A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Where's the Free Market Going with Commercial Space Development?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 25th 10, 10:19 PM posted to sci.space.policy
American
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,224
Default Where's the Free Market Going with Commercial Space Development?

It would be private aerospace companies that see space as a private
venture, with more long-term business goals and economic spin-offs, as
part of an equation that was NEVER, EVER part of a market-driven
technological PUSH, that would originate at NASA - NASA became through
the years following Apollo, an effective military competitor with the
Soviet Union - but it was only in the NON-commercial, or
scientifically bureaucrat sense, that most all of its exploration,
research, and cutting edge development STILL have yet to be
disseminated, in the various engineering and technology-driven
sectors, including streamlining NASA's own monopolistic cost overruns
(anything over $38 million eliminated most commercial entities from
competing with NASA as far back as 1985, and the cost for a single
shuttle flight has risen exponentially ever since).

Corporations that run with university-run consortiums are NOT involved
with NASA for profit. There doesn't seem to be the incentive for doing
anything beyond LEO that would provide a commercially viable operation
for private enterprise to get involved en masse - the entire
bureaucracy has become stunted growthwise, with its death-lock grip
against anything that is extra-orbitally viable or doable in the
economic sense.

Any massive profit-making venture external to LEO would serve only to
further man-date the current death-grip that rocket science has with
private-cum-public clients, who only end up joining the regime of
taxation towards financial dependency and oblivion, with the rest of
free-market entrepreneurialism and enterprise gone to the four winds
of transnationalism.

Most of the commercial sector enterprise is currently being driven by
the telecommunications industry. Examples are telephony, video, and
data services. High speed internet, telemedicine, remote telex, and
long-distance learning SHOULD be the drivers as a result of commercial
sector enterprise, but they can only internally reflect what we
already know about the diminishing returns of private - public
transfer, for what's supposed to be the driver of most or all of
private enterprise. There exists the spectre of increasing expense of
higher launch costs, with added red tape imposed by the public sector.

Some of the chief commercial enterprises to the orbital space industry
- Boeing (Sea Launch, Delta III), Lockheed Martin, Hughes, Loral, and
TRW employ approx. 2000 small and midsized companies involved with the
'rocket propulsion' space industry. Much of these industries are
located in California, Texas, Colorado, Florida, and Washington, D.C.
(Notice that they are located within proximity to NASA and/or military
research facilities).

Barriers to Private Enterprise in Space

The National Space Transportation Policy (NSTP) signed by Clinton
8/5/94 was based upon NASA's "Access to Space" report and DOD's "Space
Launch Modernization Plan". This was a red-tape generator for any
relationship that tended towards government policy or agency review,
and it was being perpetrated all in the name of "promoting creative
arrangements between the public and private sectors", particularly
with the DOT and DOC.

The interagencies that got involved are still the DOD, DOC, DOT, NASA,
and the SEC "to make certain that a commercial voice is heard
throughout the process of designing a new launch vehicle."

Unfortunately, cooperation and coordination between these agencies is
only superficial.

Apparently, commercialization of space between these agencies is a low
priority, thus the commercial sector of space transportation in
America will begin to see most of its business saavy for private
enterprise become devalued by markets within the international
community - all the more reason why progress has to be made in a more
financially secure and sovereign territory than it has been in recent
history.

There are also continued conflicts with the Commercial Space Launch
Act (CSLA) of 1984 and with the FAA regarding licensing, along with
the Office of Commercial Space Transportation (OCST) as a subset of
the DOT, which became countereffective by requiring $250K in fees and
approvals (e.g. see private launch of Conestoga in 1982).

It wasn't until the Commercial Space Act of 1998 that the confusion
between the FAA, CSCA, and OSCT merged solely into the FAA for
licensing, launchings, and landings of spaceships.

The OSCT became the AST (Administrator for Commercial Space
Transportation) within the FAA, and in charge of regulating commercial
launches, including:

1) Licensing & safety for launch sites
2) RLV and reentry
3) Financial requirements for licensed reentry
4) Commercial space licensing
5) Commercial space transportation financial requirement
6) RLV safety guidelines
7) Casualty calculations for commercial launch and reentry missions
8) Site operators applicant information
9) Supplemental application guidelines for unguided suborbital launch
vehicles
10) Waiver of Claims agreement and Assumption of Responsibility
11) Environmental licensing requirements from the N.E.P.A.
12) Environmental impact studies and documents

The whole thing seems quite ridiculous when space is only 42 miles up.
Something seems awfully wrong with this kind of overregulation leading
the way.

One is temped to believe that it has something to do with the method
of propulsion - and why there hasn't been an effort to replace the
rocket motor with something that gets a little more "bang for the
buck". Federal launch and tracking facilities, flight controllers, and
a complete supply of rocket/motor designs, specifications, and flight
analyses seem to be more of a threat to national security through the
Dept. of State (DOS) than it is through the Dept. of Commerce (DOC).

However the jurisdiction under a bill introduced that would exempt
"scientific and experimental" satellites under the "fundamental
science exclusion" (15 CFR 734.8 & Supp. 1) with the HR 1707
(Satellite Trade and Security Act) were opposed by so-called
"conservatives" who oppose the possibility of sensitive material
slipping into enemy hands.

These stick-in-the-mud, so-called rhino-conservatives need to take a
dose of their own medicine, and learn to apply airframe
electrification on the shuttle, similar to the B-2 bomber, in order to
reduce air drag and hull friction; yet it is highly suspected there is
hamstringing of new application science within NASA itself, creating
internicene science between the material specialists and contractors,
and those who wish to innovate a new type of hull skin technology - to
the detriment of the human resource specialists and subcontractor
employees, who are unable to revise, retrain, and renew together their
own transferrable skill sets necessary for the right kind of
innovation to take place - it's even contagious - "Sierra Nevada is
receiving $20 million in stimulus money to essentially, uh, reuse
NASA's HL-20 lifting body vehicle (Atlas V), uh, that was meant to be
part of the ISS's rescue vehicle, uh, but instead has morphed into a
miniature shuttle of sorts, still without any new reduced air drag or
friction technology in the works. (Maybe a LIGHTER transport negates
the use of a more advanced system for those who are used to cloning
repeat NASA technology - it's certainly more SAFE that way, isn't
it?)

Apparently according to DOT, AST, and FAA TOGETHER, innovativeness is
1/5 as important as feasibility (references available from an actual
study of project submissions) which would suggest the internicene
conflict, or that subcontractors/employees have been locked out and
whitewashed into thinking that the system already in place doesn't
require revision. One would suspect that these are all interconnected
and systemic problems festering within the infrastructure itself,
overweighted with personal prejudices and inflexible attitudes towards
innovation, cost, and safety.

There seems to be an instinctive fear with human beings surrounding
competition in space. Much of this fear is IMO a fear of the unknown
based on ignorance. Why WOULDN'T the least experienced people for such
a transition from regimes of this sort be worried, when the real facts
needed for fixing the free market commercialization of space are
staring them in the face?

The old battle of nurture over nature vs. what can be done NOW to
improve the standard of living for all Americans seems to resonate all
over the world - which is all the more reason why there is a great
need for a healthy communicational infrastructure - one that is built
on no single, epistemologically interpretive framework; but exists as
a driver or hub of creative force OPPOSING the eternally earthbound
collective, collectivists, and collectivism, and EMPOWERS individuals
NOT against the will of the collectivists (for theirs is a policy of
self-destruction anyway) but for the diversity and character of being
separate in mind and/or spirit AGAINST the luke-warm attitude of our
time, and AGAINST the invasion of privacy taking place from within the
government itself.

Space is NOT the domain of governments and militaries - it is the
domain of ALMIGHTY YHWH - and the ruler of the fallen world LUCIFER
already knows this.

Elected officials and representatives have betrayed American ingenuity
and interest for the sake of // transnationalism-at-stake // in the
space economy. The ISS remains the perfect example of how
international governments are at loggerheads with commercial space
development. It's as if someone else's prophecy for the end times must
be fulfilled in order to replace a more truthful technology with a
lesser, earth-bound, fear-of-deep-space cronyism.

For an example of obscene cronyism, the movie "Brazil" comes to mind.

Space is an extremely cold, dry, and dangerous environment. Anything
that humankind accomplishes in empty space gets immediately reflected
back onto the self-contained environment, which is why environmental
control is extremely important anywhere in or outside of earth orbit.

Since slower moving rocket propulsion systems for humans must carry
more of an environment with them outside of earth orbit, dead weight
increases with increasing travel time for chemical propulsion systems,
and larger fuel expenditure not only pollutes the earth's stratosphere
with aluminum oxide, but forces delays for launch windows with the
additional fuel requirements.

The evidence in clear view should be an alert only to those who can
understand the meaning of innovating innovation within the potentium
of earth-to-orbit technology.

There is not one technology but several on the drawing board of
companies and individuals NOT presently associated with the current
infrastructure - and they are not a threat to this or any other
nation's military, or transnationalist enterprise - THEY are a threat
to the incumbantist science, in the form of non-retrainable,
establishment ideologues, who are the barbarians at the gate of
American ingenuity and innovation.

There remains no reason why ANY country with a vested interest for
independence and future prosperity would not be pursuing a better
approach for getting this nation into space more productively - even
if it means changing the overall structure and flight dynamic of a
much more accelerated system than most aerospace professionals are
used to - incumbantist science is used to building upon past models of
design which although outdated, serve inevitably to drag along the
invalidation complex of bureaucracy with it - therefore ANY new
technology that's nonconformist gets immediately dismembered by the
incumbantists-at-large.

One can cite hundreds, if not thousands of examples of technology that
has gone into subversion, without ever seeing the light of day (~20 -
30 years). The problem is, our civilization will reach a point of
diminishing returns as long as extraterrestrial resourcing and
acquisition go unnoticed and remain inaccessible with the current
lifter technology.

There may be thousands of tons of asteroidal regolith requiring
smelting while in earth orbit (it makes no sense dragging useless
regolith back to earth orbit without some commercial refining
benefit). What's lacking are the nuclear freighters - its been
estimated (1985) nuclear stockpiles amounted to 10 tons TNT/capita -
how ironic the energy that could be harnessed in the form of hundreds
of nuclear pulsed rockets a.k.a. Orion type (w/limited radioactive
output EM pulse), to be used primarily outside of earth orbit,
offering a massive opportunity to reap the benefits of
extraterrestrial resource development.

General Atomics is recycling spent fuel rods for smaller sized
reactors - the Orion pulse units would have utilized kiloton yield
bomblets of highly enriched uranium (93% U235),. The spent fuel rods
currently being recycled (95%) would be considered "dirty bombs"
without augmenting the reaction and wick mechanism, e.g:

"................................................. ... A nuclear pellet
used in pulsing a "superfreighter" consists of 3 sub-spherical parts:

.. the first sub-sphere, a DT (deuterium Tritium "gas" core w/
by a thin shell of Plutonium-239, surrounded by Beryllium,
all surrounded by a chemical "lasive" explosive, encased in combed cladding. For the second sub-sphere, miniature U-235
core surrounded by D3He, w/ 1 mm thick boron-lithium
nanofibre shell casing. The shell casings are clad in U-235 metal, and the U-235 metal clad unit itself surrounded by metal
combed cladding, which is itself encased in U-238 metal. The
U-238 metal sub-sphere is itself coated with a 1 mm sputter
deposited boron-lithium nanofibre over the entire surface. The
third sub-sphere consists of a chemical explosive encased in a
1mm thick shell of sputtered boron-lithium nanofibre, with its
shell tangent chemical "wick" open to the 3-sphere chemical ex-plosive, all encased again in a 1mm thick shell of sputtered boron-lithium nanofibre. The chemical explosive designed to be
ignitable, and the entire 3-sphere encased pellets have an O.D.
of 3.94 cm.


Current nuclear technology prevents the accidental ignition of a
nuclear device by lightning, so that the chemical explosive can
only be detonated by a "tuned" laser. Other "non-sensitive" techniques, such as a rifle bullet or secondary explosive
(incl. fire or other incendiary device) are non-resistant to the
metal combed cladding. In addition to these measures, electro-
mechanically preset codes prevent each pellet from being
detonated until the transducer recieves the correct code. "


(ref. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...f81b5c609fe9d6
)

It sure seems like the romance with nuke-pulsed rockets won't die any
time soon. The fascination with light, smoke, and fire of chemical
rockets is also a romantic one, dating back thousands of years. One
may accenuate this kind of sentimentality as a gross "form over
function" if one is not careful to marginalize the entertainment value
within the bounds of achievable commercialization in space.

Those who witnessed Tesla's presentation of wireless "free energy"
became afraid of his lightning style generators - yet the human body
is capable of withstanding millions of volt charges - it was the
mysteriously romantic nature of his involvement with the forces of
nature in his presentations that would scare most of his potential
investors away - loveless merchandizers of incumbantist science may
have thought that they knew in advance what the markets were up to.

Some early Tesla patents that were designed to achieve interference
protection for radio-controlled weapons became an obstacle to the
basic AND circuit logic element patent, ref. Tesla's 1903 patents
723,188 and 725,605. Both of these patents contain the basic
principles of this same logical AND circuit element that John Bardeen,
Walter H. Brattain, and William B. Shockley developed for use as a
transistor in modern computer technology. (They won the Nobel prize in
1956 as a result of Tesla's pioneering work 50 years earlier).

Conclusion

There is good reason to believe that the free market economy w.r.t.
privatized, commercial space development is either (a) not working
properly, or (b) being blocked at every attempt to implement the
technology required to create a new commercial free market enterprise
in space.

Add to this the backdrop of the current administration luring NASA
with a $20B pie, in lieu of people like Ron Bloom, former union leader
and now manufacturing czar, who doesn't even support the free market
system. Meanwhile, it was Van Jones' "green jobs" that was a cover for
replacing "suicidal grey capitalism" with a new "green capitalism" in
order that "social justice" might become manifested "transnationally".

Who's justice and who's wealth are we talking about here? Aren't the
lives of future generations of Americans at stake? One must ask
oneself - Who's justice and who's wealth is being redistributed for
WHAT new industries that are seemingly bubbling up from nowhere? Why
do people like Andy Stern support how corporations and markets need to
"share the wealth" without the required expertise, while "building a
global corporation" by exporting valuable American jobs overseas, all
the while not retraining and/or identifying the transferrable skill
sets that should retain that expertise?

All of the aforementioned adherents to the present administration in
Washington are part of the current roadblock to American free-market
enterprise.

It was evident even during Tesla's time, prior to 1900 through the
present, that this kind of progressivism found its roots in the
European market (aka Marxism, Leninism) where the false doctrine of
"redistribution of wealth" completely overshadowed the promise market
potential.

Why wouldn't the least experienced people from these sort of regimes
be the most worried when the real facts required for implementing the
commercialization of space be staring them in the face?


American



  #2  
Old March 5th 10, 07:51 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Where's the Free Market Going with Commercial Space Development?

On Feb 25, 1:19*pm, American wrote:
It would be private aerospace companies that see space as a private
venture, with more long-term business goals and economic spin-offs, as
part of an equation that was NEVER, EVER part of a market-driven
technological PUSH, that would originate at NASA - NASA became through
the years following Apollo, an effective military competitor with the
Soviet Union - but it was only in the NON-commercial, or
scientifically bureaucrat sense, that most all of its exploration,
research, and cutting edge development STILL have yet to be
disseminated, in the various engineering and technology-driven
sectors, including streamlining NASA's own monopolistic cost overruns
(anything over $38 million eliminated most commercial entities from
competing with NASA as far back as 1985, and the cost for a single
shuttle flight has risen exponentially ever since).

Corporations that run with university-run consortiums are NOT involved
with NASA for profit. There doesn't seem to be the incentive for doing
anything beyond LEO that would provide a commercially viable operation
for private enterprise to get involved en masse - the entire
bureaucracy has become stunted growthwise, with its death-lock grip
against anything that is extra-orbitally viable or doable in the
economic sense.

Any massive profit-making venture external to LEO would serve only to
further man-date the current death-grip that rocket science has with
private-cum-public clients, who only end up joining the regime of
taxation towards financial dependency and oblivion, with the rest of
free-market entrepreneurialism and enterprise gone to the four winds
of transnationalism.

Most of the commercial sector enterprise is currently being driven by
the telecommunications industry. Examples are telephony, video, and
data services. High speed internet, telemedicine, remote telex, and
long-distance learning SHOULD be the drivers as a result of commercial
sector enterprise, but they can only internally reflect what we
already know about the diminishing returns of private - public
transfer, for what's supposed to be the driver of most or all of
private enterprise. There exists the spectre of increasing expense of
higher launch costs, with added red tape imposed by the public sector.

Some of the chief commercial enterprises to the orbital space industry
- Boeing (Sea Launch, Delta III), Lockheed Martin, Hughes, Loral, and
TRW employ approx. 2000 small and midsized companies involved with the
'rocket propulsion' space industry. Much of these industries are
located in California, Texas, Colorado, Florida, and Washington, D.C.
(Notice that they are located within proximity to NASA and/or military
research facilities).

Barriers to Private Enterprise in Space

The National Space Transportation Policy (NSTP) signed by Clinton
8/5/94 was based upon NASA's "Access to Space" report and DOD's "Space
Launch Modernization Plan". This was a red-tape generator for any
relationship that tended towards government policy or agency review,
and it was being perpetrated all in the name of "promoting creative
arrangements between the public and private sectors", particularly
with the DOT and DOC.

The interagencies that got involved are still the DOD, DOC, DOT, NASA,
and the SEC "to make certain that a commercial voice is heard
throughout the process of designing a new launch vehicle."

Unfortunately, cooperation and coordination between these agencies is
only superficial.

Apparently, commercialization of space between these agencies is a low
priority, thus the commercial sector of space transportation in
America will begin to see most of its business saavy for private
enterprise become devalued by markets within the international
community - all the more reason why progress has to be made in a more
financially secure and sovereign territory than it has been in recent
history.

There are also continued conflicts with the Commercial Space Launch
Act (CSLA) of 1984 and with the FAA regarding licensing, along with
the Office of Commercial Space Transportation (OCST) as a subset of
the DOT, which became countereffective by requiring $250K in fees and
approvals *(e.g. see private launch of Conestoga in 1982).

It wasn't until the Commercial Space Act of 1998 that the confusion
between the FAA, CSCA, and OSCT merged solely into the FAA for
licensing, launchings, and landings of spaceships.

The OSCT became the AST (Administrator for Commercial Space
Transportation) within the FAA, and in charge of regulating commercial
launches, including:

1) Licensing & safety for launch sites
2) RLV and reentry
3) Financial requirements for licensed reentry
4) Commercial space licensing
5) Commercial space transportation financial requirement
6) RLV safety guidelines
7) Casualty calculations for commercial launch and reentry missions
8) Site operators applicant information
9) Supplemental application guidelines for unguided suborbital launch
vehicles
10) Waiver of Claims agreement and Assumption of Responsibility
11) Environmental licensing requirements from the N.E.P.A.
12) Environmental impact studies and documents

The whole thing seems quite ridiculous when space is only 42 miles up.
Something seems awfully wrong with this kind of overregulation leading
the way.

One is temped to believe that it has something to do with the method
of propulsion - and why there hasn't been an effort to replace the
rocket motor with something that gets a little more "bang for the
buck". Federal launch and tracking facilities, flight controllers, and
a complete supply of rocket/motor designs, specifications, and flight
analyses seem to be more of a threat to national security through the
Dept. of State (DOS) than it is through the Dept. of Commerce (DOC).

However the jurisdiction under a bill introduced that would exempt
"scientific and experimental" satellites under the "fundamental
science exclusion" (15 CFR 734.8 & Supp. 1) with the HR 1707
(Satellite Trade and Security Act) were opposed by so-called
"conservatives" who oppose the possibility of sensitive material
slipping into enemy hands.

These stick-in-the-mud, so-called rhino-conservatives need to take a
dose of their own medicine, and learn to apply airframe
electrification on the shuttle, similar to the B-2 bomber, in order to
reduce air drag and hull friction; yet it is highly suspected there is
hamstringing of new application science within NASA itself, creating
internicene science between the material specialists and contractors,
and those who wish to innovate a new type of hull skin technology - to
the detriment of the human resource specialists and subcontractor
employees, who are unable to revise, retrain, and renew together their
own transferrable skill sets necessary for the right kind of
innovation to take place - it's even contagious - "Sierra Nevada is
receiving $20 million in stimulus money to essentially, uh, reuse
NASA's HL-20 lifting body vehicle (Atlas V), uh, that was meant to be
part of the ISS's rescue vehicle, uh, but instead has morphed into a
miniature shuttle of sorts, still without any new reduced air drag or
friction technology in the works. (Maybe a LIGHTER transport negates
the use of a more advanced system for those who are used to cloning
repeat NASA technology - it's certainly more SAFE that way, isn't
it?)

Apparently according to DOT, AST, and FAA TOGETHER, innovativeness is
1/5 as important as feasibility (references available from an actual
study of project submissions) which would suggest the internicene
conflict, or that subcontractors/employees have been locked out and
whitewashed into thinking that the system already in place doesn't
require revision. One would suspect that these are all interconnected
and systemic problems festering within the infrastructure itself,
overweighted with personal prejudices and inflexible attitudes towards
innovation, cost, and safety.

There seems to be an instinctive fear with human beings surrounding
competition in space. Much of this fear is IMO a fear of the unknown
based on ignorance. Why WOULDN'T the least experienced people for such
a transition from regimes of this sort be worried, when the real facts
needed for fixing the free market commercialization of space are
staring them in the face?

The old battle of nurture over nature vs. what can be done NOW to
improve the standard of living for all Americans seems to resonate all
over the world - which is all the more reason why there is a great
need for a healthy communicational infrastructure - one that is built
on no single, epistemologically interpretive framework; but exists as
a driver or hub of creative force OPPOSING the eternally earthbound
collective, collectivists, and collectivism, and EMPOWERS individuals
NOT against the will of the collectivists (for theirs is a policy of
self-destruction anyway) but for the diversity and character of being
separate in mind and/or spirit AGAINST the luke-warm attitude of our
time, and AGAINST the invasion of privacy taking place from within the
government itself.

Space is NOT the domain of governments and militaries - it is the
domain of ALMIGHTY YHWH - and the ruler of the fallen world LUCIFER
already knows this.

Elected officials and representatives have betrayed American ingenuity
and interest for the sake of // transnationalism-at-stake // in the
space economy. The ISS remains the perfect example of how
international governments are at loggerheads with commercial space
development. It's as if someone else's prophecy for the end times must
be fulfilled in order to replace a more truthful technology with a
lesser, earth-bound, fear-of-deep-space cronyism.

For an example of obscene cronyism, the movie "Brazil" comes to mind.

Space is an extremely cold, dry, and dangerous environment. Anything
that humankind accomplishes in empty space gets immediately reflected
back onto the self-contained environment, which is why environmental
control is extremely important anywhere in or outside of earth orbit.

Since slower moving rocket propulsion systems for humans must carry
more of an environment with them outside of earth orbit, dead weight
increases with increasing travel time for chemical propulsion systems,
and larger fuel expenditure not only pollutes the earth's stratosphere
with aluminum oxide, but forces delays for launch windows with the
additional fuel requirements.

The evidence in clear view should be an alert only to those who can
understand the meaning of innovating innovation within the potentium
of earth-to-orbit technology.

There is not one technology but several on the drawing board of
companies and individuals NOT presently associated with the current
infrastructure - and they are not a threat to this or any other
nation's military, or transnationalist enterprise - THEY are a threat
to the incumbantist science, in the form of non-retrainable,
establishment ideologues, who are the barbarians at the gate of
American ingenuity and innovation.

There remains no reason why ANY country with a vested interest for
independence and future prosperity would not be pursuing a better
approach for getting this nation into space more productively - even
if it means changing the overall structure and flight dynamic of a
much more accelerated system than most *aerospace professionals are
used to - incumbantist science is used to building upon past models of
design which although outdated, serve inevitably to drag along the
invalidation complex of bureaucracy with it - therefore ANY new
technology that's nonconformist gets immediately dismembered by the
incumbantists-at-large.

One can cite hundreds, if not thousands of examples of technology that
has gone into subversion, without ever seeing the light of day (~20 -
30 years). The problem is, our civilization will reach a point of
diminishing returns as long as extraterrestrial resourcing and
acquisition go unnoticed and remain inaccessible with the current
lifter technology.

There may be thousands of tons of asteroidal regolith requiring
smelting while in earth orbit (it makes no sense dragging useless
regolith back to earth orbit without some commercial refining
benefit). What's lacking are the nuclear freighters - its been
estimated (1985) nuclear stockpiles amounted to 10 tons TNT/capita -
how ironic the energy that could be harnessed in the form of hundreds
of nuclear pulsed rockets a.k.a. Orion type (w/limited radioactive
output *EM pulse), to be used primarily outside of earth orbit,
offering a massive opportunity to reap the benefits of
extraterrestrial resource development.

General Atomics is recycling spent fuel rods for smaller sized
reactors - the Orion pulse units would have utilized kiloton yield
bomblets of highly enriched uranium (93% U235),. The spent fuel rods
currently being recycled (95%) would be considered "dirty bombs"
without augmenting the reaction and wick mechanism, e.g:

"................................................. ... A nuclear pellet
used in pulsing a "superfreighter" consists of 3 sub-spherical parts:



.. the first sub-sphere, a DT (deuterium Tritium "gas" core w/
by a thin shell of Plutonium-239, surrounded by Beryllium,
all surrounded by a chemical "lasive" explosive, encased in combed cladding. For the second sub-sphere, miniature U-235
core surrounded by D3He, w/ 1 mm thick boron-lithium
nanofibre shell casing. The shell casings are clad in U-235 metal, and the U-235 metal clad unit itself surrounded by metal
combed cladding, which is itself encased in U-238 metal. The
U-238 metal sub-sphere is itself coated with a 1 mm sputter
deposited boron-lithium nanofibre over the entire surface. The
third sub-sphere consists of a chemical explosive encased in a
1mm thick shell of sputtered boron-lithium nanofibre, with its
shell tangent chemical "wick" open to the 3-sphere chemical ex-plosive, all encased again in a 1mm thick shell of sputtered boron-lithium nanofibre. The chemical explosive designed to be
ignitable, and the entire 3-sphere encased pellets have an O.D.
of 3.94 cm.
Current nuclear technology prevents the accidental ignition of a
nuclear device by lightning, so that the chemical explosive can
only be detonated by a "tuned" laser. Other "non-sensitive" techniques, such as a rifle bullet or secondary explosive
(incl. fire or other incendiary device) are non-resistant to the
metal combed cladding. In addition to these measures, electro-
mechanically preset codes prevent each pellet from being
detonated until the transducer recieves the correct code. "


(ref.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...f81b5c609fe9d6
)

It sure seems like the romance with nuke-pulsed rockets won't die any
time soon. The fascination with light, smoke, and fire of chemical
rockets is also a romantic one, dating back thousands of years. One
may accenuate this kind of sentimentality as a gross "form over
function" if one is not careful to marginalize the entertainment value
within the bounds of achievable commercialization in space.

Those who witnessed Tesla's presentation of wireless "free energy"
became afraid of his lightning style generators - yet the human body
is capable of withstanding millions of volt charges - it was the
mysteriously romantic nature of his involvement with the forces of
nature in his presentations that would scare most of his potential
investors away - loveless merchandizers of incumbantist science may
have thought that they knew in advance what the markets were up to.

Some early Tesla patents that were designed to achieve interference
protection for radio-controlled weapons became an obstacle to the
basic AND circuit logic element patent, ref. Tesla's 1903 patents
723,188 and 725,605. Both of these patents contain the basic
principles of this same logical AND circuit element that John Bardeen,
Walter H. Brattain, and William B. Shockley developed for use as a
transistor in modern computer technology. (They won the Nobel prize in
1956 as a result of Tesla's pioneering work 50 years earlier).

Conclusion

There is good reason to believe that the free market economy w.r.t.
privatized, commercial space development is either (a) not working
properly, or (b) being blocked at every attempt to implement the
technology required to create a new commercial free market enterprise
in space.

Add to this the backdrop of the current administration luring NASA
with a $20B pie, in lieu of people like Ron Bloom, former union leader
and now manufacturing czar, who doesn't even support the free market
system. Meanwhile, it was Van Jones' "green jobs" that was a cover for
replacing "suicidal grey capitalism" with a new "green capitalism" in
order that "social justice" might become manifested "transnationally".

Who's justice and who's wealth are we talking about here? Aren't the
lives of future generations of Americans at stake? One must ask
oneself - Who's justice and who's wealth is being redistributed for
WHAT new industries that are seemingly bubbling up from nowhere? Why
do people like Andy Stern support how corporations and markets need to
"share the wealth" without the required expertise, while "building a
global corporation" by exporting valuable American jobs overseas, all
the while not retraining and/or identifying the transferrable skill
sets that should retain that expertise?

All of the aforementioned adherents to the present administration in
Washington are part of the current roadblock to American free-market
enterprise.

It was evident even during Tesla's time, prior to 1900 through the
present, that this kind of progressivism found its roots in the
European market (aka Marxism, Leninism) where the false doctrine of
"redistribution of wealth" completely overshadowed the promise market
potential.

Why wouldn't the least experienced people from these sort of regimes
be the most worried when the real facts required for implementing the
commercialization of space be staring them in the face?

American


"Where's the Free Market Going with Commercial Space Development?"

Without 50% public support, it's going into the nearest toilet.

~ BG
  #3  
Old March 6th 10, 05:54 PM posted to sci.space.policy
American
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,224
Default Where's the Free Market Going with Commercial Space Development?

On Mar 5, 1:51*am, Brad Guth wrote:
On Feb 25, 1:19*pm, American wrote:

It would be private aerospace companies that see space as a private
venture, with more long-term business goals and economic spin-offs, as
part of an equation that was NEVER, EVER part of a market-driven
technological PUSH, that would originate at NASA - NASA became through
the years following Apollo, an effective military competitor with the
Soviet Union - but it was only in the NON-commercial, or
scientifically bureaucrat sense, that most all of its exploration,
research, and cutting edge development STILL have yet to be
disseminated, in the various engineering and technology-driven
sectors, including streamlining NASA's own monopolistic cost overruns
(anything over $38 million eliminated most commercial entities from
competing with NASA as far back as 1985, and the cost for a single
shuttle flight has risen exponentially ever since).


Corporations that run with university-run consortiums are NOT involved
with NASA for profit. There doesn't seem to be the incentive for doing
anything beyond LEO that would provide a commercially viable operation
for private enterprise to get involved en masse - the entire
bureaucracy has become stunted growthwise, with its death-lock grip
against anything that is extra-orbitally viable or doable in the
economic sense.


Any massive profit-making venture external to LEO would serve only to
further man-date the current death-grip that rocket science has with
private-cum-public clients, who only end up joining the regime of
taxation towards financial dependency and oblivion, with the rest of
free-market entrepreneurialism and enterprise gone to the four winds
of transnationalism.


Most of the commercial sector enterprise is currently being driven by
the telecommunications industry. Examples are telephony, video, and
data services. High speed internet, telemedicine, remote telex, and
long-distance learning SHOULD be the drivers as a result of commercial
sector enterprise, but they can only internally reflect what we
already know about the diminishing returns of private - public
transfer, for what's supposed to be the driver of most or all of
private enterprise. There exists the spectre of increasing expense of
higher launch costs, with added red tape imposed by the public sector.


Some of the chief commercial enterprises to the orbital space industry
- Boeing (Sea Launch, Delta III), Lockheed Martin, Hughes, Loral, and
TRW employ approx. 2000 small and midsized companies involved with the
'rocket propulsion' space industry. Much of these industries are
located in California, Texas, Colorado, Florida, and Washington, D.C.
(Notice that they are located within proximity to NASA and/or military
research facilities).


Barriers to Private Enterprise in Space


The National Space Transportation Policy (NSTP) signed by Clinton
8/5/94 was based upon NASA's "Access to Space" report and DOD's "Space
Launch Modernization Plan". This was a red-tape generator for any
relationship that tended towards government policy or agency review,
and it was being perpetrated all in the name of "promoting creative
arrangements between the public and private sectors", particularly
with the DOT and DOC.


The interagencies that got involved are still the DOD, DOC, DOT, NASA,
and the SEC "to make certain that a commercial voice is heard
throughout the process of designing a new launch vehicle."


Unfortunately, cooperation and coordination between these agencies is
only superficial.


Apparently, commercialization of space between these agencies is a low
priority, thus the commercial sector of space transportation in
America will begin to see most of its business saavy for private
enterprise become devalued by markets within the international
community - all the more reason why progress has to be made in a more
financially secure and sovereign territory than it has been in recent
history.


There are also continued conflicts with the Commercial Space Launch
Act (CSLA) of 1984 and with the FAA regarding licensing, along with
the Office of Commercial Space Transportation (OCST) as a subset of
the DOT, which became countereffective by requiring $250K in fees and
approvals *(e.g. see private launch of Conestoga in 1982).


It wasn't until the Commercial Space Act of 1998 that the confusion
between the FAA, CSCA, and OSCT merged solely into the FAA for
licensing, launchings, and landings of spaceships.


The OSCT became the AST (Administrator for Commercial Space
Transportation) within the FAA, and in charge of regulating commercial
launches, including:


1) Licensing & safety for launch sites
2) RLV and reentry
3) Financial requirements for licensed reentry
4) Commercial space licensing
5) Commercial space transportation financial requirement
6) RLV safety guidelines
7) Casualty calculations for commercial launch and reentry missions
8) Site operators applicant information
9) Supplemental application guidelines for unguided suborbital launch
vehicles
10) Waiver of Claims agreement and Assumption of Responsibility
11) Environmental licensing requirements from the N.E.P.A.
12) Environmental impact studies and documents


The whole thing seems quite ridiculous when space is only 42 miles up.
Something seems awfully wrong with this kind of overregulation leading
the way.


One is temped to believe that it has something to do with the method
of propulsion - and why there hasn't been an effort to replace the
rocket motor with something that gets a little more "bang for the
buck". Federal launch and tracking facilities, flight controllers, and
a complete supply of rocket/motor designs, specifications, and flight
analyses seem to be more of a threat to national security through the
Dept. of State (DOS) than it is through the Dept. of Commerce (DOC).


However the jurisdiction under a bill introduced that would exempt
"scientific and experimental" satellites under the "fundamental
science exclusion" (15 CFR 734.8 & Supp. 1) with the HR 1707
(Satellite Trade and Security Act) were opposed by so-called
"conservatives" who oppose the possibility of sensitive material
slipping into enemy hands.


These stick-in-the-mud, so-called rhino-conservatives need to take a
dose of their own medicine, and learn to apply airframe
electrification on the shuttle, similar to the B-2 bomber, in order to
reduce air drag and hull friction; yet it is highly suspected there is
hamstringing of new application science within NASA itself, creating
internicene science between the material specialists and contractors,
and those who wish to innovate a new type of hull skin technology - to
the detriment of the human resource specialists and subcontractor
employees, who are unable to revise, retrain, and renew together their
own transferrable skill sets necessary for the right kind of
innovation to take place - it's even contagious - "Sierra Nevada is
receiving $20 million in stimulus money to essentially, uh, reuse
NASA's HL-20 lifting body vehicle (Atlas V), uh, that was meant to be
part of the ISS's rescue vehicle, uh, but instead has morphed into a
miniature shuttle of sorts, still without any new reduced air drag or
friction technology in the works. (Maybe a LIGHTER transport negates
the use of a more advanced system for those who are used to cloning
repeat NASA technology - it's certainly more SAFE that way, isn't
it?)


Apparently according to DOT, AST, and FAA TOGETHER, innovativeness is
1/5 as important as feasibility (references available from an actual
study of project submissions) which would suggest the internicene
conflict, or that subcontractors/employees have been locked out and
whitewashed into thinking that the system already in place doesn't
require revision. One would suspect that these are all interconnected
and systemic problems festering within the infrastructure itself,
overweighted with personal prejudices and inflexible attitudes towards
innovation, cost, and safety.


There seems to be an instinctive fear with human beings surrounding
competition in space. Much of this fear is IMO a fear of the unknown
based on ignorance. Why WOULDN'T the least experienced people for such
a transition from regimes of this sort be worried, when the real facts
needed for fixing the free market commercialization of space are
staring them in the face?


The old battle of nurture over nature vs. what can be done NOW to
improve the standard of living for all Americans seems to resonate all
over the world - which is all the more reason why there is a great
need for a healthy communicational infrastructure - one that is built
on no single, epistemologically interpretive framework; but exists as
a driver or hub of creative force OPPOSING the eternally earthbound
collective, collectivists, and collectivism, and EMPOWERS individuals
NOT against the will of the collectivists (for theirs is a policy of
self-destruction anyway) but for the diversity and character of being
separate in mind and/or spirit AGAINST the luke-warm attitude of our
time, and AGAINST the invasion of privacy taking place from within the
government itself.


Space is NOT the domain of governments and militaries - it is the
domain of ALMIGHTY YHWH - and the ruler of the fallen world LUCIFER
already knows this.


Elected officials and representatives have betrayed American ingenuity
and interest for the sake of // transnationalism-at-stake // in the
space economy. The ISS remains the perfect example of how
international governments are at loggerheads with commercial space
development. It's as if someone else's prophecy for the end times must
be fulfilled in order to replace a more truthful technology with a
lesser, earth-bound, fear-of-deep-space cronyism.


For an example of obscene cronyism, the movie "Brazil" comes to mind.


Space is an extremely cold, dry, and dangerous environment. Anything
that humankind accomplishes in empty space gets immediately reflected
back onto the self-contained environment, which is why environmental
control is extremely important anywhere in or outside of earth orbit.


Since slower moving rocket propulsion systems for humans must carry
more of an environment with them outside of earth orbit, dead weight
increases with increasing travel time for chemical propulsion systems,
and larger fuel expenditure not only pollutes the earth's stratosphere
with aluminum oxide, but forces delays for launch windows with the
additional fuel requirements.


The evidence in clear view should be an alert only to those who can
understand the meaning of innovating innovation within the potentium
of earth-to-orbit technology.


There is not one technology but several on the drawing board of
companies and individuals NOT presently associated with the current
infrastructure - and they are not a threat to this or any other
nation's military, or transnationalist enterprise - THEY are a threat
to the incumbantist science, in the form of non-retrainable,
establishment ideologues, who are the barbarians at the gate of
American ingenuity and innovation.


There remains no reason why ANY country with a vested interest for
independence and future prosperity would not be pursuing a better
approach for getting this nation into space more productively - even
if it means changing the overall structure and flight dynamic of a
much more accelerated system than most *aerospace professionals are
used to - incumbantist science is used to building upon past models of
design which although outdated, serve inevitably to drag along the
invalidation complex of bureaucracy with it - therefore ANY new
technology that's nonconformist gets immediately dismembered by the
incumbantists-at-large.


One can cite hundreds, if not thousands of examples of technology that
has gone into subversion, without ever seeing the light of day (~20 -
30 years). The problem is, our civilization will reach a point of
diminishing returns as long as extraterrestrial resourcing and
acquisition go unnoticed and remain inaccessible with the current
lifter technology.


There may be thousands of tons of asteroidal regolith requiring
smelting while in earth orbit (it makes no sense dragging useless
regolith back to earth orbit without some commercial refining
benefit). What's lacking are the nuclear freighters - its been
estimated (1985) nuclear stockpiles amounted to 10 tons TNT/capita -
how ironic the energy that could be harnessed in the form of hundreds
of nuclear pulsed rockets a.k.a. Orion type (w/limited radioactive
output *EM pulse), to be used primarily outside of earth orbit,
offering a massive opportunity to reap the benefits of
extraterrestrial resource development.


General Atomics is recycling spent fuel rods for smaller sized
reactors - the Orion pulse units would have utilized kiloton yield
bomblets of highly enriched uranium (93% U235),. The spent fuel rods
currently being recycled (95%) would be considered "dirty bombs"
without augmenting the reaction and wick mechanism, e.g:


"................................................. ... A nuclear pellet
used in pulsing a "superfreighter" consists of 3 sub-spherical parts:


.. the first sub-sphere, a DT (deuterium Tritium "gas" core w/
by a thin shell of Plutonium-239, surrounded by Beryllium,
all surrounded by a chemical "lasive" explosive, encased in combed cladding. For the second sub-sphere, miniature U-235
core surrounded by D3He, w/ 1 mm thick boron-lithium
nanofibre shell casing. The shell casings are clad in U-235 metal, and the U-235 metal clad unit itself surrounded by metal
combed cladding, which is itself encased in U-238 metal. The
U-238 metal sub-sphere is itself coated with a 1 mm sputter
deposited boron-lithium nanofibre over the entire surface. The
third sub-sphere consists of a chemical explosive encased in a
1mm thick shell of sputtered boron-lithium nanofibre, with its
shell tangent chemical "wick" open to the 3-sphere chemical ex-plosive, all encased again in a 1mm thick shell of sputtered boron-lithium nanofibre. The chemical explosive designed to be
ignitable, and the entire 3-sphere encased pellets have an O.D.
of 3.94 cm.
Current nuclear technology prevents the accidental ignition of a
nuclear device by lightning, so that the chemical explosive can
only be detonated by a "tuned" laser. Other "non-sensitive" techniques, such as a rifle bullet or secondary explosive
(incl. fire or other incendiary device) are non-resistant to the
metal combed cladding. In addition to these measures, electro-
mechanically preset codes prevent each pellet from being
detonated until the transducer recieves the correct code. "


(ref.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...f81b5c609fe9d6
)


It sure seems like the romance with nuke-pulsed rockets won't die any
time soon. The fascination with light, smoke, and fire of chemical
rockets is also a romantic one, dating back thousands of years. One
may accenuate this kind of sentimentality as a gross "form over
function" if one is not careful to marginalize the entertainment value
within the bounds of achievable commercialization in space.


Those who witnessed Tesla's presentation of wireless "free energy"
became afraid of his lightning style generators - yet the human body
is capable of withstanding millions of volt charges - it was the
mysteriously romantic nature of his involvement with the forces of
nature in his presentations that would scare most of his potential
investors away - loveless merchandizers of incumbantist science may
have thought that they knew in advance what the markets were up to.


Some early Tesla patents that were designed to achieve interference
protection for radio-controlled weapons became an obstacle to the
basic AND circuit logic element patent, ref. Tesla's 1903 patents
723,188 and 725,605. Both of these patents contain the basic
principles of this same logical AND circuit element that John Bardeen,
Walter H. Brattain, and William B. Shockley developed for use as a
transistor in modern computer technology. (They won the Nobel prize in
1956 as a result of Tesla's pioneering work 50 years earlier).


Conclusion


There is good reason to believe that the free market economy w.r.t.
privatized, commercial space development is either (a) not working
properly, or (b) being blocked at every attempt to implement the
technology required to create a new commercial free market enterprise
in space.


Add to this the backdrop of the current administration luring NASA
with a $20B pie, in lieu of people like Ron Bloom, former union leader
and now manufacturing czar, who doesn't even support the free market
system. Meanwhile, it was Van Jones' "green jobs" that was a cover for
replacing "suicidal grey capitalism" with a new "green capitalism" in
order that "social justice" might become manifested "transnationally".


Who's justice and who's wealth are we talking about here? Aren't the
lives of future generations of Americans at stake? One must ask
oneself - Who's justice and who's wealth is being redistributed for
WHAT new industries that are seemingly bubbling up from nowhere? Why
do people like Andy Stern support how corporations and markets need to
"share the wealth" without the required expertise, while "building a
global corporation" by exporting valuable American jobs overseas, all
the while not retraining and/or identifying the transferrable skill
sets that should retain that expertise?


All of the aforementioned adherents to the present administration in
Washington are part of the current roadblock to American free-market
enterprise.


It was evident even during Tesla's time, prior to 1900 through the
present, that this kind of progressivism found its roots in the
European market (aka Marxism, Leninism) where the false doctrine of
"redistribution of wealth" completely overshadowed the promise market
potential.


Why wouldn't the least experienced people from these sort of regimes
be the most worried when the real facts required for implementing the
commercialization of space be staring them in the face?


American


"Where's the Free Market Going with Commercial Space Development?"

Without 50% public support, it's going into the nearest toilet.

*~ BG


Why didn't the ISS have a referendum if $150 Billion has been spent so
far?

What does NASA have to show for it that's made nationally useful news?

What will NASA have to show that's does anything to spur growth in the
private sector that's worth $100 Billion over the next five years?

To me, it just seems like a total waste of human energy, as long as
nothing's being brought back from space that's worth anything except a
few more swollen heads to feed.

Feasibility studies have been drawn out already to mine the asteroids
(example, John Lewis, Mining the Sky) and now there seems to be quite
a bit of controversy regarding how to get there and if the whole idea
is worthwhile - so why the difficulty with it? Why the coverup with
the Moon's "Orion" project in lieu of "50's Orion nuke-pulsed
spacecraft"? Why the campaign of disinformation? Why the fear of
masses of people going orbital? Why the fear of a metals glut? Who's
afraid of the competition? Why get the EPA excessively involved? Why
is "information" now so much more important to share with the
transnationalist global communications network , as they continue to
assume control over the masses, and consider THAT the more important
agenda than getting millions involved with orbital and interplanetary
business?

You know, it just gets tiresome without just a little more yankee
ingenuity making it to market - I'm starting to believe in the Tesla's
Pierce Arrow more than the new GM "makeover" - it's really disgusting
watching these unions grab obscene makeovers in the name of energy
efficiency.


American
  #4  
Old March 6th 10, 11:20 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Where's the Free Market Going with Commercial Space Development?

On Mar 6, 8:54*am, American wrote:
On Mar 5, 1:51*am, Brad Guth wrote:

"Where's the Free Market Going with Commercial Space Development?"


Without 50% public support, it's going into the nearest toilet.


*~ BG


Why didn't the ISS have a referendum if $150 Billion has been spent so
far?

What does NASA have to show for it that's made nationally useful news?

What will NASA have to show that's does anything to spur growth in the
private sector that's worth $100 Billion over the next five years?

To me, it just seems like a total waste of human energy, as long as
nothing's being brought back from space that's worth anything except a
few more swollen heads to feed.


Myself and William Mook would have to agree with that.


Feasibility studies have been drawn out already to mine the asteroids
(example, John Lewis, Mining the Sky) and now there seems to be quite
a bit of controversy regarding how to get there and if the whole idea
is worthwhile - so why the difficulty with it? Why the coverup with
the Moon's "Orion" project in lieu of "50's Orion nuke-pulsed
spacecraft"? Why the campaign of disinformation? Why the fear of
masses of people going orbital? Why the fear of a metals glut? Who's
afraid of the competition? Why get the EPA excessively involved? Why
is "information" now so much more important to share with the
transnationalist global communications network , as they continue to
assume control over the masses, and consider THAT the more important
agenda than getting millions involved with orbital and interplanetary
business?

You know, it just gets tiresome without just a little more yankee
ingenuity making it to market - I'm starting to believe in the Tesla's
Pierce Arrow more than the new GM "makeover" - it's really disgusting
watching these unions grab obscene makeovers in the name of energy
efficiency.

American


No doubt that Tesla's Pierce Arrow with only a few refinements and
technological upgrades would become a terrific form of modern and
efficient transportation (as well as not much need of changing its
style either). Energy transmitted through the air is perhaps another
good one that we'll never get to utilize as long as Big Energy has
anything to say about it.

William Mook offers similar Tesla like innovations that are off the
hook, so to speak, as well as myself have a few manageable ideas that
should benefit the greater good of humanity and most other
biodiversity that's currently traumatized past the point of no return.

~ BG


  #5  
Old March 7th 10, 11:18 PM posted to sci.space.policy
American
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,224
Default Where's the Free Market Going with Commercial Space Development?

On Mar 6, 5:20*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Mar 6, 8:54*am, American wrote:





On Mar 5, 1:51*am, Brad Guth wrote:


"Where's the Free Market Going with Commercial Space Development?"


Without 50% public support, it's going into the nearest toilet.


*~ BG


Why didn't the ISS have a referendum if $150 Billion has been spent so
far?


What does NASA have to show for it that's made nationally useful news?


What will NASA have to show that's does anything to spur growth in the
private sector that's worth $100 Billion over the next five years?


To me, it just seems like a total waste of human energy, as long as
nothing's being brought back from space that's worth anything except a
few more swollen heads to feed.


Myself and William Mook would have to agree with that.







Feasibility studies have been drawn out already to mine the asteroids
(example, John Lewis, Mining the Sky) and now there seems to be quite
a bit of controversy regarding how to get there and if the whole idea
is worthwhile - so why the difficulty with it? Why the coverup with
the Moon's "Orion" project in lieu of "50's Orion nuke-pulsed
spacecraft"? Why the campaign of disinformation? Why the fear of
masses of people going orbital? Why the fear of a metals glut? Who's
afraid of the competition? Why get the EPA excessively involved? Why
is "information" now so much more important to share with the
transnationalist global communications network , as they continue to
assume control over the masses, and consider THAT the more important
agenda than getting millions involved with orbital and interplanetary
business?


You know, it just gets tiresome without just a little more yankee
ingenuity making it to market - I'm starting to believe in the Tesla's
Pierce Arrow more than the new GM "makeover" - it's really disgusting
watching these unions grab obscene makeovers in the name of energy
efficiency.


American


No doubt that Tesla's Pierce Arrow with only a few refinements and
technological upgrades would become a terrific form of modern and
efficient transportation (as well as not much need of changing its
style either). *Energy transmitted through the air is perhaps another
good one that we'll never get to utilize as long as Big Energy has
anything to say about it.

William Mook offers similar Tesla like innovations that are off the
hook, so to speak, as well as myself have a few manageable ideas that
should benefit the greater good of humanity and most other
biodiversity that's currently traumatized past the point of no return.

*~ BG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


That sounds better, and to me a little more ingenious that what we've
got for the current state of the technology, which seems to be at risk
anytime references are made to improving anything above status-quo.

Where would captain Mook get off with making those asteroids into
piles of rubble for what clean sweep of useful and/or precious metals?

Really though, to what extent is the best of our refining capacity put
to use when so much sifting occurs after blowing everything to
smithereens? Why not find exposed vein deposits first, and then go in
from there? (It goes the same for all different kinds of metal - scan
the first few mm using gamma ray spectroscopy, then strip map the
results for review, choose the area on the asteroid with the largest
counts or hits per sq meter, and then go in for the drill, scan, sift,
and save the regolith containing the minimal impurities).

The electronics have already been invented to do these things.

Doesn't anyone remember the invention of EGS-4 code - used for
calculating the emitted gamma quantum energy that becomes deposited in
the detector, estimated as follows:

According to the distribution N(E,cosf) N_I quanta are generated
uniformly on the bottom and collateral borders of the detector and the
spectrum of their deposited energy N_loss(E) is determined.

Then the pulse-height spectrum is calculated due to the formula:

N_i(a_i,E)=[integral of ] [N_loss(ai,E)/sqrt[2pi](E')]exp[(E - E')2 /
2roe^2(E')]dE'

where a_i is the parameter of isotopes distribution, roe(E) is the
function depending on the detector specific properties. The total
number of counts in photopeak decreases and scattered to direct gamma
quanta ratio increases when we increase the distribution parameter.

~

Nope, I'm surprised that our beloved Captain Mook hasn't heard of
this. Perhaps world-based access to massive doses of information has
already been rigged as being too reactionary for most, ref. Iridium,
Globalstar, Ares II, etc. - too much of a stopgap between earth and
earth-to-orbit technology.

IMO The American Association for the Advancement of Science needs to
be changed to The American Association for the Advancement of Science
AND Engineering.


American
  #6  
Old March 7th 10, 11:57 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Where's the Free Market Going with Commercial Space Development?

On Mar 7, 2:18*pm, American wrote:
On Mar 6, wrote:



On Mar 6, 8:54*am, American wrote:


On Mar 5, wrote:


"Where's the Free Market Going with Commercial Space Development?"


Without 50% public support, it's going into the nearest toilet.


*~ BG


Why didn't the ISS have a referendum if $150 Billion has been spent so
far?


What does NASA have to show for it that's made nationally useful news?


What will NASA have to show that's does anything to spur growth in the
private sector that's worth $100 Billion over the next five years?


To me, it just seems like a total waste of human energy, as long as
nothing's being brought back from space that's worth anything except a
few more swollen heads to feed.


Myself and William Mook would have to agree with that.


Feasibility studies have been drawn out already to mine the asteroids
(example, John Lewis, Mining the Sky) and now there seems to be quite
a bit of controversy regarding how to get there and if the whole idea
is worthwhile - so why the difficulty with it? Why the coverup with
the Moon's "Orion" project in lieu of "50's Orion nuke-pulsed
spacecraft"? Why the campaign of disinformation? Why the fear of
masses of people going orbital? Why the fear of a metals glut? Who's
afraid of the competition? Why get the EPA excessively involved? Why
is "information" now so much more important to share with the
transnationalist global communications network , as they continue to
assume control over the masses, and consider THAT the more important
agenda than getting millions involved with orbital and interplanetary
business?


You know, it just gets tiresome without just a little more yankee
ingenuity making it to market - I'm starting to believe in the Tesla's
Pierce Arrow more than the new GM "makeover" - it's really disgusting
watching these unions grab obscene makeovers in the name of energy
efficiency.


American


No doubt that Tesla's Pierce Arrow with only a few refinements and
technological upgrades would become a terrific form of modern and
efficient transportation (as well as not much need of changing its
style either). *Energy transmitted through the air is perhaps another
good one that we'll never get to utilize as long as Big Energy has
anything to say about it.


William Mook offers similar Tesla like innovations that are off the
hook, so to speak, as well as myself have a few manageable ideas that
should benefit the greater good of humanity and most other
biodiversity that's currently traumatized past the point of no return.


*~ BG- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


That sounds better, and to me a little more ingenious that what we've
got for the current state of the technology, which seems to be at risk
anytime references are made to improving anything above status-quo.

Where would captain Mook get off with making those asteroids into
piles of rubble for what clean sweep of useful and/or precious metals?

Really though, to what extent is the best of our refining capacity put
to use when so much sifting occurs after blowing everything to
smithereens? Why not find exposed vein deposits first, and then go in
from there? (It goes the same for all different kinds of metal - scan
the first few mm using gamma ray spectroscopy, then strip map the
results for review, choose the area on the asteroid with the largest
counts or hits per sq meter, and then go in for the drill, scan, sift,
and save the regolith containing the minimal impurities).

The electronics have already been invented to do these things.

Doesn't anyone remember the invention of EGS-4 code - used for
calculating the emitted gamma quantum energy that becomes deposited in
the detector, estimated as follows:

According to the distribution N(E,cosf) N_I quanta are generated
uniformly on the bottom and collateral borders of the detector and the
spectrum of their deposited energy N_loss(E) is determined.

Then the pulse-height spectrum is calculated due to the formula:

N_i(a_i,E)=[integral of ] [N_loss(ai,E)/sqrt[2pi](E')]exp[(E - E')2 /
2roe^2(E')]dE'

where a_i is the parameter of isotopes distribution, roe(E) is the
function depending on the detector specific properties. *The total
number of counts in photopeak decreases and scattered to direct gamma
quanta ratio increases when we increase the distribution parameter.

~

Nope, I'm surprised that our beloved Captain Mook hasn't heard of
this. Perhaps world-based access to massive doses of information has
already been rigged as being too reactionary for most, ref. Iridium,
Globalstar, Ares II, etc. - too much of a stopgap between earth and
earth-to-orbit technology.

IMO The American Association for the Advancement of Science needs to
be changed to The American Association for the Advancement of Science
AND Engineering.

American


Our moon(Selene) by far offers the motherload of the most valuable
minerals and elements like He3. Secondly, there's the entire planet
Venus to pillage and plunder.

~ BG
  #7  
Old March 8th 10, 06:45 PM posted to sci.space.policy
American
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,224
Default Where's the Free Market Going with Commercial Space Development?

On Mar 7, 5:57*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Mar 7, 2:18*pm, American wrote:





On Mar 6, wrote:


On Mar 6, 8:54*am, American wrote:


On Mar 5, wrote:


"Where's the Free Market Going with Commercial Space Development?"


Without 50% public support, it's going into the nearest toilet.


*~ BG


Why didn't the ISS have a referendum if $150 Billion has been spent so
far?


What does NASA have to show for it that's made nationally useful news?


What will NASA have to show that's does anything to spur growth in the
private sector that's worth $100 Billion over the next five years?


To me, it just seems like a total waste of human energy, as long as
nothing's being brought back from space that's worth anything except a
few more swollen heads to feed.


Myself and William Mook would have to agree with that.


Feasibility studies have been drawn out already to mine the asteroids
(example, John Lewis, Mining the Sky) and now there seems to be quite
a bit of controversy regarding how to get there and if the whole idea
is worthwhile - so why the difficulty with it? Why the coverup with
the Moon's "Orion" project in lieu of "50's Orion nuke-pulsed
spacecraft"? Why the campaign of disinformation? Why the fear of
masses of people going orbital? Why the fear of a metals glut? Who's
afraid of the competition? Why get the EPA excessively involved? Why
is "information" now so much more important to share with the
transnationalist global communications network , as they continue to
assume control over the masses, and consider THAT the more important
agenda than getting millions involved with orbital and interplanetary
business?


You know, it just gets tiresome without just a little more yankee
ingenuity making it to market - I'm starting to believe in the Tesla's
Pierce Arrow more than the new GM "makeover" - it's really disgusting
watching these unions grab obscene makeovers in the name of energy
efficiency.


American


No doubt that Tesla's Pierce Arrow with only a few refinements and
technological upgrades would become a terrific form of modern and
efficient transportation (as well as not much need of changing its
style either). *Energy transmitted through the air is perhaps another
good one that we'll never get to utilize as long as Big Energy has
anything to say about it.


William Mook offers similar Tesla like innovations that are off the
hook, so to speak, as well as myself have a few manageable ideas that
should benefit the greater good of humanity and most other
biodiversity that's currently traumatized past the point of no return..


*~ BG- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


That sounds better, and to me a little more ingenious that what we've
got for the current state of the technology, which seems to be at risk
anytime references are made to improving anything above status-quo.


Where would captain Mook get off with making those asteroids into
piles of rubble for what clean sweep of useful and/or precious metals?


Really though, to what extent is the best of our refining capacity put
to use when so much sifting occurs after blowing everything to
smithereens? Why not find exposed vein deposits first, and then go in
from there? (It goes the same for all different kinds of metal - scan
the first few mm using gamma ray spectroscopy, then strip map the
results for review, choose the area on the asteroid with the largest
counts or hits per sq meter, and then go in for the drill, scan, sift,
and save the regolith containing the minimal impurities).


The electronics have already been invented to do these things.


Doesn't anyone remember the invention of EGS-4 code - used for
calculating the emitted gamma quantum energy that becomes deposited in
the detector, estimated as follows:


According to the distribution N(E,cosf) N_I quanta are generated
uniformly on the bottom and collateral borders of the detector and the
spectrum of their deposited energy N_loss(E) is determined.


Then the pulse-height spectrum is calculated due to the formula:


N_i(a_i,E)=[integral of ] [N_loss(ai,E)/sqrt[2pi](E')]exp[(E - E')2 /
2roe^2(E')]dE'


where a_i is the parameter of isotopes distribution, roe(E) is the
function depending on the detector specific properties. *The total
number of counts in photopeak decreases and scattered to direct gamma
quanta ratio increases when we increase the distribution parameter.


~


Nope, I'm surprised that our beloved Captain Mook hasn't heard of
this. Perhaps world-based access to massive doses of information has
already been rigged as being too reactionary for most, ref. Iridium,
Globalstar, Ares II, etc. - too much of a stopgap between earth and
earth-to-orbit technology.


IMO The American Association for the Advancement of Science needs to
be changed to The American Association for the Advancement of Science
AND Engineering.


American


Our moon(Selene) by far offers the motherload of the most valuable
minerals and elements like He3. *Secondly, there's the entire planet
Venus to pillage and plunder.

*~ BG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Brad Guth wrote:

: Our moon(Selene) by far offers the motherload

: of the most valuable minerals and elements like

: He3.

: Secondly, there's the entire planet Venus to

: pillage and plunder.

I did a research project on an MHD (magneto-hydrodynamic) device, such
as the control system diagram (for the induction circuit for a rapid-
firing pellet launcher -

http://home.comcast.net/~samuel_ransom/cnduct.gif

for generating traveling magnetic waves (used to propel fuel pellets
by using a chamber that is magnetically sealed from the return circuit
of LMH3).

: ~ BG

Unfortunately, man seems to be intruding in the powers of heaven by
using intellectual weapons of warfare and scientific achievement.

For example, it’s been reported that Russian space forces monitoring
HAARP (Which stands for the High frequency Active Aurora Resource
Program) have discovered that within the U.S. there has been unleashed
(Jan 22 I think), a considerable magnetoid "weapon" on the country of
Chile, as the “Americans” had also acomplished the same on Jan 14 in
Haiti.

Where did I hear this?

Check out these websites:

http://comics.beforeitsnews.com/stor...uake_Test.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strateg...whos-next.html

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/01/22...president.html

http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com...scalar-weapon/

Unfortunately, these kinds of reports put a big giant SMEAR on this
kind of technology, so I'm kind of curious as to why this kind of
thing is being done.

Two main reasons that seem to cancel each other out - one is to
present the illusion that funding for the Patriot Act needs to be
taken into consideration, and the other is that some of our own elite
“controllers” against these sorts of ideas (e.g. enemies of
engineering “capitalism”) are forcing their will over American
citizens against new technology becoming mainstream information, e.g.
we are always witnessing what various psycho-dictators around the
world are doing by threatening or bullying others into a position of
perceived "weakness", and this is the very reason why we can see
transnationalist tensions focused back on America – our enemies want
to see us perceived as a “bully” all over the world because of our
engineering accomplishments, and never give credence to the “human”
value of our achievements.

American engineers don't happen to be from "all over the world". We
have a constitution, and we also have a code of ethics, unlike petty
or pirate dictators.

It's "If we can build it, then they will come"

NOT

"If THEY can build it, then WE will come".

Unfortunately with privacy and newfound technology at stake in every
nit and cranny throughout the WWW - nothing gets accomplished without
the usual batch of naysayers and homophobes polluting the promise.


American
  #8  
Old March 10th 10, 07:12 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.research
American
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,224
Default Robotic Flyby Spectroscopy of an Asteroid

On Mar 8, 12:45*pm, American wrote:
On Mar 7, 5:57*pm, Brad Guth wrote:





On Mar 7, 2:18*pm, American wrote:


On Mar 6, wrote:


On Mar 6, 8:54*am, American wrote:


On Mar 5, wrote:


"Where's the Free Market Going with Commercial Space Development?"


Without 50% public support, it's going into the nearest toilet.


*~ BG


Why didn't the ISS have a referendum if $150 Billion has been spent so
far?


What does NASA have to show for it that's made nationally useful news?


What will NASA have to show that's does anything to spur growth in the
private sector that's worth $100 Billion over the next five years?


To me, it just seems like a total waste of human energy, as long as
nothing's being brought back from space that's worth anything except a
few more swollen heads to feed.


Myself and William Mook would have to agree with that.


Feasibility studies have been drawn out already to mine the asteroids
(example, John Lewis, Mining the Sky) and now there seems to be quite
a bit of controversy regarding how to get there and if the whole idea
is worthwhile - so why the difficulty with it? Why the coverup with
the Moon's "Orion" project in lieu of "50's Orion nuke-pulsed
spacecraft"? Why the campaign of disinformation? Why the fear of
masses of people going orbital? Why the fear of a metals glut? Who's
afraid of the competition? Why get the EPA excessively involved? Why
is "information" now so much more important to share with the
transnationalist global communications network , as they continue to
assume control over the masses, and consider THAT the more important
agenda than getting millions involved with orbital and interplanetary
business?


You know, it just gets tiresome without just a little more yankee
ingenuity making it to market - I'm starting to believe in the Tesla's
Pierce Arrow more than the new GM "makeover" - it's really disgusting
watching these unions grab obscene makeovers in the name of energy
efficiency.


American


No doubt that Tesla's Pierce Arrow with only a few refinements and
technological upgrades would become a terrific form of modern and
efficient transportation (as well as not much need of changing its
style either). *Energy transmitted through the air is perhaps another
good one that we'll never get to utilize as long as Big Energy has
anything to say about it.


William Mook offers similar Tesla like innovations that are off the
hook, so to speak, as well as myself have a few manageable ideas that
should benefit the greater good of humanity and most other
biodiversity that's currently traumatized past the point of no return.

  #9  
Old March 18th 10, 10:45 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.research
American
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,224
Default Robotic Flyby Spectroscopy of an Asteroid

On Mar 10, 2:12*pm, American wrote:
On Mar 8, 12:45*pm, American wrote:





On Mar 7, 5:57*pm, Brad Guth wrote:


On Mar 7, 2:18*pm, American wrote:


On Mar 6, wrote:


On Mar 6, 8:54*am, American wrote:


On Mar 5, wrote:


"Where's the Free Market Going with Commercial Space Development?"


Without 50% public support, it's going into the nearest toilet.

  #10  
Old March 31st 10, 08:59 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.research
American
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,224
Default Robotic Flyby Spectroscopy of an Asteroid

On Mar 18, 5:45*pm, American wrote:
On Mar 10, 2:12*pm, American wrote:

On Mar 8, 12:45*pm, American wrote:


On Mar 7, 5:57*pm, Brad Guth wrote:


On Mar 7, 2:18*pm, American wrote:


On Mar 6, wrote:


On Mar 6, 8:54*am, American wrote:


On Mar 5, wrote:


"Where's the Free Market Going with Commercial Space Development?"


Without 50% public support, it's going into the nearest toilet.


*~ BG


Why didn't the ISS have a referendum if $150 Billion has been spent so
far?


What does NASA have to show for it that's made nationally useful news?


What will NASA have to show that's does anything to spur growth in the
private sector that's worth $100 Billion over the next five years?


To me, it just seems like a total waste of human energy, as long as
nothing's being brought back from space that's worth anything except a
few more swollen heads to feed.


Myself and William Mook would have to agree with that.


Feasibility studies have been drawn out already to mine the asteroids
(example, John Lewis, Mining the Sky) and now there seems to be quite
a bit of controversy regarding how to get there and if the whole idea
is worthwhile - so why the difficulty with it? Why the coverup with
the Moon's "Orion" project in lieu of "50's Orion nuke-pulsed
spacecraft"? Why the campaign of disinformation? Why the fear of
masses of people going orbital? Why the fear of a metals glut? Who's
afraid of the competition? Why get the EPA excessively involved? Why
is "information" now so much more important to share with the
transnationalist global communications network , as they continue to
assume control over the masses, and consider THAT the more important
agenda than getting millions involved with orbital and interplanetary
business?


You know, it just gets tiresome without just a little more yankee
ingenuity making it to market - I'm starting to believe in the Tesla's
Pierce Arrow more than the new GM "makeover" - it's really disgusting
watching these unions grab obscene makeovers in the name of energy
efficiency.


American


No doubt that Tesla's Pierce Arrow with only a few refinements and
technological upgrades would become a terrific form of modern and
efficient transportation (as well as not much need of changing its
style either). *Energy transmitted through the air is perhaps another
good one that we'll never get to utilize as long as Big Energy has
anything to say about it.


William Mook offers similar Tesla like innovations that are off the
hook, so to speak, as well as myself have a few manageable ideas that
should benefit the greater good of humanity and most other
biodiversity that's currently traumatized past the point of no return.


*~ BG- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


That sounds better, and to me a little more ingenious that what we've
got for the current state of the technology, which seems to be at risk
anytime references are made to improving anything above status-quo.


Where would captain Mook get off with making those asteroids into
piles of rubble for what clean sweep of useful and/or precious metals?


Really though, to what extent is the best of our refining capacity put
to use when so much sifting occurs after blowing everything to
smithereens? Why not find exposed vein deposits first, and then go in
from there? (It goes the same for all different kinds of metal - scan
the first few mm using gamma ray spectroscopy, then strip map the
results for review, choose the area on the asteroid with the largest
counts or hits per sq meter, and then go in for the drill, scan, sift,
and save the regolith containing the minimal impurities).


The electronics have already been invented to do these things.


Doesn't anyone remember the invention of EGS-4 code - used for
calculating the emitted gamma quantum energy that becomes deposited in
the detector, estimated as follows:


According to the distribution N(E,cosf) N_I quanta are generated
uniformly on the bottom and collateral borders of the detector and the
spectrum of their deposited energy N_loss(E) is determined.


Then the pulse-height spectrum is calculated due to the formula:


N_i(a_i,E)=[integral of ] [N_loss(ai,E)/sqrt[2pi](E')]exp[(E - E')2 /
2roe^2(E')]dE'


where a_i is the parameter of isotopes distribution, roe(E) is the
function depending on the detector specific properties. *The total
number of counts in photopeak decreases and scattered to direct gamma
quanta ratio increases when we increase the distribution parameter.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Many Americans ask themselves, "Who can afford Rolex's $6,995Yachtmaster watch?" The sad fact is that this is not even the most expensiveone on the market. While they've carved out a distinctive niche in the highclass luxury market, many pe [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 0 April 22nd 08 03:53 AM
Many Americans ask themselves, "Who can afford Rolex's $6,995Yachtmaster watch?" The sad fact is that this is not even the most expensiveone on the market. While they've carved out a distinctive niche in the highclass luxury market, many pe [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 0 April 21st 08 07:24 AM
Space model kit market survey... Scott Lowther Policy 24 April 22nd 04 03:28 PM
Space Market nix.olimpica Policy 0 December 4th 03 05:43 PM
Boeing pulls Delta IV from commercial launch market Damon Hill Policy 25 August 24th 03 05:18 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.