RE: The Five-Billion-Star Hotel / propulsion
Following up Patrick's comment about using existing propulsion systems,
I've included some pertinent information from astronaut Scott Horowitz.
"It started as an idea of safe, simple, and soon," NASA astronaut Scott
Horowitz said during a plenary session of the Mars Society's annual
conference in Chicago last month. "After the Columbia accident, a few of
us in the office were thinking about how we can do this better. How do
we get to the point where we can launch lots of people to and from low
Earth orbit?"
That philosophy of "safe, simple, and soon" led them to adopt a capsule
design for manned spacecraft. Horowitz said they then turned their
attention to a launch vehicle for that capsule. "I was thinking, 'What
is one of the most cost-effective, safest pieces of hardware that we
have to use as a lower stage?'" Horowitz recalled. "I said, 'Hey, what
about a solid rocket booster?'"
Combine it with an upper stage, proponents argue, and an SRB could carry
CEVs into orbit sooner and less expensively than an EELV.
The whole article can be viewed at
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/226/1.
Jason Klassi
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Q. Collins [mailto:collins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 2:08 AM
> To: fishbone123@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: sf-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; shengar@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: The Five-Billion-Star Hotel / propulsion
>
>
> Hi- thanks for the ideas about new propulsion systems.
>
> Although in future I'm sure such new systems will be used,
> I don't believe that we need new propulsion systems in order
> to have a booming space tourism industry of at least millions
> of passengers/year. So I tend to focus on getting started with
> existing technology, rather than work on even better new
> technology. WIth luck, we should see whether someone
> can win the new "Orbital X-Prize" by 2010.
>
> Re China and oil, there's presumably a potential problem - but
> only in the near term. Getting off oil seems to be trivially
> simple if governments gave it priority. The wind in
> North Dakota alone is more than all the electricity that
> Americans use . . . 100 years from now I guess solar energy
> in its various forms - including solar energy "farms" on
> the Moon - will supply 10 times the energy humans use
> today.
>
> Best,
>
> Patrick Collins
>
>
> > I would be very interested in hearing more discussion on this
subject. I
> am a writer living in Burbank California. I am currently developing an
> episodic television series set 100 years on the first colony on the
moon.
> One of the holes in my research are possible future propulsion systems
and
> their neighbor weapons system. It is also interesting that you mention
> China and it's need for oil as that very subject figures prominently
in my
> prehistory.
> >
> > I thank you for submitting this information and would love to hear
> everyone's thoughts. Especially as I am currently on a major deadline
to
> finish the show bible (the technical document that outlines the series
> details) and get it to my manager poste haste! The actual pilot is
> completed and is being reviewed by a possible investor tomorrow.
> >
> > Ellen Hughes
> > fishbone123@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Why Wait? Move to EarthLink.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From:
> > To: sf-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: 2/17/05 6:48:11 PM
> > Subject: Re: The Five-Billion-Star Hotel
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Sirs:
> > I have posted these questions at many physics forums, and to
academics
> in this field, with little response. After reviewing your web site I
> thought you may be interested in the low cost implications, and near
term
> implementation of this technology for space propulsion,
> >
> > There are three companies pursuing hydrogen-boron plasma toroid
fusion,
> Paul Koloc, Prometheus II, Eric Lerner, Focus Fusion and Clint Seward
of
> Electron Power Systems. A resent DOD review of EPS technology reads as
> fallows:
> >
> > "MIT considers these plasmas a revolutionary breakthrough, with
Delphi's
> > chief scientist and senior manager for advanced technology both
agreeing
> > that EST/SPT physics are repeatable and theoretically explainable.
MIT
> and
> > EPS have jointly authored numerous professional papers describing
their
> > work. (Delphi is a $33B company, the spun off Delco Division of
> General
> > Motors)."
> >
> > and
> >
> > "Cost: no cost data available. The complexity of reliable
mini-toroid
> > formation and acceleration with compact, relatively low-cost
equipment
> > remains to be determined. Yet the fact that the EPS/MIT STTR work
this
> > technology has attracted interest from Delphi is very significant,
as
> the
> > automotive electronics industry is considered to be extremely
demanding
> of
> > functionality per dollar and pound (e.g., mil-spec performance at
> > Wal-Mart-class 'commodity' prices).
> >
> > Potential Operational Payoff: used as KEWs, even a tiny
(microscopic-
> scale)
> > EST would generate enough kinetic energy to destroy any military
vehicle
> or
> > projectile operating in the atmosphere, including solid-rod
anti-armor
> > penetrators. These charge-neutral plasmas would be produced in large
> numbers
> > in rapid succession to form a steerable beam. Impact velocities of
600
> > km/sec, possibly several times higher, may be possible, based on
MIT's
> > extrapolation of AFRL's compact-toroid acceleration experiments for
> vacuum.
> >
> > Metrics:
> > - Effects: target destruction by kinetic impacts far above hyper
> velocities
> > (defined by the speed of sound in metal and nonmetal targets)
> > - Speed: up to 600 km/sec (MIT estimate), possibly up to 2000 km/sec
> (EPS
> > estimate)
> > - Range: endoatmospheric line-of-sight up to space/atmosphere
boundary
> > (officially defined as 62 miles)
> > - Power requirements: EPS proposes using EST mini-fusion reactors,
whose
> > initial power could be provided by a car battery, to produce and
> accelerate
> > its ESTs"
> >
> >
> >
> > EPS, Electron Power Systems seems the strongest and most advanced,
and
> I love the scalability, They propose applications as varied as home
power
> generation@ .ooo5 cents/KWhr, cars, distributed power, airplanes,
space
> propulsion , power storage and kinetic weapons.
> >
> > It also provides a theoretic base for ball lighting : Ball Lightning
> Explained as a Stable Plasma Toroid
> >
> >
> > The theoretics are all there in peer reviewed papers. It does sound
to
> good to be true however with names like MIT, Delphi, STTR grants,
NIST
> grants , etc., popping up all over, I have to keep investigating.
> >
> > In my searches for efficient home technology I came across Electron
> Power Systems. I E-mailed EPS about the obvious synergies for their
home
> generator with the power chips of Borealis. I also contacted Borealis.
I
> have been mediating an argument between Clint Seward of Electron Power
> Systems with Rodney T. Cox of http://www.powerchips.gi/. Basically
> Rodney said they got the math wrong and NASA is right and Clint says
MIT
> doesn't get their math wrong. I thought you may have an interest and
be
> of help. Both companies are proposing very disruptive technologies,
> Borealis in thermoelectrics and EPS in micro fusion.
> >
> > Mediating, in this case, means in the middle of e-mail exchanges.
> > The issue seems to be Dr. Chen's paper and whether his assumptions
of
> the aspect ratio for the plasma toroids, match the model of Clint
Seward
> proposed device. Will the ion stability condition be satisfied to
maintain
> equilibrium?
> > I'm in way over my head here and have been seeking help from
interested
> parties, if you know any plasma physicist that may help that would be
> great. All pertinent papers are at EPS's web site.
> >
> > You may be familiar with Eric Lerner's work, Focus Fusion
> integrityresinst.crosswin...oc42793577 , His theories on quasars, his
> book, The Big Bang Never Happened are very interesting.
> > Focus Fusion seems to making progress, they got threw gate 1 for a 2
> million NIST grant for a spin off of their fusion technology to build
a
> low cost X-ray source.
> >
> >
> >
> > If you are intrigued, please contact me for a full report on my
> contacts with these companies.
> >
> > Also, a Recent speech by Rodney Cox :
http://www.borealis.gi/press/NEW-
> GOLDEN-AGE-IBM.Speech.6=04.pdf is very inspiring. The big line of the
> speech is about power being to cheap to meter.
> >
> > There have been several recent calls for a new mannhattan program
for
> clean energy . Thomas Friedman, of the Times, wrote a great column a
few
> months ago. His dream of head lines he would read on return from
> sabbatical, the top one, China and America announce Manhattan Project
for
> Clean Energy. The geopolitical implications of china's oil thirst as
the
> paramount problem of our time.
> > The New York Times> Search> Abstract
> >
> >
> > and Richard Smalley: Nobel laureate rings energy alarm bell
> >
> > This technology is so green (only by product helium) and solves such
a
> panoply of world problems, if it is as viable as the Department of
Defense
> feels it is, it is the fuel of the American dream.
> >
> > Thanks for your attention,
> >
> >
> > Erich J. Knight
> > Shenandoah Gardens
> > E-mail: shengar@xxxxxxx
> > (540) 289-9750
>
>
> --
> Space Future | To unsubscribe send email with the subject
> "unsubscribe"
> www.spacefuture.com | to "sf-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx".
--
Space Future | To unsubscribe send email with the subject "unsubscribe"
www.spacefuture.com | to "sf-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx".