Re: Cheap Access to Space
- From: Ian Parker <ianparker2@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 03:38:19 -0800 (PST)
On 22 Dec, 04:48, rhw007 <rhw...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 21, 2:41 pm, Ian Parker <ianpark...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(snip)
You simply can't pin anyone down to a straight answer. In the thread
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/9...
we see that something like $3million is being spent just on a
feasibility study for a fully reusable space vehicle. It is, at best,
a fair way in the future. At last we have recognition of that fact.
(snip again -though I agree with your sentiments on the snipped part of your response )
- Ian Parker-
I went to the Library today to try and get Nick Pope's "Jane" article
written in their Feruary 29,2002 titled "Anti-gravity propulsions
comes 'out of the closet'. The previous place where I had seen the
link there was only a 5-6 sentence part of the abstract. The library
at least gave me 499 of the full 873 word artile that as I recall came
WITH images and illustrations of the B2 Bomber which admittedly heats
the front wing so that postive ions are created and that negative ions
are jetted out the engines...thus causing a "electromagnetic lifting/
pushing" effect...depending on voltage and center of gravity
directions of the magnetic field placement. I likely savedthe article
back in 2002 but finding it again in the 100's cds n dvds would be a
night mare...I thought it would be easier to go the library and pay to
have copies made of the article....now I'll have to try the University
Library...or hunt it down in the mnay boxes have.
But again this "electro-gravitic anti gravity propulsion" HAS been out
there in mainstream before...but...never FULLY covered....why?
The DOD...NASA IS a DOD agency.
From a FOIA I tried filling with NASA:
R4. I hereby request any documents, images, memos or other items
that NASA has received or sent, from or to, any source, internal or
external, at any time, which deals with the subject matter of the
classification of non-Earth images or data, of any type, in any manner
that would preclude, bar, hinder or prevent, in any way, the general
public from viewing the images or data from any spacecraft.
R5. I hereby request that any documents, images, memos or other
items that NASA has received or sent, from or to, any source, internal
or external, at any time, which deals with the subject matter of the
classification of non-Earth images or data, of any type, in any manner
that would preclude, bar, hinder or prevent, in any way, the general
public from viewing the images or data, requested in R1 through R4 of
this request that are ruled to be exempt under Sec 1206.300; be so
noted in the reply and which sub-part and paragraphs are used to
justify the exemption from disclosure be set forth in the reply to
this request.
R6. I hereby request a complete list of any documents, images,
memos or other items that NASA has received or sent, from or to, any
source, internal or external, at any time that have ever been excluded
from disclosure under Sec 1206.300 sub (b) para (1) or para (9) that
deal with non-Earth data, of any type or source, and the dates and
reasons such exclusions were made.
Notice that these last 3 requests were for "NON-EARTH DATA"...i.e if
there's "nothing of military or national security interests" on the
Moon, Mars, or any other celestial object...then WHY would NASA
classify such data UNDER that rule? Why would NASA even NEED such a
rule if our thinking is along the DarkAges Where Humanity is:
1. All alone
2. On a flat Earth
3. At the center of the Universe
4. As it revolves around us
5. Riding on the back of a giant turtle
We are beyond ready to move past the Brookings Report and EMBRACE the
entities out there and it's time for someone to either:
http://commonsensecentral.blogspot.com/2005/08/area-51-where-are-you....
http://commonsensecentral.blogspot.com/2005/10/its-time-to-hijack-sta...
And then there's the MONEY to get the COMMERCIAL parts going already
in place with the Undroit Treaty:
http://commonsensecentral.net/how_to_achieve_cats.htm
We have HAD the technology...only it was available only to the DOD
folks...
It's the Holiday Season...Spread the Good Cheer and Good Word...
We were NEVER alone in the Universe...and we had, and have
neighbors...close ones.
:D
Bob...:Dhttp://commonsensecentral.net/
There are a number of points I would like to make. The first is one of
fundamental Physics. There is a theory called "General Relativity"
this describes how gravity arises and how it is linked with the 4
dimensional geometry of space. OK there are Grand Unified Theories and
supersymmeric theories which generalise and posulate a Fermion a
Gravitino which has finite mass, but we need to really concern
ourselves with this.
The fact of the matter is that there is an experiment called LIGO.
This is concerned with the terrestrial detection of gravitational
waves. If there REALLY was an antigravity devive in Area 51 (just
about 2000km from Hanford) LIGO would have gone off the scales. Look,
at Hanford the mirrors are suspended on a glass fibre in an evacuated
tube. There is even cooling to cut down on the Brownian motion.
Antigravity? How ridiculous!
It is perfectly true that you can push against the Earth's magnetic
field, it is not a terrible efficient method of propulsion, but it
works (just) for small objects.
The B2 bomber works purely by aerodynamics. There is no other source
of lift. The "stealth" is obtained by angling the surfaces and
covering the surface with radar absorbant material. There is complex
technology involved but no exotic Physics.
BTW - Stealth does not exist at 50cm and below. When I was visiting
Palmyra I saw what might be described as an "intelligent boulder". It
was a radar at 50cm to 1m and it had a dipole array to enable it to
communicate with other boulders, thereby getting round the Raleigh
criterion. Stealth it would seem has got a limited life.
The Military would like you to believe that its technology was
superior to civil and that it has these marvellous (totally
unphysical) things. The fact of the matter is that when it is up
against civil technology it is usually behing. The most advanced
technology in the world today is probably Google. The best
translations are dome by Google despite the effort that the military
have put in.
Blair and Brown were determined to introduce identity cards, yet
Google has rendered the technology completly obsolete anyway.
Can we learn anything from Google? Yes I think we can, we are talking
about "low cost access", yet equally important is low cost spacecraft
- a standard smart pebble. Google uses networked PCs rather than
specialist servers. This explains why they can afford to be so
generaous with such things as disc space.
- Ian Parker
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cheap Access to Space
- From: rhw007
- Re: Cheap Access to Space
- References:
- Cheap Access to Space
- From: wrschlanger
- Re: Cheap Access to Space
- From: BradGuth
- Re: Cheap Access to Space
- From: Ian Parker
- Re: Cheap Access to Space
- From: BradGuth
- Re: Cheap Access to Space
- From: Ian Parker
- Re: Cheap Access to Space
- From: Rand Simberg
- Re: Cheap Access to Space
- From: Ian Parker
- Re: Cheap Access to Space
- From: BradGuth
- Re: Cheap Access to Space
- From: Ian Parker
- Re: Cheap Access to Space
- From: rhw007
- Cheap Access to Space
- Prev by Date: Re: Shuttle Flights Halted
- Next by Date: Re: Shuttle Flights Halted
- Previous by thread: Re: Cheap Access to Space
- Next by thread: Re: Cheap Access to Space
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
