Jack, you might have it all wrong about the Mexicans stealing a march on us with their secret launch facility in Cuba. I mean, maybe they *think* they are stealing a march, but they are actually clueless. Really, they are way behind the game.
Last night we were treated to quite a sight: Mars right near the Moon, in the Tokyo night sky. I got to talking with some guys I'd just met, and one of them mentioned an idea I hadn't heard of before: that some countries already have set up bases on the Moon and Mars, on the sly. But why would other countries do this? As Mars drew ever closer to the Moon, I thought hard about this idea (which sort of turns the Apollo Hoax theory inside-out.) Eventually, I could no longer see Mars. Now here's the kicker: there was no evidence of impact. Despite the absence of air molecules in space that would otherwise impede and muffle the shock wave, we didn't hear Mars strike the Moon. And later on that night, Mars reappeared on the other side of the Moon, apparently none the worse for the experience. Clearly, someone dug a very long tunnel, wide enough for Mars to pass through without harm. The probability of such a tunnel occurring naturally seems vanishingly small to me. This, of course, explains why certain other countries would have facilities on the Moon and Mars -- catastrophe management. And their secretiveness? Well, I guess they don't want people to get unnecessarily alarmed. It all fits, when you think about it. -michael turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Reeve, Jack W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 10:40 PM Subject: RE: micro-nano-pico engines (was Re: Prometheus propulsion) > > Sorry to put the final nail in the coffin of the S5, but I have it on > good account that the last existing 3rd stage engine, for which there > are no existing plans or other prototypes, was obliterated in a high > speed impact. > > Seems an LSD-addicted grad student/intern working at the Space Center > here in Houston stole it, rigged it up on a 1964 Mercury pick-up truck > (oddly, the last one of them too), and rigged it for testing in Big Bend > Park, on the Rio Grande. > > Our brave, albeit idiotic and ergo doomed Texan Icarus got behind the > wheel and fired it up. The entire ungainly assembly immediately took to > the air, achieved Mach 0.88, crossed the Big River and slammed into a > mountain side some 55 miles SSE of Ciudad Juarez. > > The Mexican government, despite an outraged (though still covert) CIA > and White House, swept the crash site clean of all debris and disavowed > any knowledge of the incident. They have since reclaimed the > technology, R. E.'ed it into three sizes and are secretly testing their > own heavy launch vehicle at this writing. The presence of numerous > Russian rocket scientists and Cuban automotive executives in the night > clubs in Nuevo Laredo confirms my worst suspicion. Mexico is about to > eclipse us all, and take the first real step into commercial > exploitation of the space business. > > Though it saddens me that this item has been succinctly put to rest, > perhaps we can all now refocus upon our favorite shiny marble, Europa. > > Jack W. Reeve > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday 09 September 2003 03:59 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: micro-nano-pico engines (was Re: Prometheus propulsion) > > > > As long as we're still off-topic, please note an admirable catalogue > of proposed micro-/nano-/pico-thruster technologies, found in > the following paper: > > A Systems Study on How to Dispose of Fleets of Small Satellites > Jason M. Andringa, Daniel E. Hastings > http://ssl.mit.edu/publications/theses/SM-2001-AndringaJason.pdf > > Ion engines and Hall thrusters come up, as well as an idea so obscure as > to be a Googlewhack: the Spindt Microvolcano (no really!). The only > page I find, searching Google on "spindt microvolcano", is the above > PDF file. (Well, by the time you read this, my Icepick submission might > be indexed, so it's sort of self-cancelling to write this.) What a > great > conversation-stopper -- when you're talking with some skeptic > heaping scorn on blue-sky research into propulsion, you can > loftily drop the little meme-grenade: "Well, perhaps, but what > about Spindt Microvolcanoes?" > > Also amusing: digital propulsion -- small combustion/detonation > charges triggered by random access of their igniters in an on-chip > array. > > Not mentioned above, but available at a decent engineering > library near you > > "Shock waves at microscales" > M. Brouillette > in _Shock Waves: An International Journal on Shock Waves, > Detonations and Explosions_, V. 13, #1, July 2003 > > in which it's pointed out that scaling down internal combustion > engines and gas turbines breaks their principles of operation > ("heat is being lost faster than it is being produced (in addition > to proportionally more import frictional effects as well)" > explaining why such devices fabricated at microscale to date > haven't worked. However, the author goes on to say, > detonations may well work, and the experimental > integrated shock tubes proposed, modeled, and constructed > at a larger scale so far hold out the promise of a pico pulse > detonation engine (picoPDE). Unfortunately, it is virtually > certain that lower exit velocities will result, even if higher > pressures can be produced, and diffusion effects > may further blunt any conjectured advantage. > > The field of nanotech propulsion is wide open, but the possibilities > are not unlimited. Nanotech is a mixed bag. > > Christopher England: > > There are many details in the design of > > EP engines that need to be addressed including keeping the spacecraft > > electrically neutral. > > I was under the impression that this is pretty much > a solved problem with ion drives. No? > > > Materials limitations. Yes, my comments are "current technology > > based" as you suggest. I also am hoping for a breakthrough heat > > rejection technology. Such a breakthrough would have enormous benefit > > for spacecraft and for space travel. > > Unfortunately, there is no Moore's Law for certain problems. > You can't break basic thermodynamic laws. If current systems > are somewhere near their theoretical limits, no amount of > microscaling or materials improvements will get you past those limits. > > Great fun, by the way, to have space urban legend discussion on > this list (the supposed "lost arts" of Saturn V). As a friend of > mine once said, after relating a particularly tasty factoid, "No, > wait a minute -- that one can't be true. I've heard it too many > times now." > > -michael turner > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Christopher England" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 3:06 AM > Subject: Re: Prometheus propulsion > > > > > > Robert, Here are my answers > > > > > Chris, has anyone done an analysis to determine whether one could > > > produce a high-thrust ion engine "complex" using nanotech? .... > > > My guess would be that there would be significant gains in thrust > > > due to multiple micro-engines but that this might be limited due to > > > things like voltage and insulator constraints. > > > > 1. Nanotech for ion propulsion. Ion propulsion gains its theoretical > > advantage by the high velocity of ions leaving the engine. This > engine > > works by reaction so the mass x velocity imparts momentum and velocity > > to the spacecraft efficiently. If nano-devices could do this better, > > I'm for it. Ion propulsion needs propellant. Nanoscale devices would > > have to be fed propellant, or, perhaps, consume themselvess. I would > > guess that storage of propellant is best done centrally, an advantage > > for larger engines. > > > > One can get very high electrical fields around nanoscale structures, > so > > maybe there is a way to use nanotechnology to reduce the electrical > > needs. This approach has been proposed previously, but I haven't > > studied the possible benefits. There are many details in the design > of > > EP engines that need to be addressed including keeping the spacecraft > > electrically neutral. > > > > > I also suspect that your comments regarding radiator limitations > > > and the need for refractory metals may be somewhat "current > > > technology" based. > > > > 2. Materials limitations. Yes, my comments are "current technology > > based" as you suggest. I also am hoping for a breakthrough heat > > rejection technology. Such a breakthrough would have enormous benefit > > for spacecraft and for space travel. And would find beaucoup > > applications on Earth. > > > > Chris > > == > > You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Project information and list (un)subscribe info: > http://klx.com/europa/ > > > > > > == > You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/ > > > == > You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/ > > == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
