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

Where's the Free Market Going with Commercial Space Development?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old April 8th 10, 09:46 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.research
American
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,224
Default What's the Holdup with Nuclear Pulse Propulsion?

Assuming that each 3.94" diameter pellet weighs 2.261 grams, then
2.261(120 pellets) = 271.33 g

Velocity of the pellet into the injector

(V_f - V_i) / sec = 4.728 m / sec^2

1 dyne - 1 cm/sec^2/gm

(271.33)(4728) = 1,282,848.24 dynes can move
271.33g @ 4,728 cm/sec^2 (assumed w/o friction),

so the magnetic force

1,282,848.24 oersted

utilizes a field inductor with H = 1,282,848.24 Oe

phi = unit of magnetic flux = [N(i)(a)(mue)] / l =

[(360)(i)(pi)(0.2m)^2(100,000 henry/meter)] /(0.936m),

where for i = 1 amp,

= 48,332.1946 webers (or Teslas/m^2) = F/S


Additional Notes:

360 = # coils
i = #amps
0.2m^2 = radii of coil inductor
100,000 = SuperMalloy absolute permeability @ 20 gauss
1 Newton = 10^5 dynes
F/S = magnetomotive force / reluctance = #gilberts / reluctance
i_a = F / N_a, where F = # gilberts & N_a = total turns of coil

so if i = 1 amp, then 1 amp = 360 gilberts (amp turns) / 360 turns

phi = 48,332.1946 = 360 / R

- R = reluctance = 0.00744845
  #22  
Old April 9th 10, 04:55 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.research
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default What's the Holdup with Nuclear Pulse Propulsion?

On Apr 8, 1:46*pm, American wrote:
Assuming that each 3.94" diameter pellet weighs 2.261 grams, then
2.261(120 pellets) = 271.33 g

Velocity of the pellet into the injector

(V_f - V_i) / sec = 4.728 m / sec^2

1 dyne - 1 cm/sec^2/gm

(271.33)(4728) = 1,282,848.24 dynes can move
271.33g @ 4,728 cm/sec^2 (assumed w/o friction),

so the magnetic force

1,282,848.24 oersted

utilizes a field inductor with H = 1,282,848.24 Oe

phi = unit of magnetic flux = [N(i)(a)(mue)] / l =

[(360)(i)(pi)(0.2m)^2(100,000 henry/meter)] /(0.936m),

where for i = 1 amp,

= 48,332.1946 webers (or Teslas/m^2) = F/S

Additional Notes:

360 = # coils
i = #amps
0.2m^2 = radii of coil inductor
100,000 = SuperMalloy absolute permeability @ 20 gauss
1 Newton = 10^5 dynes
F/S = magnetomotive force / reluctance = #gilberts / reluctance
i_a = F / N_a, where F = # gilberts & N_a = total turns of coil

so if i = 1 amp, then 1 amp = 360 gilberts (amp turns) / 360 turns

phi = 48,332.1946 = 360 / R

- R = reluctance = 0.00744845


Can you and Mook work on the same research without either of you going
postal?

If so, the new and improved NASA think-tank is well on its way towards
making serious progress.

~ BG
  #23  
Old April 10th 10, 06:32 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.research
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default What's the Holdup with Nuclear Pulse Propulsion?

On Apr 9, 6:23*pm, Mordecai Boggs wrote:
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 17:21:17 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth

wrote:
Why?


Because you're psychotic scum living in a trashed-out trailer who's
done nothing but troll usenet for over a decade?


That's very Jewish of yourself.


You have long outspent your welcome, guthball. Time to put yourself
out of our misery.

I'm sure if you asked for donations to buy the gun and ammo, there's
more than enough people you've harassed and trolled over the past
decade who'd be glad to donate enough to buy you a gold-plated .44
Magnum with your name engraved on the ivory handlegrips.

So long as you keep your promise and remove yourself from existence,
I'm sure ther'll be no lack of people who'll volunteer to help you
out.

Do it, Guth. Find out for yourself that suicide -is- painless!


Your ZNR mainstream approved mindset is noted, just like we eventually
noted the mindset of Hitler, although not until it was too late for
millions that you and others of your kind could care less about.

~ BG
  #24  
Old April 12th 10, 04:29 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.research
American
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,224
Default Why Mine for Uranium in Space?

The following is quite possibly not a complete list of the
requirements for the shipment of radioactive materials.

Each of these requirements have links to their subparts, which carry
ordinances subject to fines, as listed in various other sections,
e.g. "Overpack Requirements", 173.25(a), the fine is $3,000,
"Reconditioner Requirements", 173.28, the fine is $6,000 to $10,800,
“”Portable and IM Tank Requirements”, 173.32e, 173.32c, 173.315, the
fines are $3,500 to $7,000, $3,500, and $3,500, respectively, as well
as many others listed (~150).

Other requirements concerning the transportation of hazardous (i.e.
radioactive) materials and their packaging/on-loading/off-loading
requirements are spelled out in minute detail, with fines applicable
to each phase of the delivery process:

Subpart A General

173.1 Purpose and scope.

173.2 Hazardous materials classes and index to hazard class
definitions.

173.2a Classification of a material having more than one hazard.

173.3 Packaging and exceptions.

173.4 Small quantity exceptions.

173.5 Agricultural operations.

173.4a Excepted quantities.

173.5a Oilfield service vehicles and mechanical displacement meter
provers.

173.4b De minimis exceptions.

173.6 Materials of trade exceptions.

173.7 Government operations and materials.

173.8 Exceptions for non-specification packagings used in intrastate
transportation.

173.9 Transport vehicles or freight containers containing lading
which has been fumigated.

173.10 Tank car shipments.

173.12 Exceptions for shipment of waste materials.

173.13 Exceptions for class 3, divisions 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 6.1, and
classes 8 and 9 materials.

Subpart B Preparation of hazardous materials for transportation
173.21 Forbidden materials and packages.

173.22 Shipper’s responsibility.

173.22a Use of packagings authorized under special permits.

173.23 Previously authorized packaging.

173.24 General requirements for packagings and packages.

173.24a Additional general requirements for non-bulk packagings and
packages.

173.24b Additional general requirements for bulk packagings.

173.25 Authorized packagings and overpacks.

173.26 Quantity limitations.

173.27 General requirements for transportation by aircraft.

173.28 Reuse, reconditioning and remanufacture of packagings.

173.29 Empty packagings.

173.30 Loading and unloading of transport vehicles.

173.31 Use of tank cars.

173.32 Requirements for the use of portable tanks.

173.33 Hazardous materials in cargo tank motor vehicles.

173.34 [Removed]

173.35 Hazardous materials in IBCs.

173.40 General packaging requirements for toxic materials packaged in
cylinders.

Subpart C Definitions, Classification and Packaging for Class 1
173.50 Class 1—definitions.

173.51 Authorization to offer and transport explosives.

173.52 Classification codes and compatibility groups of explosives.

173.53 Provisions for using old classifications of explosives.

173.54 Forbidden explosives.

173.56 New explosives—definition and procedures for classification
and approval.

173.57 Acceptance criteria for new explosives.

173.58 Assignment of class and division for new explosives.

173.59 Description of terms for explosives.

173.60 General packaging requirements for explosives.

173.61 Mixed packaging requirements.

173.62 Specific packaging requirements for explosives.

173.63 Packaging exceptions.

Subpart H [Reserved]
Subpart I Class 7 (radioactive) materials
173.401 Scope.

173.403 Definitions.

173.410 General design requirements.

173.411 Industrial packagings.

173.412 Additional design requirements for Type A packages.

173.413 Requirements for Type B packages.

173.415 Authorized Type A packages.

173.416 Authorized Type B packages.

173.417 Authorized fissile materials packages.

173.418 Authorized packages — pyrophoric Class 7 (radioactive)
materials.

173.419 Authorized packages — oxidizing Class 7 (radioactive)
materials.

173.420 Uranium hexafluoride (fissile, fissile excepted and non-
fissile).

173.421 Excepted packages for limited quantities of Class 7
(radioactive) materials.

173.422 Additional requirements for excepted packages containing
Class 7 (radioactive) materials.

173.423 Requirements for multiple hazard limited quantity Class 7
(radioactive) materials.

173.424 Excepted packages for radioactive instruments and articles.

173.425 Table of activity limits — excepted quantities and articles.

173.426 Excepted packages for articles containing natural uranium or
thorium.

173.427 Transport requirements for low specific activity (LSA) Class
7 (radioactive) materials and surface contaminated objects (SCO).

173.428 Empty Class 7 (radioactive) materials packaging.

173.431 Activity limits for Type A and Type B packages.

173.433 Requirements for determining basic radio-nuclide values, and
for the listing of radionuclides on shipping papers and labels.

173.434 Activity-mass relationships for uranium and natural thorium.

173.435 Table of A1 and A2 values for radionuclides.

173.436 Exempt material activity concentrations and exempt
consignment activity limits for radionuclides.

173.441 Radiation level limitations and exclusive use provisions.

173.442 Thermal limitations.

173.443 Contamination control.

173.447 Storage incident to transportation — general requirements.

173.448 General transportation requirements.

173.453 Fissile materials — exceptions.

173.457 Transportation of fissile material packages — specific
requirements.

173.459 Mixing of fissile material packages with non-fissile or
fissile-excepted material packages.

173.461 Demonstration of compliance with tests.

173.462 Preparation of specimens for testing.

173.465 Type A packaging tests.

173.466 Additional tests for Type A packagings designed for liquids
and gases.

173.467 Tests for demonstrating the ability of Type B and fissile
materials packagings to withstand accident conditions in
transportation.

173.468 Test for LSA–III material.

173.469 Tests for special form Class 7 (radioactive) materials.

173.471 Requirements for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved
packages.

173.472 Requirements for exporting DOT specification Type B and
fissile packages.

173.473 Requirements for foreign-made packages.

173.474 Quality control for construction of packaging.

173.475 Quality control requirements prior to each shipment of Class
7 (radioactive) materials.

173.476 Approval of special form Class 7 (radioactive) materials.

173.477 Approval of packagings containing greater than 0.1 kg of non-
fissile or fissile-excepted uranium hexafluoride.

Subparts J–O [Reserved]
Pt. 173, A Appendix A to Part 173 [Reserved]

Pt. 173, A Appendix B to Part 173—Procedure for testing chemical
compatibility and rate of permeation in plastic packaging and
receptacles

Pt. 173, A Appendix C to Part 173—Procedure for base-level vibration
testing

Pt. 173, A Appendix D to Part 173—Test methods for dynamite
(explosive, blasting, type A)

Pt. 173, A Appendixes E—G to Part 173 [Reserved]

Pt. 173, A Appendix H to Part 173—Method of testing for sustained
combustibility

If these requirements seem a little stiff, then it’s probably because
of their transport across populated areas deemed “hazardous”
throughout the U.S. via truck, rail, boat, and/or air. One might tend
to believe that if there were shipments of radioactive materials being
mined on the asteroids, the requirements might be less burdensome,
esp. if proper protective clothing, i.e. spacesuits were being worn
24/7 during processing.

An example of rad-protective clothing and man-made environments, which
may obliterate the burden of regulations surrounding the handling of
nuclear materials has been listed as density stats for radiation
protection:

Space Suit: 0.25 g/cm2
Command module: 7-8 g/cm2
Space Shuttle: 10-11 g/cm2
ISS Hull: 15 g/cm2
Scalar Interferometric Nested Dome: 2,000 g/cm2

The space suit used in the moon mission could only provide limited
protection - about 50 rem - which is not lethal, but would cause
radiation sickness - 300 rem being the limit.

However, 300 rem could be spread out over a few days to limit the
exposure.

A few interesting side notes from the link:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...54ba70bd?hl=en

Perhaps the most astonishing finding from cold fusion research is the
apparent observation of radioactivity reduction in the process. CETI,
one of the first cold fusion companies, recently announced (~ 5 years
ago) it had been awarded a US patent on an electrolytic process for
reducing the radioactivity of thorium and uranium. The company claims
its process can reduce the radioactivity of radioactive materials by
over 90 per cent in periods less than 24 hours - compressing into
hours what nature takes billions of years to do. A demonstration of
this seemingly successful process was included in the same Good
Morning America story which described Patterson's prototype water
heater, ref.

http://www.lightparty.com/Peace/MiracleInTheVoid.html

Here is a process of extracting Be-7 for the purpose of Neutron
reflecting:

http://www.ipm.virginia.edu/people/d...dickAU1999.pdf

Interesting, but Be-7 is slightly radioactive, and must be handled w/
extreme care.

So, if a radiation absorbing medium can be made to be appreciably
thick, perhaps some of the harmful radiation can be drained off using
the above methods w/o any harmful exposure effects.

Another link for gamma radiation-proof solvents:

http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/ChemSc...r_industry.asp

Maybe some kind of "solvent duct" between shell housings is the
application needed for protection.

Here WAS a link for a radiation proof polymer (I still have the
leaflet):

http://www.hnswp.com/pdfs/polymer_leaflet.pdf

The part "Electronic equipment protection from electromagnetic pulses,
radio wave effects, and solar radiation interference when directly
applied to the electronic equipment or component", was quite
interesting.
Protected body suits, gloves, and boots with Demron:

http://www.radshield.com/

"Radiation Shield Technologies (RST) is proud to offer DemronTM : the
new standard in personal radiation protection. This revolutionary
technology is currently produced as full body suits, gloves and
boots.

DemronTM not only protects against particle ionizing/nuclear radiation
(such as Beta and Alpha), but does what NO OTHER full body radiation
protection can do: shield against X-ray and low-energy Gamma
emissions. DemronTM is non-toxic and completely Lead-free.

DemronTM suits are constructed from a unique nanotechnology that far
surpasses the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of current nuclear-
biological-chemical (NBC) suits that only protect against radioactive
particulate sources."

Why Mine for Uranium in Space?

Space is rad-intensive anyway. Protective clothing and environment
conditioning using the above methods make off-world shipments less
burdensome, less costly, and less fearsome, given that a mining
enterprise may be able to exercise their own free market ingenuity a
bit easier than what regulations have been manufactured to stifle it
already.
Currently, around 48% of the world’s supply of uranium comes from
Africa, and around 10% comes from the Soviet Union, while the rest may
be mined in the U.S.

The strategic metal cobalt may become mined along with uranium, given
a near-Earth L chrondite asteroid. For example, a one kilometer
asteroid might end up providing 1.5 million tons of cobalt along with
similar amounts of uranium.

The results depend upon how mining ships and refining facilities are
built orbitally, launched trans-orbitally, and then rendevous-
retrieved transport of deliverables to customers.

Right off the space station, a nuclear pulsed freighter becomes
assembled utilizing modularized components using material specialists,
who would assist in the research, acquisition, and post-design
modularization of components for both the power satellite construction
center and cargo vessel. Since the "Center" as it is called is a place
where much of the actual construction for the cargo vessel takes
place, some provision for human living quarters, or "habitcons"
must be worked out so that the first few people that arrive must be
able to work inside an inflatable "bubble" with ceramic/steel framing
surrounding the core. See:

http://server6.theimagehosting.com/i...mg=bladder.GIF

The core "bubble with ceramic/steel frame" should be assembled, with
fully functional core "habitcons" in under 100 man hours time. The
core consists of an inflatable toroidal bladder that is restrained
against expansion by a web of straps. The straps are attached to a
rigid ceramic/steel frame using clevice/pin(s) on the internal
circumference. Four men, working 25 hours in a weeks time, should have
the core project completed and ready for expansion into the
construction center.

Once the core is complete, a new shuttle arrives with more modules for
construction, which are "unpacked" and assembled on to the core by a
crew of four men. The expanded core now includes a cargo bay storage
area with a cryogenic welding supply system in place, as well as the
habitcons with (4) potable water temperature controlled stowages (one
for each man). Now the center becomes dependent on the shuttle to
deliver replenishment food, water, and air, as well as additional
modules for con-struction of the cargo vessel fuselage, fuel cells,
etc.

One example of a power satellite construction center, as given
previously:

http://server6.theimagehosting.com/i..._facility..JPG

American

  #25  
Old April 12th 10, 11:59 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.research
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Why Mine for Uranium in Space?

It seems our moon/Selene has way more than its fair share of thorium
(10 ppm), as though it once belonged to a thorium rich planet such as
Venus.
http://www.lunar-research-institute....m_grl_1999.pdf

~ BG

  #26  
Old April 13th 10, 07:54 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.research
American
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,224
Default Why Mine for Uranium in Space?

On Apr 12, 6:59*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
It seems our moon/Selene has way more than its fair share of thorium
(10 ppm), as though it once belonged to a thorium rich planet such as
Venus.
*http://www.lunar-research-institute....1999/thorium_g....

*~ BG


Nothing like having a rogue uranium freighter mining the L-Chrondites
long before the moon underground becomes populated by a bunch of earth-
watchers IMO.

What's more fun than a porkulus of moon bats setting up motels on the
moon for rich people, so that everything their already-whored earth
has to offer them in the form of some twisted "environmental
replacement therapy" can only look inward towards their own hidden
agenda (more mind control for masses of earthly whoremongers IMO).

IMO mining for either thorium or uranium has to be done pretty much on
the fly, or we'll end up seeing moon bases like this producing nothing
but diminishing returns on the investment.

Fruits of labor have to sometimes die and produce yet greater
opportunity for succeeding generations of those who can begin again
to intentionally imprint their own "seed faith", given the pristine
surroundings that are conducive to meditating on some of the more
profound scientific theories, hypotheses, and alternatives -
alternatives to oppressive scientific regimes, as they exist so much
more ever-presently, in this nation and throughout the world.

Thus the best opportunities for growth are at the earth, or (earth-
like) sphere, however IMO even moon-based 3D VR machines for people
like millionaires, entertainment enthusiasts, and those not interested
in incessantly promoting the ideas and fortunes of the moon as a very
temporal "waystation" should be relegated to their local descending
level within Dante's Lunar Inferno.

Are you one of these?

By the time moon bases are achieved, we (should) have FTL vehicles
exploring the galaxy, and new earths being discovered on a monthly
basis. What happens when these new earths are ready for the human race
to migrate to them? Do you think that most of us will wish to stay
"left behind" with our moon bases and 3D VR machines?

I can only agree with you that the moon should serve as a nuclear
(thorium) fuel depot, and maybe possibly some kind of respite for
renewed gravitational reclamation in this case - nothing else is worth
the investment, IMO.


American
  #27  
Old April 13th 10, 10:03 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.research
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Why Mine for Uranium in Space?

On Apr 13, 11:54*am, American wrote:
On Apr 12, 6:59*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

It seems our moon/Selene has way more than its fair share of thorium
(10 ppm), as though it once belonged to a thorium rich planet such as
Venus.
*http://www.lunar-research-institute....1999/thorium_g...


*~ BG


Nothing like having a rogue uranium freighter mining the L-Chrondites
long before the moon underground becomes populated by a bunch of earth-
watchers IMO.

What's more fun than a porkulus of moon bats setting up motels on the
moon for rich people, so that everything their already-whored earth
has to offer them in the form of some twisted "environmental
replacement therapy" can only look inward towards their own hidden
agenda (more mind control for masses of earthly whoremongers IMO).

IMO mining for either thorium or uranium has to be done pretty much on
the fly, or we'll end up seeing moon bases like this producing nothing
but diminishing returns on the investment.

Fruits of labor have to sometimes die and produce yet greater
opportunity for succeeding generations of those who can begin again
to *intentionally imprint their own "seed faith", given the pristine
surroundings that are conducive to meditating on some of the more
profound scientific theories, hypotheses, and alternatives -
alternatives *to oppressive scientific regimes, as they exist so much
more ever-presently, in this nation and throughout the world.

Thus the best opportunities for growth are at the earth, or (earth-
like) sphere, however IMO even moon-based 3D VR machines for people
like millionaires, entertainment enthusiasts, and those not interested
in incessantly promoting the ideas and fortunes of the moon as a very
temporal "waystation" should be relegated to their local descending
level within Dante's Lunar Inferno.

Are you one of these?

By the time moon bases are achieved, we (should) have FTL vehicles
exploring the galaxy, and new earths being discovered on a monthly
basis. What happens when these new earths are ready for the human race
to migrate to them? Do you think that most of us will wish to stay
"left behind" with our moon bases and 3D VR machines?

I can only agree with you that the moon should serve as a nuclear
(thorium) fuel depot, and maybe possibly some kind of respite for
renewed gravitational reclamation in this case - nothing else is worth
the investment, IMO.

American


You seem to have your FTL cart well ahead of the mule team again.

You do realize there's a minor difference between being on the moon as
opposed to safely within the moon?

~ BG
  #28  
Old April 13th 10, 11:34 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.research
American
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,224
Default Why Mine for Uranium in Space?

On Apr 13, 5:03*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Apr 13, 11:54*am, American wrote:





On Apr 12, 6:59*pm, Brad Guth wrote:


It seems our moon/Selene has way more than its fair share of thorium
(10 ppm), as though it once belonged to a thorium rich planet such as
Venus.
*http://www.lunar-research-institute....1999/thorium_g...


*~ BG


Nothing like having a rogue uranium freighter mining the L-Chrondites
long before the moon underground becomes populated by a bunch of earth-
watchers IMO.


What's more fun than a porkulus of moon bats setting up motels on the
moon for rich people, so that everything their already-whored earth
has to offer them in the form of some twisted "environmental
replacement therapy" can only look inward towards their own hidden
agenda (more mind control for masses of earthly whoremongers IMO).


IMO mining for either thorium or uranium has to be done pretty much on
the fly, or we'll end up seeing moon bases like this producing nothing
but diminishing returns on the investment.


Fruits of labor have to sometimes die and produce yet greater
opportunity for succeeding generations of those who can begin again
to *intentionally imprint their own "seed faith", given the pristine
surroundings that are conducive to meditating on some of the more
profound scientific theories, hypotheses, and alternatives -
alternatives *to oppressive scientific regimes, as they exist so much
more ever-presently, in this nation and throughout the world.


Thus the best opportunities for growth are at the earth, or (earth-
like) sphere, however IMO even moon-based 3D VR machines for people
like millionaires, entertainment enthusiasts, and those not interested
in incessantly promoting the ideas and fortunes of the moon as a very
temporal "waystation" should be relegated to their local descending
level within Dante's Lunar Inferno.


Are you one of these?


By the time moon bases are achieved, we (should) have FTL vehicles
exploring the galaxy, and new earths being discovered on a monthly
basis. What happens when these new earths are ready for the human race
to migrate to them? Do you think that most of us will wish to stay
"left behind" with our moon bases and 3D VR machines?


I can only agree with you that the moon should serve as a nuclear
(thorium) fuel depot, and maybe possibly some kind of respite for
renewed gravitational reclamation in this case - nothing else is worth
the investment, IMO.


American


You seem to have your FTL cart well ahead of the mule team again.

You do realize there's a minor difference between being on the moon as
opposed to safely within the moon?

*~ BG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


When our government admits with START, that ALL non-nuclear weapons of
rogue nations, under the non-proliferation treaty, are either (i)
overseas contingencies or (ii) man-caused disasters, and there can be
no longer a nuclear option in the event of an intercontinental (as
well as off-world) THREAT, and there then is an absolute mandate to
accomplish an orbital/off-world PRESENCE, under the umbrella of
nuclear protection and power.

The current administration is (inadvertantly?) working against
establishing an independent, off-world presence by attempting to
enforce a progressive indoctrination (and protocol) over its citizenry
(us?) without protecting its sovereignity (theirs?).

ANYONE can see now that this is a power grab by the noxious adherents
(progressives) of America's own scientific and cultural descendency!

Admittedly, we should rather be building an army of atomic spaceships,
NOT nuclear forensic scientists!


American
  #29  
Old April 14th 10, 07:31 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.research
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Why Mine for Uranium in Space?

On Apr 13, 6:34*pm, American wrote:
On Apr 13, 5:03*pm, Brad Guth wrote:



On Apr 13, 11:54*am, American wrote:


On Apr 12, 6:59*pm, Brad Guth wrote:


It seems our moon/Selene has way more than its fair share of thorium
(10 ppm), as though it once belonged to a thorium rich planet such as
Venus.
*http://www.lunar-research-institute....1999/thorium_g...


*~ BG


Nothing like having a rogue uranium freighter mining the L-Chrondites
long before the moon underground becomes populated by a bunch of earth-
watchers IMO.


What's more fun than a porkulus of moon bats setting up motels on the
moon for rich people, so that everything their already-whored earth
has to offer them in the form of some twisted "environmental
replacement therapy" can only look inward towards their own hidden
agenda (more mind control for masses of earthly whoremongers IMO).


IMO mining for either thorium or uranium has to be done pretty much on
the fly, or we'll end up seeing moon bases like this producing nothing
but diminishing returns on the investment.


Fruits of labor have to sometimes die and produce yet greater
opportunity for succeeding generations of those who can begin again
to *intentionally imprint their own "seed faith", given the pristine
surroundings that are conducive to meditating on some of the more
profound scientific theories, hypotheses, and alternatives -
alternatives *to oppressive scientific regimes, as they exist so much
more ever-presently, in this nation and throughout the world.


Thus the best opportunities for growth are at the earth, or (earth-
like) sphere, however IMO even moon-based 3D VR machines for people
like millionaires, entertainment enthusiasts, and those not interested
in incessantly promoting the ideas and fortunes of the moon as a very
temporal "waystation" should be relegated to their local descending
level within Dante's Lunar Inferno.


Are you one of these?


By the time moon bases are achieved, we (should) have FTL vehicles
exploring the galaxy, and new earths being discovered on a monthly
basis. What happens when these new earths are ready for the human race
to migrate to them? Do you think that most of us will wish to stay
"left behind" with our moon bases and 3D VR machines?


I can only agree with you that the moon should serve as a nuclear
(thorium) fuel depot, and maybe possibly some kind of respite for
renewed gravitational reclamation in this case - nothing else is worth
the investment, IMO.


American


You seem to have your FTL cart well ahead of the mule team again.


You do realize there's a minor difference between being on the moon as
opposed to safely within the moon?


*~ BG- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


When our government admits with START, that ALL non-nuclear weapons of
rogue nations, under the non-proliferation treaty, are either (i)
overseas contingencies or (ii) man-caused disasters, and there can be
no longer a nuclear option in the event of an intercontinental (as
well as off-world) THREAT, and there then is an absolute mandate to
accomplish an orbital/off-world PRESENCE, under the umbrella of
nuclear protection and power.

The current administration is (inadvertantly?) working against
establishing an independent, off-world presence by attempting to
enforce a progressive indoctrination (and protocol) over its citizenry
(us?) without protecting its sovereignity (theirs?).

ANYONE can see now that this is a power grab by the noxious adherents
(progressives) of America's own scientific and cultural descendency!

Admittedly, we should rather be building an army of atomic spaceships,
NOT nuclear forensic scientists!

American


http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/s...ons/index.html

The USA and Russia could agree to a joint nuclear force which entails
a radical reduction in the total number of weapons

Country Warheads active/total* Year of first test CTBT status

Five nuclear weapons states from the NPT

United States 2,626 / 9,400 1945
("Trinity") Signatory
Russia (former Soviet Union) 4,650 / 12,000 1949 ("RDS-1") Ratifier
United Kingdom 160 / 185 1952
("Hurricane") Ratifier
France ~300 / 300 1960
("Gerboise Bleue") Ratifier
China ~180 / 240 1964
("596") Signatory

Non-NPT nuclear powers

India n.a. / 60-80 1974
("Smiling Buddha") Non-signatory
Pakistan n.a. / 70-90 1998
("Chagai-I") Non-signatory
North Korea n.a. / 10 2006 (2006
test) Non-signatory

Undeclared nuclear powers

Israel n.a. / 80 possibly
1979 (See Vela Incident) Signatory

At its peak the world had over 65,000 active nuclear warheads. ALL
that material, and additional stockpiles of weapons grade materials
are held, primarily in the USA and USSR. Enough to build 250,000
nuclear weapons.

This material far and away exceeds the fissile materials used for
nuclear power plants.

http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/

We could easily bring the nuclear weapons research labs under one
international agency, controlled by the USA and Russia, and convert
the world's weapons grade materials into 20,000,000 fissile nuclear
pulse triggers, that would detonate aneutronic fusion powered
propulsive pulse units.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimat...lse_propulsion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion

These triggers, totally useless without anti-protons to fire them,
are a far safer configuration for the fissile materials than anything
else, and far simpler to create. When used to trigger a fusion pulse,
they form a substantial and safe lift capacity.

One thousand pulses are needed for most missions, this is sufficient
to support 20,000 flight cycles. Lift capacity is a function of pulse
yield. A 10,000 ton spacecraft is easily achievable. Such a
spacecraft could send 5,000 tons to Mars or the Moon or GEO and return
for reuse, in as little as 60 days for Mars, and as little as 60 hours
for the Moon or GEO. Six flights per year would be possible for each
Mars ship, 60 flights per year for the Moon ship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project..._propulsion%29

75 ships each massing 10,000 tons at lift off, costing less than $7.5
trillion (including payloads) geared to a 20 year flight cycle with
existing fissile materials, and the following masses allocated;


ASSIGNED FLIGHTS

MARS SETTLEMENT
60% Mars 6 x 20 = 120 flight cycles/ship - 7,200 flight
cycles - 5,000 tons each
60 ships - 36 million tons on Mars - 1 flight per day

LUNAR SETTLEMENT
30% Moon 60 x 20 = 1200 flight cycles/ship - 3,600 flight
cycles - 5,000 tons each
3 ships - 18 million tons on Moon - 1 flights per day

POWER SATELLITE
10% GEO 60 x 20 = 1200 flight cycles/ship - 1,200 flight
cycles - 5,000 tons each
1 ship - 3.6 million tons on GEO - 2 flights per week

UNASSIGNED - RESERVE - EMERGENCY - 2 per day.
11 ships - 8,000 flight cycles - 727 per ship - 5,000 tons each
20.0 million tons - as needed.

With 2 million tons per year - over 5 million may be supported for 20
years without any infrastructure in place to grow food make air and so
forth. Over a 20 year period, it is likely a self-sufficiency will
develop and the 5 million will grow naturally to 20 million or more.

Launch center where up to 6 ships can be launched simultaneously - and
6 ships land simultaneously - 12 launch pads - and a fleet of 75 ships
each of 10,000 tonnes, fueled with a neutronic fusion fuel, triggered
by the world's nuclear fissile materials, sparked by anti-protons
production at FERMILAB and CERN.

To 'fly off' the nuclear materials in this way will cost less than the
$7.5 trillion spent in accumulating the materials in the first place

http://www.brookings.edu/projects/ar...s/weapons.aspx

The benefit will be human presence across the solar system.

At the end of the 20 year period we would have people living
permanently on the moon, mars, and outposts throughout the solar
system. A nuclear research center, and global defense command would
be established on the moon, under international control, and we would
totally transform our relationship to the cosmos.

A handful of engineers and scientists went to the moon in the late 60s
early 70s of the 20th century. Nearly half of these people were
transformed by their experience.

http://www.noetic.org/about/founder.cfm

The picture of 'meatball Earth' transfixed and transformed a
generation, giving rise to the environmental movement and currency to
the Gaia Hypothesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_flag

It is an absolute certainty that with millions living across the solar
system, instead of a handful of select individuals visiting the moon,
that a wide array of transforming ideas and feelings will be
engendered in the human species, and many issues facing us today will
be laid to rest as humanity awakens to a larger vision;

http://www.eckharttolle.com/home/


Its not whether or not this occurs, or if this occurs in this way.
Its who will make an effort to shape this awakening and make
technology a vital and enriching component to it?

At the absolute opposite end of the spectrum is the possibility of
loose nukes sparking a global thermonuclear war, decimating our
environment and leading to a massive die off in human numbers. Here,
the same five million will be placed into a transformative environment
and be awakened, but they will not be, and perhaps will never be,
capable of space faring technology after.


  #30  
Old April 14th 10, 08:40 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.research
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Why Mine for Uranium in Space?

On Apr 14, 11:31*am, William Mook wrote:
On Apr 13, 6:34*pm, American wrote:



On Apr 13, 5:03*pm, Brad Guth wrote:


On Apr 13, 11:54*am, American wrote:


On Apr 12, 6:59*pm, Brad Guth wrote:


It seems our moon/Selene has way more than its fair share of thorium
(10 ppm), as though it once belonged to a thorium rich planet such as
Venus.
*http://www.lunar-research-institute....1999/thorium_g...


*~ BG


Nothing like having a rogue uranium freighter mining the L-Chrondites
long before the moon underground becomes populated by a bunch of earth-
watchers IMO.


What's more fun than a porkulus of moon bats setting up motels on the
moon for rich people, so that everything their already-whored earth
has to offer them in the form of some twisted "environmental
replacement therapy" can only look inward towards their own hidden
agenda (more mind control for masses of earthly whoremongers IMO).


IMO mining for either thorium or uranium has to be done pretty much on
the fly, or we'll end up seeing moon bases like this producing nothing
but diminishing returns on the investment.


Fruits of labor have to sometimes die and produce yet greater
opportunity for succeeding generations of those who can begin again
to *intentionally imprint their own "seed faith", given the pristine
surroundings that are conducive to meditating on some of the more
profound scientific theories, hypotheses, and alternatives -
alternatives *to oppressive scientific regimes, as they exist so much
more ever-presently, in this nation and throughout the world.


Thus the best opportunities for growth are at the earth, or (earth-
like) sphere, however IMO even moon-based 3D VR machines for people
like millionaires, entertainment enthusiasts, and those not interested
in incessantly promoting the ideas and fortunes of the moon as a very
temporal "waystation" should be relegated to their local descending
level within Dante's Lunar Inferno.


Are you one of these?


By the time moon bases are achieved, we (should) have FTL vehicles
exploring the galaxy, and new earths being discovered on a monthly
basis. What happens when these new earths are ready for the human race
to migrate to them? Do you think that most of us will wish to stay
"left behind" with our moon bases and 3D VR machines?


I can only agree with you that the moon should serve as a nuclear
(thorium) fuel depot, and maybe possibly some kind of respite for
renewed gravitational reclamation in this case - nothing else is worth
the investment, IMO.


American


You seem to have your FTL cart well ahead of the mule team again.


You do realize there's a minor difference between being on the moon as
opposed to safely within the moon?


*~ BG- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


When our government admits with START, that ALL non-nuclear weapons of
rogue nations, under the non-proliferation treaty, are either (i)
overseas contingencies or (ii) man-caused disasters, and there can be
no longer a nuclear option in the event of an intercontinental (as
well as off-world) THREAT, and there then is an absolute mandate to
accomplish an orbital/off-world PRESENCE, under the umbrella of
nuclear protection and power.


The current administration is (inadvertantly?) working against
establishing an independent, off-world presence by attempting to
enforce a progressive indoctrination (and protocol) over its citizenry
(us?) without protecting its sovereignity (theirs?).


ANYONE can see now that this is a power grab by the noxious adherents
(progressives) of America's own scientific and cultural descendency!


Admittedly, we should rather be building an army of atomic spaceships,
NOT nuclear forensic scientists!


American


http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/s...c_weapons/inde...

The USA and Russia could agree to a joint nuclear force which entails
a radical reduction in the total number of weapons

Country * * * * Warheads active/total* *Year of first test * * *CTBT status

Five nuclear weapons states from the NPT

United States * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2,626 / 9,400 * * * * * 1945
("Trinity") * Signatory
Russia (former Soviet Union) * *4,650 / 12,000 *1949 ("RDS-1") * * * *Ratifier
United Kingdom * * * * * * * * * * * * *160 / 185 * * * * * 1952
("Hurricane") * * * * Ratifier
France * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *~300 / 300 * * * * * * *1960
("Gerboise Bleue") * *Ratifier
China * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ~180 / 240 * * * * * * *1964
("596") * * * Signatory

Non-NPT nuclear powers

India * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * n.a. / 60-80 * * * * * *1974
("Smiling Buddha") * *Non-signatory
Pakistan * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *n..a. / 70-90 * * * * * *1998
("Chagai-I") *Non-signatory
North Korea * * * * * * * * * * * * * * n.a. / 10 * * * * * 2006 (2006
test) * Non-signatory

Undeclared nuclear powers

Israel * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *n.a. / 80 * * * * * * * possibly
1979 (See Vela Incident) * * * *Signatory

At its peak the world had over 65,000 active nuclear warheads. *ALL
that material, and additional stockpiles of weapons grade materials
are held, primarily in the USA and USSR. *Enough to build 250,000
nuclear weapons.

This material far and away exceeds the fissile materials used for
nuclear power plants.

http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/

We could easily bring the nuclear weapons research labs under one
international agency, controlled by the USA and Russia, and convert
the world's weapons grade materials into 20,000,000 fissile nuclear
pulse triggers, that would detonate aneutronic fusion powered
propulsive pulse units.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimat...ar_pulse_propu...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion

These triggers, totally useless without anti-protons to fire them,
are *a far safer configuration for the fissile materials than anything
else, and far simpler to create. *When used to trigger a fusion pulse,
they form a substantial and safe lift capacity.

One thousand pulses are needed for most missions, this is sufficient
to support 20,000 flight cycles. *Lift capacity is a function of pulse
yield. * A 10,000 ton spacecraft is easily achievable. *Such a
spacecraft could send 5,000 tons to Mars or the Moon or GEO and return
for reuse, in as little as 60 days for Mars, and as little as 60 hours
for the Moon or GEO. *Six flights per year would be possible for each
Mars ship, 60 flights per year for the Moon ship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project..._propulsion%29

75 ships each massing 10,000 tons at lift off, costing less than $7.5
trillion (including payloads) geared to a 20 year flight cycle with
existing fissile materials, and the following masses allocated;

ASSIGNED FLIGHTS

MARS SETTLEMENT
* * *60% *Mars * * 6 x 20 = 120 flight cycles/ship - 7,200 flight
cycles - 5,000 tons each
* * *60 ships - 36 million tons on Mars - 1 flight per day

LUNAR SETTLEMENT
* * *30% *Moon *60 x 20 = 1200 flight cycles/ship - 3,600 flight
cycles - 5,000 tons each
* * * 3 ships - 18 million tons on Moon - 1 flights per day

POWER SATELLITE
* * *10% GEO * *60 x 20 = 1200 flight cycles/ship - 1,200 flight
cycles - 5,000 tons each
* * * 1 ship - 3.6 million tons on GEO - 2 flights per week

UNASSIGNED - RESERVE - EMERGENCY - 2 per day.
* * 11 ships - 8,000 flight cycles - 727 per ship - 5,000 tons each
* * * * * * * * * *20.0 million tons - as needed.

With 2 million tons per year - over 5 million may be supported for 20
years without any infrastructure in place to grow food make air and so
forth. *Over a 20 year period, it is likely a self-sufficiency will
develop and the 5 million will grow naturally to 20 million or more.

Launch center where up to 6 ships can be launched simultaneously - and
6 ships land simultaneously - 12 launch pads - and a fleet of 75 ships
each of 10,000 tonnes, fueled with a neutronic fusion fuel, triggered
by the world's nuclear fissile materials, sparked by anti-protons
production at FERMILAB and CERN.

To 'fly off' the nuclear materials in this way will cost less than the
$7.5 trillion spent in accumulating the materials in the first place

http://www.brookings.edu/projects/ar...s/weapons.aspx

The benefit will be human presence across the solar system.

At the end of the 20 year period we would have people living
permanently on the moon, mars, and outposts throughout the solar
system. *A nuclear research center, and global defense command would
be established on the moon, under international control, and we would
totally transform our relationship to the cosmos.

A handful of engineers and scientists went to the moon in the late 60s
early 70s of the 20th century. *Nearly half of these people were
transformed by their experience.

http://www.noetic.org/about/founder.cfm

The picture of 'meatball Earth' transfixed and transformed a
generation, giving rise to the environmental movement and currency to
the Gaia Hypothesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_flag

It is an absolute certainty that with millions living across the solar
system, instead of a handful of select individuals visiting the moon,
that a wide array of transforming ideas and feelings will be
engendered in the human species, and many issues facing us today will
be laid to rest as humanity awakens to a larger vision;

http://www.eckharttolle.com/home/

Its not whether or not this occurs, or if this occurs in this way.
Its who will make an effort to shape this awakening and make
technology a vital and enriching component to it?

At the absolute opposite end of the spectrum is the possibility of
loose nukes sparking a global thermonuclear war, decimating our
environment and leading to a massive die off in human numbers. *Here,
the same five million will be placed into a transformative environment
and be awakened, but they will not be, and perhaps will never be,
capable of space faring technology after.


Instead of mutually perpetrating a terribly spendy as well as global
inflationary and otherwise lethal consequences of that cold-war era,
as of decades ago we could have gone for the mutual global nuclear
force thing, and saved ourselves trillions and countless lives to
boot. 9/11 and a few other costly wars of horrific collateral damage
would most likely never have happened.

~ BG
 




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
Many Americans ask themselves, "Who can afford Rolex's $6,995Yachtmaster watch?" The sad fact is that this is not even the most expensiveone on the market. While they've carved out a distinctive niche in the highclass luxury market, many pe [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 0 April 22nd 08 03:53 AM
Many Americans ask themselves, "Who can afford Rolex's $6,995Yachtmaster watch?" The sad fact is that this is not even the most expensiveone on the market. While they've carved out a distinctive niche in the highclass luxury market, many pe [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 0 April 21st 08 07:24 AM
Space model kit market survey... Scott Lowther Policy 24 April 22nd 04 03:28 PM
Space Market nix.olimpica Policy 0 December 4th 03 05:43 PM
Boeing pulls Delta IV from commercial launch market Damon Hill Policy 25 August 24th 03 05:18 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:14 AM.


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.