Wouldnt it be wonderful:)

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

bob haller wrote:

if at least one of the apollo astronauts lives long enough to go back
to the moon, perhaps on a commercial vehicle?

Don't be silly. Why would anyone use up a crew slot just to send an
old geezer as a publicity stunt (even assuming they could pass a
flight physical these days)?

Not that I'm completely agreeing with Bob, but remember John Glenn's
shuttle flight? Yes, it was mostly political, but it was also publicity
for NASA. NASA made up the "science" bit of studying the effects on him
after the fact.


Glenn and Garn got seats because they were in Congress and could
control NASA funding. Evem at that, what they got was a SHUTTLE seat,
where many missions had spare seats.

None of that is going to be true for a commercial lunar mission....

You're right because for a commercial flight someone can simply BUY the
seat.

Perhaps someone with more money than they need decide they want to go to the
Moon.

I can see Tom Hanks waking up and deciding, "you know what would be cooler
than making a mini-series ABOUT Apollo? Going to the Moon with Jim Lovell"



Agreed. I was just pointing out that strange things have happened in
the past resulting in a "geezernaut" flying. All of us here, at the
time, knew the Glenn decision was nothing but politics and pandering to
Congress to keep the money flowing. The "science" was made up after the
fact.

With commercial flights, it's more likely you'd see a high level
executive from the company fly using the b.s. argument that they're the
most qualified applicant within the company.

I think a LOT depends on the definition of "commercial" here and how many
flights are possible.
If it's a company doing a one-off, then yeah, not going to happen.
If it's a company selling space to/from the Moon, it's possible (though I
think given the timeline, very unlikely.)


Jeff

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 1:36:17 AM UTC+12, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

bob haller wrote:

if at least one of the apollo astronauts lives long enough to go back
to the moon, perhaps on a commercial vehicle?

Don't be silly. Why would anyone use up a crew slot just to send an
old geezer as a publicity stunt (even assuming they could pass a
flight physical these days)?

Not that I'm completely agreeing with Bob, but remember John Glenn's
shuttle flight? Yes, it was mostly political, but it was also publicity
for NASA. NASA made up the "science" bit of studying the effects on him
after the fact.


Glenn and Garn got seats because they were in Congress and could
control NASA funding. Evem at that, what they got was a SHUTTLE seat,
where many missions had spare seats.

None of that is going to be true for a commercial lunar mission....

You're right because for a commercial flight someone can simply BUY the
seat.

Perhaps someone with more money than they need decide they want to go to the
Moon.

I can see Tom Hanks waking up and deciding, "you know what would be cooler
than making a mini-series ABOUT Apollo? Going to the Moon with Jim Lovell"

Especially if production costs were in the $50 million range, and the documentary could be assured of making $100 million or more.




Agreed. I was just pointing out that strange things have happened in
the past resulting in a "geezernaut" flying. All of us here, at the
time, knew the Glenn decision was nothing but politics and pandering to
Congress to keep the money flowing. The "science" was made up after the
fact.

With commercial flights, it's more likely you'd see a high level
executive from the company fly using the b.s. argument that they're the
most qualified applicant within the company.

I think a LOT depends on the definition of "commercial" here and how many
flights are possible.
If it's a company doing a one-off, then yeah, not going to happen.
If it's a company selling space to/from the Moon, it's possible (though I
think given the timeline, very unlikely.)


Jeff

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 1:36:17 AM UTC+12, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

bob haller wrote:

if at least one of the apollo astronauts lives long enough to go back
to the moon, perhaps on a commercial vehicle?

Don't be silly. Why would anyone use up a crew slot just to send an
old geezer as a publicity stunt (even assuming they could pass a
flight physical these days)?

Not that I'm completely agreeing with Bob, but remember John Glenn's
shuttle flight? Yes, it was mostly political, but it was also publicity
for NASA. NASA made up the "science" bit of studying the effects on him
after the fact.


Glenn and Garn got seats because they were in Congress and could
control NASA funding. Evem at that, what they got was a SHUTTLE seat,
where many missions had spare seats.

None of that is going to be true for a commercial lunar mission....

You're right because for a commercial flight someone can simply BUY the
seat.

Perhaps someone with more money than they need decide they want to go to the
Moon.

I can see Tom Hanks waking up and deciding, "you know what would be cooler
than making a mini-series ABOUT Apollo? Going to the Moon with Jim Lovell"

Especially if production costs were in the $50 million range, and the documentary could be assured of making $100 million or more.


Yes, if you just pull numbers out of your ass, as you typically do,
you can make a case for almost anything.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 9:45:15 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 1:17:20 PM UTC+12, William Mook wrote:
On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 6:43:11 AM UTC+12, bob haller wrote:
if at least one of the apollo astronauts lives long enough to go back to the moon, perhaps on a commercial vehicle?

I spoke with Edgar Mitchell about that back in 1996 when I was promoting GreenSpace TSTO-RLV in DC at the time. It certainly would be wonderful. He was enthusiastic too! It would give all the assholes who say they didn't go pause.

My friend Carl Sagan said to me during the switch-on ceremony of Project Beta that NASA was responsible for the bad publicity due to the abject lack of progress in our space faring capacity since the early 70s. We should have had a Little America type base on the moon, and people on Mars by the 1980s.

The Greenspace TSTO-RLV consisted of an aerospike nozzle on the first stage, equipped with four RL-10 pump sets and one SSME pump set - each feeding different nozzles in a segmented combustion chamber forming a ring around the base of the first stage. 500,000 lbf thrust from the SSME pumpset and 100,000 lbf thrust from the four RL-10 pumps - each of the RL-10 pumps throttled back to a total of 20,000 lbf.


No, it didn't, because no such vehicle ever existed.

snip MookSpew of imaginary numbers about a non-existent rocket


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

You obviously didn't attend the meeting scheduled from my GreenSpace effort at the Marshall Spaceflight Center by the Office of Commercial Space Transportation in 1995.

"William Mook" wrote in message
...

On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 9:45:15 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 1:17:20 PM UTC+12, William Mook wrote:
On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 6:43:11 AM UTC+12, bob haller wrote:
if at least one of the apollo astronauts lives long enough to go
back to the moon, perhaps on a commercial vehicle?

I spoke with Edgar Mitchell about that back in 1996 when I was
promoting GreenSpace TSTO-RLV in DC at the time. It certainly would
be wonderful. He was enthusiastic too! It would give all the
assholes who say they didn't go pause.

My friend Carl Sagan said to me during the switch-on ceremony of
Project Beta that NASA was responsible for the bad publicity due to
the abject lack of progress in our space faring capacity since the
early 70s. We should have had a Little America type base on the moon,
and people on Mars by the 1980s.

The Greenspace TSTO-RLV consisted of an aerospike nozzle on the first
stage, equipped with four RL-10 pump sets and one SSME pump set - each
feeding different nozzles in a segmented combustion chamber forming a
ring around the base of the first stage. 500,000 lbf thrust from the
SSME pumpset and 100,000 lbf thrust from the four RL-10 pumps - each of
the RL-10 pumps throttled back to a total of 20,000 lbf.


No, it didn't, because no such vehicle ever existed.

snip MookSpew of imaginary numbers about a non-existent rocket


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

You obviously didn't attend the meeting scheduled from my GreenSpace effort
at the Marshall Spaceflight Center by the Office of Commercial Space
Transportation in 1995.

Which is completely irrelevant to Fred's point.
No such vehicle existed nor flew.
While one can design great vehicles on the back of an envelope, until they
actually fly, they're not worth any more than the paper they're scribbled
on.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 9:21:46 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
We need a new MookWord for Mookie's current tendency to claim
friendship with people who don't know Mook from Shinola.

William Mook wrote:

On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 6:43:11 AM UTC+12, bob haller wrote:
if at least one of the apollo astronauts lives long enough to go back to the moon, perhaps on a commercial vehicle?

I spoke with Edgar Mitchell about that back in 1996 when I was promoting GreenSpace TSTO-RLV in DC at the time. It certainly would be wonderful. He was enthusiastic too! It would give all the assholes who say they didn't go pause.

My friend Carl Sagan said to me during the switch-on ceremony of Project Beta that NASA was responsible for the bad publicity due to the abject lack of progress in our space faring capacity since the early 70s. We should have had a Little America type base on the moon, and people on Mars by the 1980s.


You apparently never knew Carl Sagan, who was pretty much an opponent
of manned space.


--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

You apparently live in a different world of your own imagining different than everyone else.

Carl was opposed to the post-Apollo military industrial focus of space travel after the assassination of JFK and the election of Nixon, and particularly the misapplication of space research used in the development of MIRV technology, which he felt was a very destabilising development.

Sagan was also opposed to manned travel as a narrow exercise in support of narrow political goals at the expense of automated probes that did real science.

Finally, he was opposed to spending money on space if it cut into social spending and did nothing to reduce military spending. To Sagan it seemed the height of insanity and a grave misapplication of science to use science to put a man on the Moon just to prove the superiority of one nation race or religion while at the same time using that science to build more destructive weapons in ever greater number, as the rest of the world sways and groans in poverty under the weight of the excesses of that empire.

This view is shared by many within the intelligence community -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPr_T7btVgA

In these ways he was against the way America and Russia, China and others, have pursued manned space travel thus far.

You misread these well taken positions of caution as a general opposition to manned space travel and human presence in space - which is quite different than the reality that Sagan was an ardent enthusiasts of the wonder of space travel and the expansion of the human experience beyond the confines of this small world.

As this episode of Cosmos attests:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsrtCesNtRw&t=25m15s

And the narrative for this film attests;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH3c1QZzRK4

And the lecture regarding the 'rivers of blood' and 'the delusion that we have

Nothing would have made Sagan happier than for humanity to organise its affairs for the benefit of all of us with compassion and focus its excess capacities for wealth, in the study exploration and industrial development of the stars.

A brief review of the past 60 years shows that if we desired it, we could bring star travel and interplanetary development to reality;

http://www.askmar.com/Robert%20Bussa...20Flight.pd f

http://www.lunarsail.com/LightSail/rit-1.pdf

http://ykbcorp.com/downloads/Bae_pho...ulation..pd f

The steady progress in human invention does not stop with these ideas.

Today, the availability of particle accelerators on a chip and hyper-efficient solar panels, in combination with photonic crystals and self replicating machinery directed by artificial intelligence, open the potential of efficiently creating and storing positronium at high density and efficiently directing the gamma rays created by their controlled release of energy to produce highly efficient propulsive effects.

So, 56 years after 1960 we can do substantially more than we could when Bussard wrote his first papers. Which I outline here

https://vimeo.com/40197828

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140...e-in-our-reach

All scarcity is politically motivated by those who benefit narrowly from such scarcity. There is no basis at all in the world for scarcity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ4SSvVbhLw

* * *

The rocket equation of Tsiolkovsky is

Vf = Ve * LN( 1/ (1-u) )

Where Vf= final speed of the rocket,
Ve = exhaust velocity of the rocket,
LN(...) = natural logarithm function
u = propellant fraction

The relativistic rocket equation of Rindler is

Vf = c * TANH( LN( 1/ (1-u) ) )

Where Vf = final speed of the photon rocket,
c = exhaust velocity of the photon rocket (speed of light)
TANH( .. ) = hyperbolic tangent
LN( .. ) = natural logarithm
u = propellant fraction

To reach 95% the speed of light requires a stage propellant fraction of 84% of the take off weight and at one gravity acceleration takes nearly a year and covers 2.2 light years.

To reach this speed and slow down to interplanetary speeds requires 97.5% of the take off weight be positronium and at one gee requires nearly two years and covers 4.4 years.

So, each ton of payload requires 40 tons of take off weight, 39 tons of Positronium to carry out this flight.

With photonic crystals the density of an aerogel containing positronium molecule pairs exchanging photons within the crystal to exhibit a long life held at a density exceeding that of iron, it is possible to make stages with 99.99% propellant fraction. So, two stages,

For every 1.00 ton of payload we have (max take off weight of a Cessna 152: 0.8 ton)
5.25 ton braking stage (a sphere 42.5 inches in diameter at iron density)
31.82 ton boost stage (a sphere 77.4 inches in diameter at iron density)

Where to get the positronium? From sunlight of course! Self replicating machine cells powered by sunlight organise any convenient matter found in any planetary system, and then dive into a close orbit around the local star. There, they accumulate positronium, and deliver it to the command module or payload capsule. The same thing happens at the target star.

A fog of machine cells with a collector area of one square mile masses 80 tons and generates 5.2 ounces of positronium per year at Earth's surface. In space at Earth, the same material collects 40.6 ounces of positronium per year. Near the solar surface the same collector fog accumulates 15.9 tons of positronium.

Machine cells that replicate in an hour using local materials and sunlight are capable of a lot. Consider one ounce of self replicating machine cells capable of operating as a utility fog. In four hours an ounce of cells grows to a pound. In fifteen hours an ounce of cells grows into a ton. In twenty one hours an ounce of cells grows to cover a square mile. One hundred square miles of collector fog is made from one ounce of self replicating cells in 28 hours.

So, the ship is built, the cells replicate on Earth and depart for the solar surface. There they accumulate the required positronium. The positronium filled cells are returned to Earth and organise utility fog fashion into completed stages. The ship departs and flies to its destination, and slows to arrive at the destination. There a convenient source of material is found, and the self replicating utility fog reorganises the material into useful forms, creating a space station for the travellers, as well as repeating the process in the local star system, to rebuild the positronium powered stages, for return or more extensive exploration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBwiUBl5vZA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1t4M2XnIhI

With particle accelerators on a chip we have the potential to make more than positronium in bulk.

Neutron star density ranges from 8*10^16 kg/m3 to 2*10^18 kg/m3. A sheet of material massing 1.469*10^11 kg/m2 exerts one gee force across its surface.

Now, tiny black holes may be made in particle accelerators;

http://www.livescience.com/53627-haw...er-source.html
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-mini-bl...-parallel.html

Tiny black holes, each about 22 micrograms arrayed to exchange energy in a way that provides for their long term stability regardless of their propensity to radiate away matter, can be formed into a sheet the density of neutron star material. At 10^18 kg/m3 a 100 gee sheet, massing 1.469*10^13 kg/m2 is only 14.69 microns thick! About 1/7th the thickness of a sheet of paper. Within this sheet, separated by a distance of 2.8 nanometers, are these 22 microgram black holes circulating in a stable pattern.

The advantage here is that once a micro-black hole based machine were built, the material itself would then be used to create more micro-black holes at greater efficiency using zero point energy.

http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

This allows tapping energy from spacetime fluctuations to power neutrino rockets that drive massive sheets around. More importantly, if we relied on the conversion of stellar energy as described in the previous post, it would take 37.8 seconds of ALL the output of the sun converted to this sheet material, to create one square meter!

So, freeing ourselves of our reliance on the stars and turning to the fabric of spacetime itself - the source of the cosmos in the beginning, - is required for practical system. Here, we move beyond atoms and create micro-black holes, and build machinery with them directly from the fabric of space time.

Standing on a sheet one feels 100 gees of force. However, by accelerating the sheet at 100 gees in the opposite direction, one accelerates along with the sheet in that direction, even while in free fall.

The sheets are formed into cylinders that are 1/4 their diameter tall, and cabins fit within these cylinders that are the same height. A disk shaped cabin has a 1 gee sheet that is 1/100th the thickness of the sheet described above, to provide a 1 gee acceleration to the occupants inside. The larger cylinder exerts no force on the inside of the cylinder. but as the cylinder accelerates, the cabin is forced out of the cylinder, and is accelerated toward the cylinder by gravity and that acceleration is balanced by inertial force due to the acceleration of the cylinder through the action of neutrino rockets.

At 100 gees, neutralised by local gravity effects, to 1 gee, it takes only 42 days ship time to zip to alpha centauri. At mid journey, 21 days into the trip, 2.15 light years out from Earth, the ship is travelling at 99.999% and time on board ship passes 1 hour star time for every 16 seconds ship time. So, every week on board coasting at that speed, the ship travels 4.3 light years! In one year, aboard ship at this speed, the ship travels 222.8 light years!

In this scenario, the ship doesn't use propellant, it is extracting massenergy from the fabric of spacetime and producing a collimated neutrino beam to accelerate across the cosmos.

Another approach would be to have engineered shapes in a Hook orbit around one another and eject payloads at this incredible speed after falling through the system. Here energy in the oscillating masses is put into the payload, and the payload enters a similar system at a distant star, where that energy is deposited in that circulating mass. The payload then flies back to the point of origin returning the energy.

So, this is a zero energy system - or on the first order zero energy - once the system is set up.

Ships like this seem to be the final stage of development. Except there is one more detail, the ability to send objects back in time by circulating within the ergosphere of a spinning supermassive black hole.

Here the ship travels to the center of the galaxy to the Sag A* black hole it enters an orbit in the ergosphere of that black hole, and emerges before it arrives - if that is possible - and then flies to a destination anywhere and anytime desired.

In this way, spacecraft become time machines.

http://www.geocities.ws/theophysics/...-cylinders.pdf

Which makes it possible to go back and visit the men who visited the moon in the 1970s!

At that point they may be more interested in our space vehicle than we theirs.

Sagan was not against manned space travel. Sagan was against the misuse and misdirection of the enthusiasm people naturally have for manned space travel by arrogant and stupid people who seek to use it only as a way to enlarge their irrational support among the downtrodden and destitute subjects.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSrL0BXsO40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmP4Xzt0rN4

William Mook wrote:

On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 9:45:15 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 1:17:20 PM UTC+12, William Mook wrote:
On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 6:43:11 AM UTC+12, bob haller wrote:
if at least one of the apollo astronauts lives long enough to go back to the moon, perhaps on a commercial vehicle?

I spoke with Edgar Mitchell about that back in 1996 when I was promoting GreenSpace TSTO-RLV in DC at the time. It certainly would be wonderful. He was enthusiastic too! It would give all the assholes who say they didn't go pause.

My friend Carl Sagan said to me during the switch-on ceremony of Project Beta that NASA was responsible for the bad publicity due to the abject lack of progress in our space faring capacity since the early 70s. We should have had a Little America type base on the moon, and people on Mars by the 1980s.

The Greenspace TSTO-RLV consisted of an aerospike nozzle on the first stage, equipped with four RL-10 pump sets and one SSME pump set - each feeding different nozzles in a segmented combustion chamber forming a ring around the base of the first stage. 500,000 lbf thrust from the SSME pumpset and 100,000 lbf thrust from the four RL-10 pumps - each of the RL-10 pumps throttled back to a total of 20,000 lbf.


No, it didn't, because no such vehicle ever existed.

snip MookSpew of imaginary numbers about a non-existent rocket


You obviously didn't attend the meeting scheduled from my GreenSpace effort at the Marshall Spaceflight Center by the Office of Commercial Space Transportation in 1995.


I've always had better things to do than listen to someone fantasize
about non-existent vehicles.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine