|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Some proposals for low cost heavy lift launchers.
On Feb 3, 2:46*am, Robert Clark wrote:
*The key point is that you have significantly better leeway in your options and choices with relatively low financial risk. *Another option for a manned launcher. In this report Boeing proposes heavy lift launchers using existing components: Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles with Existing Propulsion Systems. Benjamin Donahue, Lee Brady, Mike Farkas, Shelley LeRoy, Neal Graham Boeing Phantom Works,Huntsville, AL 35824 Doug Blue Boeing Space Exploration,Huntington Beach, CA 92605http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/AIAA-2010-2370-65... *One of the proposals is of a manned launcher for the Orion capsule using a shuttle ET propellant tank and four RS-68 engines. This does not use an upper stage but is not a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle because the final push to orbit is made by the onboard thrusters on the Orion spacecraft. *However, it is interesting in this report comparison is made to the S- IVB upper stage on the Apollo rocket. I was reminded of a suggestion of Gary Hudson that the S-IVB would be single-stage-to-orbit with significant payload if it used the high efficiency SSME rather than the J-2 engine: A Single-Stage-to-Orbit Thought Experiment. Gary C Hudsonhttp://www.spacefuture.com/archive/a_single_stage_to_orbit_thought_ex... *In Hudson's proposal the vehicle could lift 10,360 lbs, 4,710 kg. This would be just enough to carry the crewed version of the Dragon spacecraft without cargo. The point of the matter is that if you use highly weight optimized structures and high efficiency engines at the same time then what you wind up with will be a SSTO capable stage. The Ariane 5 core stage is another weight optimized structure using common bulkhead design for its propellant tanks. The Ariane 5 core stage will also become SSTO if using high efficiency SSME's instead of the Vulcain engines. The specifications of the Ariane 5 are given he Ariane 5 Data Sheet. http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ariane5.html The Ariane 5 generic "G" version could be lofted by a single SSME. It's gross mass is listed as 170 mT, and the propellant mass as 158 mT, for a dry mass of 12 mT. The Vulcain engine is listed on this page as weighing 1,700 kg: Vulcain - Specifications. http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedat...in_specs.shtml Switching to a heavier SSME engine would add 1.4 mT to the vehicle dry mass, so to 13.4 mT for the dry mass. Using a 425s average Isp again for the SSME, this would allow a 6,000 kg payload: 425*9.8ln(1 + 158/(13.4+6)) = 9,218 m/s. We wish to use this for a man-rated vehicle though. The Ariane 5 was originally intended to be man-rated using the Hermes spaceplane to carry crew. However, it's not certain the degree this was followed- through when the Hermes was canceled. As with the Ares I upper stage, there are means to increase the payload capacity. Subcooled densification allows 10% greater propellant to be carried, so then 10% greater mass can be lofted to orbit. This brings the total lofted weight from 19.4 mT to 21.3 mT. This extra weight can go to extra payload, so from 6 mT to about 8 mT in payload. The Ariane 5 uses an aluminum alloy, but not the aluminum-lithium alloy being used now for the lightest weight designs. Switching to aluminum-lithium allows approx. 10% weight saving over the previous aluminum alloy. The structural mass sans the SSME engine is 10.3 mT, so about 1 mT would be saved that could go to extra payload. I also mentioned before the new research that suggests 10% to 20% can be saved in structural mass because of overly conservative design now used. This would be another 1 mT that could be saved off the dry weight. These weight savings could go to extra payload, bringing the payload capacity to 10 mT. ESA appears to be amenable to adapting the Ariane 5 core stage for other uses, considering its agreement with ATK to use it for an upper stage. So NASA or a private company should be able to make an agreement with the ESA to use it for this purpose, based on getting sufficient financing. In this regard, to get a prototype done at low cost I suggest using the RD-0120 russian analogue of the SSME's. These are in mothballs and probably can be obtained at greatly reduced price. As a point of comparison the NK-33 was mothballed by the russians and Aerojet was able to buy 36 of them for only $1.1 million each(!) Aerojets version of the NK-33 is now on track to be used by Orbital Sciences on their Taurus II launcher. Then the Ariane 5 core version of this SSTO has the advantage over the Ares I upper stage and S-IVB versions in being already built and in current use. It also has now the capability when powered by an SSME or RD-0120 to launch a SpaceX Dragon sized spacecraft to orbit without having to use special fuel densifying or lightweighting methods. NASA has said they want to support commercial space. Support for this launcher would allow for a small, relatively low cost launcher that would permit independent private companies to launch their own manned, or cargo flights to space. Bob Clark |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Some proposals for low cost heavy lift launchers.
On Feb 23, 1:14*pm, Robert Clark wrote:
On Feb 3, 2:46*am, Robert Clark wrote: *The key point is that you have significantly better leeway in your options and choices with relatively low financial risk. *Another option for a manned launcher. In this report Boeing proposes heavy lift launchers using existing components: Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles with Existing Propulsion Systems. Benjamin Donahue, Lee Brady, Mike Farkas, Shelley LeRoy, Neal Graham Boeing Phantom Works,Huntsville, AL 35824 Doug Blue Boeing Space Exploration,Huntington Beach, CA 92605http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/AIAA-2010-2370-65... *One of the proposals is of a manned launcher for the Orion capsule using a shuttle ET propellant tank and four RS-68 engines. This does not use an upper stage but is not a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle because the final push to orbit is made by the onboard thrusters on the Orion spacecraft. *However, it is interesting in this report comparison is made to the S- IVB upper stage on the Apollo rocket. I was reminded of a suggestion of Gary Hudson that the S-IVB would be single-stage-to-orbit with significant payload if it used the high efficiency SSME rather than the J-2 engine: A Single-Stage-to-Orbit Thought Experiment. Gary C Hudsonhttp://www.spacefuture.com/archive/a_single_stage_to_orbit_thought_ex... *In Hudson's proposal the vehicle could lift 10,360 lbs, 4,710 kg. This would be just enough to carry the crewed version of the Dragon spacecraft without cargo. *The point of the matter is that if you use highly weight optimized structures and high efficiency engines at the same time then what you wind up with will be a SSTO capable stage. The Ariane 5 core stage is another weight optimized structure using common bulkhead design for its propellant tanks. The Ariane 5 core stage will also become SSTO if using high efficiency SSME's instead of the Vulcain engines... In these examples of using the SSME engine on existing stages to turn them into SSTO's, I was using the trajectory averaged Isp value for the SSME that Gary Hudson uses he A Single-Stage-to-Orbit Thought Experiment. Gary C Hudson http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/a...periment.shtml Note that a trajectory averaged Isp is always higher than just the midpoint value between the sea level and vacuum values because the rocket spends most of the time at high altitude, where the Isp is close to the vacuum value. However, I myself have not seen this actually computed. I have not even seen it stated anywhere else except in this calculation by Hudson. It should not be hard to do this calculation. You would need to know the value of the thrust over the flight of the shuttle. I'm sure this exists somewhere, possibly in graphical form. For instance it's presented here for the thrust of the SRB's: Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster. 3.1 Ignition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_S...oster#Ignition You could also get a fairly good approximation to this trajectory averaged Isp by knowing the altitude over the time of the flight and using the formula for how the thrust for a rocket varies with ambient air pressure. Anyone know where the thrust or altitude profile for the shuttle is given over the flight of the vehicle? Bob Clark |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Some proposals for low cost heavy lift launchers.
On Feb 23, 10:32*am, Robert Clark wrote:
On Feb 23, 1:14*pm, Robert Clark wrote: On Feb 3, 2:46*am, Robert Clark wrote: *The key point is that you have significantly better leeway in your options and choices with relatively low financial risk. *Another option for a manned launcher. In this report Boeing proposes heavy lift launchers using existing components: Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles with Existing Propulsion Systems. Benjamin Donahue, Lee Brady, Mike Farkas, Shelley LeRoy, Neal Graham Boeing Phantom Works,Huntsville, AL 35824 Doug Blue Boeing Space Exploration,Huntington Beach, CA 92605http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/AIAA-2010-2370-65... *One of the proposals is of a manned launcher for the Orion capsule using a shuttle ET propellant tank and four RS-68 engines. This does not use an upper stage but is not a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle because the final push to orbit is made by the onboard thrusters on the Orion spacecraft. *However, it is interesting in this report comparison is made to the S- IVB upper stage on the Apollo rocket. I was reminded of a suggestion of Gary Hudson that the S-IVB would be single-stage-to-orbit with significant payload if it used the high efficiency SSME rather than the J-2 engine: A Single-Stage-to-Orbit Thought Experiment. Gary C Hudsonhttp://www.spacefuture.com/archive/a_single_stage_to_orbit_thought_ex... *In Hudson's proposal the vehicle could lift 10,360 lbs, 4,710 kg. This would be just enough to carry the crewed version of the Dragon spacecraft without cargo. *The point of the matter is that if you use highly weight optimized structures and high efficiency engines at the same time then what you wind up with will be a SSTO capable stage. The Ariane 5 core stage is another weight optimized structure using common bulkhead design for its propellant tanks. The Ariane 5 core stage will also become SSTO if using high efficiency SSME's instead of the Vulcain engines... *In these examples of using the SSME engine on existing stages to turn them into SSTO's, I was using the trajectory averaged Isp value for the SSME that Gary Hudson uses he A Single-Stage-to-Orbit Thought Experiment. Gary C Hudsonhttp://www.spacefuture.com/archive/a_single_stage_to_orbit_thought_ex... *Note that a trajectory averaged Isp is always higher than just the midpoint value between the sea level and vacuum values because the rocket spends most of the time at high altitude, where the Isp is close to the vacuum value. *However, I myself have not seen this actually computed. I have not even seen it stated anywhere else except in this calculation by Hudson. It should not be hard to do this calculation. You would need to know the value of the thrust over the flight of the shuttle. I'm sure this exists somewhere, possibly in graphical form. For instance it's presented here for the thrust of the SRB's: Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster. 3.1 Ignitionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Booster#Ignition *You could also get a fairly good approximation to this trajectory averaged Isp by knowing the altitude over the time of the flight and using the formula for how the thrust for a rocket varies with ambient air pressure. *Anyone know where the thrust or altitude profile for the shuttle is given over the flight of the vehicle? * Bob Clark Using HTP and a little something of high-energy hydrocarbon density is perhaps the one and only SSTO option that isn't going to be too volumetric bulky to start with. Even reusable liquid boosters should not be excluded. Solidified pure hydrogen doesn't exist, and apparently fusion is not an option. http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Some proposals for low cost heavy lift launchers.
On Feb 23, 1:14*pm, Robert Clark wrote:
*The point of the matter is that if you use highly weight optimized structures and high efficiency engines at the same time then what you wind up with will be a SSTO capable stage. The Ariane 5 core stage is another weight optimized structure using common bulkhead design for its propellant tanks. The Ariane 5 core stage will also become SSTO if using high efficiency SSME's instead of the Vulcain engines. The specifications of the Ariane 5 are given he Ariane 5 Data Sheet.http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ariane5.html The Ariane 5 generic "G" version could be lofted by a single SSME. It's gross mass is listed as 170 mT, and the propellant mass as 158 mT, for a dry mass of 12 mT. The Vulcain engine is listed on this page as weighing 1,700 kg: Vulcain - Specifications.http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedat...in_specs.shtml Switching to a heavier SSME engine would add 1.4 mT to the vehicle dry mass, so to 13.4 mT for the dry mass. Using a 425s average Isp again for the SSME, this would allow a 6,000 kg payload: 425*9.8ln(1 + 158/(13.4+6)) = 9,218 m/s. We wish to use this for a man-rated vehicle though. The Ariane 5 was originally intended to be man-rated using the Hermes spaceplane to carry crew. However, it's not certain the degree this was followed- through when the Hermes was canceled. As with the Ares I upper stage, there are means to increase the payload capacity. Subcooled densification allows 10% greater propellant to be carried, so then 10% greater mass can be lofted to orbit. This brings the total lofted weight from 19.4 mT to 21.3 mT. This extra weight can go to extra payload, so from 6 mT to about 8 mT in payload. The Ariane 5 uses an aluminum alloy, but not the aluminum-lithium alloy being used now for the lightest weight designs. Switching to aluminum-lithium allows approx. 10% weight saving over the previous aluminum alloy. The structural mass sans the SSME engine is 10.3 mT, so about 1 mT would be saved that could go to extra payload. I also mentioned before the new research that suggests 10% to 20% can be saved in structural mass because of overly conservative design now used. This would be another 1 mT that could be saved off the dry weight. These weight savings could go to extra payload, bringing the payload capacity to 10 mT. The advantages of a SSTO are best utilized as a reusable vehicle. Then you would have to subtract from this estimated payload mass the mass needed for reentry and landing systems. However, this SSTO could still be useful as an expendable vehicle. Then you could have up to a 9,000 kg payload without the reentry and landing systems. This is close to the 10,000 kg payload capacity of the Falcon 9. I saw this article that had an estimate for the price of an expendable version of the SSME's: PWR Offers Shuttle Engine Alternative. Jul 15, 2009 By Joseph C. Anselmo "The company also would manufacture additional engines using the existing SSME design while beginning work on a modified design that incorporates advances in the construction of nozzles and combustion chambers. That would be ready to go into production within 3-4 years. Maser estimates the modified SSME would cost two-thirds to four-fifths of the original model - depending on the number ordered - and would be 'a little more expensive' than the company's RS-68 engine 'but in that ballpark.'" http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...%20Alternative Using a price of $40 million for the current SSME's this would correspond to a price of from $26.7 to $32 million for the expendable versions. Considering the fact the engines make up the bulk of the cost of an expendable launcher, this expendable SSTO launcher very well could be comparable in cost to the Falcon 9 at $50 million. Bob Clark |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Some proposals for low cost heavy lift launchers.
In 2005 I had hoped to sell $6.25 billion worth of oil I planned to
make in the future to fund the development of a 200,000 barrel per day production plant that used the Bergius Process to make oil from US coal and hydrogen made from water with very low cost solar panels I had developed. After fulfilling the contracts I would have been left with an $85 billion asset and a supply chain to build more hydrogen producing solar panels at very low cost, and more coal to liquid Bergius reactors - gaining $85 billion each time one was finished. There were some shenannigans in New York with some of the banks involved and when that didn't work, the rules were changed about testing procedures. As it currently stands, there is no approved test for coal derived liquids that any futures market will accept. ASTM hopes to have one in 2016, but that's just for Fischer-Tropsch. Bergius isn't even considered. In any case, until then, none of the coal-to-liquid deals like I described can go forward. They will. Now, had I completed the deal in 2005 I would be producing 200,000 barrels per day today, and be worth $85 billion. I would also be churning out one of these systems every month. The world presently uses enough oil today to need 395 of these systems. So, it would take 30 years to make a big dent - against growing demand. Oh yeah, and oil would be trading in the $30 per barrel range. This last piece was the killer. Because economically recoverable oil is based on what it costs to extract versus what it brings in the market. So, if oil is trading at $140 per barrel, there is more you can get since you are willing to spend more. If oil is $30 per barrel, oil wells will be shut down, and the economically recoverable reserves of the oil companies is far smaller at $30 selling price than at $120 selling price. So, their market capitalization, which is based on their economically recoverable reserves, is a quadratic function of oil price. That's why they like to see gradual oil price rises over time - not a reversal of that trend - which a new non-oil source brings. There is also the issue of very low cost hydrogen made from water and sunlight. That makes things worse if you're an oil company with depleting reserves. Why post all of this in a thread about heavy lift launchers? lol. Because of what I had planned to do with my SECOND $85 billion. The first $85 billion went to pay for the over-sized supply chain I was planning. It also went to acquire strategic assets, like coal companies and rail roads - stuff like that. The second $85 billion went to pay for GROWTH - and to stay ahead of the competition. This meant that I would use the second $85 billion to acquire LMT and BA - restructure the two companies into three or four smaller companies, and sell controlling interest in three of those companies and keep the fourth. These companies would be to aircraft manufacturers, one weapons manufacturer and a spaceship manufacturer. Since the spaceship component was a drain on the companies before acquisition, the pieces without that drain would be worth about $8 billion to $12 billion more structured this way. This money would pay for the transaction, and get a small return on the $85 billion you started with. With this money - which is more money than these companies have received from NASA over the past 20 years -- would be used to build a rather large heavy lift launcher built around some existing engine and airframe technologies - to place 632 metric tons into LEO at an incredibly low cost per flight - with highly reusable launcher technology. http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum What would I do with this launcher? Launch solar power satellites that beamed IR laser energy to the terrestrial solar units that made hydrogen for the coal to liquid processes described above. http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO Why would I do that? Because doing that would increase the amount of hydrogen produced by these systems SEVEN (7) times! So, I need only 57 instead of 395 units to meet today's energy needs - which means I get things done in 5 years instead of 35 years. Like I said, to remain competitive in the energy business and keep the oil companies that produce conventional oil out of the market I have come to dominate with my technology. This is an exciting development! It is something that still can happen, once we sort through the saleability of coal derived liquids. Even more exciting is what this means to space travel enthusiasts. A fleet of highly reusable heavy lift launchers putting 632 tons into LEO every week - with one unallocated launch every month - which can be donated to the national or global space effort if not needed for the commercial program - along with a sizeable charitable contribution to develop payloads for it (which would be larger than the total of all space budgets world wide) - would be a very positive development indeed. Of course this heavy lift launcher would also put up other commercial systems. For example, a global wireless internet would be deployed in very short order. Money from that asset would largely be the source of donated dollars. The donations also are done partly in self- interest. I have an $80 billion + asset that makes spacecraft and rockets. It benefits me to have as many people as possible thinking about uses for that asset and how to make it more valuable to the human community. Had the oil been floated in 2005 without mishap - we would be buying up LMT/BA today. Oil would be trading at $30 per barrel range. And likely the huge transfer of wealth out of the US banking system would not have occurred, or been only a minor blip as wealth shifted from the Middle East who is unhappy about US policies to the US. By 2015 we would be back on the Moon and on our way to Mars. We would be experimenting with solar power satellites beaming energy from the vicinity of Sol. By 2020 we would have an outpost near Sedna and be experimenting with sending useful energy across the solar system. At the same time we would be using the gravity lens of the Sun as a telescope objective and have detailed information of our cosmos on a scale unimagined today. By 2025 we would be sending probes to nearby stars even as we began shipping more material from the asteroids than is mined on Earth today. By 2030 we would have remotely operated robots operating throughout the galaxy - through a negative time delay signal shunted through Sgr A* - as MEMS based spacecraft - powered by laser beams from space - filled every garage on the planet - giving first ballistic transport to everyone on Earth - and later allowing people to live on orbit in their own space homes - and commute to Earth. By 2040 with sufficient energy collected from the Sun, many of those space homes would travel first acorss the solar system, and later as technology developed, from star to star. By the 100th anniversary of Sputnik, we would have the first cities around other star systems. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Some proposals for low cost heavy lift launchers.
On Mar 4, 3:01*pm, wrote:
In 2005 I had hoped to sell $6.25 billion worth of oil I planned to make in the future to fund the development of a 200,000 barrel per day production plant that used the Bergius Process to make oil from US coal and hydrogen made from water with very low cost solar panels I had developed. *After fulfilling the contracts I would have been left with an $85 billion asset and a supply chain to build more hydrogen producing solar panels at very low cost, and more coal to liquid Bergius reactors - gaining $85 billion each time one was finished. There were some shenannigans in New York with some of the banks involved and when that didn't work, the rules were changed about testing procedures. *As it currently stands, there is no approved test for coal derived liquids that any futures market will accept. *ASTM hopes to have one in 2016, but that's just for Fischer-Tropsch. Bergius isn't even considered. In any case, until then, none of the coal-to-liquid deals like I described can go forward. * They will. Now, had I completed the deal in 2005 I would be producing 200,000 barrels per day today, and be worth $85 billion. *I would also be churning out one of these systems every month. *The world presently uses enough oil today to need 395 of these systems. *So, it would take 30 years to make a big dent - against growing demand. * Oh yeah, and oil would be trading in the $30 per barrel range. This last piece was the killer. *Because economically recoverable oil is based on what it costs to extract versus what it brings in the market. *So, if oil is trading at $140 per barrel, there is more you can get since you are willing to spend more. *If oil is $30 per barrel, oil wells will be shut down, and the economically recoverable reserves of the oil companies is far smaller at $30 selling price than at $120 selling price. *So, their market capitalization, which is based on their economically recoverable reserves, is a quadratic function of oil price. *That's why they like to see gradual oil price rises over time - not a reversal of that trend - which a new non-oil source brings. There is also the issue of very low cost hydrogen made from water and sunlight. That makes things worse if you're an oil company with depleting reserves. Why post all of this in a thread about heavy lift launchers? *lol. Because of what I had planned to do with my SECOND $85 billion. The first $85 billion went to pay for the over-sized supply chain I was planning. *It also went to acquire strategic assets, like coal companies and rail roads - stuff like that. The second $85 billion went to pay for GROWTH - and to stay ahead of the competition. This meant that I would use the second $85 billion to acquire LMT and BA - restructure the two companies into three or four smaller companies, and sell controlling interest in three of those companies and keep the fourth. *These companies would be to aircraft manufacturers, one weapons manufacturer and a spaceship manufacturer. Since the spaceship component was a drain on the companies before acquisition, the pieces without that drain would be worth about $8 billion to $12 billion more structured this way. *This money would pay for the transaction, and get a small return on the $85 billion you started with. With this money - which is more money than these companies have received from NASA over the past 20 years -- would be used to build a rather large heavy lift launcher built around some existing engine and airframe technologies - to place 632 metric tons into LEO at an incredibly low cost per flight - with highly reusable launcher technology. http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum What would I do with this launcher? Launch solar power satellites that beamed IR laser energy to the terrestrial solar units that made hydrogen for the coal to liquid processes described above. http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO Why would I do that? Because doing that would increase the amount of hydrogen produced by these systems SEVEN (7) times! *So, I need only 57 instead of 395 units to meet today's energy needs - which means I get things done in 5 years instead of 35 years. Like I said, to remain competitive in the energy business and keep the oil companies that produce conventional oil out of the market I have come to dominate with my technology. This is an exciting development! * It is something that still can happen, once we sort through the saleability of coal derived liquids. Even more exciting is what this means to space travel enthusiasts. *A fleet of highly reusable heavy lift launchers putting 632 tons into LEO every week - with one unallocated launch every month - which can be donated to the national or global space effort if not needed for the commercial program - along with a sizeable charitable contribution to develop payloads for it (which would be larger than the total of all space budgets world wide) - would be a very positive development indeed. Of course this heavy lift launcher would also put up other commercial systems. *For example, a global wireless internet would be deployed in very short order. *Money from that asset would largely be the source of donated dollars. *The donations also are done partly in self- interest. *I have an $80 billion + asset that makes spacecraft and rockets. *It benefits me to have as many people as possible thinking about uses for that asset and how to make it more valuable to the human community. Had the oil been floated in 2005 without mishap - we would be buying up LMT/BA today. *Oil would be trading at $30 per barrel range. *And likely the huge transfer of wealth out of the US banking system would not have occurred, or been only a minor blip as wealth shifted from the Middle East who is unhappy about US policies to the US. By 2015 we would be back on the Moon and on our way to Mars. *We would be experimenting with solar power satellites beaming energy from the vicinity of Sol. *By 2020 we would have an outpost near Sedna and be experimenting with sending useful energy across the solar system. *At the same time we would be using the gravity lens of the Sun as a telescope objective and have detailed information of our cosmos on a scale unimagined today. *By 2025 we would be sending probes to nearby stars even as we began shipping more material from the asteroids than is mined on Earth today. *By 2030 we would have remotely operated robots operating throughout the galaxy - through a negative time delay signal shunted through Sgr A* - as MEMS based spacecraft - powered by laser beams from space - filled every garage on the planet - giving first ballistic transport to everyone on Earth - and later allowing people to live on orbit in their own space homes - and commute to Earth. *By 2040 with sufficient energy collected from the Sun, many of those space homes would travel first acorss the solar system, and later as technology developed, from star to star. *By the 100th anniversary of Sputnik, we would have the first cities around other star systems. You lack focus, not to mention team members. Even the likes of Bigelow Aerospace has more focus and his own team of expertise besides himself. When is Mokenergy going to deliver its first tonne of hydrogen for $100? http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Some proposals for low cost heavy lift launchers.
the USA will screw around till a oil crisis kills our economy, a mid
east war that shuts down exports for 6 months is probably enough foreigners can buy us our assets, hope the chinese treat us decently |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Some proposals for low cost heavy lift launchers.
On Mar 4, 3:51*pm, " wrote:
the USA will screw around till a oil crisis kills our economy, a mid east war that shuts down exports for 6 months is probably enough foreigners can buy us our assets, hope the chinese treat us decently At least it'll eliminate those spendy and time consuming reelections, that we also can't afford. Perhaps India can run Texas and Florida, or we can always sell Florida to Cuba and the southern half of California to Mexico. http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Some proposals for low cost heavy lift launchers.
On Mar 4, 7:39*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Mar 4, 3:51*pm, " wrote: the USA will screw around till a oil crisis kills our economy, a mid east war that shuts down exports for 6 months is probably enough foreigners can buy us our assets, hope the chinese treat us decently At least it'll eliminate those spendy and time consuming reelections, that we also can't afford. *Perhaps India can run Texas and Florida, or we can always sell Florida to Cuba and the southern half of California to Mexico. *http://translate.google.com/# *Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” nope mexico the US and canada except for the french part will all be rolled into one country. this will end illegal immigration from mexico, the will be citizens of the North American Union hopefully this will decrease a bit of the overhead of 3 seperate countries. just one president one legislature and one of everything |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Some proposals for low cost heavy lift launchers.
On Mar 5, 5:57*am, " wrote:
On Mar 4, 7:39*pm, Brad Guth wrote: On Mar 4, 3:51*pm, " wrote: the USA will screw around till a oil crisis kills our economy, a mid east war that shuts down exports for 6 months is probably enough foreigners can buy us our assets, hope the chinese treat us decently At least it'll eliminate those spendy and time consuming reelections, that we also can't afford. *Perhaps India can run Texas and Florida, or we can always sell Florida to Cuba and the southern half of California to Mexico. *http://translate.google.com/# *Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” nope mexico the US and canada except for the french part will all be rolled into one country. this will end illegal immigration from mexico, the will be citizens of the North American Union hopefully this will decrease a bit of the overhead of 3 seperate countries. just one president one legislature and one of everything It should cut the collective overhead by 90%, because so much is either dysfunctional or over-lapping that it's currently far worse than silly. By all means, include Cuba plus a few other island nations that need to become part of this multinational union. How many bloody, nasty wars do you think this merger is going to take? http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|