Re: Nuclear rockets.

On Apr 16, 11:38 am, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
However, your mainstream box limited comprehension

Means we both understand the physics and engineering realities
involved but you choose to ignore those realities so you can mentally
masturbate about the topic without reference to reality.

of setting up
easily established moon anchored tethers,

You yourself said they'd require 256 million tons of materials -
several grand coulee dams - and required 256,000 tons of robots and
tooling on the moon. If you put 256,000 tons of material on the moon
you could turn water into hydrogen and oxygen and refuel spaceships
arriving empty on the moon and achieve the same thing.

Its only when mass flow to and from the moon gets far far bigger that
tethers begin to make sense. Given exponential rates of growth, they
won't take long to develop, but they won't develop until they make
economic and logistical sense.

and of the great worth as to
the subsequent future advancements of science and even on behalf of
accomplishing the very salvation of Earth is noted,

Low cost high performance rockets will save earth long before the
first tether is built

for the same
reasons you would never contribute a constructive and otherwise
informative word on behalf of relocating our moon, as to interactively
halo orbit that moon within Earth's L1 is equally forever Mook taboo/
nondisclosure rated. Way to go, lord all-knowing Mook.

I'd top-posted for the benefit of others.
. - BG

Your continual out-of-context based nayism that's focused only upon
the most negatives of each and every conceivable aspect, is noted.

I have no doubt that nuclear rockets will also do this badly failing
world that's gotten far too spendy and bloody for far too many
innocent folks, whereas such nuclear technology will accomplish a
great deal of good for those few of us still alive and kicking with
spare loot after your WWIII deals with the fossil and yellowcake
energy cartel fiasco that yourself and others of your three-faced
multitasking kind seem to see nothing the least bit wrong with...
.. - Brad Guth
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: LA-4541-MS
    ... all to do with nuclear pulse rockets in the report I mentioned. ... yourself about that wide-open space between Earth and our moon, ... RS-68 engine that puts up 500 metric tons into LEO. ... Reclamation officials, engineers, and their families. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Nuclear rockets.
    ... tooling on the moon. ...  If you put 256,000 tons of material on the moon ... first tether is built ... To soft land on the moon arriving along a lunar free ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Building Real Spaceships
    ... on the moon and mars from which commercial activities will arise. ... without any additional use of propellant. ... but creates a nightmare of different vehicle ... I have suggested a 45,000 ton spacecraft which requires 63,000 tons at ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: Fusion Rocket to the Moon
    ... But the amount of nuclear materials disposed of in the atmosphere ... Small detonatoin events amounting ot 60 tons of TNT are totally ... and 1/3rd gee at landing on the moon. ... vehicle masses 400 tons empty and carries 20 tons of pulse units. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Fusion Rocket to the Moon
    ... But the amount of nuclear materials disposed of in the atmosphere ... Small detonatoin events amounting ot 60 tons of TNT are totally ... and 1/3rd gee at landing on the moon. ... vehicle masses 400 tons empty and carries 20 tons of pulse units. ...
    (sci.space.policy)