Lunar Space Elevator simply isn't for everyone

Art Deco wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:

Essentially, everything can be built-to-suit the given task and
situation at hand (even somewhat modified on the fly), thus
accomplishing whatever it takes for keeping the CM/ISS tethered to the
moon, as well as a dipole tether reaching to within 25,000 km of Earth
is entirely doable. Just because there are a few pesky variables, this
isn't the least bit of a problem unless you're another damn pagan fool
from Naysayvill.

What this ongoing LSE-CM/ISS task demands is the prosayism of the likes
of whatever Ross A. Finlayson can contribute, whereas being
naysay/negative obviously isn't going to help. Any damn fool (aka
William Mook) can be the naysay buttologest, whereas it takes actual
brains and a touch of remorse from those contributing to the cause
that's going to make a difference.

Can you list all these naysayers, Brad?

--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official Agent of Deception
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005

"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief

To the space elevator, naysayers to the space elevator as a feasible
hope for SCRATS, Safe, Cheap, Reliable Access to Space? Uh, there are
several. Consider: Uncle Al. He does not see the Space Elevator's
feasibility.

If you go look at the plans for the actual space elevator, they involve
a perfect carbon nanotube with length some three to five times the
circumference of the Earth? Then, a spool of that is launched and then
the end threaded to a little rocket and that shot back into a giant
pincushion of sorts, unrolling the spool or actually forming the carbon
nanotube in payout as the rocket shoots back to Earth? Then that will
not be affected by Earth weather, Coriolis, UV radiation, or other
suspects of damage of the
single-point-of-failure-that's-125000-m-plus-long that is the cable?

Then, it involves a large counterweight in Earth orbit. I'm not for
having dinosaur killers in Earth orbit, what with the Moon being there
already.

The nice gentle supposed ride on the Space Elevator involves a
leisurely stay in the ionizing radiation of Earth's ionizing radiation
belts, and a leisurely stay after that for most forms of Earth life in
the hospital.

Brad, I can't say I support the CMM/ISS idea either. If it were on the
other side of the moon, that might be more feasible. Then if the "10
megatonne" kilometer-plus diameter counterweight gets loose it doesn't
land on Earth.

Clarke said something along the lines of that the Space Elevator will
be possible some fifty years after people stop laughing about it. Many
things have changed since then, for example it's been about a quarter
of a century since a man even left orbit. Many advances in carbon
nanotubes have been made, with the merest _possibility_ that they might
approach the required tensile strength, they're about halfway there, in
tensile strength, in millimeter lengths. That, is, much of it.

Ross

Ross A. Finlayson,
What in the hell is it about LUNAR SPACE ELEVATOR that do you not get?

Is the word "LUNAR" outside and/or taboo of what your all-knowing box
permits?

The ESE is nothing at all like nor worth squat compared to the LSE. Get
it? (obviously not)

I have no problems with the viable physics of the ESE fiasco, as being
technically doable. Spending sufficent time (aka decades), taking our
best talents and resources can accomplish damn near anything, except
cure the common cold and a few thousand other somewhat testing sorts of
things that are killing folks off by the millions and otherwise
stripping away any noton of their having any quality of life.

Brad, I can't say I support the CMM/ISS idea either. If it were on the
other side of the moon, that might be more feasible. Then if the "10
megatonne" kilometer-plus diameter counterweight gets loose it doesn't
land on Earth.
First of all, you and your naysay mindset obviously can't even spell,
as there is no such CMM/ISS.

There's also no such 10 megatonne counterweight, as it's more likely
going to become worth 256 megatonnes and, it's not actually so much a
counterweight as it is another small moon like orb, that which just so
happens to be tethered to the moon, which is a good thing.

A thermal nuclear device within this 256 megatonne (aka borg like)
sphere can essentially vaporise the entire sucker if that becomes
necessary, although fairly small thrusters of perhaps the
Ra--LRn--Rn--ion format will more than suffice for station-keeping
if the tethers go away. Nothing happens overnight, as it would takes
weeks if not months before the CM/ISS could ever become a supposed
threat to Earth, beside we're all going to soon enough die because of
what our resident warlord(GW bush) is planning upon doing anyway. So,
what's your point?

BTW; there are no such lethal "ionizing radiation belts" related to
LL-1, thus folks can actually survive a good stay, especially if kept
inside where there's 50t/m2 between yourself and of what's so gosh darn
nasty and lethal about space, and of otherwise shielded from getting
zapped by all of the lunar TBI worth of it's secondary/recoil
contributions of hard-X-rays.

Clarke said something along the lines of that the Space Elevator will
be possible some fifty years after people stop laughing about it.
Clark was only right if talking about a Lunar Space Elevator, whereas
long after we've been laughing our dumbfounded butts off from within
the efficient safety of the LSE-CM/ISS will there become a sufficient
understanding and subsequently those horrifically spendy CNTs in order
to create those relatively inefficient ESEs, whereas some of the raw
elements plus most of the required energy by which to construct and
operate your spendy ESEs will have been derived from the one and only
LSE and of it's tether dipole element that can if need be reach a
platform that's chuck full of those 100 GW laser cannons to within 4r
of Earth.

Your Earth Space Elevators notions are horrifically spendy to R&D,
spendier yet to construct and deploy, and they'll remain as nearly
impossible to keeping those suckers up and running, especially if you
and your friends keep ****ing off the likes of Muslims. If China or
some mostly Islamic/Muslim nation establishes the LSE-CM/ISS before we
do, there'll be no freaking way that your ESE's will ever last
throughout one lunar cycle. Are you planning upon deploying a new ESE
each week?

As you must realize, the payback for those ESE's isn't all that likely
to amount to 10% of their overhead, whereas the LSE's payback is going
to become worth more than ten fold it's overhead. Do the math and
count those lives that'll still be part of this life as we know it,
whereas your WW-III based ESEs are most likely of what's going to suck
the remaining life out of whomever's left standing, that which at this
ongoing rate will most likely become of those being primarily Muslims.

I'm not saying that your being passively OK with the godoffal spendy
and inefficient ESEs are not of what's some day going to be doable.
However, it's quite obvious that your naysayism and pro-Busishism is
stuck deeply into a very brown-nosed status quo, of a terrestrial box
mode of having to ignore the facts, excluding evidence and/or just
being downright opposite to anything that's not of your idea. Why is
that?
-
Brad Guth

There are lots of ways to build a space elevator. Carbon nanotube type
thread is only one of them. Another is to have a gauss gun type
arrangement where iron particles are ciruclated through a string of
electromagnetic coils and those coils are supported by drawing momentum
from the moving particles. My friend Bob Forward had this idea a few
years before his death, and even had built a laboratory version of it.
I like this idea actually - I don't know if it is the way to get us
into space the fastest, but it does have technical merit - the
economics have yet to be worked out.

In addition to static elevators as Ross described, there are dynamic
tethers. Bob also worked on these. The combination of a static tower
held up by a moving stream of particles all under electromagnetic
control, and reasonably sized spinning tethers in orbit picking up
payloads shot off the surface by the static tower - seem to me to be
very doable with today's materials and technologies. Again, the costs
have to be worked out in more detail - but its worth the effort.

Cable taper makes these things possible with today's materials. And,
cable walkers allow you to thread more cable without the need of flying
rockets back and forth.

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

But there are alternatives to space elevators and they need to be
examined too - to arrive at the most cost-effetive solution.

For example, if we have 20,000 sec Isp laser rockets -

http://pakhomov.uah.edu/Minigrant.pdf

Which is 10x more fuel efficient than 5,000 sec Isp characteristic of
older laser rockets - and a huge improvement in performance,

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

built into propulsive skins housing millions of tiny rockets all
working together to create precise thrust and control of spacecraft
they cover -


powered from solar pumped laser arrays in orbit -

This too can be a very efficient means at getting payloads cheaply into
space. And if it requires far less mass and material and cost and
effort - then its worth doing if the recurring costs are where they
need to be.

Nuclear pulse propulsion - especially when it uses fusion pulse units -
is also very interesting. It is capable of very high specific impulses
- 100,000 sec or more - and with these sorts of system we can build
rockets and propulsors on a scale large enough to move wordlets!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroi...ion_strategies

So, with this technology we have the capacity to lift massive amounts
of material off-world, any world, and transport it cheaply throughout
the solar system - in large quantity - and with this technology remake
life on Earth and life for all humanity.

If we can achieve this we will have fulfilled the promise of tecnology
and science to humanity. If not, science and technology will not have
fulfilled its promise to humanity.

When we start thinking in terms of cost and capital formation
requirements for optimal expansion, we have to understand what it is
we're measuring. This is where the cost of momentum comes from in my
studies. As the cost of momentum falls, the ability to sustain a given
mass flow rate between two points in the solar system, declines.

Since the celestial mechanics of the solar system are well known, we
can calculate the impact on mass flow rate between all points at a
given cost once we know the cost of momentum.

Momentum costs have been stuck at a very high level for 40 years -
following a brief period of decline. This is correlated with real
investment in rocket technology prior to the sticking point - and zero
real investment in cost reduction after the sticking point. This is
likely due to the need to maintain control over the misuse of rocket
technology and nuclear technology in creating WMDs.

However, assuming we can begin again the R&D pathway that leads to
lower cost momentum by investing in suitable technical innovations -
then, we can quickly see that we can change life on Earth and for
humanity, but bringing the vast resources of the solar system to bear
on our problems of industrial growth.

There are a handful of materials that we need and are in short supply
if we want the global economy to grow. This includes energy. Fighting
over access to these strategic materials shapes our current
international relations. Accessing strategic materials in abundance
off-world, changes this paradigm - and so, this technology is radically
important for the future growth of humanity.

Here is how I see it going -

1) Global direct wireless broadband - hundreds of satellites are
networked in dozens of polar orbits. Each satellite using GPS and an
omnidirectional data link, communicates with all other satellites in
the network at about 1 GHz. Augmented by a half dozen open optical
(telescope) laser links at 20,000 GHz - to communicate with the nearest
neighbor - and provide an optical backbone for the wireless web. Each
satellite is equipped with a large phased array microwave antennae that
paints a fixed pattern of cells from the moving satellite on the Earth
below. Small simple links connect wireless in each cell - using
existing terrestrial technology. By reusing frequencies and use of
time domain protocols - 100 billion broadband channels may be supported
- and hundreds of billions of dollars may be earned. This system is
put up and maintained by Delta Class reusable launchers using existing
propulsive technologies and existing launching infrastructure. These
launchers can be adapted to commercial manned spaceflight easily enough
- supporting space tourism and a return to the moon.

2) Global wireless power network - hundreds of satellites in GEO
capture sunlight and create laser energy this energy is beamed
simultaneously to millions of stationary ground recievers around the
world. Inflatable mirrors are deployed on orbit which focus sunlight
to a high intensity solar pumped laser. The laser beam is sent through
a conjugate optical 'beam steering' device. This device acts like a
synthetic hologram - it responds to pilot laser beams generated on the
ground and illuminated the satellite. The pilot beam acts to inform
the beam steering device in a way that a counterpropagating beam is
formed and sent to the origin of the pilot beam. The power beam
arriving in this way is some 1,000 to 10,000 more powerful than the
pilot beam. Interruption of the pilot beam shuts the power beam off
instantly. Changines in the atmosphere are detected by the pilot beam
and are communicated to the beam steering device which adjusts the
power beam to correct for the distortion. Light arriving at the ground
station is communicated by optical fiber to users - and laser energy is
converted to useful forms, white light illumination - using luminescent
dyes; heat - using blackbody absorbers; electricity - using bandgap
matched PV at high intensity - This system can cheaply make hydrogen
which in turn can be used directly in transport systems, but can also
be converted to hydrocarbon liquid fuels by absorbing CO2 from the air
with hydrogen. The system is put in place with Nova Class unpiloted
reusable launchers and Nerva Class nuclear upper stage - built around
the Space Shuttle and Energia hardware launched from existing manned
spacelaunch facilities.. These can be adapted to a manned return to
the moon, the creation of a manned outpost on the moon - and by
adapting the nuclear thermal rocket upper stage - the creation of a
nuclear powered station - similar to the nuclear power plant used in
Antarctica - which can be used to support a magnetic launcher on th
esurface of the moon.

3) Expansion of direct beamed power system to mobile receivers - use of
the system described above by mobile users directly. This involves
creating a network of thousands of polar orbiting laser regenerator
stations. Laser beams arriving from GEO illuminate the lower orbiting
polar satellite. These laser beams power lasers on board the polar
orbiting satellite to regenerate the laser beam at low altitude -
larger optics and lower altitude translate to shorter control cycles
and more precise aiming. Thus, permitting mobile applications..
Expansion of the GEO satellite network - making use of larger
satellites in GEO - allow higher per capita energy use, and eventually
result in the broad use of personal ballistic transport systems - since
these are totally automatically guided, these occur in a variety of
sizes - from FedEx package size to Shipping container size. Most
popular are single to six passenger sized fliers.In addition to laser
rocket coated propulsive skins, larger reusable launchers are built
using extensions of existing technology, and larger thermal nuclear
rockets are built.along with more capable nuclear power stations for
lunar and planetary bases. The construction of a space elevator on the
moon using circulating iron mass can be imagined occuring here - this
all paid for by profits in the space power business- which exceeds $2
trillion per year.


4) Deployment of solar pumped laser arrays inside the orbit of mercury,
and replacement of GEO based solar pumped lasers with laser pumped
laser regenerators - to expand the ability of humanity to travel
throughout the solar system. Also, the development on the moon of
nuclear pulse rocket test and research center. Here, nuclear materials
are removed from Earth - which would be widely supported in the
aftermath of a 9/11 type attack involving loose nukes - and relocated
on the moon. There, an international research lab converts the fissile
materials into non-threatening micro-nuclear triggers for a very
capable nuclear fusion powered pulse rockets. This is supported by the
creation of a very capable deep space nuclear pulse rocket along with
very capable laser pulse rockets that are used on planetary surfaces -
augmented by space elevators where practicable. When the traffic
volume and situation justify it, we can expect laser propelled craft to
be replaced tethers and space elevators -

5) Large nuclear pulse space propulsors capture rich asteroidal
feedstock and bring it into medium high polar orbit around Earth, as
well as smaller amounts of materials placed in orbit around the moon,
mars, and other locations of intense human activity. Remotely
controlled robots are used to man factories in space - which use solar
energy to transform the asteroidal materials into useful products.
These products are used in space to expand the productive capacity in
space - but also sent via rail gun to points on Earth and where
operating around the moon and mars and so forth, material is sent by
rail gun directly to users on those worlds too. Ultimately, very low
cost pressure vessels are made to compete with farms and forests on
Earth - so we have space based production not only of metal and ceramic
and other similar goods, but we also have space based production of
food and fiber for humanity - at low cost that are falling over time.
As telerobotics improve, they are eventually replaced where possible by
total automation - increasing the productivity of humanity even
further. Farms forests, mines processing centers, factories,
industrial centers of all sorts, are exported off world leaving Earth a
vast residential park fed 24/7 with energy material food medicines
wood, information, you name it - from orbit. People can live anywhere
at a very high standard of living and travel anywhere in minutes by
personally owned ballistic transport-

6) Expansion of the solar orbiting laser array expands capacity to
transport materials throughout the solar system - ending the epoch of
nuclear pulse rockets. Laser pulse rockets are used to move the bulk
of materiel form world to world. Farm and forestry vessels are adapted
to low cost housing and residential vessels, widespread use of very
capable and energetic laser propulsion system allows for personal
orbital transports to allow folks to live in Earth orbit - in very
large numbers, Use of laser rocket and laser light sail permit the
movement of space homes from world to world - at this point human
numbers on Earth start to decline.

7) Expansion of the solar orbiting laser array to intercept an
appreciable fraction of solar output - when combined with 1000AU
regenerator - permits the use of solar gravity to lens laser energy
around the sun, and support interstellar probes. Expansion of this
capacity expands travel in the outer solar system, as well as travel
beyond., People begin leaving the solar system.

8) Multiple sites of human settlements around nearby stars cooperate to
collide massive quantities of shaped iron-56 at 1/3 to 1/2 light
speed.- using variations of interstellar laser light sail - with the
idea of experimenting with engineered black holes and creating black
hole dusts - which interact to yeild perhaps useful devices. Devices
that might be capable of all sorts of interesting effects.

This is how I see the next century going - the sad thing is we could
have started this back in the 50s and we'd already be halfway through
it by now!!!

.. .

William Mook,
What's so gosh darn taboo/nondisclosure about LL-1?

Isn't the LL-1 zone the very lest costly place to establish our next
ISS?

Why are you afraid of using our salty moon for much of anything, and
apparently terrified to death of what the LSE-CM/ISS has to offer?

Other than considerations for using nukes on behalf of getting tonnage
to LL-1 in the first place (which by the way we don't actually have the
spare nuclear fuel to blow, unless you're planning on cancelling
WW-III), or of that notion on behalf of laser cannons pushing whatever
as far away from our moon and the likes of Venus as possible, whereas
nothing else you've offered has anything whatsoever to do with LL-1 or
that of establishing, sustaining and utilizing the LSE-CM/ISS and of
it's tether dipole element, of using the LSE primary tethers or of the
massive underground lobby, or that of the CM/ISS abode that's worth 1e9
m3, of it's massive counter-rotating flywheels for the task of energy
storage and of feeding those multiple 100 GW class of laser cannons for
transferring a good portion of that clean and 100% renewable energy to
Earth. All of which can affordably start off with existing technology
on behalf of establishing a few tonnes that's station-keeping within
the LL-1 zone.

I've never disputed that we should be stripping our nuclear WMD and
reutilizing such as fuel for the better good of humanity, including the
likes of your nuclear pulse propulsion. Although, as per reutilized
within rockets, how much of that fuel isn't going to be 100% converted
into thrust energy is somewhat concerning to those of us that have
already received a bit more than our maximum radiation dosage as is.
Perhaps you can specify as to the specific amount of unspent nuclear
fuel that'll go back into our already polluted environment per tonne of
payload deployed to LL-1, and of roughly how much infrastructure plus
the extra energy is this overall birth to grave process of having used
the nuclear fuel as for rocket thrust going to take? Or, isn't your
nuclear pulse propulsion just a wee bit of overkill for accomplishing
LL-1?

This is how I see the next century going - the sad thing is we could
have started this back in the 50s and we'd already be halfway through
it by now!!!
You're the one that sees absolutely nothing the least bit wrong with
decades upon decades of sustaining a mutually perpetrated cold-war,
that which has cost humanity trillions upon trillions per decade, and
that's not even counting if you were one of the tens of thousands that
paid the ultimate price due to the actions of those you clearly admire.

How many other nations can we continually afford to fight, and/or to
damage and thereby lose access to their best talents and resources?

How can we seriously accomplish LL-1 if there's only disinformation or
far worse to being had of the required rocket-science?

At this point I'm not at all certain if summarily butt kickings and
retroactive actions will be adequate for getting our NASA and other
nations back on the fast track of intellectual achievement in
Earth-science, moon-science, the science of space-travel and of going
for the ultimate goal of perhaps meeting those folks or of whatever's
still alive and kicking on Venus.

Since our NASA is so cold-war paralyzed or well on their way of going
out of the business; whom exactly should be encharge of doing all of
this?

Obviously the ESA's Venus EXPRESS team is going to benefit greatly by
their new and improved data about Venus, and meanwhile our pathetic
NASA is still glued solid to the nearest space-toilet, and otherwise
deathly afraid of even so much as looking at our moon.
-
Brad Guth

Brad Guth wrote:
William Mook,
What's so gosh darn taboo/nondisclosure about LL-1?

Nothing, afaict.

http://plus.maths.org/issue36/featur...ell/index.html


Isn't the LL-1 zone the very lest costly place to establish our next
ISS?

How are you measuring cost?
What is your ultimate goal?

To travel from Earth's surface to LEO requres that you accelerate an
object to about 7 km/sec. When you add in gravity losses and air drag
losses during ascent, of 2 km/sec, you need a vehicle capable of at
least 9 km/sec.

If you use a chemical rocket that means you need two or three stages.
If you're very clever and can reduce structural mass very low, and you
use the highest energy chemical propellants, you can do this in one
stage.

If you use nuclear reactor to heat hydrogen, you can to this in one
stage. You can build a two stage nuclear rocket to go beyond LEO, to
the LL1, to the moon, to mars...

Speedwise, LL points and the moon, and mars, are all very close;

To travel to LEO requires 7 km/sec
To travel to GEO requires 8.4 km/sec
To travel to LL1 on a minimum energy orbit requires 10.7 km/sec
To travel to the vicinity of LL3, LL4, LL5 - requires a minimum of
10.82 km/sec
To travel to the vicinity of the moon requires a minimum of 10.85
km/sec
To travel to the vicinity of LL2 requires a minimum of 10.9 km/sec.
To escape Earth entirely, requires a minimum of 11.00 km/sec
To make it Mars requires a hyperbolic excess velocity,and a minimumof
11.2 km/sec

Adding 2km/sec gravity/air drag loss - this means vehicles capable of;
EARTH LEO
LEO 9.0 km/sec 0
GEO 10.4 km/sec 1.4
LL1 12.7 km/sec 3.7
LLn 12.8 km/sec 3.8
LFR 12.9 km/sec 3.9
LL2 12.9 km/sec 3.9
ESC 13.0 km/sec 4.0
MAR 13.2 km/sec 4.2

Basically, once you get into LEO, a single chemical kick stage can be
used to bring you to any of these points in cislunar space. So, going
from LEO to LL1 doesn't do a whole lot for you.

Of course, if you build a space elevator from the moon to LL1 and LL2
for that matter, you can drop stuff off there - but you can use a space
launcher to do pretty much the same thing, which is what Gerard O'Neil
proposed.

A station at LL1 connected by a space elevator does get you to the moon
with about 2.4 km/sec less delta vee than you otherwise might.

But, if you use very capable of rockets - ones with very high
performance - the savings might not be worth the logistical cost of
just flying there with the right kind of rocket.

That is, 2.4 km/sec is a SUBSTANTIAL savings for a chemiical rocket.
Its not much savings at all for a nuclear or laser rocket and probably
not worth the cost.

Also, a lunar launcher can be built that tosses stuff with speeds of
about 3 km/sec pretty easily. So, when you're on the moon, you can
toss stuff pretty cheaply anywhere in the Earth moon system with one of
these.

The problem comes with landing. But, I like a concept I saw a few
years back and I haven't seen much more about. The use of aerogels to
slow incoming payloads! Its a crazy notion, but I like it - its off
the wall, but the science is solid.

You have a large block of aerogel material, a few dozen kilometers
long, a half a kilometer wide, and a half a kilometer tall with varying
density of gel from the surface to the top of the block. You navigate a
lunar spacecraft into a low orbit tangential to the block along its
length. The spacecraft enters the block and uses hydrodynamic forces
to slow the vehicle gradually to the point where it can land after
exiting the block by dropping only a few tens of meters per second from
its speed. The gel is structured in such a way that it acts like a low
density fluid - and the holes punched by the passing vehicle, collapse
and refill.

A large disk of aerogel material a little less than the density of air,
a kilometer or two tall and 30 kilometers in diameter could accept
spacecraft arriving from any direction and be more useful than the
smaller block. A number of magnetic launchers could operate beneath
this disk, pointing in a half dozen directions. So, a moonport can be
imagined that would allow the capture of arriving vehicles without
burning fuel, and the relaunch of the vehicles again without burning
fuel - and provide the same delta vee advantage of the space elevator
with none of the limitations and a very small fraction of the costs.

So, instead of building a space elevator thousands of kilometers tall
using advaned high strength materials to reach a single point in space,
we could build a fully capable moon port that had far more capability
at a small fraction of the materia usage, with materials we know how to
build today..

Why are you afraid of using our salty moon for much of anything,

I'm not.

and
apparently terrified to death of what the LSE-CM/ISS has to offer?

I don't know what those acronyms mean. LL1 I take to mean lagrange
point 1 - between earth and moon. I think a base there is over-rated
when you look at the lack of advantage. A tether to LL1 from the lunar
surface might have some merit, but only if you operate with typical
chemical rockets over the life span of the tether. If you're going to
the trouble of investing heavily in space travel, its more likely that
specific impulse will rise over time and the mass ratio advantages of
using tehters and such will disappear over time..

Further, tethers can be replaced by launchers and aerogel braking
combinations at far less cost with existing materials. So, this should
be looked at very closely by anyone postulating continuous and copius
investment in off world development.

I have no doubt that tethers and space elevators will have their role
to play - but assuming a space elevator to LL1 is the natural next step
in development, or critical to development is absurd.

Other than considerations for using nukes on behalf of getting tonnage
to LL-1 in the first place (which by the way we don't actually have the
spare nuclear fuel to blow, unless you're planning on cancelling
WW-III),

Eliminating the possibility of a large scale nuclear conflagration - or
even a small scale limited exchange - or even a terrorist loose nuke -
is a worthy goal.

or of that notion on behalf of laser cannons pushing whatever
as far away from our moon and the likes of Venus as possible,

Laser cannons are capable of power laser rockets across the solar
system. Laser cannons as you call them are capable of pushing light
sails interstellar distances. So, its not just a notion, you can
calculate the size of the optics needed using the Rayleigh criterion.

But, in sending a payload to Venus or Mars, we don't need to beam laser
energy across interplanetary distances. We only need to beam laser
energy to the farthest point in the accleration arc - which is still
well within the Earth moon system. So, even though you culd build an
optical system capable of projecting laser energy reliably across vast
distance, at the outset you don't really need to. You can use
atmospheric braking on Venus and on Mars to slow payloads down. You do
need something to accelerate back out from those places once you're
there. But if you have a solar pumped laser built at each location -
it can be used to send payloads back eventually.

whereas
nothing else you've offered has anything whatsoever to do with LL-1

I've never really considered it because its obvious to me that LL1 is
pretty much useless.

LL1 is an interesting point one of many in the Earth moon system. It
is in no way critical to the success of a lunar base,or commerce with
the lunar surface. If we have reusable chemical rockets with kick
stages taking payloads to LL1 rather than the Lunar Surface - we can
get rid of a whole stage by going there. But how do you get down from
LL1? A space elevator is a clever notion - and it would work. Is it
worth the investment? The answer is not likely. Because the thousands
of kilometers long tether is likely to cost more over its life and
deliver less payload over its life than direct investments in better
rockets. Of course, direct investments in better tethers is worthwhile
thinking about as well. and

See, if you build a tether AND build better rockets, the mass ratio
needed drops dramatically, and its logistically simpler to just build a
bigger propellant tank and fly your rocket from Earth to moon and back
and avoid the headache of stopping at the L1 space station and limiting
yourself to the rate at which that tether can handle stuff.

This setup pays dividends only if the tether is really cheap and
rockets are relly expensive - and minimally capable. It IS worth it to
go to the L1 space station tether system if you save a whole kick stage
AND launch stage - as would be needed with chemical rockets. With
laser rockets.operating at 20,000 sec Isp, powered by solar pumped
lasers in GEO - the difference between flying to LL1 from LEO and
flying to the lunar surface froom LEO - is still around 3 km/sec, but
it translates to a small change in propellant;

In roundnumbers;

LEO - LUNAR SURFACE -- 6 km/sec
LEO - LL1 -- 3 km/sec

So, the LL1 space station/tether combination cuts our speed in half -
and in terms of propellant we can calulcate;

For a chemical rocket; u = 4 km/sec, and for a laser rocket u = 200
km/sec

the rocket equation;

Ve = Vf * LN(1/(1-u))

solving for u - propellant fraction

u = 1 - 1/EXP(Ve/Vf)
u-chem
u-laser
LEO LUNAR SURFACE 6 km/sec 77,.6% 3.0%
LEO LLI 3 km/sec 52.7%
1.5%

We can double the payload per trip with a space station at LL1 equipped
with a tether to the surface - if we use chemical rockets, which is
worthwhile. We change the payload by less than 2% with a laser
rocket.

The propellant on board a laser rocket would weigh less as a fraction
of the total mass of the vehicle, than gasoline in your car.

or
that of establishing, sustaining and utilizing the LSE-CM/ISS and of
it's tether dipole element, of using the LSE primary tethers or of the
massive underground lobby, or that of the CM/ISS abode that's worth 1e9
m3, of it's massive counter-rotating flywheels for the task of energy
storage and of feeding those multiple 100 GW class of laser cannons for
transferring a good portion of that clean and 100% renewable energy to
Earth.

Gerard O'Neil did a study of using lunar resources to build solar power
satellites for Earth. He came up with a lunar base, launcher setup -
since that takes less technical and logistical resources and costs less
- than a tether - and if you're using lunar materials to build stuff,
most of the materials are leaving the moon, so a launcher without the
aerogel disk is perfectly okay.

Setting up solar collectors on the moon to beam energy back to Earth is
feasible, but a far less costly solution would be to use gas stabilized
reflective films - GBO films - that concentrate light onto solar pumped
lasers. These lasers using four wave mixing of light within a
non-linear optical element, can realiably beam energy simultaneously to
millions of users around the globe. The size of the transmitter is
proportionateto the distance you're beaming the energy - so, low mass
satellites in Orbit - launched from Earth by a NOVA class reusable
launcher, built around existing hardware - is the most direct lowest
cost path to having beamed energy on Earth.

Of course, once you start making hundreds of billions of dollars per
year profit - you can spend a portion of it on whatever you like! And
you could build a space station at LL1 and a tether to the lunar
surface if you like.

I do think that in addition to laser power sats in orbit in GEO beaming
energy to points on Earth - you could put a collection of powersats at
Lagrange points - and beam energy to the moon base, and to provide
propulsive power for rockets moving beyond the field of view of GEO
powersats.

All of which can affordably start off with existing technology
on behalf of establishing a few tonnes that's station-keeping within
the LL-1 zone.

Its perfectly doable that you could put a station at LL1 - its not
clear how you would build a tether to the lunar surface. You could
drop things though, but that would entail using a braking rocket to
have it land softly. Of course you could also use a laser on the
surface to power a high performance laser rocket - and not use much
propellant.

This would take far less power than projecting payloads off Earth - and
might we worth doing as part of a larger program.

I've never disputed that we should be stripping our nuclear WMD and
reutilizing such as fuel for the better good of humanity, including the
likes of your nuclear pulse propulsion.

Good.

Although, as per reutilized
within rockets, how much of that fuel isn't going to be 100% converted
into thrust energy is somewhat concerning to those of us that have
already received a bit more than our maximum radiation dosage as is.

Whatever the operaiton of nuclear pulse rockets does to the background
radiation is as nothing compared to what a nuclear conflict would do.

Perhaps you can specify as to the specific amount of unspent nuclear
fuel that'll go back into our already polluted environment per tonne of
payload deployed to LL-1,

Using chemical rockets with 4 km/sec exhaust speeds, you double your
payloads to LL1 by going through a tether. Using highperformance
rockets with 200 km/sec exhaust speeds, you make a trivial difference.


Well, nuclear explosions involve a minimum critical mass which depends
on density. Using conventionally compressed devices means we have 2 kg
or so per detonation, and each detonation produces actinide series
byproducts. We have 1000 detonations to escape Earth - and everything
done within the Van Allen Belt lets assume finds its way back into the
biosphere. So, worst case, we have 2 metric tons of actinide series
byproducts deposited over the entire Earth's surface..

This is equivalent to the by products of a massive nuclear exchange -
except you don't have the blast and prompt radiation effects, and you
don't have secondary irradiators created, and things are pretty evenly
spread - depending on altitude of release.

Even so, a launch of a single Orion style vehicle from Earth's surface
using this sort of bomblet would increase background radiation
worldwide by about 20% - this is unacceptable.

So, I wouldn't recommend this sort of thing used below 70,000 km
altitude - if ever..

Using intertial confinement fusion techniques to compress fissile
material increases peak density and reduces the minimum critical mass
of fissile material to about 20 grams or so. So, the total release per
launch is 20 kg - which is equivalent to a sinble 50 MT blast - againt
without blast effects or secondary radiators - and typical of the
releases of a single atmospheric test during the days of Atom Bomb
testing. Humanity tested nearly 1000 bombs over time - and so, this
doesn't add much to the background - so LIMITED USE of this technology
might be acceptable. Especially if it rid the world of nuclear
materials and loose nukes.

These small atombombs can be used as triggers for fusion bombs of
larger size, so the size of the rocket need not be reduced. In fact,
performance could substantially increase as the temperature of the
fusion blast is higher than the fission blast which ignites it. So,
fewer bomblets are needed - about 700 or so.


Antimatter catalyzed fission increases neutron yeild in the fissile
material and reduces the critical mass accordingly - to around 5 grams
or so. This reduces total release per launch to 5 kg - and cleans up
things sustantially. - and with fusion blasts - three launches of very
large rockets would release about the same radiation as a single
atmospheric test of the 1950s.

Anti-matter triggered fusion blasts are also possible. Dispensing
totally with fissile materials - with ZERO release of actinide series
byproducts. These could be flown in unlimited quantity with zero
release of long term radiation. The energy would come from Lithium 6 -
Deuteride fusion fuel, triggered with shaped antimatter charges.

The problem now is where to get the anti-matter. But that appears
solvable with the proper investment;

http://www.aiaa.org/Participate/Uploads/2003-4676.pdf
http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/2000/PV2000_3856.pdf
http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/2001/PV2001_3668.pdf

So, talking to the same folks that designed CERN and FERMILAB and
asking them to make an antiproton generator, and develop storage
technologies for antiprotons - and then design smallish fusion bomblets
that are triggered by antiproton annihilation - all appears doable.

Then using these bomblets to power a fleet of fusion pulse spacecraft
to carry payloads throughout the solar system appears doable to.

and of roughly how much infrastructure plus
the extra energy is this overall birth to grave process of having used
the nuclear fuel as for rocket thrust going to take? Or, isn't your
nuclear pulse propulsion just a wee bit of overkill for accomplishing
LL-1?

If these are built large enough - up to 4 million tons are possible per
launch - we could build our lunar base or Mars base or tether system or
whatever you like - on Earth as big as you like and launch it directly
to its final destination with this technology and deploy it.

So, a space elevator in Earth orbit, a space elevator for LL1, and a
fleet of deep space moon ships - could be launched in three separate
launches and in one fell swoop establish a rocketless or nearly
rocketless link that was capable of putting circulating 4 million tons
of payloads between Earth and moon in a week nonstop.

This makes sense if the fusion pulse rockets are limited - and they
are! By cost, and by availability of lithium-6... So, tethers space
stations and the like, are all like levers that increase the mechanical
advantage of these rockets - increasing the mass flow rate between
worlds. Careful attention must be paid to cost factors if we want that
mass flow to cost less per kg as volume increases.

This is how I see the next century going - the sad thing is we could
have started this back in the 50s and we'd already be halfway through
it by now!!!
You're the one that sees absolutely nothing the least bit wrong with
decades upon decades of sustaining a mutually perpetrated cold-war

I never said one word about the cold war either for or against - it is
statements like this that make me and others believe you are quite mad.
,
that which has cost humanity trillions upon trillions per decade,

Yes, Alice Miller in her book DRAMA OF THE GIFTED CHILD talks about how
it is that humanity finds it easy to spend trillions of dollars on
'defense' whilst spending nothing on 'peace.'

and
that's not even counting if you were one of the tens of thousands that
paid the ultimate price

Humanity has lost millions of people to violence in the past century.
So, your figure is vastly lower than actual ones.

due to the actions of those you clearly admire.

I don't know whom you mean by 'those' in the sentence above, and I
never expressed admiration for anyone in my post, so this clearly is
another one of those demented statements.

[snip]

Utter bull**** Brad - get help.

http://www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov/More_...alNon-Elec.pdf

More information about fusion propulsion

William Mook,
Thanks for all the interesting numbers and even a touch of prosay on
behalf of accomplishing LL-1 and usage of the LSE alternative. It
makes you almost human, up until the point that you have to continually
support the mindset and actions of our resident warlord(GW Bush) and
otherwise keep insisting by way of your mindset of infomercial-science
that's we've walked on the moon.

You obviously still don't have a clue as to the positive worth of the
LSE-CM/ISS, but then you have to support whatever it is that you
believe in, which excludes the truth as to what we should have been
accomplishing as of more than a decade ago, if not from the very get-go
since accomplishing LL-1 via the Saturn-V would have been absolutely
impressive, entirely doable and proof-positive believable to boot.

To travel from Earth's surface to LEO requres that you accelerate an
object to about 7 km/sec. When you add in gravity losses and air drag
losses during ascent, of 2 km/sec, you need a vehicle capable of at
least 9 km/sec.
So what?
Are you saying that our extremely inert massive Saturn-V did not have
"the right stuff" of what was needed?

Unlike those bogus Apollo missions, we're not having to zoom past LL-1
or even having to get there any too fast, just for gently coasting the
payload into the mutual nullification zone so that damn little if any
retrothrust is necessary. We're talking about parallel parking, not
per say going to the moon, and thus nearly 100% fuel/payload and least
inert mass efficient.

The trek of getting substantial tonnage to LL-1 should have the rather
significant advantage of a two-body alignment of using the sun and the
moon, not to mention having tidal forces on the side of most
efficiently getting a great deal of tonnage efficiently to LL-1
because, if need be the effort can take all of 29.5 days and there's
nothing that has to return home or thereby having the impact of
demanding spare tonnage of rocket energy and the associated machinery
for retro-thrusting itself into such a gentle halo/elliptical
station-keeping management of this interactive gravity-well orbit.

Basically, once you get into LEO, a single chemical kick stage can be
used to bring you to any of these points in cislunar space. So, going
from LEO to LL1 doesn't do a whole lot for you.
What the freaking sam hell are you talking about this time?
"going from LEO to LL1 doesn't do a whole lot for you" means exactly
what the hell is with your naysayism kicking in again?
I've never really considered it because its obvious to me that LL1
is pretty much useless.
As I've said before, "its obvious to me" that your dumbfounded
naysayism is pretty much stuck in a very brown-nosed and status quo or
bust rut.

Obviously of taking the fullest advantage of a much longer/extended
shot of using Earth itself, plus the sun and moon alignments as for the
gravity boosted velocity gain of getting the most tonnage with the
least energy as headed for parking at LL-1 is going to involve some
form of initial elliptical LEO.

We can double the payload per trip with a space station at LL1 equipped
with a tether to the surface - if we use chemical rockets, which is
worthwhile. We change the payload by less than 2% with a laser
rocket.
I believe you're somewhat underestimating the greater potential and
subsequent worth of not having to utilize those fly-by-rocket landers
that'll need to get invented plus R&D created in the first place.
However, I'll have to get back to a few other points, along with having
a few more questions, that is once I get my three dyslexic brain cells
up to snuff on what you've contributed.

I do otherwise appreciate those notions on "fusion propulsion", however
that's for another day and another time or planet whenever we're not
too busy at pillaging and raping the likes of mother Earth while
exterminating every other Muslim on Earth for the blood-sport of taking
their oil.
-
Brad Guth

William Mook,
Thanks for all those interesting and useful rocket-science numbers, and
even a touch of prosay on behalf of actually accomplishing LL-1 and
usage of the LSE alternative. It makes you almost human, up until the
point that you have to continually support the insane mindset and
actions of our resident warlord(GW Bush) and otherwise keep insisting
by way of your mindset of infomercial-science that we've walked on the
moon.

How are you measuring cost?
Negative cost since there gold in them thar hills, as in He3 that's
actually worth a hell of a lot more than gold, plus a few hundred other
benefits I could think of.

What is your ultimate goal?
The ultimate goal is still the LSE along with the 256 megatonne CM/ISS,
the moon dirt depot in the sky that's worth having because it's
entirely doable as is.

You obviously still don't have a clue as to the greater positive worth
of utilizing LL-1, or especially that of the LSE-CM/ISS, but then
you'll have to support whatever it is that you believe in (or else),
which excludes the truth as to what we should have been accomplishing
as of more than a decade ago, if not from the very get-go since the
task of accomplishing LL-1 via the Saturn-V would have been absolutely
impressive, entirely doable and absolutely proof-positive believable to
boot.

To travel from Earth's surface to LEO requres that you accelerate an
object to about 7 km/sec. When you add in gravity losses and air drag
losses during ascent, of 2 km/sec, you need a vehicle capable of at
least 9 km/sec.
So what? We've had all of that capability as of prior to the Saturn
series, and now we have the efficient Ariane 5 ECA as looking extremely
good at getting 12t to GSO at better than 66:1, and that should go past
the 18t mark with merely replacing those inefficient SRBs with LRBs of
h2o2/c3h4o, making the ratio 44:1, and perhaps we're talking as good as
36:1 if the core stage were also of h2o2/c3h4o.

Are you saying that our extremely inert massive Saturn-V did not have
"the right stuff" of what was needed?

Unlike those bogus Apollo missions, we're not having to zoom any of
this tonnage past LL-1 or even having to get there any too fast, just
for gently coasting the payload into the mutual nullification zone, so
that damn little if any retrothrust is necessary. We're talking about
parallel parking, not per say going to the moon and back, and thus
nearly 100% efficient by way of using the least fuel/payload and
thereby being of the least inert liftoff mass.

The task of getting substantial tonnage into LL-1 should have the
rather significant advantage of a two-body if not a three-body
alignment, of using the considerable Earth, sun plus moon advantage,
not to mention having tidal forces on the side of most efficiently
getting a great deal of tonnage efficiently to LL-1 because, if need be
this effort can take all of 29.5 days and there's nothing that has to
return home or thereby having the negative impact of demanding spare
tonnage of rocket energy and the associated machinery for
retro-thrusting itself into such a gentle halo form of station-keeping
management of this interactive gravity-well orbit. Thus it's pretty
much all usable payload that gets deposited into the LL-1 zone.

Basically, once you get into LEO, a single chemical kick stage can be
used to bring you to any of these points in cislunar space. So, going
from LEO to LL1 doesn't do a whole lot for you.
What the freaking sam hell are you talking about this time?
"going from LEO to LL1 doesn't do a whole lot for you" means exactly
what the hell is with your naysayism kicking in again?
I've never really considered it because its obvious to me that LL1
is pretty much useless.
As I've said before, "its obvious to me" that your dumbfounded
naysayism is pretty much stuck in that very brown-nosed and status quo
or bust rut, and therefore "pretty much useless". If you only intend
to think in such negative terms, in which case we'll need to furth
discuss those NASA/Apollo missions once again, or I suppose we could go
back to living in caves.

Obviously if taking the fullest advantage of a much longer/extended
shot of using Earth itself, plus the sun and moon alignments as for the
gravity boosted exit velocity gain of getting the most tonnage with the
least applied energy as headed for parking at LL-1 is going to involve
some form of an initial elliptical LEO, with a second and perhaps a
third burn plus a few course corrections along the way towards parking
that first 10t sucker at LL-1.

We can double the payload per trip with a space station at LL1 equipped
with a tether to the surface - if we use chemical rockets, which is
worthwhile. We change the payload by less than 2% with a laser
rocket.
I believe you're somewhat underestimating the greater potential and
subsequent worth of not having to utilize those fly-by-rocket landers
that'll need to get invented plus R&D created and proof-tested in the
first place. However, I'll have to get back to a few other points,
along with having a few more questions, that is once I get my three
dyslexic brain cells up to snuff on what you've contributed.

I do otherwise appreciate those notions on "fusion propulsion", however
that's for another day and another time or perhaps other planet besides
Earth, such as whenever we're not too busy at pillaging and raping the
likes of mother Earth while exterminating every other Muslim in sight
for the blood-sport of taking their oil, that's likely going to have to
burn itself out before the civil wars we've caused get down to any
viable dull roar (too bad they don't have the likes of Saddam kicking
butts, since that's pretty much exactly what it took in the past).
-
Brad Guth

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

If you go look at the plans for the actual space elevator, they involve
a perfect carbon nanotube with length some three to five times the
circumference of the Earth?

Actually, Brad was talking about a lunar space elevator: one which goes
from the lunar equator to the L1 point plus another thousand or so
miles toward Earth. In the lunar g-well, this allows kevlar materials
to be used, so no unobtanium needed there.

Also, you don't seem to be up to date on the nanotube science. The
current experts are getting over 20 GPa in significant lengths. They
have also found an alternative to pure carbon. Boron nitride and
Carbon-Boron Nitride form nanotubes that are several times stronger
than pure carbon tubes and do not suffer from oxidation problems that
carbon tubes suffer from.

This all being said, it doesn't do anything about an elevator to Earth.
But hey, once I get myself into space, the last thing I'd want is an
easy way for IRS and BATF agents to come chasing after me.