.. What if Tom Hanks filmed the...Future...of NASA instead of it's past?

On Jun 24, 4:52*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
wrote:

* *Well, many of us were motivated by that idealism in younger days,
* *but after it became apparent what Boeing, AT&T, IBM, and GM did to
that
* *plan, they switched over to AI, lasers, drones, computers, robots,
PV Cells,
* *orbiting silicon, and colder fusion.

I still want to see that helicopter weaving through the trees in the
yard....while trying not to hit them with its rotors as it heads in and
out of the garage.
The place for the copter isn't in the garage, it's on the roof. :-)
And speaking of helicopters, let's look at a helicopter of the future as
seen from 1935:http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2008/...gig-is-newest-...
That's one mighty primitive-looking thing even by 1935 standards.

Well, the bigger problem is that you can even look at roofs and
glass
by 1935 standards anymore.




Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...


wrote:

Well, many of us were motivated by that idealism in younger days,
but after it became apparent what Boeing, AT&T, IBM, and GM did to
that
plan, they switched over to AI, lasers, drones, computers, robots,
PV Cells,
orbiting silicon, and colder fusion.


I still want to see that helicopter weaving through the trees in the
yard....while trying not to hit them with its rotors as it heads in and out of
the garage.
The place for the copter isn't in the garage, it's on the roof. :-)
And speaking of helicopters, let's look at a helicopter of the future as seen
from 1935:
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2008/...west-aircraft/
That's one mighty primitive-looking thing even by 1935 standards



Primitive? Those are the original plans for the Osprey I think


..

Pat

On Jun 24, 4:52*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
wrote:

* *Well, many of us were motivated by that idealism in younger days,
* *but after it became apparent what Boeing, AT&T, IBM, and GM did to
that
* *plan, they switched over to AI, lasers, drones, computers, robots,
PV Cells,
* *orbiting silicon, and colder fusion.

I still want to see that helicopter weaving through the trees in the
yard....while trying not to hit them with its rotors as it heads in and
out of the garage.

That's bull - you'd place the trees so that you'd have clear view of
the sky

http://birdhouse.org/blog/images/helicopter_garage.jpg

An up to date version

http://www.helibuilder.net/Pictures/GarageDoor3.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brraveheart/129037857/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/indiapete/2138981009/

here's one in the trees

http://www.garagevermeerkersten.nl/i...copter_gvk.jpg


The place for the copter isn't in the garage, it's on the roof. :-)

That's possible too - they're not mutually exclusive

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jacksull/2408907720/

And speaking of helicopters, let's look at a helicopter of the future as
seen from 1935:http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2008/...gig-is-newest-...
That's one mighty primitive-looking thing even by 1935 standards.

Pat

Here's a more futuristic approach

http://design.caltech.edu/micropropulsion/
http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyM...PV2003_783.pdf

While considered for micro-spacecraft and attitude-control one can
imagine a multi-mega-thruster array forming a propulsive skin on an
aircraft - controlled by systems very similar to that of a plasma-
screen HDTV - 'painting' thrust vectors over the surface.

Imagine three MEMs based engines oriented in the x, y and z
directions. Now imagine them mounted on the surface so that their
resultant sum is normal to that surface. This forms one propulsive
element - just as three primary colors form one picture element
(propel vs pixel) - by varying the thrust in each of the three
'primary' elements, any vector can be applied to that propel in a wide
range of directions and amplitudes - applying values to all the
propels on a surface allows very accurate propulsive control of a
vehicle.

Williamknowsbest wrote:

That's bull - you'd place the trees so that you'd have clear view of
the sky

http://birdhouse.org/blog/images/helicopter_garage.jpg


The one shown in the illustration appears to be a Hiller Hornet, a
two-seat mini-helicopter that was powered by a ramjet on either rotor
tip. These were extremely noisy in operation, and the rotor span of the
aircraft was 30 feet.
Range was 31 miles Besides the inability to take the kids along with
you on a parent's trip to the mall (which better be pretty close with a
range limitation like that), imagine the size of the parking lot at the
mall if every helicopter there needs a minimum 30 foot diameter landing
circle for each arriving helicopter. Just for safety's sake you'd want
to make each landing circle 40 feet in diameter, and at a major mall
that today has a 500-1,000 car capacity parking lot you'd have to hike
from your helicopter to the mall entrance.
To get up to something that's equivalent to a family car in capacity,
you are going to need something along the line of a McDonnell-Douglas
MD-520N, and you may want to have a peek at the per-hour operating cost
of one of those - which was around $345.73 before the gas price crisis
got going full tilt:
http://www.mdhelicopters.com/helicop...tingcosts4.pdf

Assuming you could drop that figure to even 1/4, and you still are
talking a lot of money for that simple trip to the mall.
Any technology that would drop the operating cost of the helicopter (say
you replace the gas turbine with some sort of super battery) would also
be applicable to cars, so the advantage of it disappears. It's simply
more energy efficient to roll things across the ground than fly them
through the air. And although getting stuck in a traffic jam is very
annoying, imagine hovering over the mall parking landing field due to a
crash, and watching your fuel/energy gauge slowly working itself towards
zero. When your car runs out of gas, you generally don't fall several
hundred or thousand feet.


An up to date version

http://www.helibuilder.net/Pictures/GarageDoor3.jpg


Again, that's a two-seater like the Hornet. It would be fun from a
recreational point of view, like a aerial sports car, but it's not
what's needed to replace the family car - that has to carry at least
four people, and some cargo (i.e. groceries) as well.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brraveheart/129037857/


That was another two-seater from back in 1992.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/indiapete/2138981009/

Not the size of the "garage" which is more like a "hangar".
Now extrapolate that out to the two or three helicopter family, where
the garage is now larger than the house they live in.
here's one in the trees

http://www.garagevermeerkersten.nl/i...copter_gvk.jpg


Yup, a Hughes model 269 or 300... another two-or-three seater. Hughes
developed it back in 1955, and although they kept improving it over the
years, it's uses were limited to police, agriculture, and light military
duties, such as helicopter training.
Not only is there not one in my neighbor's garage, I've seen three total
in my whole life, and I worked at a airport for twelve years.
Schweizer now makes it...since this is at least getting into the
ballpark of the abilities needed by a private helicopter car
replacement, let's look at its specs:
http://www.sacusa.com/products/pdfs/300C_datasheet.pdf
Cruise speed - 86 knots, so that's acceptable.
....with 32 gallons of fuel aboard it can fly for 3.7 hours, so 3.7 x 86
= 318.2 nautical miles on one tank of gas, or almost exactly 10 nautical
miles per gallon, or 11.5 mpg as far as statute miles go.
This isn't very good; even a Toyota Tundra giant pick-up (I have a
friend with one of these...you almost need a ladder to get into it.)
gets around 15 mpg on average, and could easily carry this helicopter
around in its truckbed as far as weight goes.
It could also tow around 5 of them around in a fully fueled and crewed
state, as it can tow over 10,000 pounds, and they come in at 1,100
pounds empty or 2,050 pounds at max load.
Then there's initial cost to look at; a Tundra will set you back around
$23,000 to $40,000 for a fully tricked-out one.
A three-seater 300C will set you back over $300,000:
http://www.bush-planes.com/Hummingbi...pterPrice.html
....and then will come the insurance costs. :-)

Pat

You've explained why helicopters today aren't being widely used and
elided any reference to potential growth... which if investments were
made in this technology, would result in improvements in the features
you speak about.

On Jun 25, 11:52*am, Williamknowsbest wrote:
You've explained why helicopters today aren't being widely used and
elided any reference to potential growth... which if investments were
made in this technology, would result in improvements in the features
you speak about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moller_M200X

The first vehicle off the assembly line was supposed to cost
a paltry $500 thousand. If only 0.1% of millionaires and 0.1%
of multi-millionaires, totaling 3,004 in the U.S, bought a Moller
Skycar M200X, at the starting price of $500 thousand each,
how much would the assembly line costs be reduced for the
future consumers?

I think that the inventor, Paul Moller, is still holding out to
those who wish to reproduce the invention material (not the
patent) if and when mass production should start.

American

Williamknowsbest wrote:
You've explained why helicopters today aren't being widely used and
elided any reference to potential growth... which if investments were
made in this technology, would result in improvements in the features
you speak about.


They've tried to make improvements over the years, realizing the huge
profits that could be realized if a personal helicopter that made sense
could be made.. but the basic energy use profile of a VTOL flying
machine is poor in comparison to a wheeled vehicle, and its failure
modes generally a lot more severe. You can get rid of the rotor problem
in regards to needed landing space via direct lift by ducted fans... but
they are far worse in energy use than rotors are, and you lose the
ability to make a autorotating landing if the engine fails.
(but of course...any day now: http://www.moller.com/ These will make
the perfect replacements for our BD-5s)
Back in the 1940's and 50's everyone was playing around with flying cars
with folding or detachable wings...and the FAA let it be known that even
if they did get them to work they weren't going to be certified for sale
to the public, as drunk drivers were already a problem in
two-dimensional types of transport, and adding a third dimension for
them to weave around in wasn't going to help things any. A drunk driver
might run into your house, damaging the wall, but they seldom fall
through your roof.
So if we are going to go minicopter, let's go _real_ minicopter:
http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_...heliofly-1.php
http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_...liofly-357.php
You still have to watch out for the rotors on landing, but at least it's
compact.
Now picture hundreds of these hovering over the shopping mall as people
come and go.
Oh yes, this sounds safe. :-D
So we replace the rotor blades with a ducted fan to prevent the aerial
decapitations, and once again there goes the energy efficiency of the thing.

Pat

On Jun 22, 12:14 pm, "jonathan" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...



If the future is having to be entirely based upon sustaining the lies
upon lies of the past, what's the point (other than bad science
fiction)?

Oh no, with complexity science it becomes quite straight
forward to imagine the ideal future. The reason is just
a wonderful discovery of the new mathematics.

What complexity science has done is give us an abstract
mathematical model of the ideal evolutionary or Darwinian
system. Called the Complex Adaptive System. (CAS)

Your CAS as based upon Old Testament formulated lies upon lies shall
beget more of the same. The ideal Old Testament future as based upon
the DARPA New World Order has been under development ever since WWII.
How do you like it thus far?

Their need-to-know, evidence exclusions, topic/author stalking,
bashings and banishment seems to be doing just perfectly fine and
dandy. Mainstream status quo or bust has never been a happier camper,
especially in the realm of global energy domination and/or free market
control that only benefits the upper most 0.1%.


This is the idealized template or perfect form that any
evolving system might attain. A perfect form with which
to compare any actual system against.

So, you see don't you. A complexity scientist has the
CORRECT FUTURE or answer...in hand...in advance
.. for any real world problem at all. The only imagination
needed is in how to draw a path from here to there.

An objective frame leads to seeing only how bad things
are, and how difficult they are to fix. A complexity
view leads to a wonderful optimism as we can see
exactly what needs to be done to begin moving
towards perfection. Since perfection is no longer
some pipe-dream, but a mathematical model.

Complex Adaptive Systems - Webs of Delighthttp://www.calresco.org/lucas/cas.htm

Imagining the ideal future becomes a matter of grunt
work, just like designing the perfect business plan
based on the same concept. Or the perfect diet, or
stock chart etc etc.

Nature has already shown us the system with the
greatest potential for creation, beauty and wisdom.
We must simply apply that perfect solution to every
problem we face.

How can one recognize perfection once it sets in???
That's even easier, just look for the emergence of
power law dynamics or 'critical' behavior.

Power Law

"Power-law relations characterize a staggering number
of natural patterns"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law

Which is a system persistently poised at it's phase
transition state. Such as water just at the boiling
point, but not quite, or a cloud at the transition
point between evaporation and condensation.

Poised at a state where the forces for order and
disorder are equal partners, so one can't tell
which dominates.

Or biological evolution where neither genetics
or mutation dominates.

Or a universe where neither gravity or cosmic expansion
wins.

Such as a society poised between being dominated
by the rule of law, or freedom.

Or a ...future ...where our imagination is not limited
by our resources. They must be co-equal for
the future to evolve towards perfection.

The path to a perfect future lies in finding an
unending stream of clean energy. And in
the spread of world-wide democracy.

Which is why I go on and on about the opportunity
for democratic change during the Beijing Oympics
and SSP.

A program which conceivably could end our dependence
on fossil fuels thus solving global warming. Perhaps the
two largest future threats?
While making America the next energy "Saudi Arabia"
for the future

"NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM (SERT)"

"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Space
Solar Power (SSP) Exploratory Research and Technology
(SERT) program was charged to develop technologies
needed to provide cost-competitive ground baseload electrical
power from space-based solar energy converters."http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1

Statement of John C. Mankins
Manager, Advanced Concepts Studies
Office of Space Flight

"Very briefly, our results and findings to date can be summarized as follows:"

"a. Large-scale SSP is a very complex integrated system of systems that
requires numerous significant advances in current technology
and capabilities

b. A technology roadmap has been developed that lays out potential paths
for achieving all needed advances"http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/legaff/mankins9-7.html

I believe the goal of NASA should be to replace fossil fuels
with Space Solar Power, and accomplish this before
global warming becomes irreversible.

I believe China should become democratic.

Those two things and the perfect future becomes
almost inevitable. Both are ...right now...within
our grasp. We are so close, a little push with both
issues in the right direction could do the trick

s

What part of "I told you so" doesn't count?

Good and honest folks have been pushing for decades, and the DARPA
status quo has been pushing right back, except thumbs down all the
way, and so much harder because they get to use our hard earned public
and private loot, as well as using our best available talents and
multiple resources, including mainstream media and textbook context
control that goes along with promoting their Federal Reserve banking
cartel and their Zionist/Jewish dominated intellectual cartel.

Is there any part of their spendy New World Order that you don't like?
(apparently not)

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

And so little if anything of "Williamknowsbest" has yet to directly
benefit another living or soon to be prematurely dead soul.

Even our Zionist/Nazi DARPA (aka New World Order) has been doing a
better job than Williamknowsbest.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth



On Jun 24, 7:14 am, Williamknowsbest wrote:
I am a rocket scientist who was motivated to do the work to understand
rockets with the idea that in my future, there would be a helicopter
in every garage, daily commercial flights to the moon, settlements on
Mars, industrial development of the solar system in support of freedom
and liberty for all...

A litle of it is described herehttp://www.trashotron.com/agony/columns/05-24-02.htm

And I found a few sympathetic voiceshttp://www.bigear.org/JDKpassage-articles.htm#Dispatch20040723

The reality that transpired didn't involve space ships plying the
spaceways, and helicopters filling our skies -relies on reducing the
cost of imparting momentum to payloads. This is the critical factor.
Investment in cost reducing technology, stopped in the 1960s - and
progress ended there.

As a consequence, the reality our world is that over 12 million rocket
engines have been built and used, as rocket-propelled grenades.
Rocket science has been applied in the production of shaped charges
for these grenades to penetrate sheilding, and in the construction of
thermobaric weapons like the RPG-29 that efficiently decimate anything
within a well defined area of action for such weapons.

This has created a world that falls far short of the idyllic vision of
my youth.

My first job offer was with McDonnell Douglas to improve camera guided
bombs used in Vietnam. Much was made of the Nitske Criterion during
Reagan's SDI program - where the weapon cost more than the target.
We had already waged such a war in Vietnam, sending $200,000 bombs to
destroy mud hamlets.

This is not what I grew up to do with my creativity. My world was
more like that described in the video below ... I didn't want to be
the guy who made the bombs, airplanes and rockets more efficient - and
support a nation that had turned from liberator to oppressor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7vCww3j2-w

When I hear the following song, particularly the first two verses, I
am reminded that during the Clinton Administration following a
thorough inventory of of Russian nuclear arsenal, there were a handful
(exact number classified) of nuclear weapons missing from the Russian
inventory. Nearly all the man-portable weapons were gone. These
loose nukes are out there, we know they were built, we know they are
gone, we don't know who has them. Terrorists, or pre-placed to thward
a successful SDI development.

We won't know until they are used. All these weapons are larger than
the bomb that we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Every State
Capital is a target, even Ohio's Capital.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb9dFs0KaXA

Our goal as a nation should be to build a world of freedom and
liberty, opportunity and plenty where war is a thing of the past where
technology is appropriately applied to our problems to create win-win
solutions throughout.

To do otherwise, we are merely managing the decline of our species
into a post-technical era where our present hopes dreams and
aspirations will be impossible for our children and their children to
imagine.

Creating low-cost oil from sunlight and coal is but the first step.
There are others, even more difficult, but we must take them, we will
take them, with the right leadership.

Reducing the cost of momentum makes the following development arc
possible - based on the velocity relationship between Earth's surface
and the rest of the universe;

1) small suborbital payloads
consequence: ICBMs
paradigm: world peace/global thermonuclear war

2) moderate orbiting payloads
consequence: Telstar to Sirius Satellite
paradigm: global services - communications, navigation,
weather, sensing
(telerobotics at low cost change the way industry is
done)
3) large cislunar payloads
consequence: Apollo
paradigm: environmental movement/earth from space

The result of each development is a shift in global conciousness and
the arising of a global political paradigm since anything beyond Earth
affects everyone on Earth equally.

What's the next step?

The development of nuclear pulse rocketry permits;

4) very large interplanetary payloads
consequence: Industrial development of space resources
a) power satellites
b) asteroid capture and development
(using telerobotics)
c) settlement of the moon and mars
d) settlement of asteroids
e) manned outposts throughout solar system
f) interstellar probes
paradigm: Earth as center of an interplanetary frontier

Beyond nuclear pulse there is laser propelled rockets - which
traverses the same development arc as energy and power levels increase
- but at far lower costs and in far larger numbers

5) sub-orbital payloads at very low cost
consequence: instant package delivery
paradigm: global community subsumes nation states

6) moderate orbiting payloads at very low cost
consequence: expansion of industrial system to low orbit
paradigm: Earth dominates interplanetary industry

7) large cislunar payloads at very low cost
consequence: Space homes
paradigm: Diaspora - movement of humanity off-world

8) very large interplanetary payloads at very low cost
consequene: Mobile space colonies
paradigm: Golden age of Interplanetary development

9) very large payloads at 1/3 light speed at very low cost
consequence: Mobile slow boat starships
paradigm: Golden age of sublight interstellar expansion

Here, clouds of automated solar pumped lasers in tight orbit around
the sun coordinate their activity to synthesize large apeture
emissions - beam width's 6 million km in diameter - to project
powerful beams to light sail driven space colonies traversing to
nearby stars.

Next, worlds within 20 light years - will be settled within 60 years
of step 9 -

http://www.solstation.com/stars/s20ly.htm

131 stars, with 1,500 worlds/worldlets, all terraformed, or converted
to monumentally sized space colonies powered by the central star in
each system..

These stars exchange valuable objects at 1/3 light speed - and a
handful arrange to organize the collision of shaped iron-56 objects at
1/3 light speed -in an effort to create engineered black hole dusts.
The gravitational, electronic, and magnetic interaction of these
collection of dusts can be made to implement a wide range of products,
including computing platforms, and if certain engineering results are
forthcoming, brand-new ways to transcend time, space, and light speed,
even tapping into the zero-point energy of the cosmos to power new
forms of transport, and even self-replicate dusts made the hard way by
colliding iron-56 at high speed.

Success here provides the potential of the next step - which is more
speculative than the preceeding steps;

10) faster than light travel
a) time telephone
b) time travel
c) cosmic exploration
d) cosmic engineering

Starting with small masses and proceeding to larger ones. Self
replicating machines that tap the zero point energy of the cosmos to
extract from the Higgs field whatever is desired, would be unlimited
in their potential.

To Fermi's question; Where are they? The answer is obvious when we
look at it this way;

Starting at subsistence level, as industrial development proceeds,
standard of living rises with rising income for a given amount of
work. As standards rise, improvements are made in medical science,
which increases longevity, and survival of children. This leads to a
population explosion which peaks around $5,000 per person per year.
Beyond this point, reproductive rates fall. Why? Likely explanation
is that women become more educated, and both men and women are more
distracted in non-procreative activities. At around $15,000 per
person per year income, we fall below replacement level. The world
is at around $8,000 per person per year now, but nations like the USA,
Canada, most European nations, most Middle Eastern nations, and the
Asian Tigers, and Australia, are below replacement level and grow by
immigration.

This suggests that as the standard of living continues to rise
population growth rates will fall below replacement levels worldwide.

Not to worry, longevity research will extend life dramatically, and
the development of practical AI and its application to robotics, will
provide a means for the low wage nations to shift their labor burden
to robots as they ascend the industrial development curve.

Our propensity to warfare is a temporary fixation. It has been fully
explained by those who study it - ie. see Alice Miller and Drama of
the Gifted Child - and the development of 'tame' humans appears to be
a natural consequence of abundance. ie. see the development of the
Silver Fox by Russian researchers - and contrast that with the Cold
War Generation Gap of the baby boomers and their parents. A life
lived without serious frustration of desire leads to a different sort
of human than those who face nearly continuous frustration.

The result for humans is that

a) agressive impulses are reduced, and
b) numbers peak and then fall.

Comparing changes in reproductive rates and economic growth rates,
indicates that human numbers will peak at 8.5 billion - by mid
century, and decline slowly - as aging research extends lifespans.
Robot numbers will grow starting just after the peak, and rise to
exceed human numbers by the 22nd century.

Dropping at just 1/10th percent per year - with a human sphere of
influence expanding at 1/3 light speed - human numbers per star system
drop dramatically with distance - reaching barely 100 light years in
300 years where 2.5 billion people spread among 14,600 stars - 172,000
people per star.

Well before we reach the edge of the ...

read more »

The Hiller YH-32 Hornet had a 23 foot diameter rotor, not 30 foot as
you attest. The loading was extremely light, so that rotor could have
been reduced - since the lifting capacity was huge. There were 18
built - I just saw one recently at Dayton's Wright Patterson AFB
Museum.

The ramjet based tip rotors while simple to construct, operated
subsonically, so efficency was very very low - this limited range and
duration. Noise was a problem, as was night-time visibility - with
the rotor flames.

All of these problems are workable - as was demonstrated by the Jet
Gyrodyne

http://www.gyropilot.co.uk/downloads...0RTF%20Mod.pdf

Here an engine, designed to operate efficiently at subsonic speeds
produces a jet of super charged air that is directed through a rotor
to tip jets -here the noise is abated, due to the rotor itself acting
like a tuned muffler, and night visibility is not a problem - due to
the temperatures of the exhaust at that point.

The the jet can also be directed into the engine as the aircraft gains
altitude, increasing efficiency, allowing the helicopter to switch to
auto-giro mode - where the rotor is free spinning providing lift,
while the thrust is provided by two rearward pushing rrotors driven by
the engine. The thrust is also vectored - by changing the pitch of
each rotor on the stub wings - a fantastic innovation for that era -
to provide anti-torque control, and guidance in flight. It had a
range of 250 miles.


Today, a MEMs based jet engine array could quietly and efficiently
deliver thrust to rotor tips as well as to the main body of the
aircraft - to efficiently drive the vehicle around the sky.

Your comparison of flight weight to automobile weights and drawing
conclusions about utility is idiotic. The Corliss Steam Engine was
one of the big boys of the steam engine era - it massed 650 tons and
delivered 1,400 horsepower and was coal fired. Its about the same
weight as a 747, but carried far more tonnage, it could haul many many
747 parts cross company - about the same number of passengers
interestingly. What should we conclude about that? Obviously,
nothing, you idiot. The BTUs of coal to drive a fully loaded Corliss
cross-country is far less per ton-mile than the BTUs of kerosene to
drive a fully loaded 747 cross-country. Is the Corliss the preferred
method? Obviously not! lol.