a = F/m = 4e-9 newtons / 2e-3 kg = 2e-6 m/s/s = 2e-7 gees

that's 200 nanogees son.

Velocity = a * t

Lets say we let this thing go for a month (2,629,800 seconds)

� � �V = 2e-6 m/s2 * 2.6e6 = 5.2 m/sec

So, in a month you've aded 5.2 m/sec to your speed.(less than 12 mph
per month)

In a year 144 miles per hour
In a decade 1,440 miles per hour
In a century, 14,400 miles per hour - now we're talking
In a thousand years 144,000 miles per hour.

Since power scales with mass, thrust to weight doesn't change. �The
only way you can increase the power level is to increase the
radioactivity. �One way to do that is set off a nuclear explosion -
which is what a nuclear pulse rocket does!!! �Then you can mix in
other stuff to bring the exhaust speeds into the range you want.

The power level of the jet is

� P = 0.5 * 2.46e-16 kg/sec * (1.63e+7 m/s)^2
� � �= 32.67 milliwatts.

This tiny power level combined with the very high exhaust speed kills
thrust. �Check it out. Lets say we add a 1 gram tank that holds 10
grams of hydrogen - and we inject it at a rate so that 10 grams of
hydrogen are heated by the 1 gram of radium, to produce a tiny
radisotope version of a nuclear rocket.

What would the performance be then?

Well, 32.67 milliwatts x 2.6 megaseconds = 85 kilojoules

Applied with 100% efficiency to the 10 grams of hydrogen we have

� � E = 1/2 m V^2 --- � SQRT( 2 E/m ) = V

� � Ve = (2 * 8.5e4 / 1e-2 )^(1/2) = 4,123 m/sec

The rocket equation is;

� �Vf = 4123 * EXP( 1/(1-10/13))
� � � �= 6,045 m/sec �(13,518 mph)

So, in a month - by using the heat of the radium to heat hydrogen
efficiently and exhausting the gas through a nozzle - we can increase
the thrust, and hence the speed a thousand fold!!!

By using a nuclear source that's controllable (one you can turn off
and on, and raise the power well above what is possible with a
radioisotope) like a nuclear reactor or atom bomb - you can get even
more gains. �Setting off a small nuclear device is pretty much the
limit. �Using aneutronic materials - and anti-matter 'spark plugs' -
its even better yet!!!

All perfectly good ideas that are up to the Mook standard. �However, I
was thinking along the lines of 0.1 c as being the Rn222 Ion exhaust
velocity, although 0.5 c seems doable if using a Rn pumped laser
cannon of such ions going out the rocket-butt like a bat out of hell.

Of course starting off with a LRn cache of liquid Rn222, if need be a
few tonnes of that highly reactive stuff might be just the ticket to
ride off the tarmac. �BTW, don't stand anywhere behind this sucker.
. - BradGuth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, a collimated beam of alpha particles travelling at 5% light
speed, can be reflected off the same sort of device used to collimate
the beam imagined earlier.

You are aware aren't you that alpha particles even 5.5 MeV alpha
particles only penetrate a few millimeters in materials before being
scattered? That means you need to spread and tons and tons of Radium
in very thin sheets and then somehow combine the beam lines. If this
could be done you could propel a few kg of payload to perhaps 2% light
speed in short order. The beam would be avaialable to do it again and
again - for 1600 years or so..

Alpha particles do bounce off of things quite efficiently at shallow
angles, so that suggests a design for a beam combining system. A nano-
scale structure of aluminum can be imagined with a CVD layer of radium
would emit the beam at a shallow angle - both left and right - and
then the sheet curved slightly - so that the alpha particle scattered
off it - putting a spacing structure around the beamemitter allows you
to coil the sheet up - in large rolls - with large holes in the middle
- like toilet paper rolls - and the beamwould add up over its entire
length - and be emitted at the edge of the topmost and bottommost
sheet - the bottom most sheet emission would be reintroduced into the
system after 180 degree turn around the inner most cylinder (the
smallest turning radius possible without absorbing thealpha particle
inthe aluminum/radium layers - and it is then added to the outboound
beam.

But it wouldn't be cheap and there's not much radium around to make

...

read more »

BTW, why are you always thinking all-or-nothing?

Where the hell did I ever specify that only a cache of radium would be
utilized.

BTW No.2, ever heard of a breeder reactor?
. - Brad Guth

Then why not use a reactor to start with and quit screwing around with
radioisotopes? lol.

For rocket applications you want the highest temperature and power
possible at the least weight. This means you want a small atomic
bomb. Which s a sort of nuclear reactor. Radioisotopes demonstrate
that there's a lot of energy locked up in matter. Nuclear reactors
are a practical way of releasing that energy in a controlled way.
Nuclear explosives do so at very high powers and very low weights.
This makes them ideally suited for rocket applications. Now nuclear
explosives have a few negatives. First, critical mass. Large
critical mass means large energy chunks. This can be reduced by
increasing compression or neutron yeild or both. The same magnetic
compression techniques that have been tried for fusion, work just fine
with fissionable products. So, a shaped whire of HEU with God's own
current running through it, can be made into a nuclear hand grenade.
A HEU whisker and a very high power super-capacitor - are all you
need. That and some sort of mortar launcher to get it far enough away
that it doesn't kill you before you set if ott. But they're dandy for
small nuclear pulse rockets. Then there's radioactive debris. This
scales with power - and doesn't go away. But, you can dilute it, by
using Teller Ulam's trick of magnifying it with lithium deuteride. You
can get rid of the HEU even if you use anti-matter. Of course if you
have industrial quantities of anti-matter, you can quit mucking around
with nuclear reactions and just use that to make very efficient
rockets - as I have pointed out..

Obviously I know what a breeder reactor is. Plainly before now you
didn't mention breeder reactors, or any sort of reactor at all. So,
bringing it up in this context doesn't make much sense to me.

Cleearly, I'm responding to what you say.

Which is my great mistake I fear..

Ever hear that the world is a mirror of your thoughts. That you
conjured it all up? Its true. My response was conjured up by WHAT
YOU SAID PREVIOUSLY. Now you bitch about it. Which convinces me
that's the whole point of your typing your rants here - to turn people
off and hide anything interesting in a sea of your bull****..

Cause that's what your radium rocket or radioisotope rocket is.
Althought - just as hydrogen peroxide can beat out batteries if
certain problems are resolved - radioisotopes - powerful ones - could
find specialty application in small compact long lived rockets - like
heating elements for thrusters.

Brad, I analyzed radium in my response because you talked about
radium. If you wanted to talk about Cobalt 60 or some other fool
thing. Then talk about that. But don't talk about radium 225 and
then complain that I didn't see that all along you were thinking about
Cobalt 60. Give me a freaking break.

Obviously other compounds are better radioisotopes than radium.
Radium is special because it was the first radioisotope isolated by
Madame Curie - and is the basis of the standard for radioactivity the
Curie and the Becquerel..

You don't seem to know that radioisotopes make a poor generator and an
especially poor rocket. RTGs exist, but theyre rare, expensive,
massive low power affairs. Massive and low poer means very low thrus
to weight in rocket applications.

Please consider the history of things. Between Curie at the end of
the 19th century, and Haber in the 1930s - there was a generation of
great physicists - they ALL knew everything you and I know about
radioisotopes. Yet none of them thought radioactivity was of any
useful benefit.

Are we so smart and they so stupid that we couldn't see it? Are they
keeping secrets from us? haha.. They knew radioactivity demonstrated
there was a lot of energy locked up in matter so they thought about
ways it might be made useful.

Why didn't they think radioisotpes useful? Because it was impractical
and expensive - except for specialty applications,like glowing watch
dials and RTGs and so forth.

Why?

The rate of decay was fixed by the half life of the radioisotope.
Your tank of 1,000 tons of radium -and you said radium - not Cobalt 60
or anything else - radium - whatever size you were thinking - will
continue to radiate at 32 MW come hell or high water. It doesn't
matter if its in the engine or in the tank, or in the lines between
the tank and the engine. You imagine wrongly that radioisotopes
aren't active when they're in a tank, and somehow magically become
active when they're in the engine, and then, just the stuff you want
is thrown away in the exhaust What a crock. What you describe is a
nuclear reactor - most specifically a nuclear pulse propulsion
rocket. Here tiny bomb elements are held in a coca cola machine like
affair - and the elements are assembled and shot with a low speed
mortar to a point in the huge engine where they are detonated, and the
debris is reflected at very high speed - in the direction desired.

When neutron moderated nuclear fission was concieved and developed, we
had solved the problem of nuclear energy. This has been made into all
manner o fnuclear reactors.

In rocket applications you want low mass high power high
temperatrure. that describes a nucleear explosion. Controlling and
sizing and cleaning up a nuclear explosion solves the problem of space
flight. Stanislaw Ulam, Ted Talyor and Freeman Dyson knew this in the
1940s. No one - for very good and practical reasons - considered
radioisotopes to be feasible rockets - they're too low powered,
uncontrollable, and low thrust. As I demonstrated for you earlier.
Now you are aruging about things I didn't say. You're an ungrateful
lout, that's why no one likes you. That's why you make a good
disinformation agent. That's why I would spend a lot to get you off
the internet for a year and into a good college, or a good woman's
home.

As a nation we looked at this ability to travel freely in space. We
had solved the problem of space travel in the 1940s. WE did so
privately as a nation, and elected to ignore it.

Dyson is still trying to process this. He *knew* we had solved the
problem of space flight in the 1940s and we elected to do nothing with
it. We mucked around with vonBraun's big chemical rockets for a
decade in response to Sputnik and put those on the shelf.

So, this is another case where you know just enough to be a cock-
blocker! lol. I say hydrogen - you go off on some rant about
hydrogen peroxide. Someone says nuclear pulse rocket - and you go off
about radium rockets that can't work as you imagine them to work.
When someone goes to great lengths to point out the error of what YOU
said about hydrogen peroxide and radium rockets - you attack them for
what they didn't say - even though you didn't say it either.

I urge you to have a real lasting and positive impact on usenet. QUIT
POSTING FOR A YEAR.

What is the difference between radioisotpes and nuclear reactors?

Well, radioisotopes decay at a fixed rate. Half the material will
decay in a specific period of time and nothing you can do chages
that.

Nuclear reactors use what are known as fissile materials. These are
generally poor radioisotopes. Here,materials undergo nuclear decay -
just like radioisotopes - in response to absorbing a neutron. They
have another property as well. They produce more than one neutron
when they decay. These two ideas when put together can be used to
make a self sustaining nuclear reaction.

You get a pile of stuff, that when you hit one atom of it with a
neutron, it breaks down, and releases two neutrons and then arrange to
keep the neutrons in the pile. then hit it with only one neutron and
set the whole thing off. controlling the neutron cross section - is a
way of controlling the power output. Compressing ple together and
having a large cross section for neutron absorption - reduces the size
of the pile - and increase the rate of reaction.

To get a clear idea of what's going on think of a pile of mouse
traps. They had this in a movie i saw in a physics class once when
the National Science Foundation made really good physics movies back
in the 1950s. Get a bunch of mouse traps all ready to go off,covering
a basketball court - each trap with a tennis ball poised to be thrown
in the air if the trap goes off. Then throw one tennis ball into the
midle of that system - presently a lot of tennis balls will be flying
and traps snapping shut!

A radioisotope is like a bunch of traps with a slot machine attached
to each one, and if the right combination shows up, it snaps shut. A
basketball court of these traps will snap shut at a constant rate
which depends on the number that have ot gone off. If the combination
is simple - like two of a kind - then the rate will be high - and the
half life short. If the combinatoin is complex - like xis of a kind -
then the rate will be low- and the half life long.

Obviously ANY radioisotope is inferior to ANY fissile material when
you want to build something useful like rockets to travel into space.
Clearly there are better things than nuclear materials - if you know
how to use them. Things like antimatter beams. But, if you're
talkinga bout nuclear energy and rockets - we've known the answer
since the 1940s - nuclear pulse rockets are the key.

Now I don't know why we didn't step up to the challenge and develop
rockets the same way we developed airplanes and ships. Maybe it had
something to do with UFOs. We tested a nuclear pulse rocket and the
UFOs came down like in THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL and said, look if
you folks are going to be traveling into space, you're going to have
to live by a few rules we all live by - and Harry Truman said 'nuts -
we ain't taking any guff from some green skinned monster' and the
military folks said, well if they haven't attacked us and defeated us
by now, it must be impossible for them to do that - so we can safely
ignore them. See, to the military everything is about capacity - not
motivation. So, if over the past 100,000 years or so aliens haven't
invaded Earth -then that tells a mlitary person of the present day
that those aliens must not have the capacity to invade us - so, why
worry about it now? The idea that WE were the primitives and we
really should be taking our lead from these little guys - was greeted
with derision. I mean, c'mon you long hair scientist types are all
alike. You'll have us kissing their green asses for no damn good
reason just because oh, they're ancient and wise and loving - suck my
dick while you're at it. They KNOW we're weak that way - and they're
plahing it to the hilt - DON'T FALL FOR IT. If they're so all
goddamned powerful, they'd ALREADY be in charge. THEY;RE NOT - so
don't give anything away. The timing of the contact and any rational
analysis of motivation was sidelined and marginalized. It was kept
secret because every mother across the land would look at the tiny
guys and feel all motherly and they vote - Do you want some goddamned
woman to tell us to turn our nuts over to these goddamned monsters?
We gotta keep it secret until we figure out; 1) why they haven't
attacked us before now, 2) how to use that knowledge to gain the upper
hand, 3) execute on a plan to get the upper hand...

Well, that's how i imgainged it might have happened,if it happened at
all. haha..

Bottom line Brad - radium or anyother radioisotope rockets - won't
have general application - special applications sure - just like
hydrogne peroxiide. Might even be important special application like
thrusters on long life satellites. But if you want to use nuclear
power for rockets the answer was determiend in 1940s - nuclear pulse
rockets.

Since then there have been advances - and nuclear is passe'. Even so,
radioisotope ideas as you describe them do not work as you imagine
they will.

You have proven yourself to be a liar.

That's because you are editing what I said and then.

You are typing things yourself and wrongly attributing them to me.

* * *
You have also proven yourself to be inept.

Your radioisotope rocket cannot work and you don't see why

To use nuclear decay -which is the source of energy in a radioisotope
- to make a rocket, use a nuclear reaction with fissile materials.

Or go beyond nuclear energy and build something even more advanced,
like a laser powered rocket, or an antimatter powered rocket.

laser beams and antimatter can be made using solar energy.

* * *

You seem to me to be a disinformatoin agent.

When someone says hydrogen - you say hyderogen peroxide
When someone says nuclear rocket - you say radium rocket

With just enough science to confuse anyone not absolutely sure.

And when someone explains to you precisely why you are wrong - you
engage in very bad behavior and do not let up until they no longer
post

Radon so happens to make for a very good cache of substantially
massive ions that are already quite reactive and going places as is.
Liquid Radon or LRn222 represents a nifty fluid cache of stored Radon
gas, of which can be electrically induced into exiting a ion thruster
at as great of velocity as 0.1'c (perhaps at 0.5'c' if we're talking
about a radon laser cannon).
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, and 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.
- - -

At the notion of our getting rid of our liquid cache of LRn222 @1 kg/s

If the ion exit Ve(velocity) 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 one kg/s = 1000 seconds worth of 4.5e14
kgf, of which this substance would push a 4.5e12 kg (4.5 gigatonne)
spacecraft at 100g in relationship to 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 100g
in relationship to gravity at the surface of Earth.

Of course the 45 megatonne spacecraft isn't hardly any more likely
than human DNA surviving 100g.

So, to start with we'd likely have ourselves a whole lot smaller than
45 megatonne spacecraft, such as one of perhaps only as great as 4.5
megatonnes that'll exit away from Earth at perhaps as great as 10g,
then once 10r (63,730 km and just 1% Earth gravity) is reached, as
this is when the ion exit velocity could be safely punched up from
0.001'c' to 0.1'c', and eventually the maximum of 0.1'c' could be
applied to as little as using a gram of Rn222 per second.

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

..5 * 9e10 = 4.5e10 kgf

4.5e10 kgf would push a 4.5e6 tonne spacecraft at 10g

Of course 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 9 teraWatts for 16.7 seconds
(.06 hr) = 540 GW.h. However, more than likely it'll demand a full
TW.h of applied energy for accomplishing this task of tossing out the
entire tonne worth those Rn222 ions at the rate of a full kg/s at just
the 0.1% speed of light velocity.

Obviously this spacecraft is going to require a hole lot more
electrical energy than any cache of mere radium to radon breeder
reactor could manage. However, at 4.5e6 tonnes, there's no problem
with accommodating whatever nuclear reactor or fusion alternative.

Once in interstellar space and especially upon getting gravity pulled
towards the likes of the relatively massive Sirius star system that
we're already blueshift headed for, as this is when as little as a
microgram of Rn222 at the MDOT of 0.1'c' would be more than sufficient
ion thrust for continually accelerating this 4.5e6 tonne spacecraft.
The next problem gets down to building up another cache of LRn while
on the fly, on behalf of that pesky matter of ion retrothrusting long
before overshooting the intended target.
.. - Brad Guth


On Feb 4, 5:46 am, wrote:
What is the difference between radioisotpes and nuclear reactors?

Well, radioisotopes decay at a fixed rate. Half the material will
decay in a specific period of time and nothing you can do chages
that.

Nuclear reactors use what are known as fissile materials. These are
generally poor radioisotopes. Here,materials undergo nuclear decay -
just like radioisotopes - in response to absorbing a neutron. They
have another property as well. They produce more than one neutron
when they decay. These two ideas when put together can be used to
make a self sustaining nuclear reaction.

You get a pile of stuff, that when you hit one atom of it with a
neutron, it breaks down, and releases two neutrons and then arrange to
keep the neutrons in the pile. then hit it with only one neutron and
set the whole thing off. controlling the neutron cross section - is a
way of controlling the power output. Compressing ple together and
having a large cross section for neutron absorption - reduces the size
of the pile - and increase the rate of reaction.

To get a clear idea of what's going on think of a pile of mouse
traps. They had this in a movie i saw in a physics class once when
the National Science Foundation made really good physics movies back
in the 1950s. Get a bunch of mouse traps all ready to go off,covering
a basketball court - each trap with a tennis ball poised to be thrown
in the air if the trap goes off. Then throw one tennis ball into the
midle of that system - presently a lot of tennis balls will be flying
and traps snapping shut!

A radioisotope is like a bunch of traps with a slot machine attached
to each one, and if the right combination shows up, it snaps shut. A
basketball court of these traps will snap shut at a constant rate
which depends on the number that have ot gone off. If the combination
is simple - like two of a kind - then the rate will be high - and the
half life short. If the combinatoin is complex - like xis of a kind -
then the rate will be low- and the half life long.

Obviously ANY radioisotope is inferior to ANY fissile material when
you want to build something useful like rockets to travel into space.
Clearly there are better things than nuclear materials - if you know
how to use them. Things like antimatter beams. But, if you're
talkinga bout nuclear energy and rockets - we've known the answer
since the 1940s - nuclear pulse rockets are the key.

Now I don't know why we didn't step up to the challenge and develop
rockets the same way we developed airplanes and ships. Maybe it had
something to do with UFOs. We tested a nuclear pulse rocket and the
UFOs came down like in THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL and said, look if
you folks are going to be traveling into space, you're going to have
to live by a few rules we all live by - and Harry Truman said 'nuts -
we ain't taking any guff from some green skinned monster' and the
military folks said, well if they haven't attacked us and defeated us
by now, it must be impossible for them to do that - so we can safely
ignore them. See, to the military everything is about capacity - not
motivation. So, if over the past 100,000 years or so aliens haven't
invaded Earth -then that tells a mlitary person of the present day
that those aliens must not have the capacity to invade us - so, why
worry about it now? The idea that WE were the primitives and we
really should be taking our lead from these little guys - was greeted
with derision. I mean, c'mon you long hair scientist types are all
alike. You'll have us kissing their green asses for no damn good
reason just because oh, they're ancient and wise and loving - suck my
dick while you're at it. They KNOW we're weak that way - and they're
plahing it to the hilt - DON'T FALL FOR IT. If they're so all
goddamned powerful, they'd ALREADY be in charge. THEY;RE NOT - so
don't give anything away. The timing of the contact and any rational
analysis of motivation was sidelined and marginalized. It was kept
secret because every mother across the land would look at the tiny
guys and feel all motherly and they vote - Do you want some goddamned
woman to tell us to turn our nuts over to these goddamned monsters?
We gotta keep it secret until we figure out; 1) why they haven't
attacked us before now, 2) how to use that knowledge to gain the upper
hand, 3) execute on a plan to get the upper hand...

Well, that's how i imgainged it might have happened,if it happened at
all. haha..

Bottom line Brad - radium or anyother radioisotope rockets - won't
have general application - special applications sure - just like
hydrogne peroxiide. Might even be important special application like
thrusters on long life satellites. But if you want to use nuclear
power for rockets the answer was determiend in 1940s - nuclear pulse
rockets.

Since then there have been advances - and nuclear is passe'. Even so,
radioisotope ideas as you describe them do not work as you imagine
they will.

BTW, I have no arguments against using nuclear impulse rockets,
although a good set or array of ion thrusters seems perfectly doable,
as long as there's the required cache of ions to start off with, and
obviously the necessary energy for getting those little ion *******s
up to speed.
.. - BG

"Building spaceships" with the wizardly help of William Mook and those
unafraid of whatever's out there, may be a little easier said than
done, not to mention my dyslexic encryption and frequent typos that
can't always keep those numbers or terminology half straight.

Perhaps an ion thrusted spacecraft isn't quite as insurmountable as
we've been told, and it's not that a pair of substantial LRBs would
not have to help get this package off the pad. Once reaching the cool
upper atmosphere is where the potential of ion thrusting could start
to contribute, and obviously from whatever LEO point onward is where
the real potential of ion thrust becomes impressive, especially since
this method of thrust can be sustained for as long as the given cache
of ions and electrical energy holds out. (with radium - radon there's
1650 years before reaching half-life, so there's never a total lack of
ions)
Given a sufficient cache of hefty ions and a sufficient onboard supply
of energy for accelerating those ions, and if the thrust is the given
ion flow rate or mass per second times the exit velocity squared, then
where's the insurmountable problem other than your not standing
anywhere behind those ion thrusters.
Radon so happens to make for a very good cache of substantially
massive ions that are already quite reactive and going places as is.
Liquid Radon or LRn222 represents a nifty fluid cache of a easily
stored concentration of Radon gas (though use it or lose it), of which
can be electrically induced into exiting a ion thruster at as great of
velocity as 0.1'c (perhaps at 0.5'c' if we're talking about a radon
pumped laser cannon).
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, and 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.
- - -

At the notion of our getting rid of our liquid cache of LRn222 at the
flow rate of 1 kg/s

If the ion 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 one kg/s = 1000 seconds worth of 4.5e14
kgf, of which this substance would push a 4.5e12 kg (4.5 gigatonne)
spacecraft at 100g in relationship to 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 100g
in relationship to gravity at the surface of Earth.

Of course the 45 megatonne spacecraft isn't hardly any more likely
than human DNA surviving 100g.

So, to start with we'd likely have ourselves a whole lot smaller than
45 megatonne spacecraft, such as one of perhaps only as great as 4.5
megatonnes that'll exit away from Earth at perhaps as great as 10g,
then once 10r (63,730 km and just 1% Earth gravity) is reached, as
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.

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

..5 * 9e10 = 4.5e10 kgf

4.5e10 kgf would push a 4.5e6 tonne spacecraft at 10g

Of course 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 9 teraWatts for 16.7 minutes
(.06 hr) = 540 GW.h. However, more than likely it'll demand a full
TW.h of applied energy for accomplishing this task of tossing out the
entire tonne worth those Rn222 ions at the rate of a full kg/s at just
the 0.1% speed of light.

Obviously this spacecraft is going to require a hole lot more
electrical energy than any cache of mere radium to radon breeder
reactor could manage. However, at 4.5e6 tonnes, there's no problem
with accommodating whatever nuclear reactor or fusion alternative.

Once in interstellar space and especially upon getting gravity pulled
towards the likes of the relatively massive Sirius star/solar system,
that we're already in blueshift headed for, as this is when as little
as a microgram/sec of Rn222 at the MDOT of 0.1'c' would be more than
sufficient ion thrust for continually accelerating this 4.5e6 tonne
spacecraft. The next problem gets down to building up another cache
of LRn while on the fly, on behalf of that pesky matter of ion
retrothrusting long before overshooting the intended target.
.. - Brad Guth

Since Google/NOVA Usenet doesn't allow myself to edit anything I've
posted, here's a somewhat corrected replacement for my last reply.

"Building spaceships" with the wizardly help of William Mook and those
unafraid of whatever's out there, may be a little easier said than
done, not to mention my dyslexic encryption and frequent typos that
can't always keep those numbers or terminology half straight.

Perhaps an ion thrusted spacecraft isn't quite as insurmountable as
we've been told, and it's not that a pair of substantial LRBs would
not have to help get this package off the pad. Once reaching the cool
upper atmosphere is where the potential of ion thrusting could start
to contribute, and obviously from whatever LEO point onward is where
the real potential of ion thrust becomes impressive, especially since
this method of thrust can be sustained for as long as the given cache
of ions and electrical energy holds out. (with radium - radon there's
1650 years before reaching half-life, so there's never a total lack of
ions)
Given a sufficient cache of hefty ions and a sufficient onboard supply
of energy for accelerating those ions, and if the thrust is the given
ion flow rate or mass per second times the exit velocity squared, then
where's the insurmountable problem other than your not standing
anywhere behind those ion thrusters.
Radon so happens to make for a very good cache of substantially
massive ions that are already quite reactive and going places as is.
Liquid Radon or LRn222 represents a nifty fluid cache of a easily
stored concentration of Radon gas (though use it or lose it), of which
can be electrically induced into exiting a ion thruster at as great of
velocity as 0.1'c (perhaps at 0.5'c' if we're talking about a radon
pumped laser cannon).
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, and 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.
- - -

At the notion of our getting rid of our liquid cache of LRn222 at the
flow rate of 1 kg/s

If the ion 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 one kg/s = 1000 seconds worth of 4.5e14
kgf, of which this substance would push a 4.5e12 kg (4.5 gigatonne)
spacecraft at 100g in relationship to 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 100g
in relationship to gravity at the surface of Earth.

Of course the 45 megatonne spacecraft isn't hardly any more likely
than human DNA surviving 100g.

So, to start with we'd likely have ourselves a whole lot smaller than
45 megatonne spacecraft, such as one of perhaps only as great as 4.5
megatonnes that'll exit away from Earth at perhaps as great as 10g,
then once 10r (63,730 km and just 1% Earth gravity) is reached, as
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.

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

..5 * 9e10 = 4.5e10 kgf

4.5e10 kgf would push a 4.5e6 tonne spacecraft at 10g

Of course 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 9 teraWatts for 16.7 minutes
(.06 hr) = 540 GW.h. However, more than likely it'll demand a full
TW.h of applied energy for accomplishing this task of tossing out the
entire tonne worth those Rn222 ions at the rate of a full kg/s at just
the 0.1% speed of light.

Obviously this spacecraft is going to require a hole lot more
electrical energy than any cache of mere radium to radon breeder
reactor could manage. However, at 4.5e6 tonnes, there's no problem
with accommodating whatever nuclear reactor or fusion alternative.

Once in interstellar space and especially upon getting gravity pulled
towards the likes of the relatively massive Sirius star/solar system,
that we're already in blueshift headed for, as this is when as little
as a microgram/sec of Rn222 at the MDOT of 0.1'c' would be more than
sufficient ion thrust for continually accelerating this 4.5e6 tonne
spacecraft. The next problem gets down to building up another cache
of LRn while on the fly, on behalf of that pesky matter of ion
retrothrusting long before overshooting the intended target.
.. - Brad Guth


On Feb 4, 5:46 am, wrote:
What is the difference between radioisotpes and nuclear reactors?

Well, radioisotopes decay at a fixed rate. Half the material will
decay in a specific period of time and nothing you can do chages
that.

Nuclear reactors use what are known as fissile materials. These are
generally poor radioisotopes. Here,materials undergo nuclear decay -
just like radioisotopes - in response to absorbing a neutron. They
have another property as well. They produce more than one neutron
when they decay. These two ideas when put together can be used to
make a self sustaining nuclear reaction.

You get a pile of stuff, that when you hit one atom of it with a
neutron, it breaks down, and releases two neutrons and then arrange to
keep the neutrons in the pile. then hit it with only one neutron and
set the whole thing off. controlling the neutron cross section - is a
way of controlling the power output. Compressing ple together and
having a large cross section for neutron absorption - reduces the size
of the pile - and increase the rate of reaction.

To get a clear idea of what's going on think of a pile of mouse
traps. They had this in a movie i saw in a physics class once when
the National Science Foundation made really good physics movies back
in the 1950s. Get a bunch of mouse traps all ready to go off,covering
a basketball court - each trap with a tennis ball poised to be thrown
in the air if the trap goes off. Then throw one tennis ball into the
midle of that system - presently a lot of tennis balls will be flying
and traps snapping shut!

A radioisotope is like a bunch of traps with a slot machine attached
to each one, and if the right combination shows up, it snaps shut. A
basketball court of these traps will snap shut at a constant rate
which depends on the number that have ot gone off. If the combination
is simple - like two of a kind - then the rate will be high - and the
half life short. If the combinatoin is complex - like xis of a kind -
then the rate will be low- and the half life long.

Obviously ANY radioisotope is inferior to ANY fissile material when
you want to build something useful like rockets to travel into space.
Clearly there are better things than nuclear materials - if you know
how to use them. Things like antimatter beams. But, if you're
talkinga bout nuclear energy and rockets - we've known the answer
since the 1940s - nuclear pulse rockets are the key.

Now I don't know why we didn't step up to the challenge and develop
rockets the same way we developed airplanes and ships. Maybe it had
something to do with UFOs. We tested a nuclear pulse rocket and the
UFOs came down like in THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL and said, look if
you folks are going to be traveling into space, you're going to have
to live by a few rules we all live by - and Harry Truman said 'nuts -
we ain't taking any guff from some green skinned monster' and the
military folks said, well if they haven't attacked us and defeated us
by now, it must be impossible for them to do that - so we can safely
ignore them. See, to the military everything is about capacity - not
motivation. So, if over the past 100,000 years or so aliens haven't
invaded Earth -then that tells a mlitary person of the present day
that those aliens must not have the capacity to invade us - so, why
worry about it now? The idea that WE were the primitives and we
really should be taking our lead from these little guys - was greeted
with derision. I mean, c'mon you long hair scientist types are all
alike. You'll have us kissing their green asses for no damn good
reason just because oh, they're ancient and wise and loving - suck my
dick while you're at it. They KNOW we're weak that way - and they're
plahing it to the hilt - DON'T FALL FOR IT. If they're so all
goddamned powerful, they'd ALREADY be in charge. THEY;RE NOT - so
don't give anything away. The timing of the contact and any rational
analysis of motivation was sidelined and marginalized. It was kept
secret because every mother across the land would look at the tiny
guys and feel all motherly and they vote - Do you want some goddamned
woman to tell us to turn our nuts over to these goddamned monsters?
We gotta keep it secret until we figure out; 1) why they haven't
attacked us before now, 2) how to use that knowledge to gain the upper
hand, 3) execute on a plan to get the upper hand...

Well, that's how i imgainged it might have happened,if it happened at
all. haha..

Bottom line Brad - radium or anyother radioisotope rockets - won't
have general application - special applications sure - just like
hydrogne peroxiide. Might even be important special application like
thrusters on long life satellites. But if you want to use nuclear
power for rockets the answer was determiend in 1940s - nuclear pulse
rockets.

Since then there have been advances - and nuclear is passe'. Even so,
radioisotope ideas as you describe them do not work as you imagine
they will.

Another contribution for good measure, and otherwise because of my
having corrected or polished a few items.

This new and improved topic of "Building Spaceships", along with the
wizardly help of William Mook and those of us unafraid of whatever's
out there, may be a little easier said than done, not to mention my
dyslexic encryption and frequent typos that can't always keep those
numbers or terminology half straight.

Perhaps an 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 substantial package off the pad.
Once reaching the cool upper 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 thrust can be sustained for as long as the given cache of
ions and electrical energy holds out. (with radium - radon there's
1650 years before reaching half-life, so there's never a total lack of
those Rn222 ions)

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

Radon so happens to make for a very good cache of substantially
massive ions that are already quite 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 one of
those use it or lose it substances), of which I believe can be further
electrically induced into exiting a ion thruster at as great of
velocity as 0.1'c (perhaps 0.5'c' is doable if we're talking about a
radon pumped laser cannon).

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, and 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.
- - -

At the notion of our getting rid of this initial tonne worth of our
liquid cache of LRn222, at the flow rate of 1 kg/s:

If the ion 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 one kg/s = 1000 seconds worth of 4.5e14
kgf, of which this substance would push a 4.5e12 kg (4.5 gigatonne)
spacecraft at 100g 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 100g
in relationship to gravity at the surface of Earth.

Of course the 45 megatonne spacecraft isn't hardly any more likely
than human DNA surviving 100g.

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 10g,
then once 10r (63,730 km and just 1% Earth gravity) is reached, as
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

..5 * 9e10 = 4.5e10 kgf

4.5e10 kgf would push a 4.5e6 tonne spacecraft at 10g

I believe that 1000 seconds of 10g 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 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 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
go towards demanding somewhat greater energy for accomplishing this
task of tossing out the entire tonne worth those Rn222 ions at the
rate of one kg/s, even if that's at just the 0.1% speed of light.
However, since the passive Rn alpha particle velocity is already at
1.6e7 m/s(.054'c'), perhaps the required energy is merely of
whatever's necessary for accomplishing a good exit focus or laser
cannon like beam, in which case the required ion thruster energy could
become minimal.

Obviously this spacecraft is going to require a hole lot more
electrical energy than any cache of mere Radium to Radon breeder
reactor could manage. However, at 4.5e6 tonnes, there's no problem
with accommodating whatever 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 for Sirius, as
this is when as little as a microgram/sec of Rn222 at the mdot
velocity of 0.1'c' would be more than sufficient ion thrust for
continually accelerating this 4.5e6 tonne spacecraft. The next
problem gets down to building up another cache of LRn from the Ra -
Rn breeder reactor while on the fly, on behalf of that pesky matter of
having to ion retrothrust long before overshooting the intended
target.

BTW, at this point the mission to Sirius is a one way ticket to ride,
with absolutely no package guaranties or ticket refunds allowed,
because we may not be able to sufficiently retrothrust in order to
save any of those poor souls, and a purely gravity well turn-around is
at best iffy.
.. - Brad Guth

Brad,

I'm am pleased to see this response. While you cannot edit a reply
you can remove one. If you would care to remove your reply, I would
be more than happy to remove my ruminations about your motivation.

Cheers
William

On Feb 4, 4:59 pm, wrote:
Brad,

I'm am pleased to see this response. While you cannot edit a reply
you can remove one. If you would care to remove your reply, I would
be more than happy to remove my ruminations about your motivation.

Cheers
William

I keep making all sorts of wordy and those pesky math mistakes, and
not only can I no longer edit anything I've posted, but I can't even
remove any of it either. It's what your faith-based mainstream status
quo wants to see happen, because as I've said far too many times
before, they're in charge and doing all they can to traumatize and/or
foil my efforts. Go figure.
.. - Brad Guth

On Feb 4, 6:00 am, wrote:
You have proven yourself to be a liar.

No lie, just honestly interpreting whatever I believe best suits the
intent of my rant, as though I'm operating exactly like the William
Mook mindset.


That's because you are editing what I said and then.

You are typing things yourself and wrongly attributing them to me.

* * *
You have also proven yourself to be inept.

Your radioisotope rocket cannot work and you don't see why

That's odd, because it's your rocket thrust formula and those regular
laws of physics related to whatever's the given mass flow/sec and of
the exit velocity that are hard at work. Besides, if going MOOK
bigger and Mook spendy as hell is always better, then where's the
shortage of energy, ions or loot?

Are you saying that ion thrusters simply do not work?

Are you saying that the laws of physics only work for Mook?

Are you saying that lord Mook is simply a whole lot smarter than
Einstein and a good dozen others of his peer?


To use nuclear decay -which is the source of energy in a radioisotope
- to make a rocket, use a nuclear reaction with fissile materials.

Go right ahead, as that too should work. BTW, what's going out the
MOOK "fissile material" rocket butt in a fully controlled and
efficient manner?


Or go beyond nuclear energy and build something even more advanced,
like a laser powered rocket, or an antimatter powered rocket.

Been there, done that, and lo and behold it too works according to
those regular laws of physics.


laser beams and antimatter can be made using solar energy.

As will as powered from a Radium breeder reactor, or even from a cache
of h2o2/aluminum.


You seem to me to be a disinformatoin agent.

When someone says hydrogen - you say hyderogen peroxide
When someone says nuclear rocket - you say radium rocket

With just enough science to confuse anyone not absolutely sure.

But me like Radium, Radon, hydrogen peroxide and aluminum because, my
frail DNA can manage to survive and safely utilize those sorts of
stored energy, and besides, our moon should have lots of spare/surplus
Radium, and Earth really should get rid of as much Radium as possible
before such becomes WMD or simply continues via Ra and Rn to
prematurely kill off 400,000~500,000 innocent folks per year.


And when someone explains to you precisely why you are wrong - you
engage in very bad behavior and do not let up until they no longer
post

Isn't that pretty much what your lover(s) GW Bush, Dick Cheney and of
their Jewish puppeteers do pretty much all the time?

BTW; you haven't quite explained precisely. Perhaps that's because
your CIA World FactBook doesn't have the necessary paragraphs of such
to cut and paste.
.. - Brad Guth