|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Cheap Access to Space
On Jan 2, 10:19*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Jan 2, 1:59 am, wrote: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bonhicle.htm This is still an interesting opportunity. Seven 500 metric ton flight elements that carry 440 metric tons of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. *There is also a 300 metric ton orbital element atop the central stage. Each has an annular aerospike engine at the base, powered by three Pratt&Whitney RS-68 pumpsets - that feed the annular engine. http://www.astronautix.com/engines/r...stronautix.com... The average specific impulse of these engines through their ascent is 435 seconds. *The elements are equipped with plumbing (like the Shuttle ET) for cross-feeding propellant. *So, all 7 engine sets are firing at lift-off. *Four of the six outer tanks are emptied first. This accelerates the spacecraft to 2,657 m/sec (less gravity drag and air drag losses) The after burning 1760 metric tons of propellent, the four empty elements are dropped, and they slow to subsonic speed as they re-enter the atmosphere. *They are guided by a GPS system, to close with a targeted recovery plane very similar to a JDAM bomb. *There are four recovery planes at the recovery points downrange from the launch center. *When the elements are within a specified range of their targeted aircraft, they deploy cruise missile fashion, foldaway winglets, and slow their descent to zero, and their air speed to match that of the recovery *aircraft and the direction of the recovery aircraft, just ahead and above the recovery aircraft. *The rocket elements then drop a recovery line, very similar to the way KH-1 satellites had their film cannisters recovered and slow their speed further. *A tow line from the targeted tow plane is dropped, and the recovery aircraft accelerates and climbs so that its tow line engages the recovery line. *The winged rocket elements are then air-towed back to the launch center and released by each of their recovery planes. All elements are recovered and reused in this way. http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/space/lectures/lec09.html Meanwhile, at the launch vehicle, three of the seven elements continue to orbit, along with the 300 ton orbital element. *The plumbing is such that the two outboard elements are drained while all three engines continue to fire. *The 880 metric tons of propellant are emptied and another 2,867 meters per second are added to the velocity of the vehicle. *This brings the total to 5,524 m/sec - less air drag and gravity drag losses. *The two outboard elements once emptied are dropped, re-enter, and close with their targeted recovery planes, are caught and air-towed back to the launch center. The remaining 500 metric ton booster, with its 300 metric ton orbiter, in line, continue onward. *The last element burns 440 metric tons of propellant, and adds another 3,411 m/sec to the vehicle's velocity, bringing it to 8,935 m/sec total speed - less air drag losses and gravity losses of approximately 1,935 m/sec. *Thus the final speed of the vehicle is 7 km/sec. *nearly orbital speed. The last booster drops away, and continues on a single suborbital flight around the Earth, which brings it back within gliding range of the launch center in 84 minutes after launch - very similar to the Saenger Antipodal Bomber flight path http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saenger.htm At apogee, the 300 metric ton orbital element burns 30 metric tons of propellant to circularize its orbit. *It carries up to 220 metric tons of active payload,45 metric tons of propellant, and has 35 metric ton structure. *It operates unpiloted, but can carry a 200 metric ton piloted insert in its cargo bay, which carries up to 65 people, along with supplies. *Its volume is large enough that it can carry an additional 200 metric tons of propellant and 20 ton payload for interplanetary operations. *It can also carry 100 metric tons of propellant and 120 tons payload for cislunar operations. The orbital element is based on the HL-10 lifting body, and is built with advanced composite materials, and linear aerospike, used for the SSTO program. *While not achieving the low structural fraction of that program, it does have quite a respectible performance. *With modern avionics and computing technology, combined with advanced GPS hardware (that can position the vehicle accurately in space ANYWHERE within 1million km of Earth) the vehicle provides a capable low-cost access to space. http://www.astronautix.com/project/n...ww.astronautix... The 300 metric ton lifting body can be replaced with an expendable booster stage, wherein the linear aerospike and pumpset alone is equipped with thermal protection system for recovery of the high value components. *Alternatively, a modified Centaur stage, with RL10 engines, is used for high mass missions. 220 metric tons is twice the lifting capacity of the Saturn V moon rocket. *500 metric ton flight elements, containing liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen propellants, are 2/3 the mass of the Shuttle's external tanks. *The P&W RS68 engine set is modified for use as a component in an aerospike engine. *The linear aerospike and composite technology, used for the SSTO program, is simply adapted to build these low-cost reusable airframes. *Advanced avionics, computing technology, and GPS is used in innovative ways to create a flexible low cost fully reusable space vehicle. The vehicle is large enough to deploy a Mars Direct Vehicle each launch to implement Zubrin's plan to colonize the Red Planet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_R.../www.astronaut... I have spoken elsewhere about the ability of this vehicle to orbit a 660 satellite network to provide global wireless internet for all of Earth, and through this medium, provide banking, insurance, and other services to improve life on Earth. *28 elements, comprising four vehicles - 3 flight vehicles and 1 spare - are included in that program. *Once all 660 satellite are operational, within 18 months after first flight - $50 billion per year - more than NASA's annual budget is available to the operators of the satellite network, to develop payloads and upgrades for the vehicles. The cost of each flight Experimentation with solar power satellites, both Earth orbiting and Sun orbiting, as well as space tourism, to orbit, return to the moon, and space colonization, of the moon and mars, are all possible with this game plan. Solar power satellites massing 250 tons each, put into GEO with a 250 ton expendable kick stage, provides a power sat capable of beaming 1 GW or more of IR laser energy to solar power arrays on Earth. At $6,000 per metric ton for hydrogen and $2,100 per metric ton for liquid oxygen (delivered inside the vehicle) - propellant costs are $9 million per launch. *Infrastructure and prep costs are another $3 million. *Recovery of each stage and refurbishment, is $18 million. This is a total of $30 million. *Payload is 300 metric tons - this is $100 per kg launch costs. Expendable kick stages cost $20 million per flight. The infrastructure that builds the commercial satellite network, allows aerospace costs to drop to double that found in the aircraft industry. *A Boeing 777 costs $200 million and masses 140 metric tons. *That's $1,500 per kg. *Three times this figure is $3,000 per kg. *That's $30 million for a 10 ton satellite. *22 of them in a coplanar orbit cost $660 million per launch. *The launch cost itself is a small fraction of the total cost. Each element masses 60 metric tons empty, and the orbital element masses 35 metric tons empty. *This is $180 million per element, and $105 million for the orbiter. *All 8 elements together comprise a $1.365 billion vehicle. *With the ability to launch reliably 150 times before a major rebuild, and with 0.5% refurb cost, the hardware cost per launch is $9.1 million and $6.85 million respectively - a total of $15.95 million - another $2 million for downrange recovery operations. A $5.5 billion development program, along with another $2.5 billion infrastructure build out - creates the ability to loft over 200 metric tons to Earth orbit, every two weeks. *A global wireless internet earning $50 billion per year in profits after taxes, provides the money to build the $300 million per week in payloads to keep these vehicles busy at a flight rate of once every 2 weeks. *In fact, the profits of nearly $1 billion per year from the satellite network (see my post on the satellite system) provides money to deploy significant payloads AND add the cost of deep space operations as well. *(not only deploying a mars base, or a lunar city, but funding its operation until profitability is achieved) We don't have to spend another R&D cent. *China is CATS. *Go figure otherwise. Soon enough for France, China will become the prime supplier of lunar 3He or He3. - Brad Guth- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Hydrogen from terrestrial solar power More hydrogen from the same terrestrial installations with assist from powersats operating IR solar pumped lasers in GEO Direct beamed energy from lasers in GEO to LEO and throughout cislunar space -including high altitude flight. Anti-matter produced from sun orbiting powersats exported to the moon for integration in deep space vehicles - with services to Earth still powered by hydrogen. Everything inside the moon is powered by protons. Everything beyond the moon is powered by anti-protons. In deference to the value of the biosphere that inhabits Earth. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Cheap Access to Space
And your working prototypes or even supercomputer simulations on
behalf of any of this is where exactly? - Brad Guth wrote: On Jan 2, 10:19�am, BradGuth wrote: On Jan 2, 1:59 am, wrote: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bonhicle.htm This is still an interesting opportunity. Seven 500 metric ton flight elements that carry 440 metric tons of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. �There is also a 300 metric ton orbital element atop the central stage. Each has an annular aerospike engine at the base, powered by three Pratt&Whitney RS-68 pumpsets - that feed the annular engine. http://www.astronautix.com/engines/r...stronautix.com.... The average specific impulse of these engines through their ascent is 435 seconds. �The elements are equipped with plumbing (like the Shuttle ET) for cross-feeding propellant. �So, all 7 engine sets are firing at lift-off. �Four of the six outer tanks are emptied first. This accelerates the spacecraft to 2,657 m/sec (less gravity drag and air drag losses) The after burning 1760 metric tons of propellent, the four empty elements are dropped, and they slow to subsonic speed as they re-enter the atmosphere. �They are guided by a GPS system, to close with a targeted recovery plane very similar to a JDAM bomb. �There are four recovery planes at the recovery points downrange from the launch center. �When the elements are within a specified range of their targeted aircraft, they deploy cruise missile fashion, foldaway winglets, and slow their descent to zero, and their air speed to match that of the recovery �aircraft and the direction of the recovery aircraft, just ahead and above the recovery aircraft. �The rocket elements then drop a recovery line, very similar to the way KH-1 satellites had their film cannisters recovered and slow their speed further. �A tow line from the targeted tow plane is dropped, and the recovery aircraft accelerates and climbs so that its tow line engages the recovery line. �The winged rocket elements are then air-towed back to the launch center and released by each of their recovery planes. All elements are recovered and reused in this way. http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/space/lectures/lec09.html Meanwhile, at the launch vehicle, three of the seven elements continue to orbit, along with the 300 ton orbital element. �The plumbing is such that the two outboard elements are drained while all three engines continue to fire. �The 880 metric tons of propellant are emptied and another 2,867 meters per second are added to the velocity of the vehicle. �This brings the total to 5,524 m/sec - less air drag and gravity drag losses. �The two outboard elements once emptied are dropped, re-enter, and close with their targeted recovery planes, are caught and air-towed back to the launch center. The remaining 500 metric ton booster, with its 300 metric ton orbiter, in line, continue onward. �The last element burns 440 metric tons of propellant, and adds another 3,411 m/sec to the vehicle's velocity, bringing it to 8,935 m/sec total speed - less air drag losses and gravity losses of approximately 1,935 m/sec. �Thus the final speed of the vehicle is 7 km/sec. �nearly orbital speed. The last booster drops away, and continues on a single suborbital flight around the Earth, which brings it back within gliding range of the launch center in 84 minutes after launch - very similar to the Saenger Antipodal Bomber flight path http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saenger.htm At apogee, the 300 metric ton orbital element burns 30 metric tons of propellant to circularize its orbit. �It carries up to 220 metric tons of active payload,45 metric tons of propellant, and has 35 metric ton structure. �It operates unpiloted, but can carry a 200 metric ton piloted insert in its cargo bay, which carries up to 65 people, along with supplies. �Its volume is large enough that it can carry an additional 200 metric tons of propellant and 20 ton payload for interplanetary operations. �It can also carry 100 metric tons of propellant and 120 tons payload for cislunar operations. The orbital element is based on the HL-10 lifting body, and is built with advanced composite materials, and linear aerospike, used for the SSTO program. �While not achieving the low structural fraction of that program, it does have quite a respectible performance. �With modern avionics and computing technology, combined with advanced GPS hardware (that can position the vehicle accurately in space ANYWHERE within 1million km of Earth) the vehicle provides a capable low-cost access to space. http://www.astronautix.com/project/n...ww.astronautix.... The 300 metric ton lifting body can be replaced with an expendable booster stage, wherein the linear aerospike and pumpset alone is equipped with thermal protection system for recovery of the high value components. �Alternatively, a modified Centaur stage, with RL10 engines, is used for high mass missions. 220 metric tons is twice the lifting capacity of the Saturn V moon rocket. �500 metric ton flight elements, containing liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen propellants, are 2/3 the mass of the Shuttle's external tanks. �The P&W RS68 engine set is modified for use as a component in an aerospike engine. �The linear aerospike and composite technology, used for the SSTO program, is simply adapted to build these low-cost reusable airframes. �Advanced avionics, computing technology, and GPS is used in innovative ways to create a flexible low cost fully reusable space vehicle. The vehicle is large enough to deploy a Mars Direct Vehicle each launch to implement Zubrin's plan to colonize the Red Planet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_R.../www.astronaut.... I have spoken elsewhere about the ability of this vehicle to orbit a 660 satellite network to provide global wireless internet for all of Earth, and through this medium, provide banking, insurance, and other services to improve life on Earth. �28 elements, comprising four vehicles - 3 flight vehicles and 1 spare - are included in that program. �Once all 660 satellite are operational, within 18 months after first flight - $50 billion per year - more than NASA's annual budget is available to the operators of the satellite network, to develop payloads and upgrades for the vehicles. The cost of each flight Experimentation with solar power satellites, both Earth orbiting and Sun orbiting, as well as space tourism, to orbit, return to the moon, and space colonization, of the moon and mars, are all possible with this game plan. Solar power satellites massing 250 tons each, put into GEO with a 250 ton expendable kick stage, provides a power sat capable of beaming 1 GW or more of IR laser energy to solar power arrays on Earth. At $6,000 per metric ton for hydrogen and $2,100 per metric ton for liquid oxygen (delivered inside the vehicle) - propellant costs are $9 million per launch. �Infrastructure and prep costs are another $3 million. �Recovery of each stage and refurbishment, is $18 million. This is a total of $30 million. �Payload is 300 metric tons - this is $100 per kg launch costs. Expendable kick stages cost $20 million per flight. The infrastructure that builds the commercial satellite network, allows aerospace costs to drop to double that found in the aircraft industry. �A Boeing 777 costs $200 million and masses 140 metric tons. �That's $1,500 per kg. �Three times this figure is $3,000 per kg. �That's $30 million for a 10 ton satellite. �22 of them in a coplanar orbit cost $660 million per launch. �The launch cost itself is a small fraction of the total cost. Each element masses 60 metric tons empty, and the orbital element masses 35 metric tons empty. �This is $180 million per element, and $105 million for the orbiter. �All 8 elements together comprise a $1.365 billion vehicle. �With the ability to launch reliably 150 times before a major rebuild, and with 0.5% refurb cost, the hardware cost per launch is $9.1 million and $6.85 million respectively - a total of $15.95 million - another $2 million for downrange recovery operations. A $5.5 billion development program, along with another $2.5 billion infrastructure build out - creates the ability to loft over 200 metric tons to Earth orbit, every two weeks. �A global wireless internet earning $50 billion per year in profits after taxes, provides the money to build the $300 million per week in payloads to keep these vehicles busy at a flight rate of once every 2 weeks. �In fact, the profits of nearly $1 billion per year from the satellite network (see my post on the satellite system) provides money to deploy significant payloads AND add the cost of deep space operations as well. �(not only deploying a mars base, or a lunar city, but funding its operation until profitability is achieved) We don't have to spend another R&D cent. �China is CATS. �Go figure otherwise. Soon enough for France, China will become the prime supplier of lunar 3He or He3. - Brad Guth- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Hydrogen from terrestrial solar power More hydrogen from the same terrestrial installations with assist from powersats operating IR solar pumped lasers in GEO Direct beamed energy from lasers in GEO to LEO and throughout cislunar space -including high altitude flight. Anti-matter produced from sun orbiting powersats exported to the moon for integration in deep space vehicles - with services to Earth still powered by hydrogen. Everything inside the moon is powered by protons. Everything beyond the moon is powered by anti-protons. In deference to the value of the biosphere that inhabits Earth. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Cheap Access to Space
On Jan 3, 1:10Â*pm, BradGuth wrote:
And your working prototypes or even supercomputer simulations on behalf of any of this is where exactly? - Brad Guth wrote: On Jan 2, 10:19�am, BradGuth wrote: On Jan 2, 1:59 am, wrote: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bonhicle.htm This is still an interesting opportunity. Seven 500 metric ton flight elements that carry 440 metric tons of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. �There is also a 300 metric ton orbital element atop the central stage. Each has an annular aerospike engine at the base, powered by three Pratt&Whitney RS-68 pumpsets - that feed the annular engine. http://www.astronautix.com/engines/r...stronautix.com.... The average specific impulse of these engines through their ascent is 435 seconds. �The elements are equipped with plumbing (like the Shuttle ET) for cross-feeding propellant. �So, all 7 engine sets are firing at lift-off. �Four of the six outer tanks are emptied first. This accelerates the spacecraft to 2,657 m/sec (less gravity drag and air drag losses) The after burning 1760 metric tons of propellent, the four empty elements are dropped, and they slow to subsonic speed as they re-enter the atmosphere. �They are guided by a GPS system, to close with a targeted recovery plane very similar to a JDAM bomb. �There are four recovery planes at the recovery points downrange from the launch center. �When the elements are within a specified range of their targeted aircraft, they deploy cruise missile fashion, foldaway winglets, and slow their descent to zero, and their air speed to match that of the recovery �aircraft and the direction of the recovery aircraft, just ahead and above the recovery aircraft. �The rocket elements then drop a recovery line, very similar to the way KH-1 satellites had their film cannisters recovered and slow their speed further. �A tow line from the targeted tow plane is dropped, and the recovery aircraft accelerates and climbs so that its tow line engages the recovery line. �The winged rocket elements are then air-towed back to the launch center and released by each of their recovery planes. All elements are recovered and reused in this way. http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/space/lectures/lec09.html Meanwhile, at the launch vehicle, three of the seven elements continue to orbit, along with the 300 ton orbital element. �The plumbing is such that the two outboard elements are drained while all three engines continue to fire. �The 880 metric tons of propellant are emptied and another 2,867 meters per second are added to the velocity of the vehicle. �This brings the total to 5,524 m/sec - less air drag and gravity drag losses. �The two outboard elements once emptied are dropped, re-enter, and close with their targeted recovery planes, are caught and air-towed back to the launch center. The remaining 500 metric ton booster, with its 300 metric ton orbiter, in line, continue onward. �The last element burns 440 metric tons of propellant, and adds another 3,411 m/sec to the vehicle's velocity, bringing it to 8,935 m/sec total speed - less air drag losses and gravity losses of approximately 1,935 m/sec. �Thus the final speed of the vehicle is 7 km/sec. �nearly orbital speed. The last booster drops away, and continues on a single suborbital flight around the Earth, which brings it back within gliding range of the launch center in 84 minutes after launch - very similar to the Saenger Antipodal Bomber flight path http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saenger.htm At apogee, the 300 metric ton orbital element burns 30 metric tons of propellant to circularize its orbit. �It carries up to 220 metric tons of active payload,45 metric tons of propellant, and has 35 metric ton structure. �It operates unpiloted, but can carry a 200 metric ton piloted insert in its cargo bay, which carries up to 65 people, along with supplies. �Its volume is large enough that it can carry an additional 200 metric tons of propellant and 20 ton payload for interplanetary operations. �It can also carry 100 metric tons of propellant and 120 tons payload for cislunar operations. The orbital element is based on the HL-10 lifting body, and is built with advanced composite materials, and linear aerospike, used for the SSTO program. �While not achieving the low structural fraction of that program, it does have quite a respectible performance. �With modern avionics and computing technology, combined with advanced GPS hardware (that can position the vehicle accurately in space ANYWHERE within 1million km of Earth) the vehicle provides a capable low-cost access to space. http://www.astronautix.com/project/n...ww.astronautix.... The 300 metric ton lifting body can be replaced with an expendable booster stage, wherein the linear aerospike and pumpset alone is equipped with thermal protection system for recovery of the high value components. �Alternatively, a modified Centaur stage, with RL10 engines, is used for high mass missions. 220 metric tons is twice the lifting capacity of the Saturn V moon rocket. �500 metric ton flight elements, containing liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen propellants, are 2/3 the mass of the Shuttle's external tanks. �The P&W RS68 engine set is modified for use as a component in an aerospike engine. �The linear aerospike and composite technology, used for the SSTO program, is simply adapted to build these low-cost reusable airframes. �Advanced avionics, computing technology, and GPS is used in innovative ways to create a flexible low cost fully reusable space vehicle. The vehicle is large enough to deploy a Mars Direct Vehicle each launch to implement Zubrin's plan to colonize the Red Planet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_R.../www.astronaut.... I have spoken elsewhere about the ability of this vehicle to orbit a 660 satellite network to provide global wireless internet for all of Earth, and through this medium, provide banking, insurance, and other services to improve life on Earth. �28 elements, comprising four vehicles - 3 flight vehicles and 1 spare - are included in that program. �Once all 660 satellite are operational, within 18 months after first flight - $50 billion per year - more than NASA's annual budget is available to the operators of the satellite network, to develop payloads and upgrades for the vehicles. The cost of each flight Experimentation with solar power satellites, both Earth orbiting and Sun orbiting, as well as space tourism, to orbit, return to the moon, and space colonization, of the moon and mars, are all possible with this game plan. Solar power satellites massing 250 tons each, put into GEO with a 250 ton expendable kick stage, provides a power sat capable of beaming 1 GW or more of IR laser energy to solar power arrays on Earth. At $6,000 per metric ton for hydrogen and $2,100 per metric ton for liquid oxygen (delivered inside the vehicle) - propellant costs are $9 million per launch. �Infrastructure and prep costs are another $3 million. �Recovery of each stage and refurbishment, is $18 million. This is a total of $30 million. �Payload is 300 metric tons - this is $100 per kg launch costs. Expendable kick stages cost $20 million per flight. The infrastructure that builds the commercial satellite network, allows aerospace costs to drop to double that found in the aircraft industry. �A Boeing 777 costs $200 million and masses 140 metric tons. �That's $1,500 per kg. �Three times this figure is $3,000 per kg. �That's $30 million for a 10 ton satellite. �22 of them in a coplanar orbit cost $660 million per launch. �The launch cost itself is a small fraction of the total cost. Each element masses 60 metric tons empty, and the orbital element masses 35 metric tons empty. �This is $180 million per element, and $105 million for the orbiter. �All 8 elements together comprise a $1.365 billion vehicle. �With the ability to launch reliably 150 times before a major rebuild, and with 0.5% refurb cost, the hardware cost per launch is $9.1 million and $6.85 million respectively - a total of $15.95 million - another $2 million for downrange recovery operations. A $5.5 billion development program, along with another $2.5 billion infrastructure build out - creates the ability to loft over 200 metric tons to Earth orbit, every two weeks. �A global wireless internet earning $50 billion per year in profits after taxes, provides the money to build the $300 million per week in payloads to keep these vehicles busy at a flight rate of once every 2 weeks. �In fact, the profits of nearly $1 billion per year from the satellite network (see my post on the satellite system) provides money to deploy significant payloads AND add the cost of deep space operations as well. �(not only deploying a mars base, or a lunar city, but funding its operation until profitability is achieved) We don't have to spend another R&D cent. �China is CATS. �Go figure otherwise. ... read more »- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That's none of your bees wax. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Cheap Access to Space
wrote:
On Jan 3, 1:10 pm, BradGuth wrote: And your working prototypes or even supercomputer simulations on behalf of any of this is where exactly? That's none of your bees wax. Figures. However, if I were only half as smart and a tenth as rich and powerful as lord Mook, as such I'd be accomplishing all sorts of nifty things and showing off my best stuff, getting all sorts of fancy publications on my side and even the likes of Google/NOVA doing those spendy eye-candy animation infomercials on my behalf. There must be something that smells fishy about Mook, as otherwise we'd be using those volumes of Mook H2, as well as for utilizing those spare/surplus PV generated electrons as of more than a decade ago, and we'd still be paying less than $1.50 per gallon because, by now we wouldn't have been consuming such fossil energy at half the rate, or much less having been inefficiently burning such along with so much N2--NOx. - Brad Guth |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Cheap Access to Space
On Jan 3, 11:23*am, BradGuth wrote:
wrote: On Jan 3, 1:10 pm, BradGuth wrote: And your working prototypes or even supercomputer simulations on behalf of any of this is where exactly? That's none of your bees wax. Figures. *However, if I were only half as smart and a tenth as rich and powerful as lord Mook, as such I'd be accomplishing all sorts of nifty things and showing off my best stuff, getting all sorts of fancy publications on my side and even the likes of Google/NOVA doing those spendy eye-candy animation infomercials on my behalf. Actually, maybe if you were in a position to promote or implement what he has rather than ridicule it for being part of the staus quo CIA/MI5/ NASA - ology or some such, maybe he'd have cause to show you. There must be something that smells fishy about Mook, as otherwise we'd be using those volumes of Mook H2, as well as for utilizing those spare/surplus PV generated electrons as of more than a decade ago, and we'd still be paying less than $1.50 per gallon because, by now *we wouldn't have been consuming such fossil energy at half the rate, or much less having been inefficiently burning such along with so much N2--NOx. Admit it Guth you ride a bike to work... |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Cheap Access to Space
On Jan 3, 9:29 am, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Jan 3, 11:23 am, BradGuth wrote: wrote: On Jan 3, 1:10 pm, BradGuth wrote: And your working prototypes or even supercomputer simulations on behalf of any of this is where exactly? That's none of your bees wax. Figures. However, if I were only half as smart and a tenth as rich and powerful as lord Mook, as such I'd be accomplishing all sorts of nifty things and showing off my best stuff, getting all sorts of fancy publications on my side and even the likes of Google/NOVA doing those spendy eye-candy animation infomercials on my behalf. Actually, maybe if you were in a position to promote or implement what he has rather than ridicule it for being part of the staus quo CIA/MI5/ NASA - ology or some such, maybe he'd have cause to show you. What's to show, as I've supported most everything that's Mook as being of a good decade or older technology that's of third or forth hand- downs. Mook has simply connected those dots, and as such well connected dots should by all rights work rather nicely on behalf of most things in need of clean energy that don't have to fly, unless using the relatively clean and energy efficient likes of a SSME that'll only create a few tonnes of exhaust fried N2--NOx per SST suborbital flight. Remember that I'm the only sane guy within all of Usenet that would give 50/50 public support to the likes of what William Mook has to offer. What's your plan of action? I have no arguments against his using millions of acres for accommodating those advanced Mook PVs. I just tend to believe in the science and physics of wind, geothermal, solar stirling, tidal and hydroelectric offers us a much greater energy footprint density. I'm the guy that's in favor of using all of the above, plus 3He fusion like France is soon enough doing something constructive about before it's too late. There must be something that smells fishy about Mook, as otherwise we'd be using those volumes of Mook H2, as well as for utilizing those spare/surplus PV generated electrons as of more than a decade ago, and we'd still be paying less than $1.50 per gallon because, by now we wouldn't have been consuming such fossil energy at half the rate, or much less having been inefficiently burning such along with so much N2--NOx. Admit it Guth you ride a bike to work... Not quite yet, but I do own a bike, and at the near future of seeing $10/gallon, at least I'll have an affordable option. How about yourself? - Brad Guth |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Cheap Access to Space
On Jan 3, 9:29 am, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Jan 3, 11:23 wrote: wrote: On Jan 3, 1:10 wrote: And your working prototypes or even supercomputer simulations on behalf of any of this is where exactly? That's none of your bees wax. Figures. However, if I were only half as smart and a tenth as rich and powerful as lord Mook, as such I'd be accomplishing all sorts of nifty things and showing off my best stuff, getting all sorts of fancy publications on my side and even the likes of Google/NOVA doing those spendy eye-candy animation infomercials on my behalf. Actually, maybe if you were in a position to promote or implement what he has rather than ridicule it for being part of the staus quo CIA/MI5/ NASA - ology or some such, maybe he'd have cause to show you. If I were in charge of public loot, the likes of lord Mook would be getting my 50/50 plan of action. - Brad Guth |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Cheap Access to Space
There is a difference between doing science and engineering and just
wishing. If we constrain ourselves to science and engineering, we must outline some sort of logical program for attaining our goals. This generally requires defining clearly our terms. Anti-gravity is not a clearly defined term. So, we first must detail what we mean by anti-gravity and how it relates to known laws of physics. Laws of physics are interesting in themselves, because they are generally subsumed by later laws. That is, Einstein showed us how Newton was wrong in his view of space time relativity and energy. He did not say Newton WAS wrong however. In fact, Newton's laws of motion still stand, are stilll taught, and still are a testimony to the genius of Newton. That's because Einstein EXPLAINED Newton in terms of his new ideas, and got the same results as Newton and was then able to build on it. So, while advances in science and technology will surely, some day show us the error of our ways and open up new and fruitful fields of endeavour and technique, the new science, the new technique will subsume our present art, and our present understanding, just as Einstein subsumed Newton. This means that anything the clearly violates Einsteinian or Newtonian results, must be looked at very critically. With this in mind what can we say about anti-gravity? Well, we must first identify what we mean by anti-gravity? Do we mean inertialess acceleration? For what purpose? Do we mean low cost simple flight? Do we mean zero gravity? Do we me low cost simple space flight? Interplanetary? Interstellar? Do we mean simple low cost escape from Earth? Do we mean warp drive? All these things have been associated with the words 'anti-gravity' - but each implies a different set of physical rules. INERTIALESS ACCELERATION This form of acceleration somehow overcomes inertia. Force is applied to a body, but no forces are felt BY the body. The advantage of this is that very large forces can then be applied without them being felt by the body. This is good for high speed maneuvering. This is also good for high speed interstellar travel. At least for short ship times. That's because it takes about 1 year to accelerate to near the speed of light. A constant gee starship takes on the order of years to cross interstellar distances, and circumnavigates the universe in about 41 years. Ship time. Of course, a source of energy large enough to maintain acceleration is needed. Increasing acceleration to 10 gees reduces everything by a factor of 10. An acceleration of a million gees, allows us to travel around the universe in minutes. Which is pretty freaking amazing. If we can do it. There are some possible approaches to achieving this; (1) Gravity linked bodies. Imagine two bodies, one a very dense pancake equipped with some sort of high energy rocket, the other a conventional spacecraft. The spacecraft navigates to FALL INTO the dense pancake, but before it hits the pancake, the pancake itself equipped with a rocket, accelerates away - so that the spacecraft never hits. See what's happening? A spacecraft is being accelerated toward an accelerating body and never reaching it. And even though the gravitating mass with the rocket attached feels the force, the spacecraft falling toward the gravitating body is in free fall. So, if the surface gravity of the gravitating body is 100 gees, the spacecraft would be in free fall toward it, and be accelerated through space at 100 gees. If the pancake accelerated at 99 gees, the and the spacecraft sat on the surface of the pancake - the occupants would feel a 1 gee force even though they were be accelerated at 99 gees in the opposite direction. It would take 3 days to approach light speed like this, and less than 5 months to circumnavigate the universe if energy weren't a problem. (2) Accelerating all atoms equally. Highly penetrating - but non- destructive radiation - like neutrino flux, accelerates all atoms equally that a neutrino beam passes through. There would be little or no body forces using this system. The amounts of energy would be tremendous (3) Reduction of inertia. Some believe that inertial mass and gravitational mass are linked by the flux of virtual particles in the vacuum. That is, a flux of virtual photons rain down around every particle in existence, and the gravitational effects interact with these virtual photons to exert a radiation pressure that is felt as inertia. Unruh showed that this would create a body force only when particles were accelerated through the vacuum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect Somehow eliminating or reducing or engineering this effect to decouple inertial and gravitational mass could do some amazing things. One of these is to switch off inertial mass and accelerate something with very little energy to light speed. Then switch on the inertial mass again to slow it down. This would violate today's laws of physics, primarily by creating a huge imbalance between kinetic and potential energies. This however can be considered a way of tapping the vacuum energy - if it existed. LOW COST SIMPLE FLIGHT All the methods described above appear to be very difficult and energy intensive and are not conducive to low cost access to space. Low cost simple flight is rather simple and does not contribute to spaceflight. (1) electric propulsion. Nitrogen in air is diamagnetic. Electrical and magnetic effects might be used to move air directly without rockets or wings or rotos or jets. (2) MEMs based rocket array. Micro-electromechanical systems have been built that spray rocket fuels around the way ink jet printers spray ink around. These rocket fuels power very tiny rocket engines. Millions of rocket engines can be made to operate together, to create a wide range of propulsive effects, and in fact create a propulsive skin around an aircraft. Due to their small size and high frequency of operation, the process is likely to be very quiet. Due to the ability to operate together, they can even be made to actively cancel each other's irreducible noise. Due to their high thrust to weight, performance is likely to be awesome. Due to their large number, and small size, safety and reliability is likely to be unparalleled. Control surfaces are likely not needed either, as there are thousands of rockets likely pointed in the diirection needed to create whatever propulsive effect is needed. ZERO GRAVITY Putting a large massive object on a set of columns has the potential to reduce the gravity forces immediately beneath it. LOW COST SIMPLE SPACE FLIGHT A gravity boost has been achieved in interplanetary flight by flying by Jupiter at high speed. The spacecraft is in free fall and falls toward jupiter and away from jupiter at the same speeds. But not in the same direction. If jupiter were static it would be like bouncing a ball off the wall. But jupiter is moving relative to the sun. So, this is like bouncing a ball off of a baseball bat being swung by Babe Ruth! Even though the ball bounces of the bat like it bounced off the wall, the moving bat imparts energy to it relative to the baseball diamond. Same with jupiter and the spacecraft. Now imagine two massive objects in tight orbit around each other. You could drop a 'ball' or space craft into this system, and it would fling the object out along any trajectory in the plane of rotation. Just be careful when and where you enter the system. If the objects are orbiting one another at near light speed - the objects can be accelerated to near light speed very quickly. A similar set of objects at the target point, could reverse the process and remove all the energy from the spacecraft. Only slight rocket blasts would be needed for course correction and entering the target at precisely the right time and direction. The cool part here is that the energy in the spacecraft would be stored in the receiving bodies - and then be available to sent the spacecraft back from whence it came. Ship board times could be minutes if speeds were high enough. Spacecraft could be very simple. In fact a man or woman in a spacesuit, with a rocket pack and radio transmitter/receiver would be able to use two pairs of orbiting bodies to fly back and forth across interstellar distances very simply - and they would be in free fall the whole way. LOW COST SIMPLE ESCAPE FROM EARTH Massive objects movint rapidly with respect to each other pick up and fling objects into space - far less than light speed, but require very dense objects as all the items above. WARP DRIVE What good is circumnavigating the galaxy when we come back the Earth and all of humanity are no more? This has created a fascination with potential faster than light travel. Unfortunately, we don't know how to do faster than light travel. But we DO know how to do TIME TRAVEL. By combining time travel with high speed space travel, we have the potential to create a sort of warp drive. Time travel may be possible around massive rotating cylinders. We might be able to go to any point in time the cylinder exists. WE cannot go back BEFORE the cylinder existed however. No worries. We create a massive cylinder and set it up BEFORE we leave. Travel at high speed to our destination. Travel at high spee back. Only a few minutes have passed on board ship. Our time cylinder is sitll operating. We hop in, and go back to the point in time we made it, and we've cheated the speed of light limit - even though we didn't really exceed the speed of light. So, this may be one way to do it. A rapidly rotating massive body may exist at the center of our galaxy. If so, this may form a natural pathway to times and epochs before ours (and after ours). So, all we do there is fly to the center of the galaxy, 30,000 light years away - go back in time a requisite number of years, fly to our destination, and then fly home - but we've arranged things to arrive home when we left. Of course with a supermassive naturally occuring time cylinder at the center of the galaxy for billions of years - it is possible for any of us to visit any time and place within about a billion light years of Earth. Including our own pasts. If the many worlds interpretation of Quantum Physics is correct, we may even be able to visit parallel universes. If all these things are possible, we may have an answer to Fermi's paradox - where are they? They are here, but just in exceedingly low density because they (and we) are spread across not only all of space and time, but all possible parallel spaces and times...with this technology. Which is interesting possibilities. SO WHAT? NONE OF THESE TECHNIQUES ARE LIKELY TO BE LOWER COST OR NEAR TERM AS BUYING AN EXISTING ROCKET ENGINE SET FROM A MAJOR MANUFACTURER DESIGNING AN AIRFRAME FOR IT, AND AVIONICS FOR IT, AND PUTTING TOGETHER A MULTI-STAGE REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE OF THE TYPE I'VE DESCRIBED EARLIER. Building particle accelerators that encircle the moon and the sun, and have tremendous power, is one approach to continue research in high energy physics in the direction that might be fruitful here. Also, laser light sails, or anti-matter powered rockets, might be made to accelerate payloads to greater than 1/3 light speed. At these speeds, a number of massive objects might be collided in such a way, and at such a speed, as to create artificial black holes. Populations of synthetic black hole dusts, might be made to interact to create a new sort of engineering. These may be able to tap into the zero point energy to create copies of themselves. All this is highly speculative, but this might be a program of R&D that could result in the basis for building some of the things above. So, one can imagine a self replicating super intelligent disk made of smart super dense black hole dusts - that run off zero point energy - work in conjunction with more standard 'cabin' that is accelerated at high speeds and capable of interstellar travel. The system creates time cylinders and then uses them upon its return to effectively travel faster than light... But one cannot imagine it any time soon... or made cheaply any time soon. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Cheap Access to Space
On 6 Jan, 09:21, wrote:
There is a difference between doing science and engineering and just wishing. *If we constrain ourselves to science and engineering, we must outline some sort of logical program for attaining our goals. This generally requires defining clearly our terms. Anti-gravity is not a clearly defined term. *So, we first must detail what we mean by anti-gravity and how it relates to known laws of physics. We indeed have to define our terms (see further). "Antigravity" research has been reported by Janes. It could simply mean an ingenious way of exploiting the laws of aerodynamics, like the Coanda effect. The defense establishment plays everything close to its chest. Laws of physics are interesting in themselves, because they are generally subsumed by later laws. *That is, Einstein showed us how Newton was wrong in his view of space time relativity and energy. *He did not say Newton WAS wrong however. *In fact, Newton's laws of motion still stand, are stilll taught, and still are a testimony to the genius of Newton. *That's because Einstein EXPLAINED Newton in terms of his new ideas, and got the same results as Newton and was then able to build on it. So, while advances in science and technology will surely, some day show us the error of our ways and open up new and fruitful fields of endeavour and technique, the new science, the new technique will subsume our present art, and our present understanding, just as Einstein subsumed Newton. This means that anything the clearly violates Einsteinian or Newtonian results, must be looked at very critically. With this in mind what can we say about anti-gravity? Well, we must first identify what we mean by anti-gravity? Do we mean inertialess acceleration? *For what purpose? Do we mean low cost simple flight? Do we mean zero gravity? Do we me low cost simple space flight? *Interplanetary? *Interstellar? Do we mean simple low cost escape from Earth? Do we mean warp drive? 2,4 and 5 are in principle possible. I don't know what you mean by "3" as zero g is a natural concomitant of all space flight. If we have a low cost way of getting to LEO we would surely describe it as that and NOT use the term "antigravity". I have looked at the Website of "American Antigravity" http://www.americanantigravity.com/ A large number of things are lumped toether. If air rotates round a disc you will get lift. This is really not all that surprising when we recall that a wing of ye bog standard fixed wing airplane has air flowing faster over the upper surface. This is possible, could even be a fruitful line of research, problem is how to stabalize air flows. However it is lumped in with things that are definitely not possible. I would like to add something here. After WW2 the Americans were on the look out for Nazi scientists. There was the order of the Balack Sun http://sungaya.de/schwarz/allmende/schwarzesonne.htm http://naziufomythos.greyfalcon.us/discaircraft.html http://greyfalcon.us/BACKUP.htm The truth of the matter is that the Coanda effect was known for yonks. The Nazi flying saucers are again a mixture of feasiblity and hype. Subsonic verical take off discs were constructed and worked. Their performance though was inferior to that of the helicopter. They were also chronically unstable. The fact of the matter is that the CIA (as well as not having anyone who understands the Middle East) are scientific illiterates who prefer to consults with other people from their cloak and dagger world rather than consult reputable scientists. In short they swallowed the "Black Sun" whole. All these things have been associated with the words 'anti-gravity' - but each implies a different set of physical rules. INERTIALESS ACCELERATION This form of acceleration somehow overcomes inertia. *Force is applied to a body, but no forces are felt BY the body. *The advantage of this is that very large forces can then be applied without them being felt by the body. *This is good for high speed maneuvering. *This is also good for high speed interstellar travel. *At least for short ship times. * That's because it takes about 1 year to accelerate to near the speed of light. *A constant gee starship takes on the order of years to cross interstellar distances, and circumnavigates the universe in about 41 years. *Ship time. *Of course, a source of energy large enough to maintain acceleration is needed. Increasing acceleration to 10 gees reduces everything by a factor of 10. *An acceleration of a million gees, allows us to travel around the universe in minutes. *Which is pretty freaking amazing. *If we can do it. *There are some possible approaches to achieving this; *(1) Gravity linked bodies. *Imagine two bodies, one a very dense pancake equipped with some sort of high energy rocket, the other a conventional spacecraft. *The spacecraft navigates to FALL INTO the dense pancake, but before it hits the pancake, the pancake itself equipped with a rocket, accelerates away - so that the spacecraft never hits. *See what's happening? *A spacecraft is being accelerated toward an accelerating body and never reaching it. *And even though the gravitating mass with the rocket attached feels the force, the spacecraft falling toward the gravitating body is in free fall. *So, if the surface gravity of the gravitating body is 100 gees, the spacecraft would be in free fall toward it, and be accelerated through space at 100 gees. *If the pancake accelerated at 99 gees, the and the spacecraft sat on the surface of the pancake - the occupants would feel a 1 gee force even though they were be accelerated at 99 gees in the opposite direction. *It would take 3 days to approach light speed like this, and less than 5 months to circumnavigate the universe if energy weren't a problem. I believe negative mass to be impossible (as is FTL). Why is negative mass and FTL linked? In the beginning 13.7 billion years ago there was indeed negative mass. This produced "Inflation". Now Inflation is really a warp and the expansion occured FTL. The fact of the matter is that a negative mass cannot be constrained to be attached to a positive mass and travel at below the speed of light. The fact is it would produce a warp and travel FTL, although FTL really refers to warp and event horizons. It is the SPACE that is moving. I think this should be pondered. Negative mass is something that should be approached with extreme caution. I don't believe it can be produced, but if it could be we still could not circumvent the FTL paradoxes. BTW - COBE/WMAP has shown the Universe not to be of circular topology. If you trvalled at c you could traverse the Universe in 5 months of your time. The Universe though would still be ageing at its normal rate. (2) Accelerating all atoms equally. *Highly penetrating - but non- destructive radiation - like neutrino flux, accelerates all atoms equally that a neutrino beam passes through. *There would be little or no body forces using this system. *The amounts of energy would be tremendous (3) Reduction of inertia. *Some believe that inertial mass and gravitational mass are linked by the flux of virtual particles in the vacuum. *That is, a flux of virtual photons rain down around every particle in existence, and the gravitational effects interact with these virtual photons to exert a radiation pressure that is felt as inertia. *Unruh showed that this would create a body force only when particles were accelerated through the vacuum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect Elementary particle phics will not help us. The mass of particles is very much a bootstrap effect. Interactions cause mass. Somehow eliminating or reducing or engineering this effect to decouple inertial and gravitational mass could do some amazing things. *One of these is to switch off inertial mass and accelerate something with very little energy to light speed. * Then switch on the inertial mass again to slow it down. *This would violate today's laws of physics, primarily by creating a huge imbalance between kinetic and potential energies. *This however can be considered a way of tapping the vacuum energy - if it existed. LOW COST SIMPLE FLIGHT All the methods described above appear to be very difficult and energy intensive and are not conducive to low cost access to space. *Low cost simple flight is rather simple and does not contribute to spaceflight. (1) electric propulsion. *Nitrogen in air is diamagnetic. *Electrical and magnetic effects might be used to move air directly without rockets or wings or rotos or jets. Better to use a plasma. (2) MEMs based rocket array. *Micro-electromechanical systems have been built that spray rocket fuels around the way ink jet printers spray ink around. *These rocket fuels power very tiny rocket engines. Millions of rocket engines can be made to operate together, to create a wide range of propulsive effects, and in fact create a propulsive skin around an aircraft. *Due to their small size and high frequency of operation, the process is likely to be very quiet. *Due to the ability to operate together, they can even be made to actively cancel each other's irreducible noise. *Due to their high thrust to weight, performance is likely to be awesome. *Due to their large number, and small size, safety and reliability is likely to be unparalleled. Control surfaces are likely not needed either, as there are thousands of rockets likely pointed in the diirection needed to create whatever propulsive effect is needed. This is an interesting one. The only idea which could be feasible. In fact a hypersonic aircraft is going to work on a very similar principle. The airflow iself produces thrust. If you were to use nanotechnology and reduce turbulence kinetic heating would be reduced. One miight also be able to reduce turbulence inside a rocket and achieve a rocket with long maintainance schedules. ZERO GRAVITY Putting a large massive object on a set of columns has the potential to reduce the gravity forces immediately beneath it. LOW COST SIMPLE SPACE FLIGHT A gravity boost has been achieved in interplanetary flight by flying by Jupiter at high speed. *The spacecraft is in free fall and falls toward jupiter and away from jupiter at the same speeds. *But not in the same direction. *If jupiter were static it would be like bouncing a ball off the wall. *But jupiter is moving relative to the sun. *So, this is like bouncing a ball off of a baseball bat being swung by Babe Ruth! *Even though the ball bounces of the bat like it bounced off the wall, the moving bat imparts energy to it relative to the baseball diamond. *Same with jupiter and the spacecraft. Now imagine two massive objects in tight orbit around each other. *You could drop a 'ball' or space craft into this system, and it would fling the object out along any trajectory in the plane of rotation. Just be careful when and where you enter the system. *If the objects are orbiting one another at near light speed - the objects can be accelerated to near light speed very quickly. *A similar set of objects at the target point, could reverse the process and remove all the energy from the spacecraft. *Only slight rocket blasts would be needed for course correction and entering the target at precisely the right time and direction. The cool part here is that the energy in the spacecraft would be stored in the receiving bodies - and then be available to sent the spacecraft back from whence it came. *Ship board times could be minutes if speeds were high enough. *Spacecraft could be very simple. In fact a man or woman in a spacesuit, with a rocket pack and radio transmitter/receiver would be able to use two pairs of orbiting bodies to fly back and forth across interstellar distances very simply - and they would be in free fall the whole way. You would need far more energy to manoever the other bodies. - Ian Parker |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
FTL Propulsion Ideas Can't be Smeared and are Here to Stay
There is a technology which has the ability to utilize
the atomic vibrations in materials and exploit the prop- erty of "anharmonicity" in elements known to have a high G force. It is the nuclear "G force" that has nothing to do with either magnetic or electromagnetic attraction or repulsion, since these phenomenon become more as side- effect, but it is something that must filter out the QCD force that binds quarks with their connecting "gluons". http://home.comcast.net/~samuel_rans...rmapping.h tm I have reported on the biological effects of this phenomenon in many of my posts: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...8cf2bae41a6eee Increasing Phase Velocity: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...6eef7f9ef037cf The Geometry of a Hypercube in Hyperspace: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...85ac3025f6e6db FTL Theory of Operation: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...46f2b8fd9906fd There are many complex issues that must be resolved that IMO have a profound effect on "what we perceive" as our "very own" consciousness. There needs to be some interplay between the "zero time" or mysterious "gestation period" that actually splits spacetime into two parts: a "spacelike" part that incorporates a bosonic exchange that accomplishes the FTL, but added to that is the "timelike" effect that accom- plishes a human cell DNA "mirroring" effect in the sense that every single QCD effect can also be phase conjugated into some reversed, pre-translated physiological state. (That is what I'm currently investigating - does the phase-conjugation have to be "bottled" somehow or can it be performed during hypertranslation w/o distortion effects?) Glad to see the interest rekindled in "FTL trans- portation". I'm really confident that we'll see some progress on this sooner_than_later. American |
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 |