Discussion:
Space elevator now possible?
(too old to reply)
Robert Clark
2003-07-25 15:59:34 UTC
Permalink
Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined
by Richard Perry
Los Angeles - Jul 22, 2003
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/materials-03w.html


Bob Clark
John Sefton
2003-07-25 16:41:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Clark
Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined
by Richard Perry
Los Angeles - Jul 22, 2003
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/materials-03w.html
Bob Clark
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Uncle Al
2003-07-25 16:59:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Clark
Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined
by Richard Perry
Los Angeles - Jul 22, 2003
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/materials-03w.html
1) The minimum energy curve from ground to geosynchronous orbit is
not a straight line. Not nearly.
2) Even if it were, allocating average 10 lbs/lineal foot is about a
trillion grams lofted. It had better not cost $/gm material plus
placement.
3) Name one equatorial nation that is politically stable.
4) Lightning. It rains a lot at the equator - like very afternoon.
5) Magnetosphere billowing. Electrically conductive cable is out of
the question.

"They also concentrated on the non-fixed tethers, which do not go all
the way to the Earth's surface and consequently require mach 16
aircraft vehicles to reach them."

The Mach 16 aircraft is not the hard part. When an MBA presents a
business plan complete with estimated escalating profits using
multiple technologies that do not yet exist, it is either cheap fraud
or expensive NASA.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Ian Woollard
2003-07-26 03:47:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Al
Post by Robert Clark
Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined
by Richard Perry
Los Angeles - Jul 22, 2003
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/materials-03w.html
1) The minimum energy curve from ground to geosynchronous orbit is
not a straight line. Not nearly.
2) Even if it were, allocating average 10 lbs/lineal foot is about a
trillion grams lofted.
The only credible designs around right now allocate only a few kg per
kilometer, rather less for the initial seed tether.
Post by Uncle Al
It had better not cost $/gm material plus
placement.
Actually the plans assume that it is a few hundred or thousand dollars
per gram.
Post by Uncle Al
3) Name one equatorial nation that is politically stable.
It can be placed at sea; indeed that is the proposal.
Post by Uncle Al
4) Lightning. It rains a lot at the equator - like very afternoon.
You probably should read the NIAC paper, they thought about that.
Post by Uncle Al
5) Magnetosphere billowing. Electrically conductive cable is out of
the question.
It's not going to be conductive unless they want it to be.
Brad Guth
2003-08-11 06:44:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Al
Post by Robert Clark
Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined
by Richard Perry
Los Angeles - Jul 22, 2003
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/materials-03w.html
1) The minimum energy curve from ground to geosynchronous orbit is
not a straight line. Not nearly.
2) Even if it were, allocating average 10 lbs/lineal foot is about a
trillion grams lofted. It had better not cost $/gm material plus
placement.
3) Name one equatorial nation that is politically stable.
4) Lightning. It rains a lot at the equator - like very afternoon.
5) Magnetosphere billowing. Electrically conductive cable is out of
the question.
"They also concentrated on the non-fixed tethers, which do not go all
the way to the Earth's surface and consequently require mach 16
aircraft vehicles to reach them."
The Mach 16 aircraft is not the hard part. When an MBA presents a
business plan complete with estimated escalating profits using
multiple technologies that do not yet exist, it is either cheap fraud
or expensive NASA.
What's the energy curve for our moon, as for a lunar-L1 space
elevator?


Lunar L1 (LL1) Space elevator

Delivering lunar soil to Lunar L1 (LL1), for establishing a zero
gravity cash on demand of perfectly good radiation shielding mass.

Within existing technology, taking lunar soil as needed for radiation
shielding can be robotically collected and then merely space elevated
to lunar-L1, thus alleviating any future need of manned expedition
missions having to launch such added mass from Earth, and/or otherwise
having to set down on the moon simply to obtain the necessary amounts
of lunar substance, where only then subsequently having the
considerable obligation of re-launching off the moon along with all
that added mass, that which would only complicate matters, obviously
at considerable added risk to any or all crew members and rather
noticeably depleting mission fuel reserves.

Whereas with having sufficient tonnage being already positioned at
LL1+, all one would need to do is match up with the LL1 orbit,
interface with some form of delivery conveyer designed to move the
necessary tonnage onboard your spacecraft, as to be loaded and
distributed within the walls surrounding those sections most occupied
by yourself and crew.

Since this transfer of reasonably good shield mass is all accomplished
at zero gravity, there's little energy expended, other than the LL1
elevator that presumably would be solar powered.

A Lunar to LL1+ elevator had ott to work quite nicely with the
technology and of alloys at hand, especially since we're dealing with
1/6th gravity and, there's certainly no atmospherics nor much of
anything related to friction and, darn few commercial craft
circumventing the moon. Super alloys that exist today could be
utilized for this sort of lunar space elevator, especially if the
primary function is for relocating the 3.41 g/cc of lunar soil density
at perhaps a maximum rate of 1 kg/sec into position at LL1+ (though 1
kg/minute should be more than sufficient), as for formulating the
space elevator anchor that's sustaining the cable tension, but also
for providing the cash of surplus soil for use as radiation shielding,
not to mention whatever lunar mineral mining that would only become
the next best thing to space sex.

Since one of our resident space radiation wizards is so absolutely
correct about just about everything there is to know regarding our
moon and of space radiation, this is where I'm giving credit where
credit is due, such as where one of his most recent discoveries and
thereby contributions is having to do with some understanding that
bone dry yet so thoroughly clumping lunar soil, that which not only
reflects light at roughly 5 times greater if you're standing on the
moon as opposed to otherwise being viewed from Earth or imaged by the
likes of Hubble, but mostly that this terrific lunar soil stuff has
also become the one and only inert or least reactive resource of
worthy density that's apparently incapable of creating any significant
amounts of secondary radiation (apparently it's sort of like hydrogen
except quite dense and thereby compact).

Thus, it's now become my village idiot idea that we should focus this
space elevator technology upon the moon and of getting that terrific
lunar stuff to it's L1, as where such an elevator would accomplish
what we simply can't otherwise justify, that is to launch a manned
mission having sufficient shielding, at least not in any one step and
of no matters what, we simply can't launch much of anything from Earth
without creating nearly 100 times as much CO2, that's to be left
behind to impact upon Earth's global warming.

I must say that I've learned so much from the likes of so many others
within the collective, such as to how refreshingly warm, fuzzy and
friendly, and apparently of there being such low cosmic and galactic
radiation in free space, especially lunar space, not to mention that
our astronauts seem to have become the one and only folks knowing of
how to evade the bulk of the Van Allen zone of death, as well as their
surviving extended EVAs (during a somewhat solar maximum phase no
less).

These following two pages are only a beginning, as they'll be
corrected and/or edited to show the best information I can find, which
has often been easier said than accomplished, especially when I must
learn so much wisdom from the likes of so many of NASA's collective of
space wizards. So, even if we must realistically utilize somewhat
greater amounts of that lunar soil (say 341 g/cm2 or even 1024 g/cm2),
at least it'll all become situated at zero gravity, where it'll be
relatively safe to transfer and, best of all, there'll be no further
CO2 generated for Earth.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS discovery of LIFE on Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com
The Ghost In The Machine
2003-08-11 14:11:00 UTC
Permalink
In sci.physics, Brad Guth
<***@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 10 Aug 2003 23:44:12 -0700
Post by Brad Guth
Post by Uncle Al
Post by Robert Clark
Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined
by Richard Perry
Los Angeles - Jul 22, 2003
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/materials-03w.html
1) The minimum energy curve from ground to geosynchronous orbit is
not a straight line. Not nearly.
2) Even if it were, allocating average 10 lbs/lineal foot is about a
trillion grams lofted. It had better not cost $/gm material plus
placement.
3) Name one equatorial nation that is politically stable.
4) Lightning. It rains a lot at the equator - like very afternoon.
5) Magnetosphere billowing. Electrically conductive cable is out of
the question.
"They also concentrated on the non-fixed tethers, which do not go all
the way to the Earth's surface and consequently require mach 16
aircraft vehicles to reach them."
The Mach 16 aircraft is not the hard part. When an MBA presents a
business plan complete with estimated escalating profits using
multiple technologies that do not yet exist, it is either cheap fraud
or expensive NASA.
What's the energy curve for our moon, as for a lunar-L1 space
elevator?
Uh....how does one deal with the non-geosynchronicity of L1?
In other words, that space elevator's endpoint may have to be on an
equatorial barge, steaming at a certain speed to keep L1
directly overhead -- and this is assuming L1 is in fact
over the equator, which it probably isn't.

Africa and a tiny sliver of Central America might have an issue
with that.

If L1 is not over the equator the barge now has to describe a
more complicated course, which rotates. You've no doubt
seen shuttle orbital plots, for example; the idea is similar.

And woe betide the barge if he runs into a storm.

[rest snipped]
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net -- seasickness is the least of his worries
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Rusty Barton
2003-08-11 14:24:00 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:11:00 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Brad Guth
What's the energy curve for our moon, as for a lunar-L1 space
elevator?
Uh....how does one deal with the non-geosynchronicity of L1?
In other words, that space elevator's endpoint may have to be on an
equatorial barge, steaming at a certain speed to keep L1
directly overhead -- and this is assuming L1 is in fact
over the equator, which it probably isn't.
Africa and a tiny sliver of Central America might have an issue
with that.
If L1 is not over the equator the barge now has to describe a
more complicated course, which rotates. You've no doubt
seen shuttle orbital plots, for example; the idea is similar.
And woe betide the barge if he runs into a storm.
They will finally build the space elevator. When it's your turn to use
it, you find that some kid has pushed the button for every floor. ;-)




--
Rusty Barton - Antelope, California |"I'm moving to Mars next week,
E-mail - ***@usa.com | so if you have any boxes...."
Visit my Titan I ICBM website at: | - Steven Wright
http://www.geocities.com/titan_1_missile |
Ian Stirling
2003-08-11 23:01:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rusty Barton
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:11:00 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Post by Brad Guth
What's the energy curve for our moon, as for a lunar-L1 space
elevator?
Uh....how does one deal with the non-geosynchronicity of L1?
In other words, that space elevator's endpoint may have to be on an
equatorial barge, steaming at a certain speed to keep L1
directly overhead -- and this is assuming L1 is in fact
over the equator, which it probably isn't.
Africa and a tiny sliver of Central America might have an issue
with that.
If L1 is not over the equator the barge now has to describe a
more complicated course, which rotates. You've no doubt
seen shuttle orbital plots, for example; the idea is similar.
And woe betide the barge if he runs into a storm.
They will finally build the space elevator. When it's your turn to use
it, you find that some kid has pushed the button for every floor. ;-)
I want a stop just high enough to graze the atmosphere when you
jump out.
(Obphysics: how high?)
Hypersonic skydiving with a minimal aeroshell, popping off the heatshield
at mach 2 or so going into a manouverable supersonic suit before popping
a chute as you near the deck.
--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:***@i.am | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
"An enemy will usually have three courses open to him. Of these he will
select the fourth." -- Helmuth von Moltke
Mike Combs
2003-08-12 17:23:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Stirling
I want a stop just high enough to graze the atmosphere when you
jump out.
Yeah, at first glance I thought a space elevator would be no help at all in
getting into a low orbit. But couldn't one do as you describe, and use
aerobraking to bring down the apogee of their orbit? Then the requirement for
lifting the perigee up out of the atmosphere ought to be pretty modest.
--
Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should ask, critically and with appeal to the numbers, whether the
best site for a growing advancing industrial society is Earth, the
Moon, Mars, some other planet, or somewhere else entirely.
Surprisingly, the answer will be inescapable - the best site is
"somewhere else entirely."

Gerard O'Neill - "The High Frontier"
Ian Stirling
2003-08-12 21:49:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Combs
Post by Ian Stirling
I want a stop just high enough to graze the atmosphere when you
jump out.
Yeah, at first glance I thought a space elevator would be no help at all in
getting into a low orbit. But couldn't one do as you describe, and use
aerobraking to bring down the apogee of their orbit? Then the requirement for
lifting the perigee up out of the atmosphere ought to be pretty modest.
Pretty much.

Getting to an equatorial orbit in LEO is fairly trivial.
Getting to an inclined orbit is tricky, you can do modest plane alterations
free by using hypersonic lift at aerobraking.

But this isn't very simple, and getting much will mean extra weight,
as well as needing an apogee kick motor, you need a lifting body and
control systems.

I wonder if for some orbits it might not be cheaper to go all the way up
to the counterweight/as far up as the elevator goes, make
a small burn for the moon, and use that to do plane changes.
--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:***@i.am | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
To do is to be
To be is to do
Do be do be do do
Mike Combs
2003-08-13 17:37:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Stirling
Getting to an inclined orbit is tricky, you can do modest plane alterations
free by using hypersonic lift at aerobraking.
Like with Waverider? (Speaking of which, I haven't heard anybody bring that
concept up in a long while... has a flaw been uncovered, or just no interest at
the current time?)
--
Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should ask, critically and with appeal to the numbers, whether the
best site for a growing advancing industrial society is Earth, the
Moon, Mars, some other planet, or somewhere else entirely.
Surprisingly, the answer will be inescapable - the best site is
"somewhere else entirely."

Gerard O'Neill - "The High Frontier"
Alex Terrell
2003-08-12 22:15:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Combs
Post by Ian Stirling
I want a stop just high enough to graze the atmosphere when you
jump out.
Yeah, at first glance I thought a space elevator would be no help at all in
getting into a low orbit. But couldn't one do as you describe, and use
aerobraking to bring down the apogee of their orbit? Then the requirement for
lifting the perigee up out of the atmosphere ought to be pretty modest.
Or you abandon LEO and have everything up at HEO, which with a space
elevator is easy to get to.

An interesting question (for a rotovator) is whether you'd have it

- in an equatorial orbit (regular access from any point on the
equator, but may need an orbital plane change, except at equinox
time), or
- in the same plane as the moon's orbit (changing access points from
the Earth's surface, but no plane change needed for access to L4, L5
or the moon).


--
Post by Mike Combs
Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should ask, critically and with appeal to the numbers, whether the
best site for a growing advancing industrial society is Earth, the
Moon, Mars, some other planet, or somewhere else entirely.
Surprisingly, the answer will be inescapable - the best site is
"somewhere else entirely."
Gerard O'Neill - "The High Frontier"
Michael K. Heney
2003-08-13 21:37:04 UTC
Permalink
A Lunar Space Elevator (LL1+) should be a snap as compared to
accomplishing anything Earth/L2+. The moon L1 elevator should be a
whole lot more stable than not, even though the sun/Earth gravity is
going to move the L1 +/- X amount of distance of whatever the 27 day
orbit creates, though if the task were to be somewhat limited to
delivering 1 kg/sec, the overall dimensions and stresses should be
manageable within the existing technology of today.
No. It would not be a whole lot more stable. A terrestrial space elevator
works because it's CM is in orbit around the earth. The L1 point in the
earth-moon system is in orbit around the earth, not the moon. And the
Earth-moon distance varies wildly over the course of a month - by tens
of thousands of kilometers. So your L1-to-surface distance (cable length)
is going to vary by a non-trivial fraction of that. And the "sub-lagrangian"
point varies due to libration. "Stable" and "Lunar Space Elevator" are
words that do not belong in the same sentence.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-L1-elevator.htm
As I've already mentioned previously to so many others, that I have
recently applied some further updates into my "space-radiation" page,
that which relates to what I believe EL4/EL5 and of what the most
likely environment is for VL2. Plus, in case you're interested, in
relationship to our better dealing with being shielded from space
radiation, I have created this "Lunar Space Elevator (LL1+)" proposal,
the corresponding page is "moon-L1-elevator". There's also something
to being said about my Lunar/SAR contribution for truly impressive VLA
imaging capabilities, where that ongoing page is "moon-sar". Somewhere
within/throughout my research there's another ongoing tit for tat over
"banking bone marrow" that's associated with the proposed ISS/VL2
mission.
Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS discovery of LIFE on Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com
Brad Guth
2003-08-14 18:37:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael K. Heney
A Lunar Space Elevator (LL1+) should be a snap as compared to
accomplishing anything Earth/L2+. The moon L1 elevator should be a
whole lot more stable than not, even though the sun/Earth gravity is
going to move the L1 +/- X amount of distance of whatever the 27 day
orbit creates, though if the task were to be somewhat limited to
delivering 1 kg/sec, the overall dimensions and stresses should be
manageable within the existing technology of today.
No. It would not be a whole lot more stable. A terrestrial space elevator
works because it's CM is in orbit around the earth. The L1 point in the
earth-moon system is in orbit around the earth, not the moon. And the
Earth-moon distance varies wildly over the course of a month - by tens
of thousands of kilometers. So your L1-to-surface distance (cable length)
is going to vary by a non-trivial fraction of that. And the "sub-lagrangian"
point varies due to libration. "Stable" and "Lunar Space Elevator" are
words that do not belong in the same sentence.
OK, darn good points but, then how much beyond lunar L1.1 would it
take to do this trick.

Seems even if we went for 2X LL1 should help immeasurably, still
within the current level of technology and alloys. After all, I'm only
thinking of stowing a few spare hundred or so tonnes of clumping moon
dirt, not involving the thousands of tonnes represented by anything
EL2+.

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-L1-elevator.htm
Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS discovery of LIFE on Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com
Brad Guth
2003-09-04 00:12:22 UTC
Permalink
Sorry but, you simply are not telling us the truth and nothing but the
truth about the stability aspects of a lunar based space elevator.
You're only giving us your Mr. Negative about everything side of this
equation.

Of course, if we were not so focused upon the negatives (especially of
someone others idea), some of us that actually give a damn could try
to rethink the logic and benefits of accomplishing a lunar based space
elevator as opposed to any Earthly based space elevator, where a lunar
space elevator is capable of housing our next ISS as a truly well
endowed community gateway that's capable of supplying unlimited
volumes of clumping moon dirt, as necessary mass for life sustaining
radiation shielding, plus lots of tether derived energy and whatever
side benefits of our utilizing the moon as for what it is and, doing
all of this within existing technology and the expertise we've got
today, at not 1% the cost impact of achieving any similar functioning
Earth based space elevator and, of not 10% the construction created
CO2 and of otherwise not an operational gram of CO2 created for Earth,
remaining no-fault fail-safe to boot, along with providing countless
scientific attributes, not to mention being nearly Taliban proof.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-edwards-se.htm

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA / Discovery of LIFE on Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Jay Windley
2003-08-13 22:29:32 UTC
Permalink
"Brad Guth" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...
|
| As I've already mentioned previously to so many others,
| that I have recently applied some further updates into my
| "space-radiation" page

My name still appears. Remove it at once.

Further, replacing name references with "clavius.org" does not correct your
error, as the ideas you attribute to that appellation are not to be found on
the Clavius.org web site either.

*Nobody* said them; they are your interpoloations and misrepresentations of
what I and others have said, and they're wrong. Do not connect me with them
via any name, nickname, or alias. They are not my ideas, and you do not
have the right to associate me with them.

I repeat again that my statement pertaining to secondary radiation and the
lunar surface material does not have anything to do with the nature of the
material itself, but rather of the intensity of the primary radiation.
--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org
Brad Guth
2003-08-14 19:30:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jay Windley
|
| As I've already mentioned previously to so many others,
| that I have recently applied some further updates into my
| "space-radiation" page
My name still appears. Remove it at once.
Further, replacing name references with "clavius.org" does not correct your
error, as the ideas you attribute to that appellation are not to be found on
the Clavius.org web site either.
*Nobody* said them; they are your interpoloations and misrepresentations of
what I and others have said, and they're wrong. Do not connect me with them
via any name, nickname, or alias. They are not my ideas, and you do not
have the right to associate me with them.
I repeat again that my statement pertaining to secondary radiation and the
lunar surface material does not have anything to do with the nature of the
material itself, but rather of the intensity of the primary radiation.
Dear friend or perhaps foe;

My original assertion of what those hybrid Apollo astronauts had to
deal with in any respect to secondary radiation was specifically being
compared to their aluminum shielded spacecraft. It was yourself that
clearly stipulated that I was entirely incorrect about my assuming
that any of that terrifically clumping lunar soil could also provide
similar secondary radiation.

If need be, we can quote each other until we're blue in the face.
Since I can't offer nor teach the likes of yourself a damn thing, it's
entirely up to me to learn whatever I can from the rusemasters, in
spite of all the flak.

Yes indeed, I'm going to avoid siding with your every point of view
but, I'm also not going to stop objecting to the sorts of "spin" and
"damage control" on behalf of NASA, by way of your negative bashings
the likes of what you and of your website are suggesting as truths,
especially when there's not a shred of non-NASA moderated substance
there to be had. Your speculations as to space travel radiation
exposures (especially if we were to exclude anything Van Allen or EVA)
having to be as little as 10 mrem/day are questionable, especially if
that's having to include secondary radiation issues, are simply way
too darn low to believe in, as it seems none other space exposure
documentation (including more recent NASA documentation) seems to
agree with your data, not by any long shot.

As I stated before, I'll simply agree to disagree with a good number
of, but not necessarily everything you've got to say. Perhaps I should
just post a alternate link into the GOOGLE tit for tats regarding
space radiation, and let it go at that.

It's too bad that folks like yourself can't take the heat but, you
certainly do like to sell it out if someone disagrees with you.

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS discovery of LIFE on Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com
Jay Windley
2003-08-14 20:16:55 UTC
Permalink
"Brad Guth" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...
|
| My original assertion of what those hybrid Apollo astronauts had to
| deal with in any respect to secondary radiation was specifically being
| compared to their aluminum shielded spacecraft. It was yourself that
| clearly stipulated that I was entirely incorrect about my assuming
| that any of that terrifically clumping lunar soil could also provide
| similar secondary radiation.

I said that secondary radiation from the lunar surface was not significant
under normal circumstances. You took that to mean there was something
particular to the composition of the lunar surface material that made it
impervious or agnostic to secondary radiation.

That was *not* what I said at all, and this was made plain in the very first
post I made on the subject. I specifically said that the lack of secondary
radiation from the lunar surface was due to the lack of *primary* radiation
in the amounts you estimated. If there is little primary radiation there
will be little secondary radiation. This hardly needs explanation, unless
you really don't know what produces secondary radiation.

I went on to say explicitly that there would be significant secondary
radiation during a solar flare of sufficient magnitude. That comment, which
appeared in the original post, seems to have gotten lost in your efforts to
paint me with a broad brush as some kind of disinformationist or flunky.

| If need be, we can quote each other until we're blue in the face.

But you're not *quoting* me. You're rephrasing, paraphrasing, and
interpreting what I say. If you would simply reproduce the words I used, in
the context in which I used them, your readers would get an appropriate idea
of what I claimed. But you don't do that. You describe for your readers
what you *think* I said, and the reader has no way of knowing whether that's
what I really claimed. I can tell you authoritatively that it is not. You
habitually attribute to me claims I have not made.

You obviously have great difficulty understanding what you read. This is
borne out in how you treat my writings as well as how you respond to the
various written reports to which you refer. Until you can demonstrate a
better ability to comprehend what you read, I don't want you using my name,
identity, or works in connection with anything you say or write. You simply
cannot be trusted to reflect the intent of the original authors in your
paraphrases and claims.

| I'm also not going to stop objecting to the sorts of "spin" and
| "damage control" on behalf of NASA

Correcting your egregious and blatant errors is not "damage control". I
have shown you plainly wherein you are wrong. You're simply not concerned,
and you want to make it all a matter of "belief" and "trust", when it is
quite clearly a matter of fact and understanding.

| ...especially when there's not a shred of non-NASA moderated
| substance there to be had

I see, so you use NASA sources when you think they agree with you, and you
reject NASA as a source when you think they contradict your findings. And
you think this sort of selective approach to data somehow ensures accuracy?
You've simply set up a system of evaluating evidence that will always
support whatever hypothesis you happen to have.

You seem to believe NASA can just make up whatever it wants without being
caught by people who have bona fide credentials. People who "catch" NASA
apparently in error are always those who have almost no qualifications or
understanding of the relevant sciences. And when those alleged
whistle-blows are evaluated by qualified people and pared down to the
elementary error that the conspiracist has fallen into, the discussion
always turns to accusations of disinformation, collusion, or coverup.

Let's be plain. To those who don't share your delusions the answer is
perfectly clear: you don't know what you're talking about, and because you
don't know what you're talking about you criticize NASA for what is
essentially your error.

| your speculations as to space travel radiation
| exposures (especially if we were to exclude anything Van Allen or EVA)
| having to be as little as 10 mrem/day are questionable

I made no such speculation, statement, or quantative assessment. Those are
*your* numbers, so kindly do not try to paste them on me. Further, I have
thoroughly discussed why your numbers aren't right. You have not addressed
that discussion in any way.

| especially if that's having to include secondary radiation
| issues, are simply way too darn low to believe in

What you believe is irrelevant. These are the figures used by engineers
worldwide. You take it upon yourself to make computations and estimates,
but you will not accept that your computations are in error unless someone
else provides computations to take their place. Why is it so hard for you
simply to admit that your conclusions are based on inexpert computations?
Why can't you be wrong until someone else is proved right? You are wrong
whether or not someone else may be right.

| as it seems none other space exposure documentation (including more
| recent NASA documentation) seems to agree with your data, not by
| any long shot.

That is wrong, and I have lost track of how many times I have explained your
error to you.

You may not directly compare TRW geostationary orbital exposure to L2
exposure for a solar observatory; the environments are dissimilar. You may
not compare either data set to an Apollo mission; the flight profiles are
dissimilar. You may not derive useful daily exposure rates from yearly
exposures at solar maximum in any environment; that is statistically
invalid.

I have explained this to you in so many ways and on so many occasions that I
have no choice but to believe you are deliberately evading discussion of it.

| As I stated before, I'll simply agree to disagree with a good number
| of, but not necessarily everything you've got to say.

No. You are making claims that are either wrong or right, and the rightness
of them can be determined from your sources. This is not a simple
difference of opinion. This is your inability to read and comprehend, and
to put what you read into a meaningful understanding of the universe around
you. You *don't* have a point.

You can obviously say whatever you want. But I specifically deny you
permission to try to characterize for other people what you think it is I
have said. You can't do it accurately, whether it's with my writings or
someone else's, so you don't get to do it at all.

| Perhaps I should just post a alternate link into the GOOGLE
| tit for tats regarding space radiation, and let it go at that.

Perhaps you should not publish anything at all on the subject of space
radiation until you can demonstrate that you understand it. If you wish to
post a link to this thread IN ITS ENTIRETY I think that will give your
readers a good idea of what I've said and of how you've misused it.

| It's too bad that folks like yourself can't take the heat but, you
| certainly do like to sell it out if someone disagrees with you.

I can take the "heat" that I generate myself, but I don't feel obligated to
take the "heat" you fabricate and then attribute to me.
--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org
Brad Guth
2003-08-16 22:48:01 UTC
Permalink
OK, I give up.

If it's permissible for you and the likes of others to toss out flak
at every possible opportunity, then to re-stipulate of what you
actually meant, only after one of your own partners in crime pointed
out that your statement about lunar dirt creating little if any
secondary radiation was basically an incorrect statement in the
context of which I was implying, then I should be equally if not more
so entitled to also reflect upon what I've been attempting to convey.

True, outside of certain practical expertise and of observationology,
I mostly do not know what I'm talking about but, since I've asked
others to provide their more correct numbers and/or estimates and,
since few have been willing to commit to much of anything outside the
NASA box, that left those barn doors wide open for just about any
village idiot to enter. Unlike yourself, I'm still learning, in spite
of others that would rather I not learn any more than absolutely
necessary.

Until then, I'll learn whatever I can on your "need to know basis"
and, I'll subsequently publish what I believe is the interpretation
that best suits my agenda. That agenda is having to do with achieving
what's possible within known resources and by way of known technology,
such as with my ongoing Lunar Space Elevator tit for tat, where this
is merely another means to and end, nothing more, nothing less.

Unlike those "all knowing" but "anti-everything" lords of space
wizards, I seem to have a few too many active ideas that might
actually accomplish this sort of lunar space elevator feat, or not.
for some of my seriously weird ideas, checkout the following
in-progress page;
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-L1-elevator

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS discovery of LIFE on Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com
Jay Windley
2003-08-16 23:22:44 UTC
Permalink
"Brad Guth" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...
|
| OK, I give up.

Does this mean you will remove my name, identity, and references from your
material entirely? I certainly hope so, because you do not have my
permission to use it.

| If it's permissible for you and the likes of others to
| toss out flak at every possible opportunity, then to re-stipulate
| of what you actually meant ...

No. My intent remains unchanged from Day One. You have consistently,
habitually, and egregiously misstated, misrepresented, and misquoted me in
order to "spin" it for your purposes. My posts since then have been to draw
your attention not only to the errors you have made in discussing what I
wrote, but also your errors regarding other materials you have read.

You cannot dismiss it as revisionism when people correct your
misunderstanding of what they have said.

| only after one of your own partners in crime pointed
| out that your statement about lunar dirt creating little if any
| secondary radiation was basically an incorrect statement in the
| context of which I was implying

No. Mr. Silverlight raised a "nit pick," not a "basic" error. In fact, Mr.
Silverlight and I came to rapid agreement in one round of posting, both on
what I had said and that you did not understand either his statement or
mine. Mr. Silverlight agrees that lunar soil generally emits only little
secondary radiation (according to biological significance). His objection
was to my claim that it was "undetectable", since we are able to detect very
minute amounts of such radiation -- far below that which would be
biologically significant. Once he understood my context, we were in
agreement.

Further, you paid very close attention to Mr. Silverlight when it appeared
he disagreed with me. You offered no reaction, however, when Mr.
Silverlight clearly stated he did not support your findings, nor when he and
I expressed our agreement. Clearly you listen only to what you think
supports your preconceptions, and this is what clearly identifies you as a
crackpot.

| True, outside of certain practical expertise and of
| observationology, I mostly do not know what I'm talking about

That is an understatement. I would seriously consider you in need of mental
health care. Your inability to read and comprehend would make you seriously
dysfunctional in my line of work.

| but, since I've asked others to provide their more correct
| nubers and/or estimates and, since few have been willing to
| commit to much of anything outside the NASA box

No. Many people have attempted to correct your undersatnding: myself, Joe
Durnavich, and Jonathan Silverlight to name a few. You simply cannot see
beyond the rhetorical aspects of your question to the possibility that your
questions are meaningless.

It's analogously as if you claimed that horses can lay up to ten eggs at a
time, and when people object to that claim you ask them to give a better
estimate for how many eggs a horse can lay.

| Unlike yourself, I'm still learning, in spite of others that
| would rather I not learn any more than absolutely necessary.

This is probably why you're so stupid, then. Most smart people don't
arbitrarily limit how much they're willing to investigate.

I too am still learning. Only when I learn new things, I adjust my opinions
to account for them. You learn only what is necessary to make your
immutable opinions seem reasonable. This is why you have so much trouble
dealing with people in the real world.

| That agenda is having to do with achieving what's possible
| within known resources and by way of known technology

Fine, you keep doing that. Meanwhile the rest of us will be *actually*
building *real* things according to *real* science.
--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org
The Commentator
2003-08-22 03:29:01 UTC
Permalink
Brad Guth wrote:
< Codswallop, flapdoodle and dingbattery deleted >

One hopes you will be better able to understand the issues involved when
you have mastered high school.
Brad Guth
2003-09-05 22:35:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Commentator
< Codswallop, flapdoodle and dingbattery deleted >
One hopes you will be better able to understand the issues involved when
you have mastered high school.
Very good, as Borgs tend to go, obviously your implants are working
right up to snuff.

Of course, if we were not so focused upon the negatives (especially of
opposing someone others idea), some of us that actually give a tinkers
damn could try to rethink the logic and benefits of accomplishing a
lunar based space elevator as opposed to any Earthly based space
elevator, such as where a rather substantial lunar space elevator is
capable of housing our next ISS as a truly well endowed community
gateway that's capable of supplying unlimited volumes of that infamous
clumping moon dirt, as necessary mass for life sustaining radiation
shielding, plus there's lots of tether derived energy and whatever
side benefits of our utilizing the moon as for what it is and, doing
all of this within existing technology and the expertise we've got
today, at not 1% the cost impact of achieving any similar functioning
Earth based space elevator and, of not 10% the construction created
CO2 and of otherwise not an operational gram of CO2 created for Earth,
the entire project remaining no-fault fail-safe to boot, along with
providing countless scientific attributes, not to mention being nearly
Taliban proof (OOPS, I've insulted your family tree or bush or
whatever).
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-edwards-se.htm

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA / Discovery of LIFE on Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Ian Woollard
2003-07-25 18:25:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Clark
Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined
by Richard Perry
Los Angeles - Jul 22, 2003
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/materials-03w.html
The current situation, as near as I can make out, is that nanotube
technology is not quite strong enough, but it is close.

The necessary strength/weight ratio has been demonstrated, but only for a
single multicentimetre fiber without any safety factor, and the individual
fibers are not strong enough to splice/form into a practical ~20 tonne
'seed' tether.

On the other hand, the technology for hypersonic orbital tethers is
probably more or less to hand; requiring only engineering and finance.
Post by Robert Clark
Bob Clark
Ultimate Buu
2003-07-25 19:18:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Clark
Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined
by Richard Perry
Los Angeles - Jul 22, 2003
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/materials-03w.html
ALL ABOOAARD!!!
nightbat
2003-07-25 20:43:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ultimate Buu
Post by Robert Clark
Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined
by Richard Perry
Los Angeles - Jul 22, 2003
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/materials-03w.html
ALL ABOOAARD!!!
nightbat

This Clark space elevator concept has been discussed with the
sci.physics Aluminati who explained, let's get Uncle Al's parity
experiment funded and done first before we test stress the roll of tape
to the stars. Estimated $50 billion US dollars for first proposed
practical and cost saving viable nano tube roll is ok, but let Nasa
intelligently allocate the petty cash to test equivalency principle to
the bone.


the nightbat
Richard Henry
2003-07-26 14:15:57 UTC
Permalink
Also just how fast would a trip to 37,000 km take? I guess that
depends on how fast you want to go, where 2 to 3g seems about as fast
as some passengers could handle. Although it could go faster higher
up.
Please expand.
And how high could you go if you are running a cable up to about
91,000 km? As of course near the top it would start bending.
Please expand.
Cardman
2003-07-27 02:42:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Henry
Also just how fast would a trip to 37,000 km take? I guess that
depends on how fast you want to go, where 2 to 3g seems about as fast
as some passengers could handle. Although it could go faster higher
up.
Please expand.
The faster this space elevator goes up and down the more people and
goods it can move. However, for passengers this would have to be kept
within comfortable levels.

Due to a decrease in the pull of gravity at higher altitude, then so
can you increase the travel speed over time.

Also space elevators would not go up to LEO, like where the ISS is,
when this station goes around the Earth. Instead you would have all
your buildings up at geo-stationary orbit in the clarke belt, even if
the radiation here is not too good.

You can always go up higher I guess, but then you would float away
when you climbed out.
Post by Richard Henry
And how high could you go if you are running a cable up to about
91,000 km? As of course near the top it would start bending.
Please expand.
This elevator cable remains taunt due to itself, when either end is
pulling away from each other. There would be weights on either end,
but these only would be small.

So if you traveled all the way to the top, then the weight of your
elevator would bend the cable due to not enough cable and weight being
above you to keep it taunt.

Cardman.
Cardman
2003-07-27 12:53:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:19:08 +0100, "George Dishman"
Post by Cardman
The faster this space elevator goes up and down the more people and
goods it can move. However, for passengers this would have to be kept
within comfortable levels.
Speed doen't matter for comfort, you are thinking of
acceleration.
Yes, where I will remember to use the correct word next time.
Aircraft travel at 1000kph so 37000km could
take 370 hours.
Sounds like a little too long to me.

I should do a calculation to see how long the trip would take with a
constant acceleration of 3g. As Earth gravity can be fixed as 1g, then
I will do it the easy way, when it is 2g acceleration up to 18350 km,
then 3g acceleration up to 36700 km.
Post by Cardman
Due to a decrease in the pull of gravity at higher altitude, then so
can you increase the travel speed over time.
The limiting factor would most likely be friction with the
cable.
And a very good point that it, when your elevator should be designed
for ultra fast cable streaming. Yet here of course you have to grip
this cable hard to give friction and to stop you slipping.

Shame that you cannot bend the cable, when that would have helped out,
but due to the stresses that is impossible, or more correctly one step
below impossible.

Well have a large elevator that goes both sides of the cable and
balances on it. Then use four large wheels (two below the elevator and
two above) to push against the cable, then to use powerful springs to
give a very strong grip on the cable.

You can set the grip as required, but I was thinking that some
computer control could help. As say when moving upwards rapidly, then
the grip can be loosened slightly to allow the cable to be fed though
faster.

Then again maybe there is some optimum setting already, but I suspect
this has to do with the mass that the elevator has to move. So
computer control would provide the best speed.
Post by Cardman
You can always go up higher I guess, but then you would float away
when you climbed out.
Zero-g gives health problems.
Yes, but people still do it.
Having production facilities
and labs at zero-g and accomodation and launch at the cable
end also provides the counterbalance weight.
Well the counter balance weight is up at 91,000 km.

Also you have to be a bit careful here, when attaching your 36,700 km
hotels and shops to this cable would strain the cable. As if all the
buildings pushed against the cable, then so could the cable bend.

Or you would break your building...

Maybe it could work out, but I would be more happy having a little
space between the arrival platform and the buildings. As just let the
buildings balance themselves around the cable without directly
touching it.
Post by Cardman
So if you traveled all the way to the top, then the weight of your
elevator would bend the cable due to not enough cable and weight being
above you to
The elevator itself would be adding to the weight and
keeping taut.
Yes below it, but above I could still see the cable bend slightly as
it is fed through. Hardly an issue though.

91,000 km. Last stop, everybody off.

Watch that first step...
Post by Cardman
keep it taunt.
As you wish: "Your father smelled of elderberries!"
And... "Your Mother was a Hamster".

Who worked in Castle Anthrax...

Cardman.
Jorge R. Frank
2003-07-27 18:38:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cardman
Post by Cardman
You can always go up higher I guess, but then you would float away
when you climbed out.
Zero-g gives health problems.
Yes, but people still do it.
For extended periods in micro-G, you need 1-2 hrs of vigorous exercise per
day to avoid the health problems. Astronauts do this willingly - it's their
job and many of them are exercise freaks anyway - but it might be a bit
much to expect of passengers.
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
nightbat
2003-07-28 12:04:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jorge R. Frank
Post by Cardman
Post by Cardman
You can always go up higher I guess, but then you would float away
when you climbed out.
Zero-g gives health problems.
Yes, but people still do it.
For extended periods in micro-G, you need 1-2 hrs of vigorous exercise per
day to avoid the health problems. Astronauts do this willingly - it's their
job and many of them are exercise freaks anyway - but it might be a bit
much to expect of passengers.
--
JRF
nightbat

Ha, ha, haven't you ever heard of motel guest magic fingers?
Sure zero gravity hotel and spa in the stars. Where displaced vacuum
engine power is used to run everything. Velcro, orange Tang, and
metallic gravity boots are the thing. The Madison Ave. stocks on hip
lounge around space wear go through the roof. 50 US billion initial
investment and counting with a predicted research and development boom
never seen on Earth. Las Vegas can't wait, Moon over Miami wouldn't be
able to compete. Brazil nuts and plastic sippy bag coke for second class
folks with steak, champagne, and caviar for first class. Don't fight the
sky hook, get on it, and later get to ride to Mars and Venus. Float or
ease to your lover, breakfast, and tv. Von Braun wanted that space
station done right, 2001 or 2 or 3 or maybe 10. Can we live with a
possible 5% sky elevator nano tube tape failure rate 'til they get it
right if the accumulated sky hook free miles are there? Didn't everyone
love the Concord 'til a little garbage got on the runway? Did the
Indians stop the wagon trains, or it can't be done stop the Wright's?
What's a few billion here or there to watch " I love Lucy " reruns on a
thin plasma wall tv with your cutie out in space? Just think of the
views, the stars, the thought of really getting away from it all. Are
there really any taxes in deep space and who collects them, Space IRS?
Ha, ha, what if you have a dummy moon address like some of those Earth
Corporate island big boys, na, there will always be sky elevator highway
tape tax. Or how about investing in water futures on Mars, it could
happen. If taxpayers didn't invest in silly putty, holahoops, or, Nasa
Tang, could we have gone to the moon? Hey, the science equivalency
parity book rights should be worth more then the cost of doing the
experiment itself. Or a few inches of deferred projected cable nano tape
cost could help them look. A sky elevator to the stars, what will they
think of next? Space college, rent time shares on Mars, Milky Way punch?
Who says science doesn't march on?


the nightbat
Jorge R. Frank
2003-07-27 18:36:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:15:57 -0700, "Richard Henry"
Post by Richard Henry
Also just how fast would a trip to 37,000 km take? I guess that
depends on how fast you want to go, where 2 to 3g seems about as
fast as some passengers could handle. Although it could go faster
higher up.
Please expand.
The faster this space elevator goes up and down the more people and
goods it can move. However, for passengers this would have to be kept
within comfortable levels.
Speed doen't matter for comfort, you are thinking of
acceleration. Aircraft travel at 1000kph so 37000km could
take 370 hours.
That would seem to be an excessive amount of time spent in the Van Allen
belts, so I hope your mass budget accounts for the shielding required.
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
tj Frazir
2003-07-25 23:39:30 UTC
Permalink
Whitch is futile after I posted it and we hashed it over here.
I use a rod as a cable 17000 feet long to the sea floor ...why ???
And you think you will make a cable of any kind 40000 miles long so the
counter wieght in space provides a elivator to space !!
ALL the fucking idiots want is tax money to waist on idiotic bullshit.
Paul F. Dietz
2003-07-26 06:43:59 UTC
Permalink
Consider Nextel's new 400,000-foot high communications tower for
providing coast-to-coast walkie-talkie service! (Chuckle, snicker,
snort!) Tesla would have been envious!
Nah, that's clearly ridiculous and fictional.

It's actually the antennalopes.

Paul
DrPostman
2003-07-26 10:21:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul F. Dietz
Consider Nextel's new 400,000-foot high communications tower for
providing coast-to-coast walkie-talkie service! (Chuckle, snicker,
snort!) Tesla would have been envious!
Nah, that's clearly ridiculous and fictional.
It's actually the antennalopes.
Paul
Daymn. I wasn't paying close enough attention. I thought they were
deer.




--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: eckles(at)midsouth.rr.com

"The services provided by Sylvia Browne Corporation are highly
speculative in nature and we do not guarantee that the results
of our work will be satisfactory to a client."
-Sylvia's Refund Policy
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
2003-07-26 13:15:00 UTC
Permalink
Deer me. Given their electronic enhancements, they're actually e-lopes.
Well, I'm hearing of places using devices to block cell phones and the
"walkie-talkie" stuff. I think they are using anti-lopes.
Paul
S. Enterprize Company
2003-07-26 08:43:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Clark
Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined
by Richard Perry
Los Angeles - Jul 22, 2003
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/materials-03w.html
Bob Clark
My problem with this is, when the door opens in the elevator at the top
floor, isn't going to feel kindda funny with no air in the vacuum of outer
space?


Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/
Jim
2003-07-26 16:15:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by S. Enterprize Company
Post by Robert Clark
Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined
by Richard Perry
Los Angeles - Jul 22, 2003
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/materials-03w.html
Bob Clark
My problem with this is, when the door opens in the elevator at the top
floor, isn't going to feel kindda funny with no air in the vacuum of outer
space?
For anyone but you.

Jim
Double-A
2003-07-26 20:49:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by S. Enterprize Company
My problem with this is, when the door opens in the elevator at the top
floor, isn't going to feel kindda funny with no air in the vacuum of outer
space?
Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
It wouldn't feel funny if you had listened when they told you to put on a spacesuit!

But then maybe archangels don't need spacesuits!

Double-A
DrPostman
2003-07-26 10:21:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Clark
Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined
by Richard Perry
Los Angeles - Jul 22, 2003
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/materials-03w.html
Bob Clark
Consider Nextel's new 400,000-foot high communications tower for
providing coast-to-coast walkie-talkie service! (Chuckle, snicker,
snort!) Tesla would have been envious!
It beats them thar antenna deer. Walkin all over the country just
so some city slicker can make them annoying chripin sounds!
Can't even shoot 'em. Outta be a law again it.





--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: eckles(at)midsouth.rr.com

"The services provided by Sylvia Browne Corporation are highly
speculative in nature and we do not guarantee that the results
of our work will be satisfactory to a client."
-Sylvia's Refund Policy
Uncle Al
2003-07-26 14:46:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Clark
Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined
by Richard Perry
Los Angeles - Jul 22, 2003
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/materials-03w.html
Bob Clark
Can anyone explain to me why you would HAVE to have mach 16
speed vehicles to mate up with non-fixed tethers? I have always
seen that as a better idea to the space elevator attached to the
Earth, but I never knew it would require such great speeds to
work. I even thought the idea of a set of these between worlds,
wipways, if you will, to be a interesting way of spacecraft propulsion
through our system. I am not an engineer or a scientist, so if you
could keep the explanation dumbed down a bit I would appreciate it.
How many terrestrial suspension bridges are being planned based on
SuperDooper Fiber? If private ownerhsip cannot see a profit, then
government sure as Hell can't see a profit.

The high end is somewhere around geosynchrous orbit. That's about
Mach 16 vs. the ground. Low Earth orbit is about Mach 25. No matter
how one runs the numbers - cost, reliability, local and space weather,
usablity, fabrication, center of mass balancing the silly thing, raw
solar ultraviolet degradation, ozone degradation, vulnerability to
"political statements" - it is a perfect NASA project: an utter white
elephant with men (minorities, schoolmarms, political debts) inserted.

Anybody who would trust their lives to a currently technologically
non-existent filament loaded to 90+% of its optimistically spec'd
static tensile strength when new had best look at NASA "studies" of
deployed tethers in space. Can anybody name a succssful deployment?
Trusting your life to a poly(vinyl alcohol)-built fiber is ludicrous.
PVA is water-soluble (lower atmosphere, including "sea deployments."
It doesn't like heat (raw sunshine) either.

Have you ever worked with composites? What are the chances of
spinning 25,000 miles of perfect filament? Will you trust the
splices? What is the catastrophic failure rate for the tiny low-tech
bullshit political boondoggle Space Scuttle? Feynman estimated about
1%. That has been holding nicely.

First, we find Superman. Second, we get him to grow his hair real
long (Project Rapunzel; massive red kryptonite R&D). Third...
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Ed Keane III
2003-07-26 19:35:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Al
First, we find Superman. Second, we get him to grow his hair real
long (Project Rapunzel; massive red kryptonite R&D). Third...
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
"Sure it could be done if we weren't so stoooopid and do you know haaaarrd
it would be."

There isn't any better way to do it. Quit yer whining.
Florian
2003-07-27 01:51:11 UTC
Permalink
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.him
How much would this experiment cost using off-the-shelf components?
--
odoratusque est Dominus odorem suavitatis
Ed Keane III
2003-07-27 01:59:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Keane III
Post by Uncle Al
First, we find Superman. Second, we get him to grow his hair real
long (Project Rapunzel; massive red kryptonite R&D). Third...
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
"Sure it could be done if we weren't so stoooopid and do you know haaaarrd
it would be."
There isn't any better way to do it. Quit yer whining.
Another critic troll brainfarts.
Hey schmuck - it can't be done.
http://setas-www.larc.nasa.gov/LDEF/
Hey schmuck, this is called a "reference"
The entire planetary economy could not
Hey critic troll, are you going to bring your momma
If mankind wishes to become spacefaring, then it needs new, better,
and more inclusive science.
And that ain't rocket science.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.him
Do local parity pair test masses fall along parallel geodesic paths?
Nobody has ever looked...
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Is that a waa-waa I hear? No! That is a whole flock of waa-waas.

I want to go to space and check out the view. I would be willing to sit on
top of a bomb, blow it up, and take my chances if that is what it takes. But
I do not want to have to spend any time at five jeez. That does not sound
like fun. And......

Am not. You are.
Jim
2003-07-27 04:25:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Keane III
Post by Uncle Al
First, we find Superman. Second, we get him to grow his hair real
long (Project Rapunzel; massive red kryptonite R&D). Third...
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
"Sure it could be done if we weren't so stoooopid and do you know haaaarrd
it would be."
There isn't any better way to do it. Quit yer whining.
Another critic troll brainfarts. No contribution, only complaint. No
references URL or literature, no input to the discussion, no
enlightenment, no hint of intelligence. Nothing but anile kneejerk
spasm befitting a particulary inferior undergrad assignment in spew
emulation. Having pissed upon a skyscraper wall, the critic troll
rears back and exhorts the crowd to admire both his spoor and the
manly implement that emplaced it.
Hey schmuck - it can't be done. It can't be done because the minimum
energy curve of a skyhook is not a straight line, nothing flies at
Mach 16, nothing even remotely imaginable has sufficient specific
tensile strength to pull it off real world, 25,000 miles of $100/gram
stuff is ludicrous. Nothing would survive trophospheric turbulence,
low Earth orbit monoatomic oxygen erosion, and raw solar UV in space.
http://setas-www.larc.nasa.gov/LDEF/
Hey schmuck, this is called a "reference"
The entire planetary economy could not finance and manufacture it.
Its destruction by dissident political faction or orbiting space
garbage would be trivial to accomplish. What powers the lifter,
jackass? You can't have electrical conductors (too heavy;
magnetosphere inductance), internal combustion doesn't work for the
last 24,970 miles, nuclear reactors are heavy, and the E*L*E*C*T*R*I*C
cable car is as pathetic as you are. Batteries are dead weight (a
NASA speciality), solar cells are a bad joke, fuel cells are less than
a bad joke.
Double the length, add a couple'a pulleys, and a motor at the Earth
end, and there ya go. "The ski-lift to..." :)

Jim
The Ghost In The Machine
2003-07-28 02:08:31 UTC
Permalink
In sci.physics, Uncle Al
<***@hate.spam.net>
wrote
on Sun, 27 Jul 2003 07:31:21 -0700
Post by Jim
Post by Ed Keane III
Post by Uncle Al
First, we find Superman. Second, we get him to grow his hair real
long (Project Rapunzel; massive red kryptonite R&D). Third...
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
"Sure it could be done if we weren't so stoooopid and do you
know haaaarrd it would be."
There isn't any better way to do it. Quit yer whining.
Another critic troll brainfarts. No contribution, only complaint. No
references URL or literature, no input to the discussion, no
enlightenment, no hint of intelligence. Nothing but anile kneejerk
spasm befitting a particulary inferior undergrad assignment in spew
emulation. Having pissed upon a skyscraper wall, the critic troll
rears back and exhorts the crowd to admire both his spoor and the
manly implement that emplaced it.
Hey schmuck - it can't be done. It can't be done because the minimum
energy curve of a skyhook is not a straight line, nothing flies at
Mach 16, nothing even remotely imaginable has sufficient specific
tensile strength to pull it off real world, 25,000 miles of $100/gram
stuff is ludicrous. Nothing would survive trophospheric turbulence,
low Earth orbit monoatomic oxygen erosion, and raw solar UV in space.
http://setas-www.larc.nasa.gov/LDEF/
Hey schmuck, this is called a "reference"
The entire planetary economy could not finance and manufacture it.
Its destruction by dissident political faction or orbiting space
garbage would be trivial to accomplish. What powers the lifter,
jackass? You can't have electrical conductors (too heavy;
magnetosphere inductance), internal combustion doesn't work for the
last 24,970 miles, nuclear reactors are heavy, and the E*L*E*C*T*R*I*C
cable car is as pathetic as you are. Batteries are dead weight (a
NASA speciality), solar cells are a bad joke, fuel cells are less than
a bad joke.
EER!

Oh, wait, that's *another* bad joke... :-)
Post by Jim
Double the length, add a couple'a pulleys, and a motor at the Earth
end, and there ya go. "The ski-lift to..." :)
25,000 miles at 30 mph is 35 days.
Which obviously would have been too fast for Phileas Fogg.... :-)
Of course he was going in a slightly different direction, one which
had more air and more interesting scenery.

Any such cable would have to be made of the same stuff as the
main support cable otherwise it would snap under its own weight.

And then there's the little issue of the pulley (and the
satellite to which it's attached) being dragged down by
double the load as the load ascends. I could be wrong,
admittedly, but the load -- the lucky ascender & cable
car & other equipment needed to keep one alive, such as
oxygen, spare sandwiches, water, and honeypots -- tugs on
the cable with weight gM, and that force gets transmitted
all the way up to the pulley; the motor is also tugging
on the cable *with the same force in the same direction*.
The pulley, in order to compensate, presumably has to
exert a force of 2gM upwards, which means of course that
the cable is exerting a force on the pulley with a force
of 2gM downwards.

The satellite could of course compensate for this force by
outgassing until its fuel runs out. Fortunately for all
concerned the load force decreases as the car ascends until
at synchronous orbit it's less than zero (the weight/force
of the cable on the second side is greater than the weight
of everything on the first which is zero). How one keeps
the cable from detaching off the pulley and falling to
Earth is not clear. What one does at the takeup facility
as the cable falls onto his head, assuming it survives
reentry, is even less clear. How one restrings the cable
is probably at least somewhat clear but would require some
work with a rocket, and then the takeup facility has to
be able to catch the end of the cable. Good luck, as it's
probably going to whip around because of aforementioned
tropospheric turblence and various force vectors associated
with the magnetoelectric effects of the van Allen belts,
the same one that gives us such pretty light shows at
the poles.

I hope rubber gloves are thick enough to handle the voltage
difference. It's a pity that one NASA experiment's cable
broke; it was generating 50,000 volts difference. (How the
satellite measured that is not clear. Presumably it was
backEMF across an open loop of 1 turn -- a very flat loop.)

And assuming the cable doesn't fall off the pulley, how
do they get down? Grab onto the main support cable
and push? Can't get any help from the Earthbound
cable takeup reel -- it's slack.

I've commented on the angular momentum problem in another
post. Both it and the pulley force might be compensated
for by discarding the contents of the honeypots with
sufficient explosive force, there being no further use
for them. Of course there is the problem when the contents
hit lower orbit satellite solar arrays, which might be
described as being in a somewhat spread out configuration.

Yet another description of what happens when the shit hits the fan...

So I have to yet again agree with Uncle Al; a cable elevator
is a bad idea, attractive as it sounds at first glance.
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
tj Frazir
2003-07-28 03:38:12 UTC
Permalink
The nuke balloon is still the easyest way to space. 1959
Dont forget ,,,sgorten the radius is energy converted to speed an the
object coming down the cable would speed up its orbit.
A smaller unman rocket is still cheeper than the big white elephant
nasa uses.
We dont even nead space any more.
If I may piss on the parade .......
Space is now stupid as a biz omeg,aventure,ouse one .

Fiber optics and towers and bouys are cheeper and can be fixed and work
better.
GPS works with out a sig ,, comunication sats are one time launched
cheeper unmand.
Soon privet launches will put nasa away .
Nasa is just not worth the money.
2 mil will put a sat on the dot ,,,if it missed yer out 2 mil instead
of 2 bil.
Nasa likes to keep the competins out of the spot light away from
american eyes.
What the fuck do they pay per ton of fuel ??
10,000 fucks a ton ??
That old can neads junked and replaced with small cheep high tect
space ventures.
Space should be cheeper tham misles.
You can put a missle in sace 7 diferant ways so cheep ,,,we got parts
up te ass and new ways to automate anything.
nasa neads canned.
yer fuckin fired nasa bitches .......like that.
Nasa ignorance is a can that cant.
Old pice of miss engineerd shit.
Not bult to be rebuilt ,,,reliable went with the bullshit they sold it
with.
NO quality what so ever.
Nasa wound do quality and dont understand quality. Too many dickheads
wanting greesed.
I would scrap all the junk that is two years old
get rid of the junk they dont nead devide the shudel into several
return pods apolo styal
land in the sea and take the risk out of going up and getting down.
Fuck nasa junk ,,who is stupid enouph to ride in thier junk ?
I can do it cheeper and so safe no one neads to die ,not,,the same old
navy bullshit ..
30 year out dated burocratic clusterfuck.
Build cars you can change engines in an hour.
get a new body ,,or a chassy ,,componet classics with renewable power
drives.
Nasa ,,,,you take a stupid method and then run it into the ground ,,,,
We could have sent 100 up to your one and never busted a zit doing it.
And never paid 10000 a ton for fuel !!
The same shits 150 a ton in the quary.
Nasa just loves to fuck usa is what it is.
Bunch of dumbfucks with a money train.
The Ghost In The Machine
2003-07-28 15:15:46 UTC
Permalink
In sci.physics, tj Frazir
<***@webtv.net>
wrote
on Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:38:12 -0400 (EDT)
Post by tj Frazir
The nuke balloon is still the easyest way to space. 1959
Dont forget ,,,sgorten the radius is energy converted to speed an the
object coming down the cable would speed up its orbit.
A smaller unman rocket is still cheeper than the big white elephant
nasa uses.
We dont even nead space any more.
If I may piss on the parade .......
Space is now stupid as a biz omeg,aventure,ouse one .
Fiber optics and towers and bouys are cheeper and can be fixed and work
better.
GPS works with out a sig ,, comunication sats are one time launched
cheeper unmand.
Soon privet launches will put nasa away .
Nasa is just not worth the money.
2 mil will put a sat on the dot ,,,if it missed yer out 2 mil instead
of 2 bil.
Nasa likes to keep the competins out of the spot light away from
american eyes.
What the fuck do they pay per ton of fuel ??
10,000 fucks a ton ??
A 1 kg object in orbit at 8 km/s and 200 km high would require
a potential energy of

GmM/r - GmM/(r+h) = 1905079 J (1.905079 megaJoules)

and a kinetic energy of

1/2 m v^2 = 32000000 J (32 megaJoules)

It would be nice to get up there with 1 kg of gasoline (which has
~ 45 MJ) but the problem is there's no traction.... :-)
Post by tj Frazir
That old can neads junked and replaced with small cheep high tect
space ventures.
Space should be cheeper tham misles.
So build an X-10 prototype, then. We'll wait... :-)

[rest snipped]
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
tj Frazir
2003-07-28 17:53:14 UTC
Permalink
Its still fucking stoopid to worry about space eleivators when we nead a
tunnel o bridge accross the berring strait and a international hyway
around the planet.
You just cant have supper energ till you use supper mags and supper
conductors.
The Ghost In The Machine
2003-07-26 15:21:23 UTC
Permalink
In sci.physics, Robert Clark
<***@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 25 Jul 2003 08:59:34 -0700
Post by Robert Clark
Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined
by Richard Perry
Los Angeles - Jul 22, 2003
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/materials-03w.html
Bob Clark
Bond energy of C-C: 348 kJ/mol
Bond length of C-C: 154 pm

That bond energy is in a slightly inconvenient form, so we
convert by dividing by Avogadro's Number (6.022 * 10^23 atoms/mol).
This yields 5.779 * 10^-19 J per actual bond, or 3.607 eV.

A carbon atom weighs 1.993 * 10^-26 kg. On Earth the carbon
atom experiences a grav force of about 1.954 * 10^-25 N.
If one were to (somehow) hold onto both carbon atoms and
apply a certain force, when would the bond snap and the atoms
become free (or at least bound to other atoms)?

I wish I knew offhand. Assuming one has a monocarbon bond
line (otherwise known as an insanely long hydrocarbon!)
one would have a total mass of 14 / 6.022*10^23 / (1.54*10^-10)
= 1.51 * 10^-13 grams/meter. (Remember the hydrogen atoms;
that's why 14, not 12.) Of course this is assuming linear
bonds, which isn't quite right as carbon is generally tetrahedral;
the effect would be somewhat like that of a zigzag. Coiling
such a line would probably be disastrous. :-)

In any event, even were one to have a space elevator,
one wouldn't save that much energy. It turns out that
lifting a mass of 1 kg 200 km out of the Earth's grav
field would cost

GmM / d - GmM/(d+h) = 1.905*10^6 J.

where d is the Earth's radius, which I'm taking to be 6.378*10^6 m.

The shuttle does this more or less routinely, of course, at great
expense per launch.

Synchronous orbit is where sqrt(G*M/r) = 2 * pi * r / t,
or G*M/r^3 = 4 * pi^2 / t^2, or r = (G*M*t^2 / (4 * pi^2))^(1/3)
= 4.228 * 10^7 m.

To raise a 1 kg mass to this orbit would require 5.321 * 10^7 J.

Angular velocity may not be a problem during this ascent, but
regular velocity is. On Earth, we're moving around (on
the Equator, anyway) at a speed of 6.378*10^6 * 2 * pi / 86400
= 463.8 m/s. Or, if you prefer, the terminator (the boundary
between night and day) is moving east to west at this speed.
(Or we're moving west to east.)

A 1 kg mass sitting on the Earth has a de facto energy
of 1/2 m v^2 = 108,000 J just sitting there. (Not much
it can do with it, admittedly.) Boost that same mass
to our equatorial geosynch elevator terminus and it now
has to move at a velocity of sqrt(G*M/r) = 3,075 m/s.
The kinetic energy is now 4,726,000 J.

The elevator would save *nothing* on energy costs regarding
the payload mass. I'd have to compute how much energy
one might save regarding reactive mass expenditures.
That reactive mass has energy too -- wasted energy, in
many respects, but it's the only method we know of by
which one can acquire the needed velocity or momentum to
achieve orbit. Of course one might have to string a power
cable, and given the electric field in the van Allen belts,
is that really such a hot idea? And there are a number
of other phenomena such as those peculiar red plumes we
see on occasion high in the ionosphere; we've never had
to worry about launching in a thunderstorm but this
hypothetical elevator will have to weather all kinds of
weather, possibly including cyclones.

And then there's the question of angular momentum. The mass
on Earth has to increase angular momentum in order to get
into space on this elevator, unless one wants to risk deorbiting
the satellite by slowing it down. I've no idea how one might
borrow angular momentum from the Earth in order to do this,
apart from making that dangling flexible line into some sort
of rigid truss; at least that way the base can impart a force
on the Earth to slow it down to compensate.

Sorry, Arthur C. Clarke. :-) Assuming he's the original
proposer of this thing. It's the first place I've seen it,
anyway; he proposes a monofilament band and a bank of
batteries to power the elevator. I don't know if batteries
will be enough to make up the energy deficit. I'm not even
sure a gasoline motor can do it, although I'd have to work
it out; that 45 MJ/kg cited for chemical energy from the
gas does not include the oxygen required to burn it.
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
David M. Palmer
2003-07-26 20:26:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
Synchronous orbit is where sqrt(G*M/r) = 2 * pi * r / t,
or G*M/r^3 = 4 * pi^2 / t^2, or r = (G*M*t^2 / (4 * pi^2))^(1/3)
= 4.228 * 10^7 m.
To raise a 1 kg mass to this orbit would require 5.321 * 10^7 J.
Boost that same mass
to our equatorial geosynch elevator terminus and it now
has to move at a velocity of sqrt(G*M/r) = 3,075 m/s.
The kinetic energy is now 4,726,000 J.
The elevator would save *nothing* on energy costs regarding
the payload mass.
Correct calculation, irrelevant conclusion. :-).

Using these numbers, sending a kg to geosynchronous orbit requires 58MJ
of energy.

This is about 20 kwH of electricity, which costs about a couple of
bucks at current prices. This compares to tens of thousands of dollars
per kg using current rocket technology.

If a trip to geosynchronous orbit cost a few hundred bucks, wouldn't
you go?
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
I've no idea how one might
borrow angular momentum from the Earth in order to do this,
apart from making that dangling flexible line into some sort
of rigid truss; at least that way the base can impart a force
on the Earth to slow it down to compensate.
As you go up or down the elevator, conservation of angular momentum
makes the car pull the cable slightly off-vertical to the West or East.
The cable pulls on the car as hard as the car pulls on the cable, and
that's how the angular momentum is balanced. The more you send up and
the faster the speed, the more it bends the cable, but the amount of
bend is trivial at any realistic rates.
Post by The Ghost In The Machine
I don't know if batteries
will be enough to make up the energy deficit. I'm not even
sure a gasoline motor can do it, although I'd have to work
it out; that 45 MJ/kg cited for chemical energy from the
gas does not include the oxygen required to burn it.
Right. Carrying your energy up with you in the form of e.g. batteries
or gasoline+LOX is the wrong way to do it. Beaming the power up (or
down) to the car in the form of light onto solar panels, or microwaves
onto rectennas, is the way to go. Using an in-car nuclear reactor
might work, but has technical, political, and PR problems.
--
David M. Palmer ***@email.com (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)
Ian Stirling
2003-07-27 14:18:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by David M. Palmer
Right. Carrying your energy up with you in the form of e.g. batteries
or gasoline+LOX is the wrong way to do it. Beaming the power up (or
down) to the car in the form of light onto solar panels, or microwaves
onto rectennas, is the way to go.
I came to the same conclusion, but the question then becomes how to
recover energy from descending cars as they propose. I haven't read the
paper, so have they addressed this? Using the tether as a conductor
would be dangerous with the change in electric potential at various
altitudes.
You either need superconductors that can cope with very high magnetic
fields (you want tiny conductors) as well as maybe 500K, or to make
the tether so huge it's not possible to launch it with anything close
to near-term launchers.

(if the resistance of the camels is an ohm a kilometer, then that's
80K in total. It'd need at least 100Kv to get any sort of power
to the end of such a cable. For copper, you'd need around 18mm^2 cables,
so that's around 300g/m, and probably equal to that for insulation.
Adding tens of thousands of tons to the mass of the cable is insane
to save $few worth of electricity per trip)

The energy needed to get the thing to GEO is much higher than chemical
fuels can provide, unless you practically fill the car with them, and
use stages.
So, you'r left with nuclear, solar, or something else.
Nuclear isn't well suited to the few tons/100Kw range that the first cars
will likely be.
Solar has serious problems with day/night, and lousy specific power.
I think probably the easiest way is microwave beaming for the first
50Km or so, and then laser powered from the top of the beanstalk
for the rest of the way.
40000Km is a bit long for microwave reception on a small object.

Initially, you can't share the power between cars close on the cable,
as you want the cable to be very very light.


This implies that you only want around 1.4 cars weight (not mass) on the cable
at once, which implies that you have to have them initially spaced around
4000Km or so.
Efficiant (>50%) lasers don't yet exist, so it's probably not worth
trying to capture this wasted energy, just dump it into a heater or
something.

Eventually, maybe, but not soon.
--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:***@i.am | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
Tad Williams has an interesting new fantasy: http://www.shadowmarch.com/
Ian Stirling
2003-07-27 21:23:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Stirling
(if the resistance of the camels is an ohm a kilometer, then that's
80K in total. It'd need at least 100Kv to get any sort of power
to the end of such a cable.
If you stick 100kV up a camel, it'll be in space before
you can saddle it!
(Sorry Ian, but that's the best typo I've seen in ages.)
Oh dear:)
I blame my new laptop, which has a slightly undersized keyboard.
Most of the time I can touch type, apart from the times when I can't.
--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:***@i.am | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
"Looks like his brainwaves crash a little short of the beach..." - Duckman.
Double-A
2003-07-26 19:34:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Clark
Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined
by Richard Perry
Los Angeles - Jul 22, 2003
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/materials-03w.html
Bob Clark
Has anyone considered the problem of vibrations? High-speed jet
stream winds blowing past the cable could have the same effect as a
bow being pulled across a violin string. Harmonic vibrations could
build up to incredible intensities! Enduring the hum of the world's
largest stringed instrument could be unpleasant. Riding up upon its
vibrating string could be catasrophic!

Double-A
Joe Strout
2003-07-27 00:00:15 UTC
Permalink
Can anyone explain to me why you would HAVE to have mach 16
speed vehicles to mate up with non-fixed tethers?
Well, here's the thing: if you want a non-rotating tether to be
stationary with respect to the surface of the Earth, then its center of
mass has to be in geosynchronous orbit -- that is the definition of
geosynchronous orbit, after all.

But GEO is really really high. About 36000 km high in fact. That means
you need a REALLY long tether. And since it has to hold up its own
weight over 36000 km, it has to be really strong too. This is why it's
hard.

So, you think, put it closer to Earth so it doesn't have to be as long.
But something closer to Earth has two choices: (1) move faster, so as to
stay in orbit, or (2) fall. The closer you get to the Earth, the faster
the orbit is. This just results from basic laws of physics.

So, there are an infinite number of compromises to choose from, but I
presume the one in question is at an altitude such that the velocity
(relative to the surface of the Earth) is about mach 16. That's how
fast the tether is moving in its orbit around the Earth, so that's how
fast you have to go to catch it.

Note that there is a clever way to improve things about: rotate the
tether, something like a giant wheel. Then the lower end of the tether
is moving opposite the tether's orbital direction. You can then
subtract the linear speed of the tether tip from the orbital speed of
the tether, thus making it easier to catch. As a bonus, the tether can
then drag you up and launch you into a higher orbit than itself.

But these dynamic tether systems, while very interesting, may be a lot
more complicated than the GEO tethers being studied now. If the latter
work out, I think we'll never need the faster-moving ones.

Cheers,
- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| ***@strout.net http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
George Dishman
2003-07-27 07:08:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Strout
Can anyone explain to me why you would HAVE to have mach 16
speed vehicles to mate up with non-fixed tethers?
Well, here's the thing: if you want a non-rotating tether to be
stationary with respect to the surface of the Earth, then its center of
mass has to be in geosynchronous orbit -- that is the definition of
geosynchronous orbit, after all.
But GEO is really really high. About 36000 km high in fact. That means
you need a REALLY long tether. And since it has to hold up its own
weight over 36000 km, it has to be really strong too. This is why it's
hard.
So, you think, put it closer to Earth so it doesn't have to be as long.
But something closer to Earth has two choices: (1) move faster, so as to
stay in orbit, or (2) fall. The closer you get to the Earth, the faster
the orbit is. This just results from basic laws of physics.
So, there are an infinite number of compromises to choose from, but I
presume the one in question is at an altitude such that the velocity
(relative to the surface of the Earth) is about mach 16. That's how
fast the tether is moving in its orbit around the Earth, so that's how
fast you have to go to catch it.
The trouble with that of course is atmospheric drag. You start
at Mach 16 but pretty soon you are down to Mach 15 and falling.
Post by Joe Strout
Note that there is a clever way to improve things about: rotate the
tether, something like a giant wheel. Then the lower end of the tether
is moving opposite the tether's orbital direction. You can then
subtract the linear speed of the tether tip from the orbital speed of
the tether, thus making it easier to catch. As a bonus, the tether can
then drag you up and launch you into a higher orbit than itself.
But these dynamic tether systems, while very interesting, may be a lot
more complicated than the GEO tethers being studied now. If the latter
work out, I think we'll never need the faster-moving ones.
It would be interesting to look at the stability of a geosync
tether in the case of the anchor becoming detached. If the
bottom was normally under excess tension, the zero-g point
on the cable would presumably start to move away from Earth
and the location at release would be the perigee of an
elliptical orbit. Would atmospheric drag gradually change the
orbit to circular or would it increase the eccentricity until
the cable hit the ground or left the atmosphere?
Blurrt
2003-07-27 10:11:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Clark
Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined
by Richard Perry
Los Angeles - Jul 22, 2003
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/materials-03w.html
Bob Clark
Can anyone explain to me why you would HAVE to have mach 16
speed vehicles to mate up with non-fixed tethers? I have always
seen that as a better idea to the space elevator attached to the
Earth, but I never knew it would require such great speeds to
work. I even thought the idea of a set of these between worlds,
wipways, if you will, to be a interesting way of spacecraft propulsion
through our system. I am not an engineer or a scientist, so if you
could keep the explanation dumbed down a bit I would appreciate it.
Well, if the tether was rotating you could match the rotation to some very
low speed for docking. I know nothing about the stability issues involved.

Blurrt
--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: eckles(at)midsouth.rr.com
"The services provided by Sylvia Browne Corporation are highly
speculative in nature and we do not guarantee that the results
of our work will be satisfactory to a client."
-Sylvia's Refund Policy
Ian Woollard
2003-07-28 21:24:36 UTC
Permalink
Can anyone explain to me why you would HAVE to have mach 16
speed vehicles to mate up with non-fixed tethers?
It's just a question of how fast you can spin a tether. In principle
there's no limit, but as the spin speed goes up you have to build the
tethers heavier and heavier to take the stresses; so there is a limit
in practice.

A tip speed of about 2.5km/s is considered about the practical limit
(compared with the orbital speed of 7.8 km/s); unless you can use
carbon nanotubes (but they aren't long enough yet).
I have always
seen that as a better idea to the space elevator attached to the
Earth, but I never knew it would require such great speeds to
work.
Well, low earth orbit is about mach 25 so consider yourself well
blessed if you only need mach 16 to reach orbit.

(Rockets get exponentially bigger with the speed they have to reach,
so although mach 16 sounds high, rest assured it's a walk in the park
compared to what the Shuttle has to deal with.)
--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Christopher
2003-08-10 00:25:51 UTC
Permalink
I would put one on the moon or better still a ring of them then put a
spider type web of asteroid smelters i.e.spinning zero gravity induction
furnaces, factories, space docks and accommodation modules plus hospitals
and hotels it would probably take a couple of centuries but what a set up!
there would also be a lot less chance of it getting hit be lightning like an
experimental power satellite that was tested by tethering it to a space
shuttle one little fault in the tether caused a very bad problem that should
not happen in lunar orbit when lowering the cables to the lunar surface i.e.
static electricity there might be some but it should not be a real problem
to anchor the space elevators to the lunar surface.
Post by Ian Woollard
Can anyone explain to me why you would HAVE to have mach 16
speed vehicles to mate up with non-fixed tethers?
It's just a question of how fast you can spin a tether. In principle
there's no limit, but as the spin speed goes up you have to build the
tethers heavier and heavier to take the stresses; so there is a limit
in practice.
A tip speed of about 2.5km/s is considered about the practical limit
(compared with the orbital speed of 7.8 km/s); unless you can use
carbon nanotubes (but they aren't long enough yet).
I have always
seen that as a better idea to the space elevator attached to the
Earth, but I never knew it would require such great speeds to
work.
Well, low earth orbit is about mach 25 so consider yourself well
blessed if you only need mach 16 to reach orbit.
(Rockets get exponentially bigger with the speed they have to reach,
so although mach 16 sounds high, rest assured it's a walk in the park
compared to what the Shuttle has to deal with.)
--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Joe Strout
2003-08-11 15:00:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher
I would put one on the moon or better still a ring of them then put a
spider type web of asteroid smelters i.e.spinning zero gravity induction
furnaces, factories, space docks and accommodation modules plus hospitals
and hotels it would probably take a couple of centuries but what a set up!
there would also be a lot less chance of it getting hit be lightning like an
experimental power satellite that was tested by tethering it to a space
shuttle one little fault in the tether caused a very bad problem that should
not happen in lunar orbit when lowering the cables to the lunar surface i.e.
static electricity there might be some but it should not be a real problem
to anchor the space elevators to the lunar surface.
This is good ambition, though it doesn't actually work on numerous
accounts. But stay in school, listen to your English and physics
teachers, and I have no doubt you'll help us all get off the planet
someday.

Best,
- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| ***@strout.net http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
Mary Shafer
2003-08-18 00:19:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 19:08:34 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
I suspect Robert A. Heinlein had passing familiarity with
the concept of Cherenkov radiation (electrons are moving
faster than the local speed of light in a substance;
the idea is similar to the sonic shock cone one gets at
Mach 1, with such attendant phenomena as sonic booms)
which is why he used the term; it sounds neat. :-)
I thought Cherenkov radiation was what made reactor fuel rods glow
blue in the holding ponds. While it's possible to argue that
electrons can move faster than the local speed of light in solid
metal, that sounds a little specious to me.

So what is the name of the blue glowing?

Mary
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
***@qnet.com
Uncle Al
2003-08-18 00:41:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mary Shafer
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 19:08:34 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
I suspect Robert A. Heinlein had passing familiarity with
the concept of Cherenkov radiation (electrons are moving
faster than the local speed of light in a substance;
the idea is similar to the sonic shock cone one gets at
Mach 1, with such attendant phenomena as sonic booms)
which is why he used the term; it sounds neat. :-)
I thought Cherenkov radiation was what made reactor fuel rods glow
blue in the holding ponds. While it's possible to argue that
electrons can move faster than the local speed of light in solid
metal, that sounds a little specious to me.
So what is the name of the blue glowing?
Cerenkov radiation. A charged particle traveling faster than the
local speed of light (lightspeed/refractive index) emits a cone of
photons. CerenKov radiation is optical boom.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
The Ghost In The Machine
2003-08-18 05:35:35 UTC
Permalink
In sci.physics, Mary Shafer
<***@qnet.nospam.com>
wrote
on Sun, 17 Aug 2003 17:19:06 -0700
Post by Mary Shafer
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 19:08:34 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
I suspect Robert A. Heinlein had passing familiarity with
the concept of Cherenkov radiation (electrons are moving
faster than the local speed of light in a substance;
the idea is similar to the sonic shock cone one gets at
Mach 1, with such attendant phenomena as sonic booms)
which is why he used the term; it sounds neat. :-)
I thought Cherenkov radiation was what made reactor fuel rods glow
blue in the holding ponds.
Not the fuel rods, the water surrounding them.
Post by Mary Shafer
While it's possible to argue that
electrons can move faster than the local speed of light in solid
metal, that sounds a little specious to me.
So what is the name of the blue glowing?
Cherenkov radiation. :-)
Post by Mary Shafer
Mary
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
m***@cars3.uchicago.edu
2003-08-18 05:58:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mary Shafer
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 19:08:34 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
I suspect Robert A. Heinlein had passing familiarity with
the concept of Cherenkov radiation (electrons are moving
faster than the local speed of light in a substance;
the idea is similar to the sonic shock cone one gets at
Mach 1, with such attendant phenomena as sonic booms)
which is why he used the term; it sounds neat. :-)
I thought Cherenkov radiation was what made reactor fuel rods glow
blue in the holding ponds.
Sure. Electrons from beta decays, moving faster than the speed of
*visible* light in water.
Post by Mary Shafer
While it's possible to argue that
electrons can move faster than the local speed of light in solid
metal, that sounds a little specious to me.
Why, perfectly possible, only the formulation is faulty. Should be
"faster then the local speed of EM radiation *within such frequency
band* in solid metal". The term "speed of light in matter", though
often used, is meaningless gibberish. What's meaningful is "speed at
a given frequency" or (as an approximate concept) "speed within some
frequency band.
Post by Mary Shafer
So what is the name of the blue glowing?
Cherenkov radiation.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
***@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Christopher
2003-08-18 08:30:44 UTC
Permalink
Cherenkov radiation is something you can see when you look in to a
swimingpool reactor or cooling pond it's visible as a blue glow at a nuclear
power station the is also another form of radant energy that used to be a
problem in nucler power stations it was called vigna energy it was the cause
of a bad fire in the u.k. power station at calder hall in the 1950's it's a
form of radio static energy.
In sci.physics, Christopher
on Sat, 16 Aug 2003 04:13:50 +0100
I left school 25+years ago most of what i sead
is not possible at this time but you should look
at a film by the name of starship troopers it's not
that good but if you look at the point in the film
where the starship pulls away from the space base
then you might see what i mean, the tech base we have
at this time will not necessarily be the only technology
in the future
The book mentions a "Cherenkov drive" but gives no specifics
beyond stating that it can take weeks subjective to get to
stars many light-years apart using it.
I suspect Robert A. Heinlein had passing familiarity with
the concept of Cherenkov radiation (electrons are moving
faster than the local speed of light in a substance;
the idea is similar to the sonic shock cone one gets at
Mach 1, with such attendant phenomena as sonic booms)
which is why he used the term; it sounds neat. :-) And
of course he's being deliberately vague here as no one
has a "Cherenkov" drive of any sort that we know of.
(LGM from planet Vega might, but I for one have not seen
any, or any news reports thereof. Reputable ones, anyway.)
I also suspect that a Cherenkov drive would not be a
stealthy one; a ship using it would probably glow like
a lamppost. :-) (Then again, we won't really know until
and unless we build one. I'm not hopeful, despite our
successes in breaking the sound barrier.)
even the near
future if you look at history you will find that if there is a reason to
do
some thing such as looking for a new land or a spice a fuel or a useful
metal mineral or food or technology then the human race will do whatever
it
takes to get it look at how fast we have gone from the horse to
spacecraft
such as space shuttles, also if you want to see what i mean about the
moon
it has helium 4 or is that He3 which is useful in nuclear fusion
reactors,
Helium 4 is the *product* of nuclear fusion reactors as currently
implemented, and not all that useful thereafter. You're
probably thinking of the deuterium-tritium fusion reaction.
the moon also has an unusually large amount of titanium bound up with
some
other minerals and elements close to the surface if you need to do a lot
of
constructing of a large nature such as spaceships or space stations then
the
moon is also a good place to start from, as there is low gravity, one
sixth
earths and no atmosphere to get in the way of smelting metals or to
rust or
damage machinery as rain would plus no reason for Greenpeace to get up
in
arms as there are no indigenous life forms except possibly bacteria or
viruses( but that is not proven at this time)
The problems of micrometeorites and hard radiation would
have to be addressed. The solar wind is where most of
that radiation comes from, I suspect; it's embedded in
the very rocks, according to some. (It's protons and
electrons so hydrogen is a natural consequence. Whether
it's useful to a power plant up there is not known to
me personally.)
Interestingly, we found bacteria on a camera lens -- our own,
it turned out.
so i would not say it is
imposable if i were you and a good way to put things in orbit around the
moon from the surface is a mass driver or gauss canon which could be
assembled under the surface in an underground base such as the clavieus
moon
base in the film 2001 which i saw as a child of 9 years of age thus
protecting it's personnel from radiation and solar storms the moon is in
the
earths magnetic field shadow a lot of the time so i would not be too
worried
about solar radiation also anyone with any sense would live underground
(on)
the moon.
The _2001_ base was indeed underground, and would be a
nice method of dealing with some of those issues, yes.
I've computed that a minimum 400 km track on Earth would be
necessary to drive humans into orbit at an acceleration of
100 m/s/s -- the maximum survivable over medium durations,
AFAIK (the duration of the acceleration would be about
80 seconds). The computations are fairly simple; just assume
an acceleration of 100 m/s/ and an endterm velocity of 8 km/s
(orbital speed for near-Earth satellites) and work from there.
The actual length may be 320 km but I don't remember now,
and in any event some reserve capacity is useful.
A moon cannon need not be quite so beefy, although I lack
the specifics without a bit of research (g_moon is about
1/6 of g_earth, that much I know). There are still issues
with the circularization burn, as the cannon merely flings
the payload into an elliptical orbit, with periluna (or
perigee) at more or less the cannon's mouth. If one makes
the cannon a little longer of course periluna or perigee
ceases to be an issue as the payload never comes back.
Doubling the length should be enough for that; of course
that doubles the power requirement as well. [*]
Post by Joe Strout
Post by Christopher
I would put one on the moon or better still a ring of them then
put a
Post by Joe Strout
Post by Christopher
spider type web of asteroid smelters i.e.spinning zero gravity
induction
Post by Joe Strout
Post by Christopher
furnaces, factories, space docks and accommodation modules plus
hospitals
Post by Joe Strout
Post by Christopher
and hotels it would probably take a couple of centuries but what a
set
up!
Post by Joe Strout
Post by Christopher
there would also be a lot less chance of it getting hit be lightning
like an
Post by Joe Strout
Post by Christopher
experimental power satellite that was tested by tethering it to a space
shuttle one little fault in the tether caused a very bad problem that
should
Post by Joe Strout
Post by Christopher
not happen in lunar orbit when lowering the cables to the lunar
surface
i.e.
Post by Joe Strout
Post by Christopher
static electricity there might be some but it should not be a real
problem
Post by Joe Strout
Post by Christopher
to anchor the space elevators to the lunar surface.
This is good ambition, though it doesn't actually work on numerous
accounts. But stay in school, listen to your English and physics
teachers, and I have no doubt you'll help us all get off the planet
someday.
Best,
- Joe
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
[*] I do mean power, not energy. The power consumption
is highest at the very end of what appears to be a
brutal ride; work = force × distance and distance =
rate × time; the rate at the cannon's mouth on Earth
is 8 km/s, if not more. Since power is work / time,
one can state that we're applying sufficient force
to accelerate a mass 100 m/s/s, or 100 N/kg, over
a distance of about 8 km in the space of a second,
translating into a power consumption of 800 kW/kg
at the very mouth of the cannon.
The total energy consumption is therefore 1/2 * 80 sec
* 800 kW/kg = 32 GJ/kg. (The 1/2 factor is because
power at the start is nil, since the mass is moving
slowly, but ramps up.) For comparison, the total
energy production of California is about 50 GW, usually
expressed as 50,000 MW. (http://www.caiso.com/ )
At 15 cents a kWh = 4.17 cents a MJ, that's a launch
cost of $1,333/kg. Not bad but that initial outlay
is going to be slightly expensive. A space shuttle
launch costs around $470M on average. At an end-weight
of 230,000 pounds (which is just over 104,000 kg)
that's a cost of about $58,750/kg of ship and payload.
Were one to strap the orbiter on the cannon system,
one would require 83 GW. California will need a
little help... :-) (And this without payload or
onboard fuel!)
This is of course neglecting such issues as air
resistance and the shockwave that will inevitably
come out of the cannon as the payload exits it.
I don't have the mathematical tools to compute those
at present but suspect a few people do, such as gun
designers -- although not at those speeds.
--
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Christopher
2003-08-18 08:43:42 UTC
Permalink
yes i was thinking of that also i would not fire people thru a
linier"launcher under any cercumstance whatsoever for a start the magnetic
field could be dangerus to any one . it's H3 i was thinking of .
In sci.physics, Christopher
on Sat, 16 Aug 2003 04:13:50 +0100
I left school 25+years ago most of what i sead
is not possible at this time but you should look
at a film by the name of starship troopers it's not
that good but if you look at the point in the film
where the starship pulls away from the space base
then you might see what i mean, the tech base we have
at this time will not necessarily be the only technology
in the future
The book mentions a "Cherenkov drive" but gives no specifics
beyond stating that it can take weeks subjective to get to
stars many light-years apart using it.
I suspect Robert A. Heinlein had passing familiarity with
the concept of Cherenkov radiation (electrons are moving
faster than the local speed of light in a substance;
the idea is similar to the sonic shock cone one gets at
Mach 1, with such attendant phenomena as sonic booms)
which is why he used the term; it sounds neat. :-) And
of course he's being deliberately vague here as no one
has a "Cherenkov" drive of any sort that we know of.
(LGM from planet Vega might, but I for one have not seen
any, or any news reports thereof. Reputable ones, anyway.)
I also suspect that a Cherenkov drive would not be a
stealthy one; a ship using it would probably glow like
a lamppost. :-) (Then again, we won't really know until
and unless we build one. I'm not hopeful, despite our
successes in breaking the sound barrier.)
even the near
future if you look at history you will find that if there is a reason to
do
some thing such as looking for a new land or a spice a fuel or a useful
metal mineral or food or technology then the human race will do whatever
it
takes to get it look at how fast we have gone from the horse to
spacecraft
such as space shuttles, also if you want to see what i mean about the
moon
it has helium 4 or is that He3 which is useful in nuclear fusion
reactors,
Helium 4 is the *product* of nuclear fusion reactors as currently
implemented, and not all that useful thereafter. You're
probably thinking of the deuterium-tritium fusion reaction.
the moon also has an unusually large amount of titanium bound up with
some
other minerals and elements close to the surface if you need to do a lot
of
constructing of a large nature such as spaceships or space stations then
the
moon is also a good place to start from, as there is low gravity, one
sixth
earths and no atmosphere to get in the way of smelting metals or to
rust or
damage machinery as rain would plus no reason for Greenpeace to get up
in
arms as there are no indigenous life forms except possibly bacteria or
viruses( but that is not proven at this time)
The problems of micrometeorites and hard radiation would
have to be addressed. The solar wind is where most of
that radiation comes from, I suspect; it's embedded in
the very rocks, according to some. (It's protons and
electrons so hydrogen is a natural consequence. Whether
it's useful to a power plant up there is not known to
me personally.)
Interestingly, we found bacteria on a camera lens -- our own,
it turned out.
so i would not say it is
imposable if i were you and a good way to put things in orbit around the
moon from the surface is a mass driver or gauss canon which could be
assembled under the surface in an underground base such as the clavieus
moon
base in the film 2001 which i saw as a child of 9 years of age thus
protecting it's personnel from radiation and solar storms the moon is in
the
earths magnetic field shadow a lot of the time so i would not be too
worried
about solar radiation also anyone with any sense would live underground
(on)
the moon.
The _2001_ base was indeed underground, and would be a
nice method of dealing with some of those issues, yes.
I've computed that a minimum 400 km track on Earth would be
necessary to drive humans into orbit at an acceleration of
100 m/s/s -- the maximum survivable over medium durations,
AFAIK (the duration of the acceleration would be about
80 seconds). The computations are fairly simple; just assume
an acceleration of 100 m/s/ and an endterm velocity of 8 km/s
(orbital speed for near-Earth satellites) and work from there.
The actual length may be 320 km but I don't remember now,
and in any event some reserve capacity is useful.
A moon cannon need not be quite so beefy, although I lack
the specifics without a bit of research (g_moon is about
1/6 of g_earth, that much I know). There are still issues
with the circularization burn, as the cannon merely flings
the payload into an elliptical orbit, with periluna (or
perigee) at more or less the cannon's mouth. If one makes
the cannon a little longer of course periluna or perigee
ceases to be an issue as the payload never comes back.
Doubling the length should be enough for that; of course
that doubles the power requirement as well. [*]
Post by Joe Strout
Post by Christopher
I would put one on the moon or better still a ring of them then
put a
Post by Joe Strout
Post by Christopher
spider type web of asteroid smelters i.e.spinning zero gravity
induction
Post by Joe Strout
Post by Christopher
furnaces, factories, space docks and accommodation modules plus
hospitals
Post by Joe Strout
Post by Christopher
and hotels it would probably take a couple of centuries but what a
set
up!
Post by Joe Strout
Post by Christopher
there would also be a lot less chance of it getting hit be lightning
like an
Post by Joe Strout
Post by Christopher
experimental power satellite that was tested by tethering it to a space
shuttle one little fault in the tether caused a very bad problem that
should
Post by Joe Strout
Post by Christopher
not happen in lunar orbit when lowering the cables to the lunar
surface
i.e.
Post by Joe Strout
Post by Christopher
static electricity there might be some but it should not be a real
problem
Post by Joe Strout
Post by Christopher
to anchor the space elevators to the lunar surface.
This is good ambition, though it doesn't actually work on numerous
accounts. But stay in school, listen to your English and physics
teachers, and I have no doubt you'll help us all get off the planet
someday.
Best,
- Joe
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
[*] I do mean power, not energy. The power consumption
is highest at the very end of what appears to be a
brutal ride; work = force × distance and distance =
rate × time; the rate at the cannon's mouth on Earth
is 8 km/s, if not more. Since power is work / time,
one can state that we're applying sufficient force
to accelerate a mass 100 m/s/s, or 100 N/kg, over
a distance of about 8 km in the space of a second,
translating into a power consumption of 800 kW/kg
at the very mouth of the cannon.
The total energy consumption is therefore 1/2 * 80 sec
* 800 kW/kg = 32 GJ/kg. (The 1/2 factor is because
power at the start is nil, since the mass is moving
slowly, but ramps up.) For comparison, the total
energy production of California is about 50 GW, usually
expressed as 50,000 MW. (http://www.caiso.com/ )
At 15 cents a kWh = 4.17 cents a MJ, that's a launch
cost of $1,333/kg. Not bad but that initial outlay
is going to be slightly expensive. A space shuttle
launch costs around $470M on average. At an end-weight
of 230,000 pounds (which is just over 104,000 kg)
that's a cost of about $58,750/kg of ship and payload.
Were one to strap the orbiter on the cannon system,
one would require 83 GW. California will need a
little help... :-) (And this without payload or
onboard fuel!)
This is of course neglecting such issues as air
resistance and the shockwave that will inevitably
come out of the cannon as the payload exits it.
I don't have the mathematical tools to compute those
at present but suspect a few people do, such as gun
designers -- although not at those speeds.
--
It's still legal to go .sigless.
tj Frazir
2003-08-12 05:46:32 UTC
Permalink
Thats fucking nutz .
I can build submersible hyway from nyny to UK
for 3 bil.
can mine the vast sea from shore too.
But that wacky thing there would take more energy than would ever pay.
Brad Guth
2003-08-10 21:27:18 UTC
Permalink
Lunar Space elevator (delivering non-reactive lunar soil to moon L1
for a cash of nonreactive shielding)

I must say that I've learned so much from the likes of Jay Windley, as
to how refreshingly warm, fuzzy and friendly, and of such low cosmic
and galactic radiation there is in space, not to mention that our
Astronauts seem to be the one and only ones knowing of how to evade
the bulk nasties of the Van Allen zone of death as well as extended
EVAs.

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm

Since our resident space radiation wizard (Jay Windley) is so
absolutely correct about just about everything there is to know, where
one of his most recent discoveries is having to do with all that bone
dry yet so thoroughly clumping lunar soil, that which not only
reflects light at roughly 5 times greater if you're standing on the
moon as opposed to otherwise being viewed from Earth or imaged by the
likes of Hubble, but that this terrific lunar stuff is also the one
and only radioactively inert or nonreactive resource of matter that's
incapable of creating any significant amounts of secondary radiation.

So, since this clumping lunar dirt is that invaluable, such as for
creating a shield filler or buffer zone for any manned space travel
related missions, I was just thinking (always a bad sign), that the
real elevator payback may not be for any Earth/L2+ elevator but, more
than likely as a lunar/L1 elevator, configured with a sufficient
robotic surface screw pump capable of delivering that lunar soil up to
L1+ orbit, so that our next manned mission (say to frozen and
irradiated to death Mars) can sort of do a lunar/L1 pit-stop at our
moon elevator (LL1) station, and simply go about filling up their
voids between the inner and outer hull with as little as 0.1 meter
worth of depth, or I believe that's 34.1 g/cm2, which would be at
least 5 times better off then the bulk of what was surrounding our
radiation proof hybrid Apollo astronauts, that had to make do with
considerable amounts of secondary radiation inflicted by the mere
density of aluminum.

According to wizard Jay, this nearly immeasurable secondary radiation
coming off the lunar deck is also become another win-win for my lunar
SAR/VLA plans;
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm


Here's something other that I've offered in reply to what Jay Windley
and his good buddy Jonathan Silverlight proposed.

Thanks ever so much to Jonathan Silverlight, for your terrific
feedback, as I'll certainly apply such logic in future corrections,
that's of your essentially correcting the likes of Wizard Jay Windley,
as pertaining to lunar mass offering "almost immeasurably small"
secondary radiation, thus obviously such would be providing a highly
preferable shield element to that of aluminum and, I'll even offer his
name (Jay Windley) as bonafide credit for such insight, unless that's
cutting too much of yourself out of the action.

Unfortunately, I've recently imposed another tit for tat that's most
likely as equally in error for regarding Earth L4/L5, in order to
further extrapolate what's at Venus L2 (VL2), so even though VL2 may
have a roasty/toasty 6^2 Sv/y (solar minimum) worth of primary
radiation to start off with. Hells bells, it sounds like if we stop by
the moon for a little of that soil we ott to be able to long-term
tolerate that VL2 environment with hardly 0.1 meter of lunar soil,
after all that's 34.1 g/cm2, or way more than 6 times as much as the
overall Apollo mission average, even though I believe an upper limit
of 274 mrem/day is tolerable for a two year stint, especially if
you've got banked bone marrow as backup. The fact that this relatively
small amount of density may not cut it is somehow, by Lord Windley
standards, immaterial as long as we utilize cloned hybrid astronauts
such as those Apollo types.

Come to think of it; If in fact the likes of statements by Jay
Windley are the least bit correct in stipulating that such lunar mass
(3.41 g/cc) offers such immeasurable secondary radiation, then what
the hell have we been waiting for?

Lets get ourselves back onto the moon the very next time we ever
decide to go anywhere, sort of making it a lunar pit-stop, then simply
filling up the cavity or voids between the inner and outer hull with
clumping lunar soil, whereas even though the lunar soil is
considerably more dense than aluminum and in spite of what the laws of
physics have to say, at least according to our Wizard Windley, there's
hardly any measurable secondary radiation to be had.

This remarkable discovery alone had ott to be worth hundreds of
billions and, it'll only cause us to recall and republish millions of
textbooks and research references pertaining to radiation and
subsequent interactions with various densities of mass, thereby
greatly discrediting the merits of hydrogen as being of least X-Ray
generating by way of merely replacing that element with
clumping-moon-dust as becoming the ultimate solution for all future
missions, including benefitting ISS that's tried just about everything
in the book, spending hundreds of millions if not billions at
suppressing their secondary radiation, without all that much luck I
might say.

Talk about the ultimate gold mine of motherload discoveries; whereas
this absolutely bone dry yet clumping-moon-dust has got to be it, the
holy grail of nonreactive matter that's capable of not only shielding
our butts, whereas best of all is being that we don't even have to
create nor launch an once of it from Earth. In fact, having such a
cash of this nifty stuff situated on the moon is almost too good to be
true, as the lunar gravity is but 1/6th that of Earth and, situating
our spacecraft or some robotic lunar soil retriever down onto the
lunar surface ott to be a sure thing (only 10 mrem/day getting
ourselves there is another bonus, being that we now know, according to
Wizard Windley, how to avoid most of the Van Allen zone of death and,
since we've acquired better speed as well as improved radiation
shielding to start off with, plus the fact that we'll not require any
external EVAs, just a portable screw pump tossed onto the surface and
a filling hose) and, getting all that additional mass back off the
lunar surface should also be another snap, after all, we've come a
long ways in fly-by-wire rocketry, as well as in overall thrust
capability as well as reliability. Just looking at the CHALLENGER,
COLUMBIA, even the V-22 Osprey and any number of easier to accomplish
successful aerodynamic adventures and you can't hardly imagine
anything going wrong and, certainly not by the trusty words of our
very own wizard Jay Windley.

If I've gotten something wrong, please do help me out, feel free to
letting me know what's what (by the numbers and of any way you'd like
those numbers to be represented), as I for one am in total awe of what
the likes of these pro-Apollo wizards have to say, as subsequently
nearly all of our future space travel concerns have been answered in
spades.

OK,,, so I'm not entirely convinced, but then I'm still the village
idiot that's seeing all sorts of strange things on the surface of
Venus that supposedly aren't there.

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS discovery of LIFE on Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com
Volker Hetzer
2003-08-26 14:35:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Clark
Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined
by Richard Perry
Los Angeles - Jul 22, 2003
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/materials-03w.html
Hey, wouldn't it be even more feasible to do this in mars' reduced gravity?
Much simpler that bringing a rocket over to mars.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker
Joe Strout
2003-08-26 15:12:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Volker Hetzer
Post by Robert Clark
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/materials-03w.html
Hey, wouldn't it be even more feasible to do this in mars' reduced gravity?
Yes, certainly. But unfortunately we don't live on Mars; we live on
Earth, so it's on Earth where we really need something like this.
Post by Volker Hetzer
Much simpler that bringing a rocket over to mars.
I don't follow you here. How would you propose to get to Mars without a
rocket?

- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| ***@strout.net http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
E.R.
2003-08-26 21:40:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Strout
Post by Volker Hetzer
Post by Robert Clark
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/materials-03w.html
Hey, wouldn't it be even more feasible to do this in mars' reduced gravity?
Yes, certainly. But unfortunately we don't live on Mars; we live on
Earth, so it's on Earth where we really need something like this.
Post by Volker Hetzer
Much simpler that bringing a rocket over to mars.
I don't follow you here. How would you propose to get to Mars without a
rocket?
- Joe
You know what you need? You need a space elevator that can fling
cargo to Mars ... that'll bring down the cost of building a space
elevator Out There. Chicken, Egg.
Volker Hetzer
2003-08-27 09:17:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by E.R.
Post by Joe Strout
Post by Volker Hetzer
Post by Robert Clark
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/materials-03w.html
Hey, wouldn't it be even more feasible to do this in mars' reduced gravity?
Yes, certainly. But unfortunately we don't live on Mars; we live on
Earth, so it's on Earth where we really need something like this.
Post by Volker Hetzer
Much simpler that bringing a rocket over to mars.
I don't follow you here. How would you propose to get to Mars without a
rocket?
- Joe
You know what you need? You need a space elevator that can fling
cargo to Mars ... that'll bring down the cost of building a space
elevator Out There. Chicken, Egg.
We know that we can get to mars using conventional rockets.
It's just that no one has a convincing scenatio of how to get back.
A Space elevator on mars is something that can leverage our earth based
resources (several starts for all the equipment, lots of tests) in order to
make
return from mars easier.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker
Volker Hetzer
2003-08-27 09:17:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Strout
Post by Volker Hetzer
Post by Robert Clark
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/materials-03w.html
Hey, wouldn't it be even more feasible to do this in mars' reduced gravity?
Yes, certainly. But unfortunately we don't live on Mars; we live on
Earth, so it's on Earth where we really need something like this.
Yes ok, but here it's harder to do and here we have large factories
building rockets, so the need isn't that immediate. Whereas training
a handful of astronauts into rocket engineers and having them rely
on all the equipment for extracting and fueling a rocket from mars'
resources is IMHO more risky than bringing over three or four of those
space elevator tapes and haul them up solar powered.
Equally importantly, you can test thespace elevator a number of times
but how many return rockets are we bringing over to mars for testing?
Post by Joe Strout
Post by Volker Hetzer
Much simpler that bringing a rocket over to mars.
I don't follow you here. How would you propose to get to Mars without a
rocket?
Okay, I meant the rocket for getting back into orbit when the astronauts
want to
get home.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker
Volker Hetzer
2003-08-27 09:17:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Volker Hetzer
Post by Robert Clark
Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined
by Richard Perry
Los Angeles - Jul 22, 2003
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/materials-03w.html
Hey, wouldn't it be even more feasible to do this in mars' reduced gravity?
Much simpler that bringing a rocket over to mars.
No. You've got to ship the material there,
fifteen tons plus the elevator which could be the landing device anyway...
plus support, plus a
an anchor into the ground? Hey, thats what you shoot
into the rock straight from orbit, so what?
habitat to support the guys building it
It's easier to build an anchor than a rocket assembly and testing facility.
... you've cubed the cost of
building one at the very least.
Why?

Lots of Greetings!
Volker
Joe Fischer
2003-08-28 05:48:25 UTC
Permalink
In sci.physics E.R.

<***@yahoo.com> wrote:
: If you build the first SE here, on Earth, everything above is
: simplified, the costs are minimized (or at least much lower than a
: Mars-based SE).

Don't hold your breath.

Take it to a science fiction newsgroup please.

Joe Fischer Oh My! www.terrafly.com
--
3
E.R.
2003-09-06 05:18:55 UTC
Permalink
It will cost you money, a lot of money, to lift the equipment to
orbit. Then more money to loft the cargo to Mars. Then a LOT of
money to outift a crew, train them to survive in a place far, far from
home, and ship them, plus consumables, to Mars.
<snip>
If it's supposedly so ecconomical (Earth SE), then what are you
waiting for; the tooth fairy?
Of course, if some of us were not so focused upon the negatives
(especially of opposing and/or bashing someone others idea), some of
us that actually give a tinkers damn could try to rethink the logic
and benefits of accomplishing a lunar based space elevator as opposed
to any cost+ Earthly based space elevator,
<snippage, but you haven't missed anything you've not seen before>
, the entire project
remaining no-fault fail-safe to boot, along with providing countless
scientific attributes, not to mention being nearly Taliban proof
(OOPS, sorry about that, I may just have insulted your family tree or
bush or whatever, certainly not your intelligence because You don't
seem to have any of that to insult).
You have a unique way of insulting people who might otherwise lend you
a sympathetic ear. Mommy didn't breast feed you? Daddy doesn't love
you? Perhaps therapy might help. Get laid, something.

Sorry for the digression. Back to physics. I'll ignore this guy from
here on, promise.

~er
Brad Guth
2003-09-07 03:01:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by E.R.
It will cost you money, a lot of money, to lift the equipment to
orbit. Then more money to loft the cargo to Mars. Then a LOT of
money to outift a crew, train them to survive in a place far, far from
home, and ship them, plus consumables, to Mars.
<snip>
If it's supposedly so ecconomical (Earth SE), then what are you
waiting for; the tooth fairy?
Of course, if some of us were not so focused upon the negatives
(especially of opposing and/or bashing someone others idea), some of
us that actually give a tinkers damn could try to rethink the logic
and benefits of accomplishing a lunar based space elevator as opposed
to any cost+ Earthly based space elevator,
<snippage, but you haven't missed anything you've not seen before>
, the entire project
remaining no-fault fail-safe to boot, along with providing countless
scientific attributes, not to mention being nearly Taliban proof
(OOPS, sorry about that, I may just have insulted your family tree or
bush or whatever, certainly not your intelligence because You don't
seem to have any of that to insult).
You have a unique way of insulting people who might otherwise lend you
a sympathetic ear. Mommy didn't breast feed you? Daddy doesn't love
you? Perhaps therapy might help. Get laid, something.
Sorry for the digression. Back to physics. I'll ignore this guy from
here on, promise.
~er
Smart move, go back to those NASA utters, as that's where all the
cloak and dagger juices are flowing, as otherwise there's probably way
more to this lunar space elevator than you can possibly handle.

Seems like being the least bit right about a lunar Space Elevator is
almost as bad off as being 10% right about there being Other Life on
Venus. Thank God I'm not Cathar, as then I'd be literally dead right
(that black smoke was actually the Pope roasting another Cathar, white
smoke was a Jewish flavor) and, that's almost as testy as holding out
invisible WMDs.

Check out this Borg group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/space-elevator/

I've tried to introduce some space elevator alternatives, such as an
affordable and doable lunar SE as opposed to the "some day" in the way
off future and "cost+" Earth SE. Yet all I've received is pure
bashings, of receiving no worthwhile specifics nor "what if"
considerations whatsoever, as though there's none other than an Earth
SE irregardless of the complexities, cost or carnage.

Obvisously, since being complex and spendier than all of wholy hell is
of absolutely no moral consideration whatsoever for this space
elevator group, that's when I thought that all bets were off, as in
anything was fair game for consideration, including my questioning of
their ulterior motives.

Obviously since their honest motives aren't making any sense, that
only leaves ulterior motives, or utter stupidity and, they've clearly
indicated that they already know just about everything there is to
know, so that supposedly rules out stupidity but perhaps not
arrogance.

I'm thinking, if instead of learning and sharing various technical SE
expertise, and of insuring credits wherever credit is due, if instead
bashing ring of fire is the true name of this game, then perhaps I'll
just gather up some of that still warm and fuzzy flak and return it
with love.

Of course, if someone actually wanted to express anything meaningful
towards doing a lunar SE, or of what could be associated with it or
not, as that would actually be somewhat of what I thought these
talented SE folks would have to offer. My mistake, how absolutely
foolish of myself to even think that there's anyone that actually
gives a tinkers damn about much of anything that's not benefiting
their agenda, much less humanity.

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA / Discovery of LIFE on Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm
Another Wise Guy - Macon, GA USA
2003-09-07 08:15:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brad Guth
I've tried to introduce some space elevator alternatives, such as an
affordable and doable lunar SE as opposed to the "some day" in the way
off future and "cost+" Earth SE.
(I will assume that, unlike as Earth SE, a Luna SE doesn't require
materials stronger than any known materials...)

Have you ever explained what it is good for? Orbit is where we
want to be. Luna is like antarctica; a place for scientists to
study because it's so different, not a place where anybody wants
to live.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Just Another Internet Wise Guy Macon, GA USA |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sander Vesik
2003-09-07 20:09:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Another Wise Guy - Macon, GA USA
Post by Brad Guth
I've tried to introduce some space elevator alternatives, such as an
affordable and doable lunar SE as opposed to the "some day" in the way
off future and "cost+" Earth SE.
(I will assume that, unlike as Earth SE, a Luna SE doesn't require
materials stronger than any known materials...)
Have you ever explained what it is good for? Orbit is where we
want to be. Luna is like antarctica; a place for scientists to
study because it's so different, not a place where anybody wants
to live.
The sole reason for a lunar elevator would be to make getting
materials from lunar surface to earth orbit cheaper.
Post by Another Wise Guy - Macon, GA USA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Just Another Internet Wise Guy Macon, GA USA |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++
Sander Vesik
2003-09-08 12:53:21 UTC
Permalink
In sci.space.policy Another Wise Guy - Macon, GA USA
Post by Another Wise Guy - Macon, GA USA
Post by Brad Guth
I've tried to introduce some space elevator alternatives, such as an
affordable and doable lunar SE as opposed to the "some day" in the way
off future and "cost+" Earth SE.
(I will assume that, unlike as Earth SE, a Luna SE doesn't require
materials stronger than any known materials...)
Have you ever explained what it is good for? Orbit is where we
want to be. Luna is like antarctica; a place for scientists to
study because it's so different, not a place where anybody wants
to live.
The sole reason for a lunar elevator would be to make getting
materials from lunar surface to earth orbit cheaper.
..and what would we do with a bunch of rocks? Build a Flintstone-
style space station?
Why would it be rocks you are tranporting?
IMO, it would be far better to do whatever it is that, under your
plan, we would do in earth orbit and instead do them in the asteroid
belt.
And your plan to get anything to asteroid belt and back on a even
semiregular basis is?
(You *have* done the calculations to probe that, unlike as Earth
SE, a Luna SE doesn't require materials stronger than any known
material, haven't you? What numbers did you get for tensile
strength?)
I haven't - I'm not saying one should be built.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Just Another Internet Wise Guy Macon, GA USA |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++
Another Wise Guy - Macon, GA USA
2003-09-08 18:11:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sander Vesik
In sci.space.policy Another Wise Guy - Macon, GA USA
Post by Another Wise Guy - Macon, GA USA
Post by Brad Guth
I've tried to introduce some space elevator alternatives, such as an
affordable and doable lunar SE as opposed to the "some day" in the way
off future and "cost+" Earth SE.
(I will assume that, unlike as Earth SE, a Luna SE doesn't require
materials stronger than any known materials...)
Have you ever explained what it is good for? Orbit is where we
want to be. Luna is like antarctica; a place for scientists to
study because it's so different, not a place where anybody wants
to live.
The sole reason for a lunar elevator would be to make getting
materials from lunar surface to earth orbit cheaper.
..and what would we do with a bunch of rocks? Build a Flintstone-
style space station?
Why would it be rocks you are tranporting?
"materials from lunar surface." Unless someone discovers water on
Luna or we build refineries and factories to extract and shape metals,
of course. Then, of course, there is the green cheese, but I have some
of that in my refrigerator already... yuch!
Post by Sander Vesik
IMO, it would be far better to do whatever it is that, under your
plan, we would do in earth orbit and instead do them in the asteroid
belt.
And your plan to get anything to asteroid belt and back on a even
semiregular basis is?
http://www.google.com/search?q=space+propulsion+ion
Post by Sander Vesik
(You *have* done the calculations to probe that, unlike as Earth
SE, a Luna SE doesn't require materials stronger than any known
material, haven't you? What numbers did you get for tensile
strength?)
I haven't - I'm not saying one should be built.
My apologies. I confused you with ***@yahoo.com. He seems
to have dropped out as soon as the hard questions were asked.

An Earth SE would be a huge benifit. A Luna SE without an Earth
SE seems like a waste of effort better spent elsewhere.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Just Another Internet Wise Guy Macon, GA USA |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sander Vesik
2003-09-08 21:42:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Another Wise Guy - Macon, GA USA
Post by Sander Vesik
In sci.space.policy Another Wise Guy - Macon, GA USA
Post by Another Wise Guy - Macon, GA USA
Post by Brad Guth
I've tried to introduce some space elevator alternatives, such as an
affordable and doable lunar SE as opposed to the "some day" in the way
off future and "cost+" Earth SE.
(I will assume that, unlike as Earth SE, a Luna SE doesn't require
materials stronger than any known materials...)
Have you ever explained what it is good for? Orbit is where we
want to be. Luna is like antarctica; a place for scientists to
study because it's so different, not a place where anybody wants
to live.
The sole reason for a lunar elevator would be to make getting
materials from lunar surface to earth orbit cheaper.
..and what would we do with a bunch of rocks? Build a Flintstone-
style space station?
Why would it be rocks you are tranporting?
"materials from lunar surface." Unless someone discovers water on
Luna or we build refineries and factories to extract and shape metals,
of course. Then, of course, there is the green cheese, but I have some
of that in my refrigerator already... yuch!
You would naturaly have a progression of refining and prefab capability -
you don't start with a factory that immediatley goes from mined lunar
minerals to sattelites and space station / habitat modules to be launched.
You start by making large crude pieces of metal that get bent to order
on earth orbit, and maybe - just maybe - solar panels. Though you might
need to keep them all on the surface to augument your power needs.
At some point you might be able to use part of the power to augument
solar sail or ion propulsion based ferrying of goods on the moon->earth
part of the journey.
Post by Another Wise Guy - Macon, GA USA
Post by Sander Vesik
IMO, it would be far better to do whatever it is that, under your
plan, we would do in earth orbit and instead do them in the asteroid
belt.
And your plan to get anything to asteroid belt and back on a even
semiregular basis is?
http://www.google.com/search?q=space+propulsion+ion
I am *well* aware of ion propulsion which you would know if you read
my other posts. But building a large number of high-power ion
propulsion driven spacecraft that would make a 6+6 month return trip
with large quantities of bulk is not around the corner - it is
considerably less around the corner than manned trip to Mars or
a NEO or a Lunar base. You would use ion propulsion and/or solar
sails to get bulk from moon to earth and back.

We basicly know what we need to do to have teleoperated equipment on
Moon to start preparing for mines and factories, and we could figure
out how to refine what we want on moon in say next K years. And one
can say so becuase:
* several manned missions to Mars did happen - the technology
to send humans and machines to Moon is known
* hence we also know how to get materials from Moon to HEO
* teleoperation over delays comparable to those experienced
with Moon is managable now
* we have at least initial idea of the distribution of
elements and minerals on Moon and will in all likelyhood
(pending failed missions etc) know much more in a couple
of years

One could (leaving the financial side aside) plan for a initial
prospecting mission for mining to Moon now, even if it would more
propely be called a geological survey. Just a drill that can sample
say 500m-1km down. You can't *really* do the same for any other
object presently - ok, so the limit for some NEO-s might be time
window in which you can effectively do near-realtime communications,
but that is still a real limit.
Post by Another Wise Guy - Macon, GA USA
Post by Sander Vesik
(You *have* done the calculations to probe that, unlike as Earth
SE, a Luna SE doesn't require materials stronger than any known
material, haven't you? What numbers did you get for tensile
strength?)
I haven't - I'm not saying one should be built.
to have dropped out as soon as the hard questions were asked.
Well - I'm *definately* not him.
Post by Another Wise Guy - Macon, GA USA
An Earth SE would be a huge benifit. A Luna SE without an Earth
SE seems like a waste of effort better spent elsewhere.
Before a Lunar elevator makes sense you need to have something capable
of producing something you want to get off the surface there. But I'm
not sure you aren't better off using the Earth Space elevator for just
the things you can't get from moon (people, complex instruments, some fuel)
and leave bulk to be exported from Moon. No, I don't have numbers ATM.
Post by Another Wise Guy - Macon, GA USA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Just Another Internet Wise Guy Macon, GA USA |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++
Another Wise Guy - Macon, GA USA
2003-09-08 22:17:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sander Vesik
I am *well* aware of ion propulsion which you would know if you read
my other posts. But building a large number of high-power ion
propulsion driven spacecraft that would make a 6+6 month return trip
with large quantities of bulk is not around the corner - it is
considerably less around the corner than manned trip to Mars or
a NEO or a Lunar base. You would use ion propulsion and/or solar
sails to get bulk from moon to earth and back.
My error. I didn't realise that you wanted to get bulk from moon
to earth and back or from asteroids to earth and back. I thought
that the goal was to get bulk from earth/moon/asteroid to nearby
space.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Just Another Internet Wise Guy Macon, GA USA |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sander Vesik
2003-09-09 02:16:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Another Wise Guy - Macon, GA USA
Post by Sander Vesik
I am *well* aware of ion propulsion which you would know if you read
my other posts. But building a large number of high-power ion
propulsion driven spacecraft that would make a 6+6 month return trip
with large quantities of bulk is not around the corner - it is
considerably less around the corner than manned trip to Mars or
a NEO or a Lunar base. You would use ion propulsion and/or solar
sails to get bulk from moon to earth and back.
My error. I didn't realise that you wanted to get bulk from moon
to earth and back or from asteroids to earth and back. I thought
that the goal was to get bulk from earth/moon/asteroid to nearby
space.
At least in the near term of 50 or so years at the very least, the
local Solar system is ... Geocentric. The main belt may well be
one of the major places where human population is located in the future,
but to get there, you need a lot orbital infrastructure first. Which
in turn probably means Moon Spaceship Yards or similar somewhere along
the line.
Post by Another Wise Guy - Macon, GA USA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Just Another Internet Wise Guy Macon, GA USA |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++
E.R.
2003-09-08 16:16:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Another Wise Guy - Macon, GA USA
Post by Brad Guth
I've tried to introduce some space elevator alternatives, such as an
affordable and doable lunar SE as opposed to the "some day" in the way
off future and "cost+" Earth SE.
(I will assume that, unlike as Earth SE, a Luna SE doesn't require
materials stronger than any known materials...)
Have you ever explained what it is good for? Orbit is where we
want to be. Luna is like antarctica; a place for scientists to
study because it's so different, not a place where anybody wants
to live.
There are some advantages to living on/in the Moon; a great deal of
room to grow, a gravity field that doesn't depend on rotating your
habitat. It should be cheaper to drill rock than build a new habitat,
for example.

~er
Mike Combs
2003-09-08 17:45:48 UTC
Permalink
That said, there might be an advantage to a lunar elevator for lifting raw
material into orbital space, if there should turn out to be some unexpected
difficulty with mass-drivers.
--
Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should ask, critically and with appeal to the numbers, whether the
best site for a growing advancing industrial society is Earth, the
Moon, Mars, some other planet, or somewhere else entirely.
Surprisingly, the answer will be inescapable - the best site is
"somewhere else entirely."

Gerard O'Neill - "The High Frontier"
Mike Combs
2003-09-08 17:46:04 UTC
Permalink
That said, there might be an advantage to a lunar elevator for lifting raw
material into orbital space, if there should turn out to be some unexpected
difficulty with mass-drivers.
--
Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should ask, critically and with appeal to the numbers, whether the
best site for a growing advancing industrial society is Earth, the
Moon, Mars, some other planet, or somewhere else entirely.
Surprisingly, the answer will be inescapable - the best site is
"somewhere else entirely."

Gerard O'Neill - "The High Frontier"
Hop David
2003-09-08 18:01:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Combs
That said, there might be an advantage to a lunar elevator for lifting raw
material into orbital space, if there should turn out to be some unexpected
difficulty with mass-drivers.
Elevators go up to geosynchronous orbits, no? (In this case Lunarsynchronous
might be a better word) Since the moon's day is 28 days this is further
than geosynchronous. In fact Earth is a lunar synchronous satellite. So
this bean stalk would need to be 380,000 kilometers and then some.

Hop
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html
Sander Vesik
2003-09-08 20:22:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hop David
Post by Mike Combs
That said, there might be an advantage to a lunar elevator for lifting raw
material into orbital space, if there should turn out to be some unexpected
difficulty with mass-drivers.
Elevators go up to geosynchronous orbits, no? (In this case Lunarsynchronous
might be a better word) Since the moon's day is 28 days this is further
than geosynchronous. In fact Earth is a lunar synchronous satellite. So
this bean stalk would need to be 380,000 kilometers and then some.
Umm... Earth is not Lunasynchornous in that regard. You don't need to
make the cable go to earth, but say L1 or L2. If you used large counterweights
you could make it be as short as the 'terran' one, just requiring less
strength (remember Moon's gravity). I don't know what the best length
and end locations might be.
Post by Hop David
Hop
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html
--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++
Another Wise Guy - Macon, GA USA
2003-09-08 22:22:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sander Vesik
Post by Hop David
Post by Mike Combs
That said, there might be an advantage to a lunar elevator for lifting raw
material into orbital space, if there should turn out to be some unexpected
difficulty with mass-drivers.
Elevators go up to geosynchronous orbits, no? (In this case Lunarsynchronous
might be a better word) Since the moon's day is 28 days this is further
than geosynchronous. In fact Earth is a lunar synchronous satellite. So
this bean stalk would need to be 380,000 kilometers and then some.
Umm... Earth is not Lunasynchornous in that regard. You don't need to
make the cable go to earth, but say L1 or L2. If you used large counterweights
you could make it be as short as the 'terran' one, just requiring less
strength (remember Moon's gravity). I don't know what the best length
and end locations might be.
Let's assume that the lower end is fixed to the surface (no railroad
tracks around the equator) and that the conditions on at least one
spot along the elevator are such that a released object pretty much
stays put instead of accelerating away. Is there a luner SE
configuration that meets those conditions?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Just Another Internet Wise Guy Macon, GA USA |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
E.R.
2003-09-09 01:31:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by E.R.
There are some advantages to living on/in the Moon; a great deal of
room to grow,
Are you implying that there's not enough room in space? ;)
Heh. Far from it. Room enough for a variety of living styles and
tastes.
Post by E.R.
a gravity field that doesn't depend on rotating your
habitat.
So? What's difficult about that? An advantage to spinning would be that we
can supply as much "gravity" as we need, rather than 1/6th what we might need.
There isn't, or there shouldn't be, any difficulty in spinning a
habitat. But it _should_ be simpler to pressurize a dome or tunnel,
and maintain the pressure, than to do the same for a spinning habitat.
Or at least, from my point of view, it oughta be less expensive.

Not that I see many problems with spinning. I'm just a fan of the
KISS principle. You live your way, I'll make my fortune selling
groceries to the rock miners and metal fabs on Luna. Hey, wonder if
it will be cheaper to keep, grow and ship beeves from Luna or Chicago?
Spend a few years eating fish and rabbit and you L5ers should pay
well for beef.
Post by E.R.
It should be cheaper to drill rock than build a new habitat,
for example.
I have no doubt, but I don't think creating a livable habitat on the moon is
going to be as simple as drilling rock.
Oh, of course not. Drill the rock, dump the tailings, seal and
pressurize the tunnel, test and test again at double, triple pressure
.... hey a fella can dream, right?

~er
Mike Combs
2003-09-09 17:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by E.R.
There isn't, or there shouldn't be, any difficulty in spinning a
habitat. But it _should_ be simpler to pressurize a dome or tunnel,
and maintain the pressure, than to do the same for a spinning habitat.
Or at least, from my point of view, it oughta be less expensive.
Sorry, you're losing me. Specifically, on the connection between spinning and
difficulties of pressurizing.
Post by E.R.
Spend a few years eating fish and rabbit and you L5ers should pay
well for beef.
Fish and rabbits is how the process will start out, but I don't see it staying
that way (exclusively) for long. For second-generation habitats, I definitely
see Cows In Space. Pigs, too. ;)
--
Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should ask, critically and with appeal to the numbers, whether the
best site for a growing advancing industrial society is Earth, the
Moon, Mars, some other planet, or somewhere else entirely.
Surprisingly, the answer will be inescapable - the best site is
"somewhere else entirely."

Gerard O'Neill - "The High Frontier"
E.R.
2003-09-10 07:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Combs
Post by E.R.
There isn't, or there shouldn't be, any difficulty in spinning a
habitat. But it _should_ be simpler to pressurize a dome or tunnel,
and maintain the pressure, than to do the same for a spinning habitat.
Or at least, from my point of view, it oughta be less expensive.
Sorry, you're losing me. Specifically, on the connection between spinning and
difficulties of pressurizing.
Sorry. There is no connection - directly - between spinning and
difficulties of pressurizing.

My assumption is that it will be less expensive to pressurize and
maintain a habitat in the Moon than in orbit. In the Moon you have
rock you can tunnel into and use to contain your pressure - even
granting you'll want to seal it and put up walls. In an orbital
habitat you'll have to build everything. And you're out there where
anything can run into your habitat.

Assumptions can be dangerous, I agree. We don't have much practical
experience with habitats in space, or in the moon, yet.

It's likely my assumptions arise from comparing the cost of doing
business ashore, and doing business afloat. Drilling an oil well on
land is one thing, the same well at sea is much more expensive. If
you see 'ashore' as 'Luna' and 'at sea' as orbit you might see where
I'm coming from.

It could well turn out that it is, when all is said and done, more
economical to build in orbit than on Luna. We'll have to wait and
see.
Post by Mike Combs
Post by E.R.
Spend a few years eating fish and rabbit and you L5ers should pay
well for beef.
Fish and rabbits is how the process will start out, but I don't see it staying
that way (exclusively) for long. For second-generation habitats, I definitely
see Cows In Space. Pigs, too. ;)
Pigs I can see, maybe. Ornery critters, however. Cows? They need
room, and a lot life-support until they're ready for slaughter. I've
no doubt you could make room and provide the life support, but could
you do so cheaper than I'll be able to (assuming (hah) my assumptions
above are correct) on my pressurized tunnel ranch in Luna?

~er
Paul R. Mays
2003-09-10 08:03:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by E.R.
Post by Mike Combs
Post by E.R.
There isn't, or there shouldn't be, any difficulty in spinning a
habitat. But it _should_ be simpler to pressurize a dome or tunnel,
and maintain the pressure, than to do the same for a spinning habitat.
Or at least, from my point of view, it oughta be less expensive.
Sorry, you're losing me. Specifically, on the connection between spinning and
difficulties of pressurizing.
Sorry. There is no connection - directly - between spinning and
difficulties of pressurizing.
My assumption is that it will be less expensive to pressurize and
maintain a habitat in the Moon than in orbit.
If it was on the moon it would be in orbit... ;)


<Sniped cause I wanted to and I had nothing of value to say about the
subject>
Mike Combs
2003-09-10 17:55:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by E.R.
Cows? They need
room, and a lot life-support until they're ready for slaughter. I've
no doubt you could make room and provide the life support, but could
you do so cheaper than I'll be able to (assuming (hah) my assumptions
above are correct) on my pressurized tunnel ranch in Luna?
The issue may turn on the practicality of growing crops (or grass for cows to
eat) using artificial illumination. If the only economical source of such
light is the sun, then a farm on the moon might have to be on the surface, and
involve much the same kind of transparent pressure-wall type engineering we'd
need in an O'Neill.
--
Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should ask, critically and with appeal to the numbers, whether the
best site for a growing advancing industrial society is Earth, the
Moon, Mars, some other planet, or somewhere else entirely.
Surprisingly, the answer will be inescapable - the best site is
"somewhere else entirely."

Gerard O'Neill - "The High Frontier"
E.R.
2003-09-10 21:31:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Combs
Post by E.R.
Cows? They need
room, and a lot life-support until they're ready for slaughter. I've
no doubt you could make room and provide the life support, but could
you do so cheaper than I'll be able to (assuming (hah) my assumptions
above are correct) on my pressurized tunnel ranch in Luna?
The issue may turn on the practicality of growing crops (or grass for cows to
eat) using artificial illumination. If the only economical source of such
light is the sun, then a farm on the moon might have to be on the surface, and
involve much the same kind of transparent pressure-wall type engineering we'd
need in an O'Neill.
If that turns out to be the case, then the Moon really will be a
research outpost and not much more. Plants won't grow well in the
lunar day/night cycle.

~er
TangoMan
2003-09-10 21:58:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by E.R.
Post by Mike Combs
Post by E.R.
Cows? They need
room, and a lot life-support until they're ready for slaughter. I've
no doubt you could make room and provide the life support, but could
you do so cheaper than I'll be able to (assuming (hah) my assumptions
above are correct) on my pressurized tunnel ranch in Luna?
The issue may turn on the practicality of growing crops (or grass for cows to
eat) using artificial illumination. If the only economical source of such
light is the sun, then a farm on the moon might have to be on the surface, and
involve much the same kind of transparent pressure-wall type engineering we'd
need in an O'Neill.
If that turns out to be the case, then the Moon really will be a
research outpost and not much more. Plants won't grow well in the
lunar day/night cycle.
~er
Does anyone know of any studies that measured how plants grew under
Earthlight strength light levels alternating with full lunar day? Do they
die, go into hibernation, or what?

Let's not discount genetic engineering of plants for erratic light
conditions.

TangoMan
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
2003-09-10 23:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Combs
Post by E.R.
Cows? They need
room, and a lot life-support until they're ready for slaughter. I've
no doubt you could make room and provide the life support, but could
you do so cheaper than I'll be able to (assuming (hah) my assumptions
above are correct) on my pressurized tunnel ranch in Luna?
The issue may turn on the practicality of growing crops (or grass for cows to
eat) using artificial illumination. If the only economical source of such
light is the sun, then a farm on the moon might have to be on the surface, and
involve much the same kind of transparent pressure-wall type engineering we'd
need in an O'Neill.
Just need some "shadow squares" to provide day-night cycles... for two
weeks. Some weak illumination may be necessary for the two-week night.
Plants do pretty well in Seattle, and there's not a lot of sunlight
there...

David A. Smith
pete
2003-09-11 02:24:40 UTC
Permalink
In sci.space.policy, on 10 Sep 2003 00:18:43 -0700, E.R. <***@yahoo.com> sez:
` Mike Combs <***@nospam.comchgnospam2ti> wrote in message news:<***@nospam.comchgnospam2ti>...
`>
`> Fish and rabbits is how the process will start out, but I don't see
`> it staying that way (exclusively) for long. For second-generation
`> habitats, I definitely see Cows In Space. Pigs, too. ;)
`
` Pigs I can see, maybe. Ornery critters, however. Cows? They need
` room, and a lot life-support until they're ready for slaughter. I've
` no doubt you could make room and provide the life support, but could
` you do so cheaper than I'll be able to (assuming (hah) my assumptions
` above are correct) on my pressurized tunnel ranch in Luna?

Hmmm, thinking about meat animals in low gravity (either orbital
or lunar), a little time and breeding (either GE or the old fashioned
kind), and you could end up with some very large beasts. Brings
to mind Niven's frumious bandersnatch. Megasaur sized ruminants
might yield economies of scale... The ideal food animal would
be big, fast growing, docile, and stupid, just mobile enough to
provide muscle toning, and easily fitted with a waste catheter
system... And now I'm thinking about rampant engineering, and
a result which is like a worm, with no limbs, very little brain,
and one big contracting muscle down its length, which could be
used as an industrial component in place of hydraulic pistons
until it reached harvesting size...
--
==========================================================================
***@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.
Brad Guth
2003-09-07 20:09:08 UTC
Permalink
I never initiated flak, officially NASA did, I just picked some of
that up and returned it with love (share and share alike). If you'll
notice, when others have posted good/bad stuff that wasn't intended to
bash for the pure joy of bashing, I didn't have much if any flak to
return, often I've only been appreciative of their input, even if it
wasn't entirely positive but expectedly critical. Whereas your
interpretations and subsequent implications of the facts seem to have
been skewed by those same infomercials that had me snookered. BTW;
you're the one initiating and subsequently posting all that arrogant
pro-Apollo flak, long before I came along.

Since many respected researchers (even of those well documented within
NASA, perhaps even the likes of yourself) have concluded that Venus
wasn't always so hot and nasty, that the surface once held at least
shallow oceans or a few relatively large ponds and, those same
researchers seem to have been stipulating that the transition of
global warming took millions of years, so even if that warming trend
took but a few thousand years, that's certainly sufficient time for
Darwin to kick in, and/or for anyone smart enough to do something
about salvaging their sorry butts. Even a village idiot, such as
myself, should have been capable of putting two and two together, such
as if there were a rapid 1°K upward shift per year (that's still 420+
years worth), of then utilizing whatever remaining resources to their
advantage (unlike Mars, Venus still has lots of energy resources).


Here's another respectfully kind (non Apollo bashing) thought;
creating TRACE-II instead of any stinking space elevator or of
terriforming Venus.

Instead of our badly terraforming good old Venus, or even opting for a
spendy lunar or more so Earth se; how about our configuring and
shipping off an affordable and relatively compact TRACE-II, one that's
outfitted with a few of those solid state 5W lasers and of numerous
single channel photon detectors, being about 1/10th the Magellan
investment and of not 1% the operational overhead. All and all, that's
not even postage for the paper work related to accomplishing any space
elevator, much less terraforming Venus.

Station keeping the TRACE-II at Venus L2 (VL2) is not hardly even
rocket science anymore. Utilizing this instrument as a relay platform
for various communications while the optical features of TRACE-II goes
about imaging the visible portion of the sun and of its coronasphere
is hardly an insignificant opportunity. The CCD camera and associated
optics and filters are well proven, the resolution and range of scan
speed is way more than sufficient, it's entirely proven and best of
all, the original TRACE is about due for a replacement. So, the entire
TRACE team will not have to be retired and, this new vantage point of
VL2 is nearly ideal for accomplish certain tasks that the original
instrument was not only handicapped but much further away. The
TRACE-II could have an even more capable CCD of perhaps 4 times as
much resolution plus being upon average 0.275 AU closer to their
target. That at least 8 fold improvement in solar imaging, not to
mention the other aspects of what TRACE-II could accomplish for
essentially pennies on the dollar.

So, why waste all the time and billions if not trillions trying to
goto places ill suited for humans, especially of such frozen and
irradiated to death locations such as Mars, or of otherwise putting
nearly all of our eggs into one of those horrific space elevators,
when we can simply send off a few complex binary message packets
(local laser area code no less) such as asking "what's up?" or perhaps
"how hot is it?", then monitor for their reply, seems like a whole lot
more bang for the buck or euro and best of all, of not one roasted
astronaut.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/laser-com.htm

Less spendier yet will be of accomplishing the Moon-SAR imaging but,
that's not nearly as much fun as accomplishing any two-way
interplanetary call (I'm actually looking forward to my first email
smut from Venus): http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm

The lunar space elevator and our NExT CM/ISS perhaps isn't 1% of
accomplishing any Earth based space elevator, but that lunar SE
prospect is still talking in terms of tens of billions. That's
certainly far more than I've got.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm

If I can save but one unnecessary roasting of another astronaut, or
save our humanity from needlessly blowing billions and/or trillions
upon humanly unobtainable goals, somehow I think that's one better off
than most all others have accomplished. If that effort turns out to
include the confirmation of "other life NOT as we know it" existing or
even the remains thereof on Venus, unlike yourself, I'll share
big-time with specifics, as well as the levels of support for others
honestly trying to make a difference in spite of the status quo.

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA / Discovery of LIFE on Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Jay Windley
2003-09-07 23:42:28 UTC
Permalink
"Brad Guth" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...
|
| I never initiated flak, officially NASA did

No. You're the one calling people names when they don't validate your
opinions.

| I've only been appreciative of their input, even if it
| wasn't entirely positive but expectedly critical.

You have so far "appreciated" only what can be spun to support your
theories. To people who disagree with you, you turn a deaf ear at best, and
a stream of vitriol at worst. A lot of people have tried to give you
specific information to correct your specific errors. But you ignore it
entirely because listening to it means having to change your ideas in a big
way. You can't abide the possibility that you may be so wrong as to be
completely out in left field.

| Whereas your interpretations and subsequent implications of the
| facts seem to have been skewed by those same infomercials that
| had me snookered.

In other words, simply because I reach a conclusion you have rejected, I
"must" be wrong. You have so far shown ZERO interest in the actual facts
that surround my analysis of some of your arguments. I'm the one trying to
talk about science. You're the one trying to explain away objections by
silly papist references and gobs if political rhetoric.

| BTW; you're the one initiating and subsequently posting all
| that arrogant pro-Apollo flak, long before I came along.

No. I respond to those who question Apollo. I point out the errors in the
basis underlying those questions. When you questioned the validity of the
Apollo landings here, I responded directly to you here. It's all about you
and where your objections come from.

You can't speak intelligently about flight test, and so you can't speak
intelligently about LLTVs and their role in the space program. You can't
speak intelligently about space radiation and so you can't speak
intelligently about how Apollo dealt with radiation threats. I'm asking you
either to support your anti-Apollo theories with something more than
pseudo-political rants, or to explicitly withdraw those conclusions as
unproved. You refuse to support them and you refuse to withdraw them.
That's a pretty psychotic position to hold.
--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...