A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Cheap Access to Space



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old January 3rd 08, 12:05 AM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default 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  
Old January 3rd 08, 03:10 AM posted to sci.space.policy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default 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  
Old January 3rd 08, 09:03 AM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default 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  
Old January 3rd 08, 05:23 PM posted to sci.space.policy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default 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  
Old January 3rd 08, 06:29 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Eric Chomko[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,853
Default 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  
Old January 3rd 08, 09:56 PM posted to sci.space.policy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default 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  
Old January 5th 08, 06:00 AM posted to sci.space.policy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default 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  
Old January 6th 08, 10:21 AM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default 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  
Old January 6th 08, 02:46 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default 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  
Old January 6th 08, 05:12 PM posted to sci.space.policy, sci.physics, alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
American
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,224
Default 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

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

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:36 PM.


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