Re: LA-4541-MS

On Apr 5, 4:08 am, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Again, you take statements of facts personally. I neither like nor
dislike any concept. I can say of any concept however, whether it is
workable or not. Your CM/ISS and attached LSE doesn't appear to me to
be workable or especially useful even if it were. I have given you
detailed technical and engineering reasons for these conclusions. You
have not appreciated them, misunderstood them, and generally ignored
them. So, I will not repeat them here yet again.

Now, my conclusions may be in error. If so, then it is up to you to
understand the factual basis of my conclusions, and provide clear and
rational rebuttal. You have failed to do that. While you have stated
quite ardently that you believe my conclusions are in error, you have
failed to provide any rational basis for such a conclusion. That is,
blaming various religious orders and a vast conspiracy to hide or
distort scientific facts - is not a rational rebuttal to the fact that
say hydrogen peroxide has 1/9th the energy content and 3x the cost of
gasoline per gallon. haha..

The thing is Brad, I'm writing about nuclear pulse rockets here. Why
do you think its alright to come along and post endless blahter about
things having nothing to do with nuclear pulse rockets? Because you
need to? Well, you can come to a dinner party uninvited, and that
might be alright, no one will throw you out. And you might even have
to *** urgently. That's okay too, the toilets over there. But when
you come to my dinner party and *** all over my fine china, well I've
gotta ask you to leave old friend. Look at this thread just look at
it. 75% - 3 out 4 posts are about you and me talking about nothing at
all to do with nuclear pulse rockets in the report I mentioned. WHY
IS THAT BRAD? Not only that, the stuff you say is damned
offensive! Anyone reading any of the bull*** you routinely put out
- for the first time - would never come back to this thread again.
And 3 out of 4 posts in the thread will contain something that
objectionable - because you've taken a lot of time - to make sure they
are there.

brad, if you were a paid agent dedicated to disrupting reasonable
discourse about nuclear pulse rockets, you couldn't do a better job
achieving it. You are sick, and you are destroying the very thing you
care most about. GET HELP AND LEAVE ME THE *** ALONE! haha..

Finally, imho, fusion powered rockets are the way to go if you have
them. Barring that, laser powered rockets do a helluva job. Barring
that, efficient reusable chemical rockets of adequate size can be made
to serve. Making these technologies possible, and lowering their
cost, is the way to promote the opening of the solar system. Tethers
and all that are highly speculative, far more than fusion rockets -
and they need rockets to be put in place.. They will in all
likelihood be used one day - but they won't blaze the first trails
into the unknown, they're built up after the frontier is opened..
We'll use rockets to start, and once traffic volume exceeds a certain
level, we'll use tethers as a mean to support increased volumes at
lower costs.

Your LSE-CM/ISS nayism is noted. Too bad the best available gateway/
oasis/outpost is going to be created and controlled by China, or
perhaps India.

Boeing OASIS:
Earth-Moon L1 Gateway Missions / Executive Summary 10/2/2001
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/design_lib/OASISEXEC_97.pdf

Clarke Station:
An Artificial Gravity Space Station at the Earth-Moon L1 Point
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/reports/CB-1106/maryland01b.pdf

Building an L1 Depot in Phases:
Growing in step with operations on the Moon's surface
http://chapters.nss.org/hub/pdf%20presentations/LIphases.pdf

Getting the most tonnage per any given fly-by-rocket method is by far
the most obtainable if such payload tonnage were intended for
deployment into the moon's L1 pocket. This ML-1 location is an
interactive gravity-null or quiet zone of otherwise being nearly ideal
for efficiently station-keeping as much volumetric size and tonnage as
you'd like, and rather fly-by-rocket efficient if it's robotically
getting there in no special hurry, such as for taking a lunar month if
need be, is good enough as far as robotics seem to care.

However, keeping in mind that this Earth-Moon-L1 location is also
double IR toasty because, that physically dark moon once even
partially solar illuminated is what reflects and/or radiates solar
energy at roughly 33%~50% of the available IR spectrum. Don't kid
yourself about that wide-open space between Earth and our moon,
especially as for the moon's L1 being the least bit cool or much less
cold as reported by those NASA/Apollo missions it is not, especially
if there's multiple human bodies plus loads of systems and
instrumentation heat to continually get rid of, as such thermal energy
is not as technically easy to get rid of such internal and absorbed
solar heat as you'd think, especially since unlike the 50% dark time
of ISS, there's not much greater than 2% dark time per any given year
while situated within the moon's L1, meaning that for days on end
there's none of that shade whatsoever, as well as at times getting
that IR energy as derived from three directions at once.

My fully tethered LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) along with its
counter mass of a truly substantial space habitat that's extremely
well shielded, and of its tether dipole element reaching that other
habitat capable pod or module to within 2r of Earth, is far better
than either of the above or that of anything NASA's NExT space station/
gateway has to offer.

BTW, I'm not the least bit opposed to nuclear impulse rockets, or much
less of my Rn222 ion thrusters for the long haul so that only a small
amount of controlled thorium nuclear derived energy is required. I'm
actually one of the few good-guys when it comes to using the best
available energy for accomplishing the interplanetary task of getting
folks safely to/from those off-world places.
.. - Brad Guth
.

Quantcast