RC Rocketry - Ready to Fly to Orbit

On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 3:09:45 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 17/01/2015 3:20 PM, William Mook wrote:
On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 4:55:07 PM UTC+13, Sylvia Else
wrote:
On 17/01/2015 2:46 PM, William Mook wrote:
On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 2:27:44 PM UTC+13, Sylvia Else
wrote:
On 16/01/2015 6:19 PM, William Mook wrote:

I said these things can be built and explain why they would
be relatively inexpensive and because of this low expense
relative to larger systems more things can be tried out.

So you're looking for someone to fund your R&D. Presumably
they'll want significant equity in your business as a result.

Sylvia.

You are putting words in my mouth Sylvia. I never asked anyone
to fund any research.

I merely said I am happy to share information with qualified
buyers who sign enforceable agreements to keep what they learn
secret.

I have said what I have for sale.

I have told you why I won't show photos of what I'm doing and
given a reasonable explanation of why that is.

In response you have been very unfair in interpreting things and
now are putting words in my mouth.

You seem far fairer and open minded than others who have at
every turn attempted to slander me, but you are abandoning that
pretense to fairness in these comments.


You seem to have admitted that there's no working hardware,

I never said that at all.

so the basic R&D has not yet been completed.

Didn't say that either.

If you haven't launched it,

I never said that.

then you haven't completed the basic R&D.

So?

If you have launched it,

Yes?

it's scarcely credible that there's no footage.

I didn't say there was no footage. I said that footage and flight demonstrations are available to qualified buyers.


You really have nothing to sell,

That's quite the opposite of what I've said.

So you have something to sell,

Certainly.

but what you have has not yet been
launched.

Why do you say that?

Why would there be prospective buyers?

shrug If anyone wants to buy a small rocket capable of deep space flight, all they have to do is ask me, qualify themselves and we can talk.


yet you're talking about buyers.

Yes.

A reasonable interpretation is that you're hoping they'll front the
cash so that you can build a prototype.

Your understanding of finance is rather limited for you to say that.

I think not.

Then why do you persist in mischaracterizing my statements?



If it doesn't work, the buyer won't get their money back,

Wait a minute, you asserted something that wasn't true, and are now
arguing from your false assertion a false conclusion. shrug It
may make sense to you, but only if you accept the baseless assertions
you're selling! lol.

so they'd be taking a development risk.

Nonsense.

So you aren't going to accept money from prospective buyers?

No, not until services are rendered. That's the way markets work.


Sylvia.

Look these aren't big ass missiles - lol- they're small devices well below the threshold of regulation of absolutely no strategic or even tactical significant. Operated well outside the legal limitations for conventional versions of such devices.

On these matters reasonable people can disagree especially in the current era of imperial over-reach. Also, I take my responsibility to not allow others to engage in harmful activity seriously. So, I sell services and manage the entire flight cycle.

Also, I do not want to create a road map for competitors.

These are all valid reasons to be cautious.

Even so, any qualified users who present themselves and convinces me of they are genuine buyers, can see what I have demonstrated to their satisfaction - and on that basis make a buying decision to buy services based on existing hardware.

Something along these lines - flying ballistically to a well defined location and back demonstrates much, and is useful.

Consider 31.7780° N, 35.2354° E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3qFI0ievNY

to calibrate the systems...

probably violates many many rules and regulations, though in the end, nothing was really harmed. That wouldn't stop some regulators from raining on my parade, I am sure.

This is merely a small set of nested spheres built in 2011, which I discussed at the time, containing cryogenic propellants - coated with a propulsive skin of MEMS rockets attains a 4% structural fraction.

Such a vehicle is capable of nearly 14 km/sec delta vee. So, its possible to fly from the West Coast of NZ's South Island to the Dome of the Rock and back.. and execute a recovery - all with low radar cross section and low telecom emissions - using line of sight lasers.

Two spheres, one launched into a high suborbital flight to maintain contact while over the horizon from the launch centre.

A number of nested spheres operating together are capable of lifting significant payloads. Doing missions to the moon and so forth.

Since 2011 designs have improved along the lines described here.

Its not that expensive to build flying soda cans! lol.

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

On 17/01/2015 3:20 PM, William Mook wrote:
On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 4:55:07 PM UTC+13, Sylvia Else
wrote:

You seem to have admitted that there's no working hardware,

I never said that at all.

so the basic R&D has not yet been completed.

Didn't say that either.

If you haven't launched it, then you haven't completed the basic R&D.

If you have launched it, it's scarcely credible that there's no footage.


This is the *exact* problem I have with Mook. He claims there is no R&D
left to do when a sensible engineer concludes, from the public evidence
at hand, that there is not yet functioning, production ready, hardware
to actually sell. But, at the same time, he hints that such hardware
does indeed exist; he's simply hiding said hardware behind the veil of
NDAs and proprietary knowledge.

A real picture is worth far more than a pretty computer rendering.
Anyone these days can render a pretty picture on a computer. For
example, the renderings of a "real starship" which came from one NASA
"scientist" in recent years that looked like they belonged in the next
Star Trek movie. No one in their right mind would mistake those "NASA"
renderings for anything "real".


Elon Musk uploaded video of the recent Falcon 9 first stage landing
attempt that some will look at and call a "spectacular failure". There
is no argument that the stage went "splat" on the deck of the barge, but
that is concrete *public* proof of just how close Musk is getting to
success. Engineers wroth their salt at ULA know just what this video
means to their future. Whether or not they can convince their
management and their corporation's top officials of this is
questionable.




But the math PROVED it should have worked therefore it worked, therefore the
real world is actually wrong!

Or something like that.

I'm suddenly reminded of a person my freshman year that proved I could not
see Long Island from the CT shoreline.

He had the math and everything to prove it.


This is the public facing difference between Musk from Mook. Musk isn't
afraid to post his progress in public. Mook is.


Another real world example is how Lockheed won the X-33 contract with
NASA. With a wink and a nod the assured NASA, and the media, that they
could build a conformal, multi-lobed, composite LH2 tank for their X-33
design. But, they also told everyone that they couldn't show any
previous hardware even though they hinted it existed (wink-wink, nod-
nod, know what I mean?). We all know how that ended with NASA's upper
management claiming that the technology for SSTO simply did not exist
yet. NASA very carefully came just short of openly calling Lockheed
liars with those public proclamations.


In reality, I suspect Mook would never let any of the "regular posters"
here sign an NDA and see any actual hardware for the following reasons.

Jeff

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

In article ,
says...

William Mook wrote:

On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 2:27:44 PM UTC+13, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 16/01/2015 6:19 PM, William Mook wrote:

I said these things can be built and explain why they would be
relatively inexpensive and because of this low expense relative to
larger systems more things can be tried out.

So you're looking for someone to fund your R&D. Presumably they'll want
significant equity in your business as a result.

Sylvia.

You are putting words in my mouth Sylvia. I never asked anyone to fund any research.

I merely said I am happy to share information with qualified buyers who sign enforceable agreements to keep what they learn secret.


In other words, in order to see evidence that what he is saying in
public is bull**** you have to promise not to reveal that it's
bull****.

I was asking for one picture equivalent to the pretty CGI rendering of
his solar hydrogen generator that has 60% efficiency that's plastered on
the MokEnergy website. I don't see how revealing that could possibly
reveal anything proprietary.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On 18/01/2015 10:00 PM, William Mook wrote:

Consider 31.7780° N, 35.2354° E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3qFI0ievNY

to calibrate the systems...

probably violates many many rules and regulations, though in the end,
nothing was really harmed. That wouldn't stop some regulators from
raining on my parade, I am sure.

Are you seriously suggesting that you tested the system by flying it
into one of the most militarily sensitive areas of the world? If it were
true (and I don't believe it), I'd take it as evidence that you're too
irresponsible to be allowed to do this stuff at all.

Your posting just makes people even less likely to treat your claims as
credible.

The bottom line is that no one here is going to believe that you have
working hardware until you prove it, unequivocally.

While you're not willing to do that, one would have to wonder why you're
posting about it at all.

Sylvia.

Clueless people ranting about how Lockheed abused NASA's trust and the public trust don't know what the hell they're talking about.

There are unacknowledged programs. The XB-70, the U2, the B1 bomber, the B2 bomber, the F117A, etc., all were at one time or another unacknowledged flying hardware that could not be shown.

So, we know that in the aerospace community there are unacknowledged programs that do develop skill sets that are associated with these unacknowledged programs. Skills that themselves are not classified. Skills that when brought to bear or this or that problem, solves that problem.

The multi-lobe tank failure for the X33 could have been a learning experience had the failure not been exploited politically by opponents of the program.

Even today, opponents of the USA leading the world toward a space faring society, denigrate Lockheed's efforts and try to convince us that Lockheed was engaged in some sort of malfeasance.

That's utter BS.

In 2001, one space odyssey never made it to the launch pad. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration announced in March that it was pulling the plug on X-33 and X-34, two space planes whose combined cost exceeded $1 billion.

In inflation adjusted terms this was less than the launch cost of a single Saturn V. Under-funding a program and then blaming the program for lack of results is a tried and true method propagandists use to steer public opinion against the programs and others like it. LBJ & Nixon used a similar method to undermine the NERVA programs in the late 1960s - so it was an easy decision for Carter to cancel the program.

Despite America's abject lack of participation in lower the cost of space launch, the market for launch vehicles is still strong, and a number of private companies looking to reach orbit.

There is a payoff in launching satellites more cheaply. Space planes handling a variety of tasks from rapid package delivery to suborbital microgravity experiments are also a possibility.

The X-33, a combined NASA and Lockheed Martin project, was a prototype for the full-scale VentureStar vehicle proposed by Lockheed. This piloted, fully reusable space plane was intended to replace the space shuttle, as well as function as a commercial vehicle for space tourism. (The space shuttle costs about $1,000 per pound of payload, whereas commercial space planes would have cut the price to one-tenth of that amount.)

Despite being under-funded, the X-33 brought numerous new technologies to light, including

1) lightweight composite fuel tanks (which is used commercially in hydrogen fueled systems today)

2) a metallic thermal protection system lighter than the shuttle's ceramic tiles.

3) advanced autopiloting,

4) improved ground handling,


The X-34, developed in conjunction with Dulles, VA-based Orbital Sciences, was designed to test these technologies which are needed for a commercially viable space plane.


With both programs cancelled, Lockheed Martin, Orbital and Boeing are keeping busy with several other government-funded RLV programs, bearing names like X-38, Hyper-X and Future-X.

Jack Anthony, chief of the Integrated Space Experiments Division at the Air Force Research Lab's Space Vehicles Directorate at Kirtland Air Force Base, NM, hoped for a future X-33 program, with some modifications.

"As noble as it was, it proved to be a bit farther 'out there' than we thought," he says, referring to the X-33 as a "gem of a technology."

Among the improvements Anthony hopes for is "on-demand space access," which includes short-notice launching and quick turnaround time-especially useful if, for example, a satellite fails in orbit and needs to be quickly replaced.

Anthony also expresses hope for high-performance rocket engines that use low-toxicity fuels. One of the most promising, he believes, is hydrogen peroxide, which has been used since the 1950s but needs to be refined to allow vehicles to stay in orbit for a year or longer. The Space Vehicles Directorate is exploring these possibilities.

Anthony is a big believer in commercially developed space planes, and says that the cost to develop are greater than NASA provided funding for, and that was the reason for the events that happened. "My impression was they weren't getting the financial backing necessary," he said.

Enter NASA, whose Space Launch Initiative is designated to receive almost $5 billion between 2001 and 2006. By helping private companies develop reusable launchers, NASA hopes to achieve its goal of making space travel safer and cheaper for both the government and private sector by early next decade..

However, by spreading the money out and placing unrealistic restrictions on its application, the funding level managed in the way proposed virtually guaranteed failure to achieve the vision.

Had NASA awarded X-33 this $5 billion allocated by Congress, Venturestar would be flying to day. Yet, later the year X-33 was cancelled, NASA awarded a first round of R&D contracts to high fliers such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Orbital, Northrop/Grumman and TRW supporting a variety of platforms, all at vastly less than required for success.

Also funded was Kistler Aerospace, the Kirkland, WA, developer of a two-stage-to-orbit "space truck" that was already under contract for 10 satellite launches by industry heavyweight Space Systems/Loral. Kistler had also secured the right to operate at the Nevada Test Site run by the Department of Energy at that time.

Lack of adequate funding, clear focus, and over-reach, kept skill sets that support the nation's unacknowledged programs under wraps and under tight control of the NSA and other alphabet agencies.

Which is too damned bad.

On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 7:30:55 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 18/01/2015 10:00 PM, William Mook wrote:

Consider 31.7780° N, 35.2354° E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3qFI0ievNY

to calibrate the systems...

probably violates many many rules and regulations, though in the end,
nothing was really harmed. That wouldn't stop some regulators from
raining on my parade, I am sure.

Are you seriously suggesting that you tested the system by flying it
into one of the most militarily sensitive areas of the world? If it were
true (and I don't believe it), I'd take it as evidence that you're too
irresponsible to be allowed to do this stuff at all.

haha - Nonsense! I am very responsible, which is why it was a success. You have no idea of the care and preparation that flight took. So, why pretend you do?

Fact is, if I had no video evidence at all you would come to the same conclusion! lol. So, under what circumstances would you say, job well done? lol.

The answer is, NEVER! Because you're a stooge doing a job maintaining a toxic environment in a strategically sensitive channel.


Your posting just makes people even less likely to treat your claims as
credible.

Your attempt to frame any evidence in the most negative light is clear. What people are you speaking of precisely? The ones that believe we are being visited by aliens and cannot believe any human agency could build a rocket drone? lol.


The bottom line is that no one here is going to believe that you have
working hardware until you prove it, unequivocally.

The people here? You mean stooges like you designed to shut down strategically sensitive channels of communication? Look sister, the only people I care about are those who are qualified clients I feel comfortable doing business with.

While you're not willing to do that, one would have to wonder why you're
posting about it at all.

If you have such a low opinion of me and all I post, why go to the effort it obviously takes you to post anything at all about what I write? lol.

Fact is, you and other stooges you work with, want to frame anything I say in the most negative manner possible to shut down strategically sensitive information available to the public.


Sylvia.

On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 4:56:57 PM UTC-5, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

William Mook wrote:

On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 2:27:44 PM UTC+13, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 16/01/2015 6:19 PM, William Mook wrote:

I said these things can be built and explain why they would be
relatively inexpensive and because of this low expense relative to
larger systems more things can be tried out.

So you're looking for someone to fund your R&D. Presumably they'll want
significant equity in your business as a result.

Sylvia.

You are putting words in my mouth Sylvia. I never asked anyone to fund any research.

I merely said I am happy to share information with qualified buyers who sign enforceable agreements to keep what they learn secret.


In other words, in order to see evidence that what he is saying in
public is bull**** you have to promise not to reveal that it's
bull****.

I was asking for one picture equivalent to the pretty CGI rendering of
his solar hydrogen generator that has 60% efficiency that's plastered on
the MokEnergy website. I don't see how revealing that could possibly
reveal anything proprietary.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Just because you can't see how something happens, doesn't mean it can't happen. lol.

In article ,
says...

Clueless people ranting about how Lockheed abused NASA's trust and the public trust don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Which is why X-33's LH2 tanks flew so gracefully... My point stands.
Lockheed did not know what they were doing with X-33. If a similar tank
was produced for a "dark" program that succeeded, then it was either not
the same as X-33, or it was successful due to dumb luck.

There are unacknowledged programs. The XB-70, the U2, the B1 bomber,
the B2 bomber, the F117A, etc., all were at one time or another
unacknowledged flying hardware that could not be shown.

I never said there weren't. But when details of such are kept dark,
it's quite impossible for someone not "in the know" to validate
Lockheed's claims that they knew what they're doing (wink-wink, nod-nod,
trust us, we know what we're doing).

Trust, but verify!

Unfortunately, NASA could not verify Lockheed's claims and chose to
trust them with X-33. No, the effort was not all for naught as some
pieces of tech did soldier on (I trimmed your verbal spewing on this
quite tangential topic). But the program failed after about $1 billion
or so in spending on tech Lockheed assurred NASA would work right the
first time (it didn't).

My point still stands. X-33 failed because Lockheed did not *quite*
know what they were doing while NASA watched on, convinced that Lockheed
really did know what they were doing (wink-wink, nod-nod, know what I
mean?).

After all, the maths worked out on all of Lockheed's napkins that they
used to extrapolate from prior programs...

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article ,
says...

On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 4:56:57 PM UTC-5, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

William Mook wrote:

On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 2:27:44 PM UTC+13, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 16/01/2015 6:19 PM, William Mook wrote:

I said these things can be built and explain why they would be
relatively inexpensive and because of this low expense relative to
larger systems more things can be tried out.

So you're looking for someone to fund your R&D. Presumably they'll want
significant equity in your business as a result.

Sylvia.

You are putting words in my mouth Sylvia. I never asked anyone to fund any research.

I merely said I am happy to share information with qualified buyers who sign enforceable agreements to keep what they learn secret.


In other words, in order to see evidence that what he is saying in
public is bull**** you have to promise not to reveal that it's
bull****.

I was asking for one picture equivalent to the pretty CGI rendering of
his solar hydrogen generator that has 60% efficiency that's plastered on
the MokEnergy website. I don't see how revealing that could possibly
reveal anything proprietary.

Just because you can't see how something happens, doesn't mean it
can't happen. lol.

Just because I can't hear any sounds from the distant forest does not
mean I should automatically believe you when you say a UFO just crashed
there. I agree that if a UFO just crashed, I would not be able to hear
it. But, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Trust but verify. I have no basis for the first and the second is
hidden behind NDAs and CGI, both of which are quite easy to produce
these days. How to verify your claims... magic, perhaps?

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article ,
says...

On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 7:30:55 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 18/01/2015 10:00 PM, William Mook wrote:

Consider 31.7780° N, 35.2354° E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3qFI0ievNY

to calibrate the systems...

probably violates many many rules and regulations, though in the end,
nothing was really harmed. That wouldn't stop some regulators from
raining on my parade, I am sure.

Are you seriously suggesting that you tested the system by flying it
into one of the most militarily sensitive areas of the world? If it were
true (and I don't believe it), I'd take it as evidence that you're too
irresponsible to be allowed to do this stuff at all.

haha - Nonsense! I am very responsible, which is why it was a success. You have no idea of the care and preparation that flight took. So, why pretend you do?

Fact is, if I had no video evidence at all you would come to the same conclusion! lol. So, under what circumstances would you say, job well done? lol.

The answer is, NEVER! Because you're a stooge doing a job maintaining a toxic environment in a strategically sensitive channel.

You're using UFO footage on YouTube to support your claims? LOL!

Back to the "Bozo bin", as MicroPlanet Gravity calls its killfile:

PLONK!

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer