[Vo]:Mysterious Object Imaged from ISS
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/746841/NASA-conspiracy-alien-news-iss-international-space-station-blue-object-cut-live-feed-video Quote: Gigantic 'object' spotted towering over Earth from ISS – before NASA live feed is CUT Video at web site. Terry > *Listen, this old system of yours could be on fire and I couldn't even > turn on the kitchen tap without filling out a 27b/6... Bloody paperwork. * > *-H. Tuttle*
Re: [Vo]:OT..Russia bans ISS and Russian Rockets
The only news about space business, I could find in the last 24h, searching on google, was Russia seeking to increase cooperation... -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:OT..Russia bans ISS and Russian Rockets
Greetings Vortex-L, It is 100am..am I reading this wrong? http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/06/07/russia-bans-us-from-international-space-station-ho.aspx Ron Kita, Chiralex Doylestown PA
Re: ISS OT
The assumption of sanity may not hold with Sunni Arabs who have shown capabilities of treachery and duplicity and insanity rivaling even the Catholics at the time of the Inquisition. Look how they call westerners 'crusaders' when the most successful 'crusaders' against Moslems was Ghengis Khan. Khan and his heirs sought to root out and destroy the Moslems totally. Khan was a Nestorian Christian, not a pagan as some believed, and blamed the Moslems for destroying the seat of his faith in Esfahan and other cities in where modern Iran is now. Were it not for the Moslems, a third great center of Christianity would exist where Iran and Iraq is now. Even now the moslems live in mortal fear of any incursion from the East. Standing Bear On Saturday 12 November 2005 03:20, Wesley Bruce wrote: > Well said Jed. > > Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Wesley Bruce wrote: > >> We can't rule out a collapse of communism in China or a shattering of > >> the peoples republic, both would be messy, very messy. > > > > Not necessarily. The collapse of communism in Russia and Eastern > > Europe was calm and orderly, with practically no casualties. Of course > > Russia still has a long way to go before it achieves Western European > > standards, but it is improving and it is far better than it was under > > communism. I expect that China will gradually evolve away from > > communism, until the government is overthrown in a "velvet revolution." > > > > Doomsday scenarios seldom come true, because most people are sane, and > > they want to live in peace. In the 1950s, many people assumed that the > > US and the Soviet Union would eventually launch a nuclear Armageddon, > > but it never happened. It turned out we could live with them and they > > could live with us. I am 110% confident that we can reach the same > > kind of accommodation with China and also with Muslim nations such as > > Saudi Arabia. See Kennedy's speech at American University, June 1963: > > > > http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/speeches/rhetoric/jfkuniv.htm > > > > QUOTE > > > > "Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or > > world disarmament - and that it will be useless until the leaders of > > the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I > > believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must > > reexamine our own attitude - as individuals and as a Nation - for our > > attitude is as essential as theirs. . . . > > > > First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us > > think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a > > dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is > > inevitable - that mankind is doomed - that we are gripped by forces we > > cannot control. > > > > We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade - therefore, > > they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No > > problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and > > spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe > > they can do it again." > > > > Remember that! If you have any doubts, look around and see what we > > have accomplished already. Read history, and try to realize how > > difficult it was to build civilization. You will see that our present > > problems are small in comparison. > > > > Also, the notion that France is going to be taken over by Muslim > > civilization is nonsense. No trend lasts forever. If anything, over > > the next few hundred years I expect Western values and science will > > permeate Muslim nations even more than it has already, despite their > > opposition. Science and democracy, which are two sides of the same > > coin, are the most powerful ideas in human history. They outweigh even > > religion, nationalism, capitalism and communism. I think they will > > continue to move mountains and change civilizations for many centuries > > to come. Long after capitalism has been replaced by a system in which > > we will produce all the goods we want for free, and people do no work, > > and long after nation states have withered away and international > > borders no longer exist, science will still be progressing. Today's > > news offers hope. Science and rationality have triumphed in Dover, PA: > > > > "All eight members of the Pennsylvania school board that had been sued > > for introducing the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative > > to evolution in biology class were swept out of office Tuesday by a > > slate of challengers who campaigned against the intelligent-design > > policy." > > > > - Jed
Re: ISS OT
Well said Jed. Jed Rothwell wrote: Wesley Bruce wrote: We can't rule out a collapse of communism in China or a shattering of the peoples republic, both would be messy, very messy. Not necessarily. The collapse of communism in Russia and Eastern Europe was calm and orderly, with practically no casualties. Of course Russia still has a long way to go before it achieves Western European standards, but it is improving and it is far better than it was under communism. I expect that China will gradually evolve away from communism, until the government is overthrown in a "velvet revolution." Doomsday scenarios seldom come true, because most people are sane, and they want to live in peace. In the 1950s, many people assumed that the US and the Soviet Union would eventually launch a nuclear Armageddon, but it never happened. It turned out we could live with them and they could live with us. I am 110% confident that we can reach the same kind of accommodation with China and also with Muslim nations such as Saudi Arabia. See Kennedy's speech at American University, June 1963: http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/speeches/rhetoric/jfkuniv.htm QUOTE "Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament - and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude - as individuals and as a Nation - for our attitude is as essential as theirs. . . . First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable - that mankind is doomed - that we are gripped by forces we cannot control. We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade - therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." Remember that! If you have any doubts, look around and see what we have accomplished already. Read history, and try to realize how difficult it was to build civilization. You will see that our present problems are small in comparison. Also, the notion that France is going to be taken over by Muslim civilization is nonsense. No trend lasts forever. If anything, over the next few hundred years I expect Western values and science will permeate Muslim nations even more than it has already, despite their opposition. Science and democracy, which are two sides of the same coin, are the most powerful ideas in human history. They outweigh even religion, nationalism, capitalism and communism. I think they will continue to move mountains and change civilizations for many centuries to come. Long after capitalism has been replaced by a system in which we will produce all the goods we want for free, and people do no work, and long after nation states have withered away and international borders no longer exist, science will still be progressing. Today's news offers hope. Science and rationality have triumphed in Dover, PA: "All eight members of the Pennsylvania school board that had been sued for introducing the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in biology class were swept out of office Tuesday by a slate of challengers who campaigned against the intelligent-design policy." - Jed
Re: ISS OT
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 10 Nov 2005 11:10:45 -0500: Hi, [snip] >"All eight members of the Pennsylvania school board that had been sued for >introducing the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to >evolution in biology class were swept out of office Tuesday by a slate of >challengers who campaigned against the intelligent-design policy." [snip] ...and both sides of the argument are wrong. :) Intelligent intervention does not preclude evolution, nor the other way around. Evolution is certain, intelligent intervention probable. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: ISS OT
Wesley Bruce wrote: We can't rule out a collapse of communism in China or a shattering of the peoples republic, both would be messy, very messy. Not necessarily. The collapse of communism in Russia and Eastern Europe was calm and orderly, with practically no casualties. Of course Russia still has a long way to go before it achieves Western European standards, but it is improving and it is far better than it was under communism. I expect that China will gradually evolve away from communism, until the government is overthrown in a "velvet revolution." Doomsday scenarios seldom come true, because most people are sane, and they want to live in peace. In the 1950s, many people assumed that the US and the Soviet Union would eventually launch a nuclear Armageddon, but it never happened. It turned out we could live with them and they could live with us. I am 110% confident that we can reach the same kind of accommodation with China and also with Muslim nations such as Saudi Arabia. See Kennedy's speech at American University, June 1963: http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/speeches/rhetoric/jfkuniv.htm QUOTE "Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament - and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude - as individuals and as a Nation - for our attitude is as essential as theirs. . . . First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable - that mankind is doomed - that we are gripped by forces we cannot control. We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade - therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again." Remember that! If you have any doubts, look around and see what we have accomplished already. Read history, and try to realize how difficult it was to build civilization. You will see that our present problems are small in comparison. Also, the notion that France is going to be taken over by Muslim civilization is nonsense. No trend lasts forever. If anything, over the next few hundred years I expect Western values and science will permeate Muslim nations even more than it has already, despite their opposition. Science and democracy, which are two sides of the same coin, are the most powerful ideas in human history. They outweigh even religion, nationalism, capitalism and communism. I think they will continue to move mountains and change civilizations for many centuries to come. Long after capitalism has been replaced by a system in which we will produce all the goods we want for free, and people do no work, and long after nation states have withered away and international borders no longer exist, science will still be progressing. Today's news offers hope. Science and rationality have triumphed in Dover, PA: "All eight members of the Pennsylvania school board that had been sued for introducing the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in biology class were swept out of office Tuesday by a slate of challengers who campaigned against the intelligent-design policy." - Jed
Re: iss Then why would you need "a hell of a bumper bar"?
At 10:44 pm 08/11/2005 -0500, Standing Bear wrote:
>Already have a 'bumper bar' in the form of some 'new' 'old' physics.
>That is 'Davis mechanics'. The Army even makes practical use of
>it for its tank gunnery. A hard shell can penetrate because of the
>high 'onset of acceleration' of the struck material when the shell hits.
>This is due according to Davis Mechanics to the real world behavior
>of the force equation commonly known as [F]= m[A] when the [] implies
>vectors. Now neglecting some calling 'm' as a kind of vector product
>of Higgs Force interaction, I propose that under Davis Mechanics the force
>equation would look something like this:
>
> [F] = m { (d[v]/dt) + (((d^2)[v]/d(t^2))^1) +...(((d^n)[v]/d(t^n))^(n-1))}
>
>which is a garden variety Taylor series. This quantifies the kinds of
>phenomena witnessed in the real world such as straws driven through
>creosoted hardwood utility poles and the use of the various nail guns
>used in the construction industry. Impact loads in my engineering
>curriculum were always taught as one of 'science's great mysteries'
>like the coefficient of gyration of non circular cross sections which I solved
>for one of my profs with an involved multidimensional multivarying calculus
>based exercise.
>
>Standing Bear
That's rather interesting because it relates to the discussion
Jones and I had on the relevance of jerk and jounce, etc.
The difference is that in the [F] equation, half of the terms
are missing,
"L" series = (dL/dt),(d^2)L/d(t^2), (d^n)L/d(t^n))
Your post reminds me of an as yet unformed idea which views a material
as having a dynamic onion type structure where each successive term in
the series enables penetration to successive layers of the onion. The
boundaries between each layer are standing waves in a dynamic aether
(cf. the structure of the atom).
What is jerk at one level is acceleration at another, velocity at another
and displacement at another. The datum for motion changes as one goes down
the various levels in the structure.
The beauty of hierarchical ideas is that one only has to get the
transition from one level to another clearly understood and one can
"zip up" all the other terms.
Mmm.fascinating. I'll have to give this some thought. 8-)
'Science's great mysteries' are what one should be trying to solve.
Cheers,
Frank
Re: ISS OT
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Standing Bear's message of Mon, 7 Nov 2005 12:52:00 -0500: Hi, [snip] Hasn't Iraq provided the military industrial complex with enough profit yet? They need a war with China as well? I assure you, after any such war, there would be no military industrial complex left (or much of anything else either for that matter). China is no little middle eastern country with a weakened army and no WMD. So China plays the same game internationally as the US. Tough, get used to it. Mind you, I am no supporter of the Chinese regime per se. But disposing of them is a job for their own people, not the "World Policeman". I agree; both of you make very good points. Its the enemy you don't see that will kill you. Yet my point still stands the communist party in China is bleeding members in huge numbers. We can't rule out a collapse of communism in China or a shattering of the peoples republic, both would be messy, very messy. Hopefully cool heads may prevail, a lot of old party bosses have gotten rich lately and the newly rich tend to see war or civil war as a great threat to the shiny new cities they have built. Poorer provences further west and farm boys from the countryside may be the only people rushing into the millitary. We are already in a military space race with China. Agreed. If China get to the moon next it wont do much harm. It will consolidate the possition of space as the long term fronteer it is. The carrying capacity of earth is about 8-10 billion, we are aproaching 6.5. The carrying capacity of outerspace is 30 to 50 billion with conventional technology. 70 billion if we invent self propergating technologies: Dyson trees on mars and self assembling space stations elsewhere. If China gets the moon I can sell them my one g artificial gravity system. I really do have an artificial gravity system for the moon and mars. It's amazingly simple. This warning about the most odious threat to our people and culture and values in the history of man is plainly evident to those who would open their eyes to see. And who also wrote: None are so blind as those who would not see. Maybe Anton Checkov was right. He is now probably weeping in his grave to see what is in store for his nation. At this stage China can afford to buy what it wants in Russia and there are towns in the Russian far east that are staving for capital. They'll take anyone’s money. These's some suspicion that a lot of the illegal porn on the web comes from near bankrupt communities in the Russian far east that are too poor to fight off the mafia kiddie porn crews that swing from town to town. Standing Bears warning is valid for some in China but watch out for india also. The Indian Hindu fundimentalists, BJP etc may return to power and they are just as dangerous to non hindus in India and places where indians are a large minority: the pacific, south east asia and the carrabian. The risk of a show down bettween india and china over world resources can't be ruled out. With the new energy resources described by many Vorts we could defuse the global resource shortages and head off any fight. We need cold fusion, hyperconductors, cheap maintinance free solar and anything else that will work. Give me energy and I'll give you clean water from the air, steel from dust, and Car bodies from sewerage. If you can figgure out how those three work you win a prize. Got to go. I just remembered its my birthday. Party time.
Re: ISS OT
In reply to Standing Bear's message of Tue, 8 Nov 2005 22:21:00 -0500: Hi, [snip] >Robin and all, > Nobody wishes more than I that we not be in our present >situation. I spent many years in the service of my nation and >know first hand about this enemy and what they are capable of. >My ex wife who is from Viet-Nam can tell you more. Much more! >The plain unhappy fact is that we are already in a fight with China >whether we want to believe it or not. We can choose to ignore >it and get buried, literally. Read my original postagainplease. [snip] Previously you wrote: >We are already in a military space race with China. Of course you are. But that is true of all space faring nations. The question is more, how serious is it? Answer IMO, not very. The US is currently China's largest export market AFAIK, so it is not really in their interest to engage militarily. OTOH, they don't want to be left behind either, and right now, that's where they perceive themselves to be. >Look at all the >even recent spying events, the predatory computer invasion attempts by >organized Chinese hacking groups. All parties engage in this, but you only hear about it when "the other guy" does it. >Look at the recent speeches by >Chinese politicians talking about 'redressing the unipolar power structure...' After the breakup of the Soviet Union, that's exactly what the world got. A single major super-power; the US. So in that respect, the Chinese are correct. It *is* a "unipolar power structure". By redressing it, they mean that they also intend to become a super power, so that the US can't push them around the way it does smaller nations. >That is political code in their governance system for global 'regime change' No, "regime change" is a US invention, not Chinese. >Look at the mysterious satellite left behind by the recent Chinese space >shot. Probably a spy satellite.like the dozens that the US has in orbit. >Look at Chinese pronouncements to get to the Moon one year ahead >of even our fuzzy minded accountant guided bureauflunkyracy's nonplans... >2017 instead of our '2018'. So you now have a bit of competition. :) Isn't that what your whole economy is based on? >Remember what happened to the JIMO project! Sorry, I have no idea what happened to it. >Look at the Chinese plans for mining helium3 on the moon, and their plans >to stake territorial claims along with their flags and their exploration >teams. ...and this is different to US plans...how? >Look at their hiding their defense budgets, ...I believe you call your hidden projects "black ops"? >at their accelerated >military buildups, pot calling kettle, come in kettle, pot here, over. >at their piracy recently of Japanese oil rights in the sea >between China and Japan in the Japanese exclusive economic sea zones. ..at your piracy of Iraqi oil, in Iraq itself. >That piracy was backed up by 56 Chinese warships for which the Japanese >have no counter. I would list the weaponry the US used in Iraq, but the email would get too long. >Look at the taking over of the Panama Canal by a front >organization of the Peoples Army of China...The list is endless. ...and yet not as long as the list of US "interventions" around the World. >One would >have to be a fool or a coward or a Chinese agent not to see. You see the splinter in your neighbors eye, but not the beam in your own. >And that is >not even addressing what continency plans they have for us in case of >war in North Korea. In addition, China is running out of fresh water and >arable land to feed its population. Then help us find a new source of energy, and at least this problem will be solved. (With water, the desert becomes arable). >It is seeking to control supplies of >fuels around the world and to deny them to us. ...and of course the US isn't doing that. >The only supply of fresh >water to supply their needs in the short run is Lake Baikal in Russia. >Russia better get its head out of its dreams of peace in Asia before it >is too late. I doubt the Russians are nearly as worried as you seem to be. >Chinese maps include all the Russian far east as its 'natural >territory'. This warning about the most odious threat to our people and >culture and values in the history of man is plainly evident to those who >would open their eyes to see. The biggest threat to the US at the moment already controls the nation. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: iss Then why would you need "a hell of a bumper bar"?
In reply to Standing Bear's message of Tue, 8 Nov 2005 22:44:47
-0500:
Hi,
[snip]
I wonder if this is why flying saucers are saucer shaped?
(A field generated around the perimeter would deflect everything
either above or below the rest of the craft).
>Already have a 'bumper bar' in the form of some 'new' 'old' physics.
>That is 'Davis mechanics'. The Army even makes practical use of
>it for its tank gunnery. A hard shell can penetrate because of the
>high 'onset of acceleration' of the struck material when the shell hits.
>This is due according to Davis Mechanics to the real world behavior
>of the force equation commonly known as [F]= m[A] when the [] implies
>vectors. Now neglecting some calling 'm' as a kind of vector product
>of Higgs Force interaction, I propose that under Davis Mechanics the force
>equation would look something like this:
>
> [F] = m { (d[v]/dt) + (((d^2)[v]/d(t^2))^1) +...(((d^n)[v]/d(t^n))^(n-1))}
>
>which is a garden variety Taylor series. This quantifies the kinds of
>phenomena witnessed in the real world such as straws driven through
>creosoted hardwood utility poles and the use of the various nail guns
>used in the construction industry. Impact loads in my engineering
>curriculum were always taught as one of 'science's great mysteries'
>like the coefficient of gyration of non circular cross sections which I solved
>for one of my profs with an involved multidimensional multivarying calculus
>based exercise.
>
>Standing Bear
>
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/
Competition provides the motivation,
Cooperation provides the means.
Re: iss Then why would you need "a hell of a bumper bar"?
On Monday 07 November 2005 23:50, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
> In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Mon, 07 Nov 2005 22:00:45
> +1100:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>
> >A continuous acceleration flight at one g, a tenth of a g or 0.01g;
> >results in a maximum speed at the mid-point that is very fast so the
> >relative velocity is huge even if you hit a tiny piece of matter, a
> >micro-meteorite or a flake of paint from another ship.
>
> Ah, I see.
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/
>
> Competition provides the motivation,
> Cooperation provides the means.
Already have a 'bumper bar' in the form of some 'new' 'old' physics.
That is 'Davis mechanics'. The Army even makes practical use of
it for its tank gunnery. A hard shell can penetrate because of the
high 'onset of acceleration' of the struck material when the shell hits.
This is due according to Davis Mechanics to the real world behavior
of the force equation commonly known as [F]= m[A] when the [] implies
vectors. Now neglecting some calling 'm' as a kind of vector product
of Higgs Force interaction, I propose that under Davis Mechanics the force
equation would look something like this:
[F] = m { (d[v]/dt) + (((d^2)[v]/d(t^2))^1) +...(((d^n)[v]/d(t^n))^(n-1))}
which is a garden variety Taylor series. This quantifies the kinds of
phenomena witnessed in the real world such as straws driven through
creosoted hardwood utility poles and the use of the various nail guns
used in the construction industry. Impact loads in my engineering
curriculum were always taught as one of 'science's great mysteries'
like the coefficient of gyration of non circular cross sections which I solved
for one of my profs with an involved multidimensional multivarying calculus
based exercise.
Standing Bear
Re: ISS OT
Robin and all, Nobody wishes more than I that we not be in our present situation. I spent many years in the service of my nation and know first hand about this enemy and what they are capable of. My ex wife who is from Viet-Nam can tell you more. Much more! The plain unhappy fact is that we are already in a fight with China whether we want to believe it or not. We can choose to ignore it and get buried, literally. Read my original postagainplease. Standing Bear
Re: iss Then why would you need "a hell of a bumper bar"?
In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Mon, 07 Nov 2005 22:00:45 +1100: Hi, [snip] >A continuous acceleration flight at one g, a tenth of a g or 0.01g; >results in a maximum speed at the mid-point that is very fast so the >relative velocity is huge even if you hit a tiny piece of matter, a >micro-meteorite or a flake of paint from another ship. Ah, I see. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: ISS OT
In reply to Standing Bear's message of Mon, 7 Nov 2005 12:52:00 -0500: Hi, [snip] Hasn't Iraq provided the military industrial complex with enough profit yet? They need a war with China as well? I assure you, after any such war, there would be no military industrial complex left (or much of anything else either for that matter). China is no little middle eastern country with a weakened army and no WMD. So China plays the same game internationally as the US. Tough, get used to it. Mind you, I am no supporter of the Chinese regime per se. But disposing of them is a job for their own people, not the "World Policeman". >Repost of originals follows comment on reply. > >One of my wargames is a flight combat similator. An experienced >fighter pilot was used as a technical advisor to the game. He adds >some cogent commentary: > There is no substitute for victory. > > The biggest problems combat pilots face in an aerial dogfight >is not just winning the fight you know you are in, but not losing the >fight that you do not know you are in. > > Aerial dogfights attract other participants like moths to a flame, >and the combat pilot must be situationally aware of thistranslation > from a Luftwaffe ace. > > We are already in a military space race with China. Look at all the >even recent spying events, the predatory computer invasion attempts by >organized Chinese hacking groups. Look at the recent speeches by >Chinese politicians talking about 'redressing the unipolar power structure...' >That is political code in their governance system for global 'regime change' >Look at the mysterious satellite left behind by the recent Chinese space >shot. Look at Chinese pronouncements to get to the Moon one year ahead >of even our fuzzy minded accountant guided bureauflunkyracy's nonplans... >2017 instead of our '2018'. Remember what happened to the JIMO project! >Look at the Chinese plans for mining helium3 on the moon, and their plans >to stake territorial claims along with their flags and their exploration >teams. Look at their hiding their defense budgets, at their accelerated >military buildups, at their piracy recently of Japanese oil rights in the sea >between China and Japan in the Japanese exclusive economic sea zones. >That piracy was backed up by 56 Chinese warships for which the Japanese >have no counter. Look at the taking over of the Panama Canal by a front >organization of the Peoples Army of China...The list is endless. One would >have to be a fool or a coward or a Chinese agent not to see. And that is >not even addressing what continency plans they have for us in case of >war in North Korea. In addition, China is running out of fresh water and >arable land to feed its population. It is seeking to control supplies of >fuels around the world and to deny them to us. The only supply of fresh >water to supply their needs in the short run is Lake Baikal in Russia. >Russia better get its head out of its dreams of peace in Asia before it >is too late. Chinese maps include all the Russian far east as its 'natural >territory'. This warning about the most odious threat to our people and >culture and values in the history of man is plainly evident to those who >would open their eyes to see. > And who also wrote: None are so blind as those who would not see. > >Maybe Anton Checkov was right. > He is now probably weeping in his grave to see what is in store for his >nation. > >Standing Bear > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Saturday 05 November 2005 02:43, Wesley Bruce wrote: >> Standing Bear wrote: >> > [Big snip] >> >> Don't panic about a chinese space race. I suspect that if China really >> gets going it will spell the end of communism. People are dropping out >> of the party buy the millions. To many chinese who see the opportunities >> of space, are also able to see that gulags on Mars wont work well. As a >> citizen of a country founded as a convict settlement, Australia, I >> happen to know that it can work but only if the govenor is a genious. If >> a Mars Gulag fails that would be sad but what wonderful opportunities to >> the free setttlers that follow to reclaim the ruin. >> >> Frankly I think we can make a nuclear reactor that works fine in a >> meteor storm. If meteors are punching holes in things then the last >> thing the crew would be worried about is the reactor! Big bumper bars >> will be easy. Just stick the bulk cargo out front. So what if the bull >> dozers got a hole in it! >> >> >I hope all of our suggestions don't eventually prove to be just >> >academic. I just read an interview that the good people at >> >nuclearspace.com had with some government agencies: >> >-- >> >-- quote from webpage-- >> > NASA's Project Prometheus is in partnership with the Department of >> >Energy's Office of Naval Reactors (DOE-NR) within the National Nuclear >> >Security A
Re: ISS OT
Repost of originals follows comment on reply. One of my wargames is a flight combat similator. An experienced fighter pilot was used as a technical advisor to the game. He adds some cogent commentary: There is no substitute for victory. The biggest problems combat pilots face in an aerial dogfight is not just winning the fight you know you are in, but not losing the fight that you do not know you are in. Aerial dogfights attract other participants like moths to a flame, and the combat pilot must be situationally aware of thistranslation from a Luftwaffe ace. We are already in a military space race with China. Look at all the even recent spying events, the predatory computer invasion attempts by organized Chinese hacking groups. Look at the recent speeches by Chinese politicians talking about 'redressing the unipolar power structure...' That is political code in their governance system for global 'regime change' Look at the mysterious satellite left behind by the recent Chinese space shot. Look at Chinese pronouncements to get to the Moon one year ahead of even our fuzzy minded accountant guided bureauflunkyracy's nonplans... 2017 instead of our '2018'. Remember what happened to the JIMO project! Look at the Chinese plans for mining helium3 on the moon, and their plans to stake territorial claims along with their flags and their exploration teams. Look at their hiding their defense budgets, at their accelerated military buildups, at their piracy recently of Japanese oil rights in the sea between China and Japan in the Japanese exclusive economic sea zones. That piracy was backed up by 56 Chinese warships for which the Japanese have no counter. Look at the taking over of the Panama Canal by a front organization of the Peoples Army of China...The list is endless. One would have to be a fool or a coward or a Chinese agent not to see. And that is not even addressing what continency plans they have for us in case of war in North Korea. In addition, China is running out of fresh water and arable land to feed its population. It is seeking to control supplies of fuels around the world and to deny them to us. The only supply of fresh water to supply their needs in the short run is Lake Baikal in Russia. Russia better get its head out of its dreams of peace in Asia before it is too late. Chinese maps include all the Russian far east as its 'natural territory'. This warning about the most odious threat to our people and culture and values in the history of man is plainly evident to those who would open their eyes to see. And who also wrote: None are so blind as those who would not see. Maybe Anton Checkov was right. He is now probably weeping in his grave to see what is in store for his nation. Standing Bear On Saturday 05 November 2005 02:43, Wesley Bruce wrote: > Standing Bear wrote: > > [Big snip] > > Don't panic about a chinese space race. I suspect that if China really > gets going it will spell the end of communism. People are dropping out > of the party buy the millions. To many chinese who see the opportunities > of space, are also able to see that gulags on Mars wont work well. As a > citizen of a country founded as a convict settlement, Australia, I > happen to know that it can work but only if the govenor is a genious. If > a Mars Gulag fails that would be sad but what wonderful opportunities to > the free setttlers that follow to reclaim the ruin. > > Frankly I think we can make a nuclear reactor that works fine in a > meteor storm. If meteors are punching holes in things then the last > thing the crew would be worried about is the reactor! Big bumper bars > will be easy. Just stick the bulk cargo out front. So what if the bull > dozers got a hole in it! > > >I hope all of our suggestions don't eventually prove to be just > >academic. I just read an interview that the good people at > >nuclearspace.com had with some government agencies: > >-- > >-- quote from webpage-- > > NASA's Project Prometheus is in partnership with the Department of > >Energy's Office of Naval Reactors (DOE-NR) within the National Nuclear > >Security Administration (NNSA) to develop a space nuclear reactor for use > > in future robotic exploration activities. The Office of Naval Reactors > > (NR) is a joint Navy-DOE organization having responsibility and authority > > in both agencies. The Secretary of Energy assigned NR to partner with > > NASA in support of Project Prometheus solely as a DOE civilian project. > > > > > > We made an inquiry over current status in efforts to build a space > > reactor, nuclearspace.com (NS) contributors posed questions to the agency > > responsible for building a premier space nuclear reactor. DOE-NNSA/NR > > Public Affairs Officer, Kevin Davis declined an NS phone interview > > request, but in a written response to the
iss Then why would you need "a hell of a bumper bar"?
A continuous acceleration flight at one g, a tenth of a g or 0.01g; results in a maximum speed at the mid-point that is very fast so the relative velocity is huge even if you hit a tiny piece of matter, a micro-meteorite or a flake of paint from another ship. Micrometeorites are fast enough they could punch through multiple space station bulkheads. A conveniual rocket ship going to Mars is moving far faster yet both are almost stationary compared to a craft doing a continuous acceleration flight to anywhere. By bumper bar I meant a tank like armoured unpressurised hull on the out side of the craft so that if it is hit the hull itself is not punctured. However if the ship is carrying dead cargo: containers of food; water; fertilizer; building materials; tons of ore or a bulldozer; they can be loaded in such a way that they take the hit and save the ship. You need a way to check them for damage on arrival. In all cases advanced radar and good manoeuvring thrusters are needed to detect and dodge anything bigger than a pea. We would need to detect the pea at 50-100 km range and would need to dodge it by several ship diameters. A tall order. Any craft doing a run through space needs to look both ahead and off to the side in the direction that objects orbiting the sun will be coming from. Its amazing that we have successfully sent as many probes out into interplanetary space. Any one of them could have been killed by a single hit from a sand grain sized micrometeorite. If the Podkletnov device works out as a drive or John Searl’s device is confirmed then fast interplanetary flight is possible without the shield problem because both produce field effects that would push the smaller meteorites aside. The force beam Podkletnov describes would apply force out in front of the craft during acceleration. The beam would accelerate obstacles up to a high velocity in a few minutes or hours. If there is any tangential component to the particles movement the beam will push the pebble or sand grain aside. The catch is it would not put the beam out a head of its self while deceleration.That braking beam would be facing the wrong way. Likewise the high charge on the Searl saucer would first emit a bolt of lightening like electrostatic force that charged the pebble at a long range and then because like charges deflect, push them aside. The magnetic field waves he describes are interesting and might also push obstacles away. We would still want to dodge the pea. Particularly if it is coming in from an angle.
Re: ISS
In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Sun, 06 Nov 2005 22:36:36 +1100: Hi, [snip] >>>If you could run a drive at one g continously Mars is 3 to 5 _days_ away >>>but you'd need a hell of a bumper bar. >>> >>> >> >>How long would it take if you accelerated then decelerated? >> >That is the time if you accelerated for half the time and decel for half >the time. no coasting. Then why would you need "a hell of a bumper bar"? [snip] >>function as a staging post. Multiple shuttle trips between Mars >>and the orbiting station could be then be made using fuel >>manufactured on the surface. >>[snip] >> >> >You don't need to resupply and crew swap a Mars net robot sat. That's not really what I was referring to anyway. >The russian are concidering a base on phobos. Then they apparently see some value in the notion. >The delta t equations make >phobos easyer than the moon. You dont have to land you just dock woth >the big rock. That said the Japs are trying to dick a rover/hopper with >an asteroid and it's prooving tricky. May not be so difficult for a manned craft. No time lag in decision making. [snip] >It's a back up option. It means that if all but one breaks down then >you've still got comms. Ah, next time it comes around! :) >>Not so critical. Inertial navigation is currently pretty advanced, >>so there is no real need for anyone to get lost. >> >> >True for a rover but a good system for a man on foot with limited life >support is required. Anyone that walks so far that he is no longer in sight of his rover on another planet deserves whatever he gets. Mars is not like Earth, where one can be stopped by something as simple as a river. Rovers should be able to go anywhere a person can. The exception is climbing up mountains, or down into gorges, but a human in a space suit shouldn't be doing that either. That's what shuttles are for. IOW you fly there, you don't climb. Climbing on Mars will prove nearly always fatal. One rip in your suit, and you're a goner. [snip] >I'll have two please but the odds of finding Ice and a lava cave in the >same place is low. The jackpot would be ice in a lava cave. Judging by previous indications of water ice, it seems to be pretty wide spread in the polar region(s). The chances of finding a cave there as well, may be better than you think. A week spent in orbit first, would give plenty of opportunity to more closely examine previously identified potential sites, and make a final choice. Previously you mentioned a pebble bed reactor. What are you going to do about neutron shielding? (water?) If you used an ion drive, then human waste could be ionized and fed to the drive as reaction mass. That would mean that no separate reaction mass need be taken along, and the weight saved could be used for extra food and water for the crew. It would also mean that waste need not be recycled, which I'm sure the crew would prefer. Or don't the numbers add up? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: ISS
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Fri, 04 Nov 2005 19:14:02 +1100: Hi, [snip] About the same. The time frame is not acceleration limited. Its limited by orbital windows. Some have proposed making a cycler using ISS modules. The minimum fuel option is a cycler. A cycler is a craft that orbits the sun in such a way that it takes a crew to Mars in three months and then swings around the sun unmanned to pick up a new crew. A Wouldn't this be going pretty fast as it passes the Earth, and would that make it hard to catch up with it? Yes quite a delta t but your transfering only crew, baggage and some cargo not the mass of living quarters, power systems etc. I favor faster craft. second cycler going in the opposite direction would take three months to drop someone home from mars and then spend a year going around the sun. Ion engines are too slow for manned flight we want to go faster than three months for manned missions. That gives us three options. Avoiding solar flares, we have more than three months warning but less than six I believe. Some say we have more than a year but we've only looked at a years data from the new sats in close to the sun. Ion engines are OK for dead cargoes but solar sails can match ion engines and plasma sails beat them. The best sail design is at: http://www.ess.washington.edu/Space/propulsion.html 2nPa is good thrust, better than Ion and you are not burning fuel. Also you can combine robotic craft with manned craft in a way they accumulates momentum in six unmanned craft. And then bounce them off the manned crafts fields. This takes a months acceleration from the solar wind and packs it into a few minutes of field interaction. This is my reusable reaction mass drive. Not yet published. If you could run a drive at one g continously Mars is 3 to 5 _days_ away but you'd need a hell of a bumper bar. How long would it take if you accelerated then decelerated? That is the time if you accelerated for half the time and decel for half the time. no coasting. Is there an online trip calculator? Not to my knowlage. Nuclear salt water rocket 0.1 g ~ 3 -5 weeks, a good plasma drive 0.01 g ~4 to 7 weeks, The best sail 0.005 ~6 to 9 weeks. Reactionless drives rule. Too bad about newtons laws. ;-) [snip] Lab racks with power and cooling. Their not much use on mars because there systems are optimized for zero g. On mars you want your lab on the ground or better still in the rover. I should think that a space station orbiting Mars would be quite useful. It could function as a planetary observatory, and as a relay station for both information and supplies. A.o. it could provide regular weather updates for ground crews. The Mars mission, should not be seen as a "one shot", but rather as the beginning of an ongoing program. Viewed in that light, a space station in orbit makes a lot of sense. It could also function as a staging post. Multiple shuttle trips between Mars and the orbiting station could be then be made using fuel manufactured on the surface. [snip] You don't need to resupply and crew swap a Mars net robot sat. The russian are concidering a base on phobos. The delta t equations make phobos easyer than the moon. You dont have to land you just dock woth the big rock. That said the Japs are trying to dick a rover/hopper with an asteroid and it's prooving tricky. What's the lifting capacity of the Russian's largest rocket? You missed this one. Sorry I don't really know. There are two or more Russian programs, all semiprivate now, the numbers change regularly and I'm not up to date. Energia is retired. The medium sized craft are their strenght. [snip] How many satellites are already in Mars orbit, and is there any [snip] There's at least three and one on the way but there are incompatibilities and other problems in the current constellation. Doesn't sound like a lot of forward thinking went into that little lot. Yep and they prang half the stuff they send into the planet or in on case the moon. Mars Net is store and forward email, much bigger data streams and the sats can talk to each other in the same language so you can send 'live' video. If you have a constant real time link, then you don't need store and forward capability, just a transfer capability. The storage capability can exist on the main orbital vessel. It's a back up option. It means that if all but one breaks down then you've still got comms. Also their clocks are optimized for limited gps type navigation. Not so critical. Inertial navigation is currently pretty advanced, so there is no real need for anyone to get lost. True for a rover but a good system for a man on foot with limited life support is required. [snip]
Re; ISS & Recycling old Ideas?
Things change, or do they? Ten years ago on CompuServe Cold Fusioneer Jed Rothwell was being flamed by Forum Sysop Tom LeCompte,and Frank E. Reed, (University of Illinois) and the Brit Alan Dunsmuir, and the gal Mahariqe van Gans (sp) as AOL was getting the Internet started as it is now. Laid back, Bernard E. Beard was getting his PhD in Physics. Terry Blanton was the ace of the Encounters Forum. And lurking Carl Sagan sent me greetings from his hospital bed, but I didn't know how to hit "enter" to send the reply. (We had corresponded by phone & fax earlier). We managed the Terraformation of Venus and Mars and turned asteroids into space ships. Google pulls up LeCompte & Reed. Bernie Beard when to Memphis Tenn. Deja Vu all over again? :-) Fred
Re: ISS
In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Fri, 04 Nov 2005 19:14:02 +1100: Hi, [snip] >About the same. The time frame is not acceleration limited. Its limited >by orbital windows. Some have proposed making a cycler using ISS >modules. The minimum fuel option is a cycler. A cycler is a craft that >orbits the sun in such a way that it takes a crew to Mars in three >months and then swings around the sun unmanned to pick up a new crew. A Wouldn't this be going pretty fast as it passes the Earth, and would that make it hard to catch up with it? >second cycler going in the opposite direction would take three months to >drop someone home from mars and then spend a year going around the sun. > >Ion engines are too slow for manned flight we want to go faster than >three months for manned missions. That gives us three options. Avoiding >solar flares, we have more than three months warning but less than six I >believe. Some say we have more than a year but we've only looked at a >years data from the new sats in close to the sun. Ion engines are OK for >dead cargoes but solar sails can match ion engines and plasma sails beat >them. The best sail design is at: >http://www.ess.washington.edu/Space/propulsion.html >2nPa is good thrust, better than Ion and you are not burning fuel. Also >you can combine robotic craft with manned craft in a way they >accumulates momentum in six unmanned craft. And then bounce them off the >manned crafts fields. This takes a months acceleration from the solar >wind and packs it into a few minutes of field interaction. This is my >reusable reaction mass drive. Not yet published. > >If you could run a drive at one g continously Mars is 3 to 5 _days_ away >but you'd need a hell of a bumper bar. How long would it take if you accelerated then decelerated? Is there an online trip calculator? >Nuclear salt water rocket 0.1 g ~ 3 -5 weeks, a good plasma drive 0.01 >g ~4 to 7 weeks, The best sail 0.005 ~6 to 9 weeks. >Reactionless drives rule. Too bad about newtons laws. ;-) [snip] >Lab racks with power and cooling. Their not much use on mars because >there systems are optimized for zero g. >On mars you want your lab on the ground or better still in the rover. I should think that a space station orbiting Mars would be quite useful. It could function as a planetary observatory, and as a relay station for both information and supplies. A.o. it could provide regular weather updates for ground crews. The Mars mission, should not be seen as a "one shot", but rather as the beginning of an ongoing program. Viewed in that light, a space station in orbit makes a lot of sense. It could also function as a staging post. Multiple shuttle trips between Mars and the orbiting station could be then be made using fuel manufactured on the surface. [snip] >>What's the lifting capacity of the Russian's largest rocket? You missed this one. [snip] >>How many satellites are already in Mars orbit, and is there any [snip] >There's at least three and one on the way but there are >incompatibilities and other problems in the current constellation. Doesn't sound like a lot of forward thinking went into that little lot. >Mars >Net is store and forward email, much bigger data streams and the sats >can talk to each other in the same language so you can send 'live' >video. If you have a constant real time link, then you don't need store and forward capability, just a transfer capability. The storage capability can exist on the main orbital vessel. > Also their clocks are optimized for limited gps type navigation. Not so critical. Inertial navigation is currently pretty advanced, so there is no real need for anyone to get lost. [snip] >>BTW I don't think the Hafnium reactor is for real. >> >> >You think it was a misinformation program or some thing. No, but AFAIK the initial indications that it worked haven't been replicated. [snip] > The half life must >change as a consequence. I believe the idea was indeed to trigger the decays through x-ray stimulation. >A a two kg neutron gun fires into a cavity lined with isotopes normally >found in medium grade nuclear waste. They fission but they don't make >enough neutrons to chain react. It can be turned off quickly. I'll >check my source on that one the web page has moved on me. What's wrong with a simple reactor? [snip] >>Why not land the reactor portion of the main ship on Mars? Then >>you can use the power from the main reactor to create all the fuel >>you need in a short period of time. It would save the whole fuel >>plant trip. It could also make enough fuel for it's own launch for >>the return trip. The fuel plant could be taken along on the
Re: ISS
Standing Bear wrote: [Big snip] Don't panic about a chinese space race. I suspect that if China really gets going it will spell the end of communism. People are dropping out of the party buy the millions. To many chinese who see the opportunities of space, are also able to see that gulags on Mars wont work well. As a citizen of a country founded as a convict settlement, Australia, I happen to know that it can work but only if the govenor is a genious. If a Mars Gulag fails that would be sad but what wonderful opportunities to the free setttlers that follow to reclaim the ruin. Frankly I think we can make a nuclear reactor that works fine in a meteor storm. If meteors are punching holes in things then the last thing the crew would be worried about is the reactor! Big bumper bars will be easy. Just stick the bulk cargo out front. So what if the bull dozers got a hole in it! I hope all of our suggestions don't eventually prove to be just academic. I just read an interview that the good people at nuclearspace.com had with some government agencies: quote from webpage-- NASA's Project Prometheus is in partnership with the Department of Energy's Office of Naval Reactors (DOE-NR) within the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to develop a space nuclear reactor for use in future robotic exploration activities. The Office of Naval Reactors (NR) is a joint Navy-DOE organization having responsibility and authority in both agencies. The Secretary of Energy assigned NR to partner with NASA in support of Project Prometheus solely as a DOE civilian project. We made an inquiry over current status in efforts to build a space reactor, nuclearspace.com (NS) contributors posed questions to the agency responsible for building a premier space nuclear reactor. DOE-NNSA/NR Public Affairs Officer, Kevin Davis declined an NS phone interview request, but in a written response to the following questions posed by NS contributors Ty Moore, Jaro Franta and Bruce Behrhorst responded; excerpt of text below.. -- there followed a long obviousely scripted 'interview'. All of the 'questions' appear to have been required to have prior submission and approval, and all the answers appear to be direct from the agencies public relations branch after being run through their general legal counsel. As such, most of the questions are ducked and evaded by the interviewee, who appears to sound like a classic broken record much of the time. The interviewee interjects 'probable lunar mission' or words to that effect into many of the questions that the agency did consent to have presented; and then gives a standard boiler plate denial of a 'lunar mission' over and over again. This is akin to the old rhetorical game of setting up a 'straw man' and knocking him down. The conclusions reached by NuclearSpace at the end were pessimistic about our prospects and our intents concerning realistic space exporation. I tend to agree with NuclearSpace in this, and wonder if the present administration only wants the programs around with minimum funding to use as photo ops and to show that it is 'doing something'. Even if it is wrong!It is evidently not now percieved in the national interest to invest seriousely in space, really. If so all our suggestions to this present administration are going to be ignored until circumstances change. Face it, present so called plans involve using some nebulous 'appolo' capsule of very small size considering what might have to be done, and chemical rockets all the way. No repair capability! If a micrometeoroid holes a tank and fuel is lost, too bad! And if a crew is lost...throw up ones hands and give up like the French in 1940.as if this is the aim all along. But then the chem ships will use a lot of petrol, happily sold to the government by the oil and oil service people now primarily contracting in Iraq and the administration high official with well known connections to that company and its corporate child there with the three letters in its name. The Russians, God bless 'em, have a better vision. The Russian President said as much last March with an appeal for nuclear propulsion. Knowing they lack funds to do it themselves, the Russians appealed then for international cooperation on a joint venture or a series of them in order to go to Mars by 2017. The Europeans appear to be listening. They are joining with them to buy the Kliper. That little ship is 'cute', and it may prove quite practical. If some of the above other technologies prove viable, it can be a platform for a real shuttle all by itself. The Chinese may be listening as well. They have sought out the Russians for some close and secret agreements in recent months, many
Re: ISS
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Thu, 03 Nov 2005 15:09:42 +1100: Hi, [snip] Firstly the ISS is the dry dock not the ship. It is actually doing quite a lot of quiet science; learning to live in space *was* the original objective. The ISS would not survive a trip to Mars. It would not survive the required acceleration, I think that if you put the modules in line, rather than in their current configuration, it wouldn't have any problem with the acceleration. However I'm more curious about how long the trip would take using a nuclear reactor and an ion engine at low acceleration as opposed to the high acceleration chemical thruster you appear to be considering. About the same. The time frame is not acceleration limited. Its limited by orbital windows. Some have proposed making a cycler using ISS modules. The minimum fuel option is a cycler. A cycler is a craft that orbits the sun in such a way that it takes a crew to Mars in three months and then swings around the sun unmanned to pick up a new crew. A second cycler going in the opposite direction would take three months to drop someone home from mars and then spend a year going around the sun. Ion engines are too slow for manned flight we want to go faster than three months for manned missions. That gives us three options. Avoiding solar flares, we have more than three months warning but less than six I believe. Some say we have more than a year but we've only looked at a years data from the new sats in close to the sun. Ion engines are OK for dead cargoes but solar sails can match ion engines and plasma sails beat them. The best sail design is at: http://www.ess.washington.edu/Space/propulsion.html 2nPa is good thrust, better than Ion and you are not burning fuel. Also you can combine robotic craft with manned craft in a way they accumulates momentum in six unmanned craft. And then bounce them off the manned crafts fields. This takes a months acceleration from the solar wind and packs it into a few minutes of field interaction. This is my reusable reaction mass drive. Not yet published. If you could run a drive at one g continously Mars is 3 to 5 _days_ away but you'd need a hell of a bumper bar. Nuclear salt water rocket 0.1 g ~ 3 -5 weeks, a good plasma drive 0.01 g ~4 to 7 weeks, The best sail 0.005 ~6 to 9 weeks. Reactionless drives rule. Too bad about newtons laws. ;-) and it would not carry enough supplys to make the round trip of three to five years. It need not be the whole ship. About 30% of its mass would not be required on a trip to Mars but can't be removed. What mass would that be, and why can't it be removed? Lab racks with power and cooling. Their not much use on mars because there systems are optimized for zero g. On mars you want your lab on the ground or better still in the rover. I'm in the Australian Mars society and the National space society NSS. We're doing the design work that Nasa keeps claiming the credit for. Excellent, then you should be able to answer all my questions! :) Dou now I'm in trouble. Space exploration would be simpler if we had the heavy lift craft the National Space Society NSS has been talking about for years and Nasa has just announced it now will slowly design and build the thing./ /That's called reinventing the wheel; given that volunteers in the NSS did a full design a decade a go. The heavy lift ship could lift the remaining ISS components in two shots. It can lift ~100 tons. We could do one lift if all the bits fitted in one bundle but they don't. *Dou!* What's the lifting capacity of the Russian's largest rocket? [snip] * An Orbiting network of data relay sats and navigation beacons. Mars Net. It's been designed awaiting funds. This means that a How many satellites are already in Mars orbit, and is there any reason they can't talk to one another, and thus be used as relay satellites? I know there is at least one, if you count the trip vessel as a second, then you need only one other small satellite to form a triangle, and that could be taken along on the trip. There's at least three and one on the way but there are incompatibilities and other problems in the current constellation. Mars Net is store and forward email, much bigger data streams and the sats can talk to each other in the same language so you can send 'live' video. Also their clocks are optimized for limited gps type navigation. You need 6 to 18 sats for a minimal navigational system, I believe. The system we have uses many more sats but we do not need to more than half a mile accuracy on mars. We don't have streets to find and buildings to bomb over there yet. crew or robot on Mars can call earth at any time from anywhere on Mars and no-one can get lost.
Re: ISS
On Thursday 03 November 2005 01:29, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Thu, 03 Nov 2005 15:09:42 > +1100: > Hi, > [snip] > > >Firstly the ISS is the dry dock not the ship. It is actually doing quite > >a lot of quiet science; learning to live in space *was* the original > >objective. > >The ISS would not survive a trip to Mars. It would not survive the > >required acceleration, > > I think that if you put the modules in line, rather than in their > current configuration, it wouldn't have any problem with the > acceleration. However I'm more curious about how long the trip > would take using a nuclear reactor and an ion engine at low > acceleration as opposed to the high acceleration chemical thruster > you appear to be considering. > > >and it would not carry enough supplys to make the > >round trip of three to five years. > > It need not be the whole ship. > > >About 30% of its mass would not be > >required on a trip to Mars but can't be removed. > > What mass would that be, and why can't it be removed? > > >I'm in the Australian > >Mars society and the National space society NSS. We're doing the design > >work that Nasa keeps claiming the credit for. > > Excellent, then you should be able to answer all my questions! :) > > >Space exploration would be simpler if we had the heavy lift craft the > >National Space Society NSS has been talking about for years and Nasa has > >just announced it now will slowly design and build the thing./ /That's > >called reinventing the wheel; given that volunteers in the NSS did a > >full design a decade a go. The heavy lift ship could lift the remaining > >ISS components in two shots. It can lift ~100 tons. We could do one lift > >if all the bits fitted in one bundle but they don't. *Dou!* > > What's the lifting capacity of the Russian's largest rocket? > [snip] > > >* An Orbiting network of data relay sats and navigation beacons. > > Mars Net. It's been designed awaiting funds. This means that a > > How many satellites are already in Mars orbit, and is there any > reason they can't talk to one another, and thus be used as relay > satellites? I know there is at least one, if you count the trip > vessel as a second, then you need only one other small satellite > to form a triangle, and that could be taken along on the trip. > > > crew or robot on Mars can call earth at any time from anywhere on > > Mars and no-one can get lost. It also means a team on Mars can > > teleoperate a robot anywhere on the planet in real time at any > > time. > > > >We have 3 fission options. Pebble bed, a and > > neutron bombarded isotops. That's safer than EVA's. > > By the time this mission gets off the ground, you may have a CF > option as well. BTW I don't think the Hafnium reactor is for real. > Perhaps you could explain the "neutron bombarded isotopes" - where > do the neutrons come from? Also, if by "Hafnium reactor" you are > referring to Hf-178, then that's not really a fission option. > [snip] > > >* Mars fuel plant launch. A robot rover equipped unmanned mars > > lander that makes fuel from Martian atmosphere. Powered by some > > kind of reactor. Cold fusion would be nice. We need 50 kw. > > Why not land the reactor portion of the main ship on Mars? Then > you can use the power from the main reactor to create all the fuel > you need in a short period of time. It would save the whole fuel > plant trip. It could also make enough fuel for it's own launch for > the return trip. The fuel plant could be taken along on the main > ship. Might be better than landing only to discover that the > previous fuel plant mission didn't quite work, and you now have no > way of getting back. If the crew + fuel plant landing doesn't > work, then the crew are probably dead, and not very interested in > coming back anyway. > [snip] > > >* Permanent base, probably part underground, part in multistory > > buildings and part in modular glass houses. It needs to be placed > > near a multi-ton water ice deposit. Pressure domes, farm designs > > and other system are either in testing or on the drawing board. > > Given that the Martian atmosphere is so thin, wouldn't you expect > the radiation hazard on the surface to be greater than on Earth? > If so, can you really afford to have part of it in a multi-story > building? (or is that just for the farms?) > (Do the current Mars rovers have radiation detectors
Re: ISS
On Thursday 03 November 2005 01:16, Wesley Bruce wrote: > That's the key. JP aerospace to orbit; people and supplies. A Heavy lift > craft for anything bigger. Podkletnov's device could be made into a > reactionless drive if we can get reliable mass production of his disks > and steady high voltage power supply. I'm in corrispondance with Dr > Podklenov. Fission power and may be useful but fission rockets are out > of date we have faster plasma drives with higher Isp. See > http://www.ess.washington.edu/Space/propulsion.html and > http://prl.anu.edu.au/SP3/research/HDLT > We don't realy needed big ships we can use a 200 m tether to bind the > ship and its spent booster togeather to make a thing that spins at 1 > Rpm. We get adequate gravity for the crew. If Dr Podkletnov's disks are > what I think they are then we can stack them for both propulsion and > gravity and fly anywhere in a few days. > Again I state that big ships are necessary for morale, not to mention all the extra capability that they can afford. Mission flexibility would be greatly enhanced by a 'solar system exploration ship' that can go anywhere in the solar system. Without getting into the fuel debate, Podkletnoff's disks if stacked with some distance between them and multiple stacks show potential for inertial damping. Since according to Dr Ning Li we are talking about 'electrogravity', a kind of right hand rule/left hand rule intersection of electrical and magnetic forces to obtain a gravitational force at sufficient energies amongst themselves, then living between the stacks will afford the ability to damp the acceleration of propulsion drives capable of multiple 'g' forces. Think about how a motor works with reverse and forward EMF. ElectGrav flow, or EG flow should be no different. And whilst we think about that one lets chew on a new 'standard model' not based on 9 or 16 fundamentals, but realize the possibility of other fundamentals present in a now unknown new standard model 'cube' or hypecube instead of a square.27 instead of 9 and 256 instead of 16. Think about it! Advanced societies that have observed us derive their abilities from somewhere! Back to inertial damping. This would free us from being shackled to limited 'g' force tolerance in manned craft if the above were feasable now or in the future. Dr Li, I understand, may have returned to China. If she has, it won't be the first lost opportunity because of short sightedness. The ghost of Dr Hsein stalks the forwardlooking scientific establishment of that land, and while some of their technology may have been 'borrowed' from the west, I feel that much of it will prove to be their very own. Dr Li sought to use superconducting rotations at the quantum level in her implementation of Dr Podkletnoff's device. If this is so, the increase in effectiveness may be related to the relation of particle size to intensity and speed of ordinary chemical reactions. Makes sense if one views the universe in all its levels as a kind of giant fractal. Standing Bear copyright 2005
Re: ISS
In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Thu, 03 Nov 2005 15:09:42 +1100: Hi, [snip] >Firstly the ISS is the dry dock not the ship. It is actually doing quite >a lot of quiet science; learning to live in space *was* the original >objective. >The ISS would not survive a trip to Mars. It would not survive the >required acceleration, I think that if you put the modules in line, rather than in their current configuration, it wouldn't have any problem with the acceleration. However I'm more curious about how long the trip would take using a nuclear reactor and an ion engine at low acceleration as opposed to the high acceleration chemical thruster you appear to be considering. >and it would not carry enough supplys to make the >round trip of three to five years. It need not be the whole ship. >About 30% of its mass would not be >required on a trip to Mars but can't be removed. What mass would that be, and why can't it be removed? >I'm in the Australian >Mars society and the National space society NSS. We're doing the design >work that Nasa keeps claiming the credit for. Excellent, then you should be able to answer all my questions! :) > >Space exploration would be simpler if we had the heavy lift craft the >National Space Society NSS has been talking about for years and Nasa has >just announced it now will slowly design and build the thing./ /That's >called reinventing the wheel; given that volunteers in the NSS did a >full design a decade a go. The heavy lift ship could lift the remaining >ISS components in two shots. It can lift ~100 tons. We could do one lift >if all the bits fitted in one bundle but they don't. *Dou!* What's the lifting capacity of the Russian's largest rocket? [snip] >* An Orbiting network of data relay sats and navigation beacons. > Mars Net. It's been designed awaiting funds. This means that a How many satellites are already in Mars orbit, and is there any reason they can't talk to one another, and thus be used as relay satellites? I know there is at least one, if you count the trip vessel as a second, then you need only one other small satellite to form a triangle, and that could be taken along on the trip. > crew or robot on Mars can call earth at any time from anywhere on > Mars and no-one can get lost. It also means a team on Mars can > teleoperate a robot anywhere on the planet in real time at any > time. >We have 3 fission options. Pebble bed, a and > neutron bombarded isotops. That's safer than EVA's. By the time this mission gets off the ground, you may have a CF option as well. BTW I don't think the Hafnium reactor is for real. Perhaps you could explain the "neutron bombarded isotopes" - where do the neutrons come from? Also, if by "Hafnium reactor" you are referring to Hf-178, then that's not really a fission option. [snip] >* Mars fuel plant launch. A robot rover equipped unmanned mars > lander that makes fuel from Martian atmosphere. Powered by some > kind of reactor. Cold fusion would be nice. We need 50 kw. Why not land the reactor portion of the main ship on Mars? Then you can use the power from the main reactor to create all the fuel you need in a short period of time. It would save the whole fuel plant trip. It could also make enough fuel for it's own launch for the return trip. The fuel plant could be taken along on the main ship. Might be better than landing only to discover that the previous fuel plant mission didn't quite work, and you now have no way of getting back. If the crew + fuel plant landing doesn't work, then the crew are probably dead, and not very interested in coming back anyway. [snip] >* Permanent base, probably part underground, part in multistory > buildings and part in modular glass houses. It needs to be placed > near a multi-ton water ice deposit. Pressure domes, farm designs > and other system are either in testing or on the drawing board. Given that the Martian atmosphere is so thin, wouldn't you expect the radiation hazard on the surface to be greater than on Earth? If so, can you really afford to have part of it in a multi-story building? (or is that just for the farms?) (Do the current Mars rovers have radiation detectors on board?) [snip] BTW it might be an idea to have 2 smaller reactors rather than 1 large one. Then one can be left in orbit, while one lands. On the trips out and back, both can be used in tandem. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: ISS
That's the key. JP aerospace to orbit; people and supplies. A Heavy lift craft for anything bigger. Podkletnov's device could be made into a reactionless drive if we can get reliable mass production of his disks and steady high voltage power supply. I'm in corrispondance with Dr Podklenov. Fission power and may be useful but fission rockets are out of date we have faster plasma drives with higher Isp. See http://www.ess.washington.edu/Space/propulsion.html and http://prl.anu.edu.au/SP3/research/HDLT We don't realy needed big ships we can use a 200 m tether to bind the ship and its spent booster togeather to make a thing that spins at 1 Rpm. We get adequate gravity for the crew. If Dr Podkletnov's disks are what I think they are then we can stack them for both propulsion and gravity and fly anywhere in a few days. Standing Bear wrote: On Wednesday 02 November 2005 21:09, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: Hi, Since the ISS isn't doing a great deal of good science where it is, why not use it to go to Mars? Since it's already in Earth orbit, it should cut down on the cost considerably. I would love to go to space.in a real ship.which, regrettably, the ISS is not. The ISS is a large kluge put into an unsafe orbit not much higher than a balloon could fly if it had any atmosphere. In fact, a company called JP Aerospace is planning to do just that. Called "America's 'other' space program!", it is quietly building proof of concept models of its space travel by dirigible system. Back to a Mars vessel! We need a large ship. Molto largo! It needs to have a rotating ring incorporated into the structure to provide artificial gravity (unless we want to admit to possessing a working Podkletnov/Li device). It needs a real space propulsion system, not some damn chemicals that yield no real propulsion gain but take up ninety percent or more of the 'rocket' Only nuclear systems offer any hope of that, and I am afraid that only the Chinese are capable to do that at this timethey are the only ones with the guts. Unless of course Dr R Mills can come to our aid with a large hydrino 'black light' rocket! It also has to have a grand amount of shielding, not from the reactor which puts out, say, X amount of radiation; but from the 100X or so radiological and microparticulate environment of deep intrastellar space between us and Mars or any other planet we would want to visit. A big enough ship could also carry aboard it a space tether system for multiple visits to the surface of interesting places, Mars included. Alternatively it could carry a scaled down nuclear thruster system in what amounts to a planetary shuttle. We probably don't want to admit to being able to build one of these now, but for smaller gravity wells what we want to admit to would do for Mars. Such a ship would not be a one shot throw away. We could keep such a ship in service for decades, learning in intrastellar space lessons that would serve us when we develope better interstellar systems. Interstellar travel will have to wait for us to outgrow our religion of Einsteinianism...or find a way to shrink space ahead and expand it in the rear of our craft. Large ships have another advantage as well, better morale. A large ship would be like a home and at least feel secureand could carry backups for more critical systems. The Russians know very well that interpersonal crew problems magnify on small ships. Really small ships are a perfect recipe for murder, and that is seemingly the limit of the creativity bankrupt view of the American government in this matter. But then this same government sents our troops in rag top jeeps to fight fanatics in Iraq armed with RPGs...sniper riflesrecoilless rifles40mm AT guns...cherry bombs in pepsi bottlesmolotov martinisHMGs...LMGs not to mentionW...M..Dh. If the oil companies want to sell that gasoline and won't be placated any other way, use the chemicals for a fleet of dumb boosters to get the parts of the main ship into orbit where it can be assembled by a crew living on the ISS..use the ISS as a construction shack! Standing Bear
Re: ISS
In reply to Standing Bear's message of Wed, 2 Nov 2005 22:32:35 -0500: Hi, [snip] >On Wednesday 02 November 2005 21:09, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Since the ISS isn't doing a great deal of good science where it >> is, why not use it to go to Mars? Since it's already in Earth >> orbit, it should cut down on the cost considerably. >> > >I would love to go to space.in a real ship.which, regrettably, the ISS >is not. The ISS is a large kluge put into an unsafe orbit not much higher >than a balloon could fly if it had any atmosphere. In fact, a company called >JP Aerospace is planning to do just that. Called "America's 'other' space >program!", it is quietly building proof of concept models of its space travel >by dirigible system. Back to a Mars vessel! We need a large ship. Molto >largo! It needs to have a rotating ring incorporated into the structure to >provide artificial gravity (unless we want to admit to possessing a working >Podkletnov/Li device). It needs a real space propulsion system, not some >damn chemicals that yield no real propulsion gain but take up ninety percent >or more of the 'rocket' Only nuclear systems offer any hope of that, Actually, I agree with this. However none of it precludes use of the ISS in the construction. Whatever goes to Mars is going to be modular anyway, so you might as well use the ISS for some of the modules. > and I >am afraid that only the Chinese are capable to do that at this timethey >are the only ones with the guts. This may also be true. Another way of looking at it is that some already know that there are other far better ways of doing this. >Unless of course Dr R Mills can come to our >aid with a large hydrino 'black light' rocket! I doubt you will ever see hydrinos used directly in rocket propulsion. I suspect that the reaction cross section is too small ,though with a starting "fuel" already largely comprising severely shrunken hydrinos, it might work. However I think in that case you are probably really running a fusion engine. > It also has to have a grand amount of shielding, not from the reactor >which puts out, say, X amount of radiation; but from the 100X or so >radiological and microparticulate environment of deep intrastellar space >between us and Mars or any other planet we would want to visit. Carrying a strong magnetic field wrapped about the ship might afford best protection for weight, and the ship could be designed with the main living quarters at the core, surrounded by a.o. the water supply. The living quarters could also be *inside* any modules designed to be left behind at Mars, i.e. use an onion design as much as possible. (Every little bit of shielding helps). >A big enough >ship could also carry aboard it a space tether system for multiple visits to >the surface of interesting places, Mars included. A bit fanciful I fear. >Alternatively it could >carry a scaled down nuclear thruster system in what amounts to a planetary >shuttle. Much more likely. [snip] > Large ships have another advantage as well, better morale. Agreed. Everyone needs to be able to have some time to themselves occasionally. Those that grew up as members of large families might make the best crew. They have learned early on in life how to live in close quarters with many people with different temperaments. They should also spend at least a month together under similar circumstances here on Earth, before they leave. That would serve to expose any raw nerves, and provide an opportunity to sort out any problems before they become real problems. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: ISS
Firstly the ISS is the dry dock not the ship. It is actually doing quite a lot of quiet science; learning to live in space *was* the original objective. The ISS would not survive a trip to Mars. It would not survive the required acceleration, and it would not carry enough supplys to make the round trip of three to five years. About 30% of its mass would not be required on a trip to Mars but can't be removed. I'm in the Australian Mars society and the National space society NSS. We're doing the design work that Nasa keeps claiming the credit for. Space exploration would be simpler if we had the heavy lift craft the National Space Society NSS has been talking about for years and Nasa has just announced it now will slowly design and build the thing./ /That's called reinventing the wheel; given that volunteers in the NSS did a full design a decade a go. The heavy lift ship could lift the remaining ISS components in two shots. It can lift ~100 tons. We could do one lift if all the bits fitted in one bundle but they don't. *Dou!* It could, for the cost of two shuttle launches, put about 80 tons in Mars orbit or 30 to 40 tons on the surface. Mars colonization goes in five phases. * Robotic exploration. Now underway. * An Orbiting network of data relay sats and navigation beacons. Mars Net. It's been designed awaiting funds. This means that a crew or robot on Mars can call earth at any time from anywhere on Mars and no-one can get lost. It also means a team on Mars can teleoperate a robot anywhere on the planet in real time at any time. We have 3 fission options. Pebble bed, a Hafnium reacter and neutron bombarded isotops. That's safer than EVA's. * Mars fuel plant launch. A robot rover equipped unmanned mars lander that makes fuel from Martian atmosphere. Powered by some kind of reactor. Cold fusion would be nice. We need 50 kw. * Manned exploration. Fast rugged rovers with long range. Uses the fuel from the fuel plant to fly home. * Permanent base, probably part underground, part in multistory buildings and part in modular glass houses. It needs to be placed near a multi-ton water ice deposit. Pressure domes, farm designs and other system are either in testing or on the drawing board. If we had the launch money we could build and launch Mars Net plus two nuclear powered rover in 18 months. Several people are working on private launch funding. Robin van Spaandonk wrote: Hi, Since the ISS isn't doing a great deal of good science where it is, why not use it to go to Mars? Since it's already in Earth orbit, it should cut down on the cost considerably. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: ISS
On Wednesday 02 November 2005 21:09, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > Hi, > > Since the ISS isn't doing a great deal of good science where it > is, why not use it to go to Mars? Since it's already in Earth > orbit, it should cut down on the cost considerably. > I would love to go to space.in a real ship.....which, regrettably, the ISS is not. The ISS is a large kluge put into an unsafe orbit not much higher than a balloon could fly if it had any atmosphere. In fact, a company called JP Aerospace is planning to do just that. Called "America's 'other' space program!", it is quietly building proof of concept models of its space travel by dirigible system. Back to a Mars vessel! We need a large ship. Molto largo! It needs to have a rotating ring incorporated into the structure to provide artificial gravity (unless we want to admit to possessing a working Podkletnov/Li device). It needs a real space propulsion system, not some damn chemicals that yield no real propulsion gain but take up ninety percent or more of the 'rocket' Only nuclear systems offer any hope of that, and I am afraid that only the Chinese are capable to do that at this timethey are the only ones with the guts. Unless of course Dr R Mills can come to our aid with a large hydrino 'black light' rocket! It also has to have a grand amount of shielding, not from the reactor which puts out, say, X amount of radiation; but from the 100X or so radiological and microparticulate environment of deep intrastellar space between us and Mars or any other planet we would want to visit. A big enough ship could also carry aboard it a space tether system for multiple visits to the surface of interesting places, Mars included. Alternatively it could carry a scaled down nuclear thruster system in what amounts to a planetary shuttle. We probably don't want to admit to being able to build one of these now, but for smaller gravity wells what we want to admit to would do for Mars. Such a ship would not be a one shot throw away. We could keep such a ship in service for decades, learning in intrastellar space lessons that would serve us when we develope better interstellar systems. Interstellar travel will have to wait for us to outgrow our religion of Einsteinianism...or find a way to shrink space ahead and expand it in the rear of our craft. Large ships have another advantage as well, better morale. A large ship would be like a home and at least feel secureand could carry backups for more critical systems. The Russians know very well that interpersonal crew problems magnify on small ships. Really small ships are a perfect recipe for murder, and that is seemingly the limit of the creativity bankrupt view of the American government in this matter. But then this same government sents our troops in rag top jeeps to fight fanatics in Iraq armed with RPGs...sniper riflesrecoilless rifles40mm AT guns...cherry bombs in pepsi bottlesmolotov martinisHMGs...LMGs not to mentionW...M..Dh. If the oil companies want to sell that gasoline and won't be placated any other way, use the chemicals for a fleet of dumb boosters to get the parts of the main ship into orbit where it can be assembled by a crew living on the ISS..use the ISS as a construction shack! Standing Bear
ISS
Hi, Since the ISS isn't doing a great deal of good science where it is, why not use it to go to Mars? Since it's already in Earth orbit, it should cut down on the cost considerably. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
