|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Cheap Access to Space
On Dec 21, 11:41 am, Ian Parker wrote:
You have posted several times on Venus. That is bye and bye. So, you don't believe in the regular laws of physics, or much less in those 36 confirming looks per radar obtained pixel, especially if it has anything to do with whatever's off-world. How about the best available science that's easily replicated; is all of it taboo? I think the real question about NASA is what it is being asked to do and the evvironment in which it works. NASA was set up in the cold war for nationalistic reasons. The mission given by President Kennedy was to get to the Moon first. reason - National Prestige. My main beef with Rand and to some extent with Fred McCall is that they don't answer straight questions. And yet you still don't believe a word of whatever I've had to say about our hocus-pocus NASA and of their Third Reich partners in crimes against humanity. Would you even believe if it came from the likes of Einstein? - Brad Guth - |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Cheap Access to Space
On Dec 21, 2:41*pm, Ian Parker wrote:
(snip) You simply can't pin anyone down to a straight answer. In the thread http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...e_frm/thread/9... we see that something like $3million is being spent just on a feasibility study for a fully reusable space vehicle. It is, at best, a fair way in the future. At last we have recognition of that fact. (snip again -though I agree with your sentiments on the snipped part of your response ) * - Ian Parker- I went to the Library today to try and get Nick Pope's "Jane" article written in their Feruary 29,2002 titled "Anti-gravity propulsions comes 'out of the closet'. The previous place where I had seen the link there was only a 5-6 sentence part of the abstract. The library at least gave me 499 of the full 873 word artile that as I recall came WITH images and illustrations of the B2 Bomber which admittedly heats the front wing so that postive ions are created and that negative ions are jetted out the engines...thus causing a "electromagnetic lifting/ pushing" effect...depending on voltage and center of gravity directions of the magnetic field placement. I likely savedthe article back in 2002 but finding it again in the 100's cds n dvds would be a night mare...I thought it would be easier to go the library and pay to have copies made of the article....now I'll have to try the University Library...or hunt it down in the mnay boxes have. But again this "electro-gravitic anti gravity propulsion" HAS been out there in mainstream before...but...never FULLY covered....why? The DOD...NASA IS a DOD agency. From a FOIA I tried filling with NASA: R4. I hereby request any documents, images, memos or other items that NASA has received or sent, from or to, any source, internal or external, at any time, which deals with the subject matter of the classification of non-Earth images or data, of any type, in any manner that would preclude, bar, hinder or prevent, in any way, the general public from viewing the images or data from any spacecraft. R5. I hereby request that any documents, images, memos or other items that NASA has received or sent, from or to, any source, internal or external, at any time, which deals with the subject matter of the classification of non-Earth images or data, of any type, in any manner that would preclude, bar, hinder or prevent, in any way, the general public from viewing the images or data, requested in R1 through R4 of this request that are ruled to be exempt under Sec 1206.300; be so noted in the reply and which sub-part and paragraphs are used to justify the exemption from disclosure be set forth in the reply to this request. R6. I hereby request a complete list of any documents, images, memos or other items that NASA has received or sent, from or to, any source, internal or external, at any time that have ever been excluded from disclosure under Sec 1206.300 sub (b) para (1) or para (9) that deal with non-Earth data, of any type or source, and the dates and reasons such exclusions were made. Notice that these last 3 requests were for "NON-EARTH DATA"...i.e if there's "nothing of military or national security interests" on the Moon, Mars, or any other celestial object...then WHY would NASA classify such data UNDER that rule? Why would NASA even NEED such a rule if our thinking is along the DarkAges Where Humanity is: 1. All alone 2. On a flat Earth 3. At the center of the Universe 4. As it revolves around us 5. Riding on the back of a giant turtle We are beyond ready to move past the Brookings Report and EMBRACE the entities out there and it's time for someone to either: http://commonsensecentral.blogspot.c...e-are-you.html http://commonsensecentral.blogspot.c...-starship.html And then there's the MONEY to get the COMMERCIAL parts going already in place with the Undroit Treaty: http://commonsensecentral.net/how_to_achieve_cats.htm We have HAD the technology...only it was available only to the DOD folks... It's the Holiday Season...Spread the Good Cheer and Good Word... We were NEVER alone in the Universe...and we had, and have neighbors...close ones. Bob... http://commonsensecentral.net/ |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Cheap Access to Space
On 22 Dec, 04:48, rhw007 wrote:
On Dec 21, 2:41*pm, Ian Parker wrote: (snip) You simply can't pin anyone down to a straight answer. In the thread http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...e_frm/thread/9... we see that something like $3million is being spent just on a feasibility study for a fully reusable space vehicle. It is, at best, a fair way in the future. At last we have recognition of that fact. (snip again -though I agree with your sentiments on the snipped part of your response ) * - Ian Parker- I went to the Library today to try and get Nick Pope's "Jane" article written in their Feruary 29,2002 titled "Anti-gravity propulsions comes 'out of the closet'. *The previous place where I had seen the link there was only a 5-6 sentence part of the abstract. *The library at least gave me 499 of the full 873 word artile that as I recall came WITH images and illustrations of the B2 Bomber which admittedly heats the front wing so that postive ions are created and that negative ions are jetted out the engines...thus causing a "electromagnetic lifting/ pushing" effect...depending on voltage and center of gravity directions of the magnetic field placement. *I likely savedthe article back in 2002 but finding it again in the 100's cds n dvds would be a night mare...I thought it would be easier to go the library and pay to have copies made of the article....now I'll have to try the University Library...or hunt it down in the mnay boxes have. But again this "electro-gravitic anti gravity propulsion" HAS been out there in mainstream before...but...never FULLY covered....why? The DOD...NASA IS a DOD agency. From a FOIA I tried filling with NASA: R4. * * * I hereby request any documents, images, memos or other items that NASA has received or sent, from or to, any source, internal or external, at any time, which deals with the subject matter of the classification of non-Earth images or data, of any type, in any manner that would preclude, bar, hinder or prevent, in any way, the general public from viewing the images or data from any spacecraft. R5. * * * I hereby request that any documents, images, memos or other items that NASA has received or sent, from or to, any source, internal or external, at any time, which deals with the subject matter of the classification of non-Earth images or data, of any type, in any manner that would preclude, bar, hinder or prevent, in any way, the general public from viewing the images or data, requested in R1 through R4 of this request that are ruled to be exempt under Sec 1206.300; be so noted in the reply and which sub-part and paragraphs are used to justify the exemption from disclosure be set forth in the reply to this request. R6. * * * I hereby request a complete list of any documents, images, memos or other items that NASA has received or sent, from or to, any source, internal or external, at any time that have ever been excluded from disclosure under Sec 1206.300 sub (b) para (1) or para (9) that deal with non-Earth data, of any type or source, and the dates and reasons such exclusions were made. Notice that these last 3 requests were for "NON-EARTH DATA"...i.e if there's "nothing of military or national security interests" on the Moon, Mars, or any other celestial object...then WHY would NASA classify such data UNDER that rule? * Why would NASA even NEED such a rule if our thinking is along the DarkAges Where Humanity is: 1. * * *All alone 2. * * *On a flat Earth 3. * * *At the center of the Universe 4. * * *As it revolves around us 5. * * *Riding on the back of a giant turtle We are beyond ready to move past the Brookings Report and EMBRACE the entities out there and it's time for someone to either: http://commonsensecentral.blogspot.c...-where-are-you.... http://commonsensecentral.blogspot.c...-to-hijack-sta... And then there's the MONEY to get the COMMERCIAL parts going already in place with the Undroit Treaty: http://commonsensecentral.net/how_to_achieve_cats.htm We have HAD the technology...only it was available only to the DOD folks... It's the Holiday Season...Spread the Good Cheer and Good Word... We were NEVER alone in the Universe...and we had, and have neighbors...close ones. Bob...http://commonsensecentral.net/ There are a number of points I would like to make. The first is one of fundamental Physics. There is a theory called "General Relativity" this describes how gravity arises and how it is linked with the 4 dimensional geometry of space. OK there are Grand Unified Theories and supersymmeric theories which generalise and posulate a Fermion a Gravitino which has finite mass, but we need to really concern ourselves with this. The fact of the matter is that there is an experiment called LIGO. This is concerned with the terrestrial detection of gravitational waves. If there REALLY was an antigravity devive in Area 51 (just about 2000km from Hanford) LIGO would have gone off the scales. Look, at Hanford the mirrors are suspended on a glass fibre in an evacuated tube. There is even cooling to cut down on the Brownian motion. Antigravity? How ridiculous! It is perfectly true that you can push against the Earth's magnetic field, it is not a terrible efficient method of propulsion, but it works (just) for small objects. The B2 bomber works purely by aerodynamics. There is no other source of lift. The "stealth" is obtained by angling the surfaces and covering the surface with radar absorbant material. There is complex technology involved but no exotic Physics. BTW - Stealth does not exist at 50cm and below. When I was visiting Palmyra I saw what might be described as an "intelligent boulder". It was a radar at 50cm to 1m and it had a dipole array to enable it to communicate with other boulders, thereby getting round the Raleigh criterion. Stealth it would seem has got a limited life. The Military would like you to believe that its technology was superior to civil and that it has these marvellous (totally unphysical) things. The fact of the matter is that when it is up against civil technology it is usually behing. The most advanced technology in the world today is probably Google. The best translations are dome by Google despite the effort that the military have put in. Blair and Brown were determined to introduce identity cards, yet Google has rendered the technology completly obsolete anyway. Can we learn anything from Google? Yes I think we can, we are talking about "low cost access", yet equally important is low cost spacecraft - a standard smart pebble. Google uses networked PCs rather than specialist servers. This explains why they can afford to be so generaous with such things as disc space. - Ian Parker |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Cheap Access to Space
To causually dismiss even the POSSIBILITY of Anti-Gravity flies in the
face of some FUNDAMENTAL holes in "modern" physics that were orginially based on James Clark Maxwell's work which he had repeatedly said certain phenomen could only be explained as 3D "reflections" from objects existing in higher spatial dimensions. H.S.M. Coexeter has published simliar work on these hyper-dimensional effects operating in "hyperspace". Somoe of this work is the only way to explain why the outer planets radiate more energy than they receive from the sun and from "traditional" physic models. I would suggest one watch the FULL 3 DVD version of "What the bleep do we know? How far down does the rabbit hole go?" Quantum physics leaves open the possibilities of real hardware and electrogravitic gravity...if this "LIGO" experimient may not observe any 'gravity waves' if the effect was produced in an different manner. Would LIGO detect 'sounds waves' from the Sun? They are there...they remained 'invisable' until only recently. To say we KNOW everything with absolute certainty is just setting you up to be certainly wrong at 'some' future point. Remeber the law of fives I stated above...the "leaders" of our time only a few hundred years ago believed these were true and HANGED people who thought otherwise. Now...our leaders just don't publish their papers if they are outside the "mainstream" box. Bob... |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Cheap Access to Space
On 23 Dec, 02:00, rhw007 wrote:
To causually dismiss even the POSSIBILITY of Anti-Gravity flies in the face of some FUNDAMENTAL holes in "modern" physics that were orginially based on James Clark Maxwell's work which he had repeatedly said certain phenomen could only be explained as 3D "reflections" from objects existing in higher spatial dimensions. *H.S.M. Coexeter has published simliar work on these hyper-dimensional effects operating in "hyperspace". *Somoe of this work is the only way to explain why the outer planets radiate more energy than they receive from the sun and from "traditional" physic models. Jupiter itself is a source of energy. It is contracting, there is no need to postulate exotic sources to explain this. As far as multidimensional space is concerned and shortcuts I have tried not to dismiss things "out of hand". In the theory of relativity you have the postulate that all frames of reference are equivalent. If you were to postulate a "short cut", this would contradict this assertion. All the evidence we have indicates :- 1) That the Universe has a fairly flat geometry. The COBE images tell us that there is no repeating structure. 2) There have been a number of assertions made about the nature of black hole singularities. viz It is possible to pass into another Universe. This could in theory be true but there is no evidence of matter entering our Universe from another by this, or any other route. All FTL proposals either postulate some implicit fixed Frame of Reference or else time travel. Nobody has explained, for example, what happens in a moving wormhole. A - you would expect to go back in time. It is possible mathematically to reference a fixed frame of reference in our 4 dimensions by invoking a 5th dimension. It is theoretically possible - but is it true? I would suggest one watch the FULL 3 DVD version of "What the bleep do we know? How far down does the rabbit hole go?" Quantum physics leaves open the possibilities of real hardware and electrogravitic gravity...if this "LIGO" experimient may not observe any 'gravity waves' if the effect was produced in an different manner. *Would LIGO detect 'sounds waves' from the Sun? *They are there...they remained 'invisable' until only recently. There is a faint theoretical possibility, but only, as stated, by referencing a 5th dimension. LIGO detects gravitational waves. Any gravitational disturbance produces gravitatoional waves. Antigravity (if real) will produce copious gravitational waves. I feel I ought to say something about the history of antigravity. At the end of WW2 the CIA soued Germany for military scientists. There was a Nazi "Society of the Blak Sun " which promoted bogus science. http://sungaya.de/schwarz/allmende/schwarzesonne.htm This is in German. If you have difficultuies there is always Google Translate. Apparently the Black Sun was not a supernova remnnt (that really might affect LIGO) but was in the center of the Earth. It appears to have originally been a Babylonian concept. Antigravity arose when the CIA swallowed all this nonsense whole. Rand critices me regularly, but really just look at the facts. Nothing of any value stemed from this research. Antigravity research starts up and is never heard of again. To say we KNOW everything with absolute certainty is just setting you up to be certainly wrong at 'some' future point. Remeber the law of fives I stated above...the "leaders" of our time only a few hundred years ago believed these were true and HANGED people who thought otherwise. You get hung for putting people in gas chambers. Science is open minded about new ideas. Indeed you can look at some of the stuff that mainstream scientists are producing to see what I mean. If you clain antigravity, let me see a small scale demonstration. By small scale I will even accept an accelerator experiment. Now...our leaders just don't publish their papers if they are outside the "mainstream" box. They most certainly do! In fact going "outside the box" is a way of drawing attention to yourself. - Ian Parker |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Cheap Access to Space
On Dec 16, 4:50 pm, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
In sci.space.policy message , Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:46:00, Jim Relsh posted: If we can make a anti-gravitic drive which is relatively cheap to build, small and uses a safe nuclear power source will mass-transportation into space be possible. But this first requires full-understanding of the laws of physics which we, at the moment, don't have and could be decades or hundreds of years away. We have as yet no reliable cause to believe that the laws of physics permit such a drive. The energy actually imparted to, say, the STS orbiter is substantially less than that which is pumped into the tanks / poured into the SRBs before launch; a nuclear source as at present understood would not necessarily be needed. Another possibillity would be the construction of a space-elevator. The chances of this succeeding are much higher, but this will only get us into orbit. An elevator consisting of a large compact mass in GSO and a comparatively light cable can lift no higher than to GSO. But an elevator of minimum mass for its capacity would IIRC consist of a cable getting more-or-less exponentially bigger as height initially increases, with the rate of enlargement falling off to none at GSO and a similar dwindling to a thin cable high above GSO. It would resemble a Gaussian curve asymmetrically stretched. In principle, it would stretch to infinity (neglecting relativity, the Moon, etc.). If one slides along the outer portion of the cable, impelled both by the movement of the cable and by centrifugal pseudo-effects, one can at the end be thrown off with in excess of Earth escape velocity; one only needs the cable to extend to GSO * 1.225, it seems (if the projectile's mass is not enough to deflect the cable much). URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/gravity3.htm#TB & above refers, currently. -- (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME. Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links; Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc. No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News. Hello, a very reasonable reply. In 1950, nobody had either made anty matter, now that is possible in tiny amounts. I wonder what will happen, if they really achieve obervations of the Higgs, in that big European collider, which is going on line somtime next year...the Big Hadron Collider. Presumably, the Higgs Boson creates the Higgs field, which permeates all of space, and all other particles interact with it causing them to have mass. Now, I donīt really have an hones clue about the precise mecanics behind that interaction. But letīs presume that like was the case when antimatter particles began to be observed in past work on particle colliders, it will be found possible to capture and confine for brief moments the Higgs Boson. If that comes to be true, I wonder if that would cause a measurable concentration of the Higgs field in that particular locality, hence of gravity in that locality. What do you think? Any chance of that happening? A gravity generator would be extremelly nifty Well, the Enterprice in kaftain Kirkīs world does clearly have got it Regards, Einar |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Cheap Access to Space
On Dec 18, 9:41 pm, Alain Fournier wrote:
John Schilling wrote: If a rocket crashes, it will probably "explode". Big-ass fireball, at very least. But the same tends to be true of jet airplanes, and in either case the explosion is almost always A: the result, not the cause, of the crash, and B: irrelevant because the vehicle and payload were already lost on account of being smashed into the ground at high speed or something like that. The rest of your post is all true, but the fire after an airplane crash is not at all irrelevant. The vast majority of passengers in airplane crashes survive the crash, many of them do not survive the fire. For rocket rides the odds are very different. Alain Fournier That will be only true in case of a controlled crash landing. In an uncontrolled crash, there will not have been any successful attempts at redusing the speed of the impact, if as sometimes has been the case the plane has fallen from the sky from several thousand feet up, the impact with the ground fill most likely kill everyone on board. The same will probably be true when a plane impacts the ground, due to pilot error - say flying into a mountain, when flying at high speed. A jetliner impacting a mountain at say 880 km/h. will very likely result in the immediate death of most onboard from the force of the impact alone. I recall an accident in Japan when a B-747 impacted a mountain killing 500 or so onboard, leaving only a single survivor. Einar |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Cheap Access to Space
On 26 Dec, 09:31, Einar wrote:
On Dec 16, 4:50 pm, Dr J R Stockton wrote: In sci.space.policy message , Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:46:00, Jim Relsh posted: If we can make a anti-gravitic drive which is relatively cheap to build, small and uses a safe nuclear power source will mass-transportation into space be possible. But this first requires full-understanding of the laws of physics which we, at the moment, don't have and could be decades or hundreds of years away. We have as yet no reliable cause to believe that the laws of physics permit such a drive. *The energy actually imparted to, say, the STS orbiter is substantially less than that which is pumped into the tanks / poured into the SRBs before launch; a nuclear source as at present understood would not necessarily be needed. Another possibillity would be the construction of a space-elevator. The chances of this succeeding are much higher, but this will only get us into orbit. An elevator consisting of a large compact mass in GSO and a comparatively light cable can lift no higher than to GSO. But an elevator of minimum mass for its capacity would IIRC consist of a cable getting more-or-less exponentially bigger as height initially increases, with the rate of enlargement falling off to none at GSO and a similar dwindling to a thin cable high above GSO. *It would resemble a Gaussian curve asymmetrically stretched. *In principle, it would stretch to infinity (neglecting relativity, the Moon, etc.). If one slides along the outer portion of the cable, impelled both by the movement of the cable and by centrifugal pseudo-effects, one can at the end be thrown off with in excess of Earth escape velocity; one only needs the cable to extend to GSO * 1.225, it seems (if the projectile's mass is not enough to deflect the cable much). URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/gravity3.htm#TB & above refers, currently. -- *(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. * Turnpike v6.05 * MIME. *Web *URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links; * Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc. *No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News. Hello, a very reasonable reply. In 1950, nobody had either made anty matter, now that is possible in tiny amounts. I wonder what will happen, if they really achieve obervations of the Higgs, in that big European collider, which is going on line somtime next year...the Big Hadron Collider. Presumably, the Higgs Boson creates the Higgs field, which permeates all of space, and all other particles interact with it causing them to have mass. Now, I donīt really have an hones clue about the precise mecanics behind that interaction. But letīs presume that like was the case when antimatter particles began to be observed in past work on particle colliders, it will be found possible to capture and confine for brief moments the Higgs Boson. If that comes to be true, I wonder if that would cause a measurable concentration of the Higgs field in that particular locality, hence of gravity in that locality. What do you think? Any chance of that happening? A gravity generator would be extremelly nifty Well, the Enterprice in kaftain Kirkīs world does clearly have got it Lets be quite clear about this. The Higgs boson, if produced, would be a highly unstable particle. It is a little bit misleading to say it is the origin of mass. Elementary particle Physics (and theories of everything) is very much based on a bootstrap principle. Masses occur because of the enerrgies of interaction (E=Mc^2). Matrix equations can be extremely complex. I think that the paradoxes of FTL are valid whatever is found in Grand Unified Theories. - Ian Parker |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Cheap Access to Space
On Dec 18, 2:37*pm, Ian Parker wrote:
On 18 Dec, 18:55, Eric Chomko wrote: Space tourism will have its own set of challenges with saftey. Some idiot is simply bound to see if he can survive in a vacuum with no equipment, that is one you can count on.- Hide quoted text - I wasn't talking about deliberate stupidity, I was thinking about the basic unreliability of launchers and reentry + the radiation received. Solar flres etc. We were told the Shuttle was going to be safe and cheap. It was neither. Safe and cheap compared to what? Apollo? 17 missions, 1 disaster and a failed mission with all astronauts surviving. In my book that is 1 in 17. The shuttle has had 2 disasters, period. According to wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle, the shuttle has had 120 launches. So, that is 1 in 60 vs. 1 in 17 with Apollo. The shuttle is more safe than was Apollo. Cost? Again, compared to what? Folks can make all the claims about what the shuttle wasn't but have no idea what they are talking about given that it is what it is. Period. Can we do better? Sure, I am certain. Did some folks promise a better performance? Again sure, but that was before we actually even flew the thing! To act like the shuttle has been some sort of failure, you just don;'t have any numbers to back it up. Do you think the Russians have done better with Soyuz? If so, then please explain how... Eric |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Cheap Access to Space
"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
... On Dec 18, 2:37 pm, Ian Parker wrote: On 18 Dec, 18:55, Eric Chomko wrote: Space tourism will have its own set of challenges with saftey. Some idiot is simply bound to see if he can survive in a vacuum with no equipment, that is one you can count on.- Hide quoted text - I wasn't talking about deliberate stupidity, I was thinking about the basic unreliability of launchers and reentry + the radiation received. Solar flres etc. We were told the Shuttle was going to be safe and cheap. It was neither. Cost? Again, compared to what? Compared to what was promised. Folks can make all the claims about what the shuttle wasn't but have no idea what they are talking about given that it is what it is. Period. Can we do better? Sure, I am certain. Did some folks promise a better performance? Again sure, but that was before we actually even flew the thing! To act like the shuttle has been some sort of failure, you just don;'t have any numbers to back it up. Do you think the Russians have done better with Soyuz? If so, then please explain how... Hey Eric, give me a million dollars, I'll deliver car that gets 100 mpg, is crash proof and costs $10K. And don't be upset if I fail to deliver on my promise after you pay me. Eric |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space Access Update #110 3/31/05 | Henry Vanderbilt | Policy | 0 | April 1st 05 12:47 AM |
Cheap access to space | Bootstrap Bill | Space Station | 6 | October 18th 04 03:49 PM |
Cheap access to space | Andrew Nowicki | Policy | 26 | August 11th 04 06:55 PM |
How to access sci.space.history? | rafael | History | 4 | July 10th 04 08:33 PM |
cheap access to space - majority opinion | Cameron Dorrough | Technology | 15 | June 27th 04 03:35 AM |