Will the US and NASA make the wrong decision about exploring space?...

[Jan Panteltje]

NASA\'s New Horizons mission faces an uncertain future:
https://www.space.com/nasa-new-horizons-budget-uncertainty

So 10 million versus hundreds of billions for Artemis moon landing where we already were in the sixties
All your taxpayer money just to keep some clueless at Boeing working?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program

Hopefully somebody will humble the US with a manned moon lander for a fraction of the cost and in a fraction of the time.
India is not doing bad, their moon rover, first on the moons\' south pole, did cost only 75 million or so.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-india-moon-landing-cost-cheap-compared-to-nasa-russia-2023-8?international=true&r=US&IR=T

Anyways same as with F35, crap for ever more money.
Industrial Complex and their clowns.

SpaceX bugs me too, reported a \'successful fire test\' of their big rocket system engines,
well 2 out of 33 engines did not work all the time!
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/08/starships-next-test-flight-might-be-closer-than-you-think/
quote
\"A few minutes after the test firing, SpaceX founder Elon Musk characterized it as \"successful\" on the social media network formerly known as Twitter.
SpaceX later confirmed that all 33 Raptor engines ignited during the test and that all but two ran for the full six-second duration.\"

Predicts disaster...
Well you CAN win the lottery..

Now for that one man who invents a totally different propulsion system and does a 2 week moon return and brings some rocks as proof..
Now that would be a step forward.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:58:10 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:

NASA\'s New Horizons mission faces an uncertain future:
https://www.space.com/nasa-new-horizons-budget-uncertainty

So 10 million versus hundreds of billions for Artemis moon landing where we already were in the sixties
All your taxpayer money just to keep some clueless at Boeing working?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program

Hopefully somebody will humble the US with a manned moon lander for a fraction of the cost and in a fraction of the time.
India is not doing bad, their moon rover, first on the moons\' south pole, did cost only 75 million or so.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-india-moon-landing-cost-cheap-compared-to-nasa-russia-2023-8?international=true&r=US&IR=T

Anyways same as with F35, crap for ever more money.
Industrial Complex and their clowns.

SpaceX bugs me too, reported a \'successful fire test\' of their big rocket system engines,
well 2 out of 33 engines did not work all the time!
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/08/starships-next-test-flight-might-be-closer-than-you-think/
quote
\"A few minutes after the test firing, SpaceX founder Elon Musk characterized it as \"successful\" on the social media network formerly known as Twitter.
SpaceX later confirmed that all 33 Raptor engines ignited during the test and that all but two ran for the full six-second duration.\"

Predicts disaster...
Well you CAN win the lottery..

Now for that one man who invents a totally different propulsion system and does a 2 week moon return and brings some rocks as proof..
Now that would be a step forward.

Nothing to get excited about. It\'s the price NASA pays to get funded for projects they\'re really interested in. They go along with big contracts with big corporate favored by Congress, and in return Congress funds them for their less glamorous, less expensive, core missions.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 08:58:01 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:

NASA\'s New Horizons mission faces an uncertain future:
https://www.space.com/nasa-new-horizons-budget-uncertainty

So 10 million versus hundreds of billions for Artemis moon landing where we already were in the sixties
All your taxpayer money just to keep some clueless at Boeing working?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program

Hopefully somebody will humble the US with a manned moon lander for a fraction of the cost and in a fraction of the time.
India is not doing bad, their moon rover, first on the moons\' south pole, did cost only 75 million or so.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-india-moon-landing-cost-cheap-compared-to-nasa-russia-2023-8?international=true&r=US&IR=T

Anyways same as with F35, crap for ever more money.
Industrial Complex and their clowns.

SpaceX bugs me too, reported a \'successful fire test\' of their big rocket system engines,
well 2 out of 33 engines did not work all the time!
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/08/starships-next-test-flight-might-be-closer-than-you-think/
quote
\"A few minutes after the test firing, SpaceX founder Elon Musk characterized it as \"successful\" on the social media network formerly known as Twitter.
SpaceX later confirmed that all 33 Raptor engines ignited during the test and that all but two ran for the full six-second duration.\"

Predicts disaster...
Well you CAN win the lottery..

Now for that one man who invents a totally different propulsion system and does a 2 week moon return and brings some rocks as proof..
Now that would be a step forward.

We already have moon rocks. They are not especially interesting, and
not very valuable.

India and the USA and Russia have better things to do with their
resources than strand (or destroy) equipment and people on the moon.

I don\'t think space programs seed local technology, one of the claimed
benefits. I suspect the opposite.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 12:54:56 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 08:58:01 GMT, Jan Panteltje <al...@comet.invalid
wrote:
NASA\'s New Horizons mission faces an uncertain future:
https://www.space.com/nasa-new-horizons-budget-uncertainty

So 10 million versus hundreds of billions for Artemis moon landing where we already were in the sixties
All your taxpayer money just to keep some clueless at Boeing working?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program

Hopefully somebody will humble the US with a manned moon lander for a fraction of the cost and in a fraction of the time.
India is not doing bad, their moon rover, first on the moons\' south pole, did cost only 75 million or so.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-india-moon-landing-cost-cheap-compared-to-nasa-russia-2023-8?international=true&r=US&IR=T

Anyways same as with F35, crap for ever more money.
Industrial Complex and their clowns.

SpaceX bugs me too, reported a \'successful fire test\' of their big rocket system engines,
well 2 out of 33 engines did not work all the time!
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/08/starships-next-test-flight-might-be-closer-than-you-think/
quote
\"A few minutes after the test firing, SpaceX founder Elon Musk characterized it as \"successful\" on the social media network formerly known as Twitter.
SpaceX later confirmed that all 33 Raptor engines ignited during the test and that all but two ran for the full six-second duration.\"

Predicts disaster...
Well you CAN win the lottery..

Now for that one man who invents a totally different propulsion system and does a 2 week moon return and brings some rocks as proof..
Now that would be a step forward.

But a rather surprising one.

> We already have moon rocks. They are not especially interesting, and not very valuable.

Not to John Larkin, whose interests are parochial.

India and the USA and Russia have better things to do with their resources than strand (or destroy) equipment and people on the moon.

If you let John Larkin define \"better\". India has just landed a moon rover near the south pole of the moon, so they clearly to think that it was worth spending time and money on doing it.

> I don\'t think space programs seed local technology, one of the claimed benefits. I suspect the opposite.

So you haven\'t lobbied your congress-person to get NASA to spend money with you. You seem more positive about laser fusion where you did get a bit of the largesse.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Aug 2023 07:54:31 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
<c54kei9tr79vpk90e9lio69jhrg2dkp3ro@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 08:58:01 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid
wrote:

NASA\'s New Horizons mission faces an uncertain future:
https://www.space.com/nasa-new-horizons-budget-uncertainty

So 10 million versus hundreds of billions for Artemis moon landing where we already were in the sixties
All your taxpayer money just to keep some clueless at Boeing working?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program

Hopefully somebody will humble the US with a manned moon lander for a fraction of the cost and in a fraction of the time.
India is not doing bad, their moon rover, first on the moons\' south pole, did cost only 75 million or so.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-india-moon-landing-cost-cheap-compared-to-nasa-russia-2023-8?international=true&r=US&IR=T

Anyways same as with F35, crap for ever more money.
Industrial Complex and their clowns.

SpaceX bugs me too, reported a \'successful fire test\' of their big rocket system engines,
well 2 out of 33 engines did not work all the time!
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/08/starships-next-test-flight-might-be-closer-than-you-think/
quote
\"A few minutes after the test firing, SpaceX founder Elon Musk characterized it as \"successful\" on the social media network
formerly known as Twitter.
SpaceX later confirmed that all 33 Raptor engines ignited during the test and that all but two ran for the full six-second
duration.\"

Predicts disaster...
Well you CAN win the lottery..

Now for that one man who invents a totally different propulsion system and does a 2 week moon return and brings some rocks as
proof..
Now that would be a step forward.


We already have moon rocks. They are not especially interesting, and
not very valuable.

India and the USA and Russia have better things to do with their
resources than strand (or destroy) equipment and people on the moon.

I don\'t think space programs seed local technology, one of the claimed
benefits. I suspect the opposite.

There is this company that makes 3D printed rockets
some have now flown..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Lab_Electron
uses a nice engine, 3D printed:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_(rocket_engine)

There is a chance to space for anybody.... for any company..

Maybe you could put some of those Rutherford engines together to get enough thrust to do a moon returns
3D printed ... just wait till those come out of the printing machine
All you need is some data file?

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Aug 2023 05:04:18 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote in
<5bd67032-a3f9-4450-92a9-2e1a40fd4e02n@googlegroups.com>:

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:58:10 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wro=
te:
NASA\'s New Horizons mission faces an uncertain future:
https://www.space.com/nasa-new-horizons-budget-uncertainty

So 10 million versus hundreds of billions for Artemis moon landing where =
we already were in the sixties
All your taxpayer money just to keep some clueless at Boeing working?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program

Hopefully somebody will humble the US with a manned moon lander for a fra=
ction of the cost and in a fraction of the time.
India is not doing bad, their moon rover, first on the moons\' south pole,=
did cost only 75 million or so.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-india-moon-landing-cost-cheap-compare=
d-to-nasa-russia-2023-8?international=true&r=US&IR=T

Anyways same as with F35, crap for ever more money.
Industrial Complex and their clowns.

SpaceX bugs me too, reported a \'successful fire test\' of their big rocket=
system engines,
well 2 out of 33 engines did not work all the time!
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/08/starships-next-test-flight-might-be=
-closer-than-you-think/
quote
\"A few minutes after the test firing, SpaceX founder Elon Musk characteri=
zed it as \"successful\" on the social media network formerly known as Twitte=
r.
SpaceX later confirmed that all 33 Raptor engines ignited during the test=
and that all but two ran for the full six-second duration.\"

Predicts disaster...
Well you CAN win the lottery..

Now for that one man who invents a totally different propulsion system an=
d does a 2 week moon return and brings some rocks as proof..
Now that would be a step forward.

Nothing to get excited about. It\'s the price NASA pays to get funded for pr=
ojects they\'re really interested in. They go along with big contracts with =
big corporate favored by Congress, and in return Congress funds them for th=
eir less glamorous, less expensive, core missions.

Yes it seems to work like that.
Maybe it will change when the first Chinese restaurants open on Mars.
Provided US still exists....

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:27:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Aug 2023 07:54:31 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
c54kei9tr79vpk90e9lio69jhrg2dkp3ro@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 08:58:01 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid
wrote:

NASA\'s New Horizons mission faces an uncertain future:
https://www.space.com/nasa-new-horizons-budget-uncertainty

So 10 million versus hundreds of billions for Artemis moon landing where we already were in the sixties
All your taxpayer money just to keep some clueless at Boeing working?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program

Hopefully somebody will humble the US with a manned moon lander for a fraction of the cost and in a fraction of the time.
India is not doing bad, their moon rover, first on the moons\' south pole, did cost only 75 million or so.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-india-moon-landing-cost-cheap-compared-to-nasa-russia-2023-8?international=true&r=US&IR=T

Anyways same as with F35, crap for ever more money.
Industrial Complex and their clowns.

SpaceX bugs me too, reported a \'successful fire test\' of their big rocket system engines,
well 2 out of 33 engines did not work all the time!
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/08/starships-next-test-flight-might-be-closer-than-you-think/
quote
\"A few minutes after the test firing, SpaceX founder Elon Musk characterized it as \"successful\" on the social media network
formerly known as Twitter.
SpaceX later confirmed that all 33 Raptor engines ignited during the test and that all but two ran for the full six-second
duration.\"

Predicts disaster...
Well you CAN win the lottery..

Now for that one man who invents a totally different propulsion system and does a 2 week moon return and brings some rocks as
proof..
Now that would be a step forward.


We already have moon rocks. They are not especially interesting, and
not very valuable.

India and the USA and Russia have better things to do with their
resources than strand (or destroy) equipment and people on the moon.

I don\'t think space programs seed local technology, one of the claimed
benefits. I suspect the opposite.

There is this company that makes 3D printed rockets
some have now flown..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Lab_Electron
uses a nice engine, 3D printed:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_(rocket_engine)

There is a chance to space for anybody.... for any company..

Maybe you could put some of those Rutherford engines together to get enough thrust to do a moon returns
3D printed ... just wait till those come out of the printing machine
All you need is some data file?

Rocket lost $136 million last year, which is at least better than
NASA. Rocket of course is planning a moon mission.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 3:00:33 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:27:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje <al...@comet.invalid wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Aug 2023 07:54:31 -0700) it happened John Larkin <jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in <c54kei9tr79vpk90e...@4ax.com>:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 08:58:01 GMT, Jan Panteltje <al...@comet.invalid> wrote:

I don\'t think space programs seed local technology, one of the claimed benefits. I suspect the opposite.

There is this company that makes 3D printed rockets
some have now flown..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Lab_Electron
uses a nice engine, 3D printed:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_(rocket_engine)

There is a chance to space for anybody.... for any company..

Maybe you could put some of those Rutherford engines together to get enough thrust to do a moon returns 3D printed ... just wait till those come out of the printing machine
All you need is some data file?

Rocket lost $136 million last year, which is at least better than NASA. Rocket of course is planning a moon mission.

Start-ups lose money until they get their product running smoothly. Of course nineteen out of twenty don\'t last long enough to start making money.

NASA isn\'t a start-up and was never designed to make money.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

It\'s a hypothesis. The cascade doesn\'t seem to have started yet. John Larkin won\'t believe in climate change - which is already happening - but he wants us to believe in the Kessler syndrome, which might happen.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Wandere]

The moon is an excellent platform for the scientific exploration of the universe.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/studies/174/science-from-the-moon-the-nasanlsi-lunar-university-network-for-astrophysics-research-lunar/

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/lunar-crater-radio-telescope-illuminating-the-cosmic-dark-ages

https://www.space.com/gravitational-wave-detector-moon-more-sensitive

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 05:21:46, Wanderer<dont@emailme.com> wrote:

The moon is an excellent platform for the scientific exploration of the universe.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/studies/174/science-from-the-moon-the-nasanlsi-lunar-university-network-for-astrophysics-research-lunar/

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/lunar-crater-radio-telescope-illuminating-the-cosmic-dark-ages

https://www.space.com/gravitational-wave-detector-moon-more-sensitive

Except that it\'s not a science platform, it\'s a political showcase.

Telescopes work better in free space.

NASA wants to spend money.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Aug 2023 10:00:07 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
<j6bkeidg2i2c4b7r9lntm6tf1k76jeisq6@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:27:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Aug 2023 07:54:31 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
c54kei9tr79vpk90e9lio69jhrg2dkp3ro@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 08:58:01 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid
wrote:

NASA\'s New Horizons mission faces an uncertain future:
https://www.space.com/nasa-new-horizons-budget-uncertainty

So 10 million versus hundreds of billions for Artemis moon landing where we already were in the sixties
All your taxpayer money just to keep some clueless at Boeing working?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program

Hopefully somebody will humble the US with a manned moon lander for a fraction of the cost and in a fraction of the time.
India is not doing bad, their moon rover, first on the moons\' south pole, did cost only 75 million or so.

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-india-moon-landing-cost-cheap-compared-to-nasa-russia-2023-8?international=true&r=US&IR=T

Anyways same as with F35, crap for ever more money.
Industrial Complex and their clowns.

SpaceX bugs me too, reported a \'successful fire test\' of their big rocket system engines,
well 2 out of 33 engines did not work all the time!
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/08/starships-next-test-flight-might-be-closer-than-you-think/
quote
\"A few minutes after the test firing, SpaceX founder Elon Musk characterized it as \"successful\" on the social media
network
formerly known as Twitter.
SpaceX later confirmed that all 33 Raptor engines ignited during the test and that all but two ran for the full six-second
duration.\"

Predicts disaster...
Well you CAN win the lottery..

Now for that one man who invents a totally different propulsion system and does a 2 week moon return and brings some rocks
as
proof..
Now that would be a step forward.


We already have moon rocks. They are not especially interesting, and
not very valuable.

India and the USA and Russia have better things to do with their
resources than strand (or destroy) equipment and people on the moon.

I don\'t think space programs seed local technology, one of the claimed
benefits. I suspect the opposite.

There is this company that makes 3D printed rockets
some have now flown..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Lab_Electron
uses a nice engine, 3D printed:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_(rocket_engine)

There is a chance to space for anybody.... for any company..

Maybe you could put some of those Rutherford engines together to get enough thrust to do a moon returns
3D printed ... just wait till those come out of the printing machine
All you need is some data file?


Rocket lost $136 million last year, which is at least better than
NASA. Rocket of course is planning a moon mission.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

Yes, I was just thinking that once we use the moon as start point for interstellar missions
and its orbit gets full with its own satellites,
then with no atmosphere to burn and de-orbit things, it may become a very dangerous place too.

SpaceX is busy making space a dangerous place here by launching ever more low orbit satellites.
I have read they need to make hundreds of orbit correction each year to their sats to evade space debris.
Fuel to do that will run out at some point, so disaster is programmed.

But then again, we need to go to the stars as species if we want to persist.
Some may make it.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:33:19 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 05:21:46, Wanderer<do...@emailme.com> wrote:

The moon is an excellent platform for the scientific exploration of the universe.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/studies/174/science-from-the-moon-the-nasanlsi-lunar-university-network-for-astrophysics-research-lunar/

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/lunar-crater-radio-telescope-illuminating-the-cosmic-dark-ages

https://www.space.com/gravitational-wave-detector-moon-more-sensitive


Except that it\'s not a science platform, it\'s a political showcase.

Its obviously both. The two jibs are perfectly compatible,

> Telescopes work better in free space.

But they are more easily modified and adjusted if you\'ve got an air-filled workshop on the site. Putting a telescope into space takes years.

> NASA wants to spend money.

NASA exists to spend money, hopefully in the US national interest. The pursuit of abstract knowledge for it\'s own sake is not something that you can get a venture capitalist to fund, and serendipity has been know to pay off big. Free market fundamentalist don\'t like to admit this - their main aim is to keep their taxes as low as possible - but it is undeniable.,

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 04:46:11 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Aug 2023 10:00:07 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
j6bkeidg2i2c4b7r9lntm6tf1k76jeisq6@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:27:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Aug 2023 07:54:31 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
c54kei9tr79vpk90e9lio69jhrg2dkp3ro@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 08:58:01 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid
wrote:

NASA\'s New Horizons mission faces an uncertain future:
https://www.space.com/nasa-new-horizons-budget-uncertainty

So 10 million versus hundreds of billions for Artemis moon landing where we already were in the sixties
All your taxpayer money just to keep some clueless at Boeing working?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program

Hopefully somebody will humble the US with a manned moon lander for a fraction of the cost and in a fraction of the time.
India is not doing bad, their moon rover, first on the moons\' south pole, did cost only 75 million or so.

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-india-moon-landing-cost-cheap-compared-to-nasa-russia-2023-8?international=true&r=US&IR=T

Anyways same as with F35, crap for ever more money.
Industrial Complex and their clowns.

SpaceX bugs me too, reported a \'successful fire test\' of their big rocket system engines,
well 2 out of 33 engines did not work all the time!
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/08/starships-next-test-flight-might-be-closer-than-you-think/
quote
\"A few minutes after the test firing, SpaceX founder Elon Musk characterized it as \"successful\" on the social media
network
formerly known as Twitter.
SpaceX later confirmed that all 33 Raptor engines ignited during the test and that all but two ran for the full six-second
duration.\"

Predicts disaster...
Well you CAN win the lottery..

Now for that one man who invents a totally different propulsion system and does a 2 week moon return and brings some rocks
as
proof..
Now that would be a step forward.


We already have moon rocks. They are not especially interesting, and
not very valuable.

India and the USA and Russia have better things to do with their
resources than strand (or destroy) equipment and people on the moon.

I don\'t think space programs seed local technology, one of the claimed
benefits. I suspect the opposite.

There is this company that makes 3D printed rockets
some have now flown..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Lab_Electron
uses a nice engine, 3D printed:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_(rocket_engine)

There is a chance to space for anybody.... for any company..

Maybe you could put some of those Rutherford engines together to get enough thrust to do a moon returns
3D printed ... just wait till those come out of the printing machine
All you need is some data file?


Rocket lost $136 million last year, which is at least better than
NASA. Rocket of course is planning a moon mission.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

Yes, I was just thinking that once we use the moon as start point for interstellar missions

How could any conceivable technology get a spacecraft to even the
closest star? What would it do when it got there?

The one-way trip would take centuries, and any equipment or organisms
would long since been destroyed by cosmic rays.

And why stop on the moon? It\'s parts-per-billion on the way to the
nearest star and, I suspect, the coffee will be bad.

and its orbit gets full with its own satellites,
then with no atmosphere to burn and de-orbit things, it may become a very dangerous place too.

SpaceX is busy making space a dangerous place here by launching ever more low orbit satellites.
I have read they need to make hundreds of orbit correction each year to their sats to evade space debris.
Fuel to do that will run out at some point, so disaster is programmed.

It will be spectacular, a glowing snowstorm of re-entering debris that
lasts for decades at least. Kids won\'t know what a black sky is. That
will be Musk\'s real legacy, after people get bored with Teslas.

But then again, we need to go to the stars as species if we want to persist.
Some may make it.

Unlikely. What\'s wrong with living on Earth? I enjoy it.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 11:45:16 PM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 04:46:11 GMT, Jan Panteltje <al...@comet.invalid> wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Aug 2023 10:00:07 -0700) it happened John Larkin <jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in <j6bkeidg2i2c4b7r9...@4ax.com>:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:27:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje <al...@comet.invalid> wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Aug 2023 07:54:31 -0700) it happened John Larkin <jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in <c54kei9tr79vpk90e...@4ax..com>:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 08:58:01 GMT, Jan Panteltje <al...@comet.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

Yes, I was just thinking that once we use the moon as start point for interstellar missions.

How could any conceivable technology get a spacecraft to even the closest star?

Larry Niven has suggested that big lasers could drive solar sails up to an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, and put the probe close enough to the target star so that it could sling-shot around it so that the same laser could slow it down to match the orbital velocity of one of the planets it might see when it got close the target star.

It\'s not a well-worked out project plan, but it\'s a plausible conception.

> What would it do when it got there?

Look around. Send back images of what it sees.

> The one-way trip would take centuries, and any equipment or organisms would long since been destroyed by cosmic rays.

You don\'t seem to know much about error-detecting and -correcting codes.

> And why stop on the moon? It\'s parts-per-billion on the way to the nearest star and, I suspect, the coffee will be bad.

It hasn\'t got much atmosphere nor a particularly deep gravity well, so it is easier to get stuff into orbit from there.

and its orbit gets full with its own satellites,
then with no atmosphere to burn and de-orbit things, it may become a very dangerous place too.

But its going to be a lot easier to shoot down rubbish orbiting the moon than it is to do the same job on stuff in near earth orbits,

SpaceX is busy making space a dangerous place here by launching ever more low orbit satellites.
I have read they need to make hundreds of orbit correction each year to their sats to evade space debris.
Fuel to do that will run out at some point, so disaster is programmed.

They will burn up fast enough.

> It will be spectacular, a glowing snowstorm of re-entering debris that lasts for decades at least.

Why would it last for decades?

> Kids won\'t know what a black sky is. That will be Musk\'s real legacy, after people get bored with Teslas.

There\'s a whole lot more sky than there is stuff in low earth orbit. City kids don\'t know what a black sky is because of back-scatter from street lighting, not low earth orbit satellites.

But then again, we need to go to the stars as species if we want to persist.
Some may make it.

Unlikely. What\'s wrong with living on Earth? I enjoy it.

Sadly the sun is a fusion reactor with a built-in failure mode. It\'s going to go through a red-giant phase in about five billion years, and it will get big enough and hot enough to boil our oceans in about one billion years. Typical vertebrate species only last for about 10 million years, so we probably won\'t be around to worry about it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 12:57:13 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:33:19 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 05:21:46, Wanderer<do...@emailme.com> wrote:

The moon is an excellent platform for the scientific exploration of the universe.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/studies/174/science-from-the-moon-the-nasanlsi-lunar-university-network-for-astrophysics-research-lunar/

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/lunar-crater-radio-telescope-illuminating-the-cosmic-dark-ages

https://www.space.com/gravitational-wave-detector-moon-more-sensitive


Except that it\'s not a science platform, it\'s a political showcase.
Its obviously both. The two jibs are perfectly compatible,
Telescopes work better in free space.
But they are more easily modified and adjusted if you\'ve got an air-filled workshop on the site. Putting a telescope into space takes years.
NASA wants to spend money.
NASA exists to spend money, hopefully in the US national interest. The pursuit of abstract knowledge for it\'s own sake is not something that you can get a venture capitalist to fund, and serendipity has been know to pay off big. Free market fundamentalist don\'t like to admit this - their main aim is to keep their taxes as low as possible - but it is undeniable.,

That\'s how that latest mental retard on the block, Ramaswamy, accumulated a personal net worth of 950 M$, some lucky returns and taking a lot of money from gullible investors in fees or something.

The U.S. is just one retarded bs fraud after another- there\'s no end to them...

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 27 Aug 2023 06:44:57 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
<2vjmeilfe4gnbbnvkj91a5dl44md5boqbb@4ax.com>:

On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 04:46:11 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Aug 2023 10:00:07 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
j6bkeidg2i2c4b7r9lntm6tf1k76jeisq6@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:27:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Aug 2023 07:54:31 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
c54kei9tr79vpk90e9lio69jhrg2dkp3ro@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 08:58:01 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid
wrote:

NASA\'s New Horizons mission faces an uncertain future:
https://www.space.com/nasa-new-horizons-budget-uncertainty

So 10 million versus hundreds of billions for Artemis moon landing where we already were in the sixties
All your taxpayer money just to keep some clueless at Boeing working?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program

Hopefully somebody will humble the US with a manned moon lander for a fraction of the cost and in a fraction of the time.
India is not doing bad, their moon rover, first on the moons\' south pole, did cost only 75 million or so.


https://www.businessinsider.com/how-india-moon-landing-cost-cheap-compared-to-nasa-russia-2023-8?international=true&r=US&IR=T

Anyways same as with F35, crap for ever more money.
Industrial Complex and their clowns.

SpaceX bugs me too, reported a \'successful fire test\' of their big rocket system engines,
well 2 out of 33 engines did not work all the time!
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/08/starships-next-test-flight-might-be-closer-than-you-think/
quote
\"A few minutes after the test firing, SpaceX founder Elon Musk characterized it as \"successful\" on the social media
network
formerly known as Twitter.
SpaceX later confirmed that all 33 Raptor engines ignited during the test and that all but two ran for the full
six-second
duration.\"

Predicts disaster...
Well you CAN win the lottery..

Now for that one man who invents a totally different propulsion system and does a 2 week moon return and brings some rocks
as
proof..
Now that would be a step forward.


We already have moon rocks. They are not especially interesting, and
not very valuable.

India and the USA and Russia have better things to do with their
resources than strand (or destroy) equipment and people on the moon.

I don\'t think space programs seed local technology, one of the claimed
benefits. I suspect the opposite.

There is this company that makes 3D printed rockets
some have now flown..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Lab_Electron
uses a nice engine, 3D printed:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_(rocket_engine)

There is a chance to space for anybody.... for any company..

Maybe you could put some of those Rutherford engines together to get enough thrust to do a moon returns
3D printed ... just wait till those come out of the printing machine
All you need is some data file?


Rocket lost $136 million last year, which is at least better than
NASA. Rocket of course is planning a moon mission.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

Yes, I was just thinking that once we use the moon as start point for interstellar missions

How could any conceivable technology get a spacecraft to even the
closest star? What would it do when it got there?

There was an interesting science program about just that on German TV here,
They were describing a spacecraft (and they are actually working on ideas) for a trip to a hypothetical
planet some 5.2 light years (IIRC) away, to send a probe to land there and look for signs of life.
In their design they used ion thrusters and reached a speed of some percentage of the light speed, see
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster

The one-way trip would take centuries, and any equipment or organisms
would long since been destroyed by cosmic rays.

Interesting was the big shield design against particles encountered at near light speed.
That made me think about Oumuamua again, one could install ion thrusters on a long comet and build a station inside it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oumuamua
The comet material would work as shield (my idea)...

And why stop on the moon? It\'s parts-per-billion on the way to the
nearest star and, I suspect, the coffee will be bad.

Taking of from the moon is a lot easier than from earth.
And if they can find water there then they can make rocket fuel there.
That is why India sent a lander to the moons\' south polar region.

and its orbit gets full with its own satellites,
then with no atmosphere to burn and de-orbit things, it may become a very dangerous place too.

SpaceX is busy making space a dangerous place here by launching ever more low orbit satellites.
I have read they need to make hundreds of orbit correction each year to their sats to evade space debris.
Fuel to do that will run out at some point, so disaster is programmed.

It will be spectacular, a glowing snowstorm of re-entering debris that
lasts for decades at least. Kids won\'t know what a black sky is. That
will be Musk\'s real legacy, after people get bored with Teslas.


But then again, we need to go to the stars as species if we want to persist.
Some may make it.

Unlikely. What\'s wrong with living on Earth? I enjoy it.

Glowball Worming will get you LOL
Yea, but eventually earth will be engulfed by the dying sun, no life will persist,
so we need to move if we want to preserve our species.
OTOH we are just ants, limited horizons (garden edge) and knowledge of what is out there (what humans build for example).
Dinos are gone too, as are many other species.
But it is in the genes to explore and travel I suppose.
That is why we are still here anyways!
Did you not move to California for a reason, and your ancestors to N America?

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 05:24:26 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 27 Aug 2023 06:44:57 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
2vjmeilfe4gnbbnvkj91a5dl44md5boqbb@4ax.com>:

On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 04:46:11 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Aug 2023 10:00:07 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
j6bkeidg2i2c4b7r9lntm6tf1k76jeisq6@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:27:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Aug 2023 07:54:31 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
c54kei9tr79vpk90e9lio69jhrg2dkp3ro@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 08:58:01 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid
wrote:

NASA\'s New Horizons mission faces an uncertain future:
https://www.space.com/nasa-new-horizons-budget-uncertainty

So 10 million versus hundreds of billions for Artemis moon landing where we already were in the sixties
All your taxpayer money just to keep some clueless at Boeing working?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program

Hopefully somebody will humble the US with a manned moon lander for a fraction of the cost and in a fraction of the time.
India is not doing bad, their moon rover, first on the moons\' south pole, did cost only 75 million or so.


https://www.businessinsider.com/how-india-moon-landing-cost-cheap-compared-to-nasa-russia-2023-8?international=true&r=US&IR=T

Anyways same as with F35, crap for ever more money.
Industrial Complex and their clowns.

SpaceX bugs me too, reported a \'successful fire test\' of their big rocket system engines,
well 2 out of 33 engines did not work all the time!
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/08/starships-next-test-flight-might-be-closer-than-you-think/
quote
\"A few minutes after the test firing, SpaceX founder Elon Musk characterized it as \"successful\" on the social media
network
formerly known as Twitter.
SpaceX later confirmed that all 33 Raptor engines ignited during the test and that all but two ran for the full
six-second
duration.\"

Predicts disaster...
Well you CAN win the lottery..

Now for that one man who invents a totally different propulsion system and does a 2 week moon return and brings some rocks
as
proof..
Now that would be a step forward.


We already have moon rocks. They are not especially interesting, and
not very valuable.

India and the USA and Russia have better things to do with their
resources than strand (or destroy) equipment and people on the moon.

I don\'t think space programs seed local technology, one of the claimed
benefits. I suspect the opposite.

There is this company that makes 3D printed rockets
some have now flown..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Lab_Electron
uses a nice engine, 3D printed:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_(rocket_engine)

There is a chance to space for anybody.... for any company..

Maybe you could put some of those Rutherford engines together to get enough thrust to do a moon returns
3D printed ... just wait till those come out of the printing machine
All you need is some data file?


Rocket lost $136 million last year, which is at least better than
NASA. Rocket of course is planning a moon mission.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

Yes, I was just thinking that once we use the moon as start point for interstellar missions

How could any conceivable technology get a spacecraft to even the
closest star? What would it do when it got there?

There was an interesting science program about just that on German TV here,
They were describing a spacecraft (and they are actually working on ideas) for a trip to a hypothetical
planet some 5.2 light years (IIRC) away, to send a probe to land there and look for signs of life.
In their design they used ion thrusters and reached a speed of some percentage of the light speed, see
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster



The one-way trip would take centuries, and any equipment or organisms
would long since been destroyed by cosmic rays.

Interesting was the big shield design against particles encountered at near light speed.
That made me think about Oumuamua again, one could install ion thrusters on a long comet and build a station inside it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oumuamua
The comet material would work as shield (my idea)...


And why stop on the moon? It\'s parts-per-billion on the way to the
nearest star and, I suspect, the coffee will be bad.

Taking of from the moon is a lot easier than from earth.

But you\'ve got to get all the gear up there first.

>And if they can find water there then they can make rocket fuel there.

Build refineries on the moon?

That is why India sent a lander to the moons\' south polar region.


and its orbit gets full with its own satellites,
then with no atmosphere to burn and de-orbit things, it may become a very dangerous place too.

SpaceX is busy making space a dangerous place here by launching ever more low orbit satellites.
I have read they need to make hundreds of orbit correction each year to their sats to evade space debris.
Fuel to do that will run out at some point, so disaster is programmed.

It will be spectacular, a glowing snowstorm of re-entering debris that
lasts for decades at least. Kids won\'t know what a black sky is. That
will be Musk\'s real legacy, after people get bored with Teslas.


But then again, we need to go to the stars as species if we want to persist.
Some may make it.

Unlikely. What\'s wrong with living on Earth? I enjoy it.

Glowball Worming will get you LOL
Yea, but eventually earth will be engulfed by the dying sun, no life will persist,
so we need to move if we want to preserve our species.

Just move earth to a new orbit. That\'s practical.

OTOH we are just ants, limited horizons (garden edge) and knowledge of what is out there (what humans build for example).
Dinos are gone too, as are many other species.
But it is in the genes to explore and travel I suppose.
That is why we are still here anyways!
Did you not move to California for a reason, and your ancestors to N America?

Yes, but California had air and food and snow and girls. Still does.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:51:04 PM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 05:24:26 GMT, Jan Panteltje <al...@comet.invalid> wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 27 Aug 2023 06:44:57 -0700) it happened John Larkin <jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in <2vjmeilfe4gnbbnvk...@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 04:46:11 GMT, Jan Panteltje <al...@comet.invalid> wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Aug 2023 10:00:07 -0700) it happened John Larkin <jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in <j6bkeidg2i2c4b7r9...@4ax..com>:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:27:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje <al...@comet.invalid> wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Aug 2023 07:54:31 -0700) it happened John Larkin <jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in <c54kei9tr79vpk90e...@4ax.com>:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 08:58:01 GMT, Jan Panteltje <al...@comet.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

Yes, I was just thinking that once we use the moon as start point for interstellar missions

How could any conceivable technology get a spacecraft to even the closest star? What would it do when it got there?

There was an interesting science program about just that on German TV here,
They were describing a spacecraft (and they are actually working on ideas) for a trip to a hypothetical
planet some 5.2 light years (IIRC) away, to send a probe to land there and look for signs of life.
In their design they used ion thrusters and reached a speed of some percentage of the light speed, see
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster

The one-way trip would take centuries, and any equipment or organisms
would long since been destroyed by cosmic rays.

Interesting was the big shield design against particles encountered at near light speed.
That made me think about Oumuamua again, one could install ion thrusters on a long comet and build a station inside it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oumuamua
The comet material would work as shield (my idea)...

And why stop on the moon? It\'s parts-per-billion on the way to the nearest star and, I suspect, the coffee will be bad.

Taking of from the moon is a lot easier than from earth.

But you\'ve got to get all the gear up there first.

You can bootstrap a lot of it - make a lot of it on the moon from a starting kit of parts that you can ship up there and use to mine the moon for the bulk of the mass you will need.

And if they can find water there then they can make rocket fuel there.

Build refineries on the moon?

Why not?

That is why India sent a lander to the moons\' south polar region.

and its orbit gets full with its own satellites,

then with no atmosphere to burn and de-orbit things, it may become a very dangerous place too.

SpaceX is busy making space a dangerous place here by launching ever more low orbit satellites.

I have read they need to make hundreds of orbit correction each year to their sats to evade space debris.
Fuel to do that will run out at some point, so disaster is programmed..

It will be spectacular, a glowing snowstorm of re-entering debris that lasts for decades at least. Kids won\'t know what a black sky is. That will be Musk\'s real legacy, after people get bored with Teslas.

Seem unlikely,

But then again, we need to go to the stars as species if we want to persist.
Some may make it.

Unlikely. What\'s wrong with living on Earth? I enjoy it.

Glowball Worming will get you LOL
Yea, but eventually earth will be engulfed by the dying sun, no life will persist,
so we need to move if we want to preserve our species.

Just move earth to a new orbit. That\'s practical.

And moving people to other planets isn\'t?

OTOH we are just ants, limited horizons (garden edge) and knowledge of what is out there (what humans build for example).
Dinos are gone too, as are many other species.
But it is in the genes to explore and travel I suppose.
That is why we are still here anyways!
Did you not move to California for a reason, and your ancestors to N America?

Yes, but California had air and food and snow and girls. Still does.

For the moment. Parts of it have been burnt out already.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Mon, 28 Aug 2023 06:50:45 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
<3a9peipiq4ba6o19n9g6h6eptc6aa4fd9e@4ax.com>:

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 05:24:26 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 27 Aug 2023 06:44:57 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
2vjmeilfe4gnbbnvkj91a5dl44md5boqbb@4ax.com>:

On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 04:46:11 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Aug 2023 10:00:07 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
j6bkeidg2i2c4b7r9lntm6tf1k76jeisq6@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:27:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Aug 2023 07:54:31 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
c54kei9tr79vpk90e9lio69jhrg2dkp3ro@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 08:58:01 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid
wrote:

NASA\'s New Horizons mission faces an uncertain future:
https://www.space.com/nasa-new-horizons-budget-uncertainty

So 10 million versus hundreds of billions for Artemis moon landing where we already were in the sixties
All your taxpayer money just to keep some clueless at Boeing working?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program

Hopefully somebody will humble the US with a manned moon lander for a fraction of the cost and in a fraction of the
time.
India is not doing bad, their moon rover, first on the moons\' south pole, did cost only 75 million or so.



https://www.businessinsider.com/how-india-moon-landing-cost-cheap-compared-to-nasa-russia-2023-8?international=true&r=US&IR=T

Anyways same as with F35, crap for ever more money.
Industrial Complex and their clowns.

SpaceX bugs me too, reported a \'successful fire test\' of their big rocket system engines,
well 2 out of 33 engines did not work all the time!
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/08/starships-next-test-flight-might-be-closer-than-you-think/
quote
\"A few minutes after the test firing, SpaceX founder Elon Musk characterized it as \"successful\" on the social media
network
formerly known as Twitter.
SpaceX later confirmed that all 33 Raptor engines ignited during the test and that all but two ran for the full
six-second
duration.\"

Predicts disaster...
Well you CAN win the lottery..

Now for that one man who invents a totally different propulsion system and does a 2 week moon return and brings some
rocks
as
proof..
Now that would be a step forward.


We already have moon rocks. They are not especially interesting, and
not very valuable.

India and the USA and Russia have better things to do with their
resources than strand (or destroy) equipment and people on the moon.

I don\'t think space programs seed local technology, one of the claimed
benefits. I suspect the opposite.

There is this company that makes 3D printed rockets
some have now flown..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Lab_Electron
uses a nice engine, 3D printed:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_(rocket_engine)

There is a chance to space for anybody.... for any company..

Maybe you could put some of those Rutherford engines together to get enough thrust to do a moon returns
3D printed ... just wait till those come out of the printing machine
All you need is some data file?


Rocket lost $136 million last year, which is at least better than
NASA. Rocket of course is planning a moon mission.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

Yes, I was just thinking that once we use the moon as start point for interstellar missions

How could any conceivable technology get a spacecraft to even the
closest star? What would it do when it got there?

There was an interesting science program about just that on German TV here,
They were describing a spacecraft (and they are actually working on ideas) for a trip to a hypothetical
planet some 5.2 light years (IIRC) away, to send a probe to land there and look for signs of life.
In their design they used ion thrusters and reached a speed of some percentage of the light speed, see
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster



The one-way trip would take centuries, and any equipment or organisms
would long since been destroyed by cosmic rays.

Interesting was the big shield design against particles encountered at near light speed.
That made me think about Oumuamua again, one could install ion thrusters on a long comet and build a station inside it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oumuamua
The comet material would work as shield (my idea)...


And why stop on the moon? It\'s parts-per-billion on the way to the
nearest star and, I suspect, the coffee will be bad.

Taking of from the moon is a lot easier than from earth.

But you\'ve got to get all the gear up there first.

But only once, once there you can reuse it many times with low energy take off and landing.

And if they can find water there then they can make rocket fuel there.

Build refineries on the moon?

You can split water into oxygen and hydrogen with either solar or nuclear generated electricity:
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=69112&section=4.5

That is why India sent a lander to the moons\' south polar region.


and its orbit gets full with its own satellites,
then with no atmosphere to burn and de-orbit things, it may become a very dangerous place too.

SpaceX is busy making space a dangerous place here by launching ever more low orbit satellites.
I have read they need to make hundreds of orbit correction each year to their sats to evade space debris.
Fuel to do that will run out at some point, so disaster is programmed.

It will be spectacular, a glowing snowstorm of re-entering debris that
lasts for decades at least. Kids won\'t know what a black sky is. That
will be Musk\'s real legacy, after people get bored with Teslas.


But then again, we need to go to the stars as species if we want to persist.
Some may make it.

Unlikely. What\'s wrong with living on Earth? I enjoy it.

Glowball Worming will get you LOL
Yea, but eventually earth will be engulfed by the dying sun, no life will persist,
so we need to move if we want to preserve our species.

Just move earth to a new orbit. That\'s practical.

Well, the bigger the mass the more power you need to move it...
It would have to be somewhere where it is the \'habitable zone\'
As the sun is going out you want to move to a different star.
The closest star we know with a planet in the habitable zone is Proxima Centauri
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri_b

OTOH we are just ants, limited horizons (garden edge) and knowledge of what is out there (what humans build for example).
Dinos are gone too, as are many other species.
But it is in the genes to explore and travel I suppose.
That is why we are still here anyways!
Did you not move to California for a reason, and your ancestors to N America?

Yes, but California had air and food and snow and girls. Still does.

Bit more climate change, nuclear wars, taxes, mass migration will happen.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 15:22:17 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:

On a sunny day (Mon, 28 Aug 2023 06:50:45 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
3a9peipiq4ba6o19n9g6h6eptc6aa4fd9e@4ax.com>:

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 05:24:26 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 27 Aug 2023 06:44:57 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
2vjmeilfe4gnbbnvkj91a5dl44md5boqbb@4ax.com>:

On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 04:46:11 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Aug 2023 10:00:07 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
j6bkeidg2i2c4b7r9lntm6tf1k76jeisq6@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:27:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Aug 2023 07:54:31 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
c54kei9tr79vpk90e9lio69jhrg2dkp3ro@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 08:58:01 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid
wrote:

NASA\'s New Horizons mission faces an uncertain future:
https://www.space.com/nasa-new-horizons-budget-uncertainty

So 10 million versus hundreds of billions for Artemis moon landing where we already were in the sixties
All your taxpayer money just to keep some clueless at Boeing working?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program

Hopefully somebody will humble the US with a manned moon lander for a fraction of the cost and in a fraction of the
time.
India is not doing bad, their moon rover, first on the moons\' south pole, did cost only 75 million or so.



https://www.businessinsider.com/how-india-moon-landing-cost-cheap-compared-to-nasa-russia-2023-8?international=true&r=US&IR=T

Anyways same as with F35, crap for ever more money.
Industrial Complex and their clowns.

SpaceX bugs me too, reported a \'successful fire test\' of their big rocket system engines,
well 2 out of 33 engines did not work all the time!
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/08/starships-next-test-flight-might-be-closer-than-you-think/
quote
\"A few minutes after the test firing, SpaceX founder Elon Musk characterized it as \"successful\" on the social media
network
formerly known as Twitter.
SpaceX later confirmed that all 33 Raptor engines ignited during the test and that all but two ran for the full
six-second
duration.\"

Predicts disaster...
Well you CAN win the lottery..

Now for that one man who invents a totally different propulsion system and does a 2 week moon return and brings some
rocks
as
proof..
Now that would be a step forward.


We already have moon rocks. They are not especially interesting, and
not very valuable.

India and the USA and Russia have better things to do with their
resources than strand (or destroy) equipment and people on the moon.

I don\'t think space programs seed local technology, one of the claimed
benefits. I suspect the opposite.

There is this company that makes 3D printed rockets
some have now flown..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Lab_Electron
uses a nice engine, 3D printed:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_(rocket_engine)

There is a chance to space for anybody.... for any company..

Maybe you could put some of those Rutherford engines together to get enough thrust to do a moon returns
3D printed ... just wait till those come out of the printing machine
All you need is some data file?


Rocket lost $136 million last year, which is at least better than
NASA. Rocket of course is planning a moon mission.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

Yes, I was just thinking that once we use the moon as start point for interstellar missions

How could any conceivable technology get a spacecraft to even the
closest star? What would it do when it got there?

There was an interesting science program about just that on German TV here,
They were describing a spacecraft (and they are actually working on ideas) for a trip to a hypothetical
planet some 5.2 light years (IIRC) away, to send a probe to land there and look for signs of life.
In their design they used ion thrusters and reached a speed of some percentage of the light speed, see
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster



The one-way trip would take centuries, and any equipment or organisms
would long since been destroyed by cosmic rays.

Interesting was the big shield design against particles encountered at near light speed.
That made me think about Oumuamua again, one could install ion thrusters on a long comet and build a station inside it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oumuamua
The comet material would work as shield (my idea)...


And why stop on the moon? It\'s parts-per-billion on the way to the
nearest star and, I suspect, the coffee will be bad.

Taking of from the moon is a lot easier than from earth.

But you\'ve got to get all the gear up there first.

But only once, once there you can reuse it many times with low energy take off and landing.


And if they can find water there then they can make rocket fuel there.

Build refineries on the moon?


You can split water into oxygen and hydrogen with either solar or nuclear generated electricity:
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=69112&section=4.5


That is why India sent a lander to the moons\' south polar region.


and its orbit gets full with its own satellites,
then with no atmosphere to burn and de-orbit things, it may become a very dangerous place too.

SpaceX is busy making space a dangerous place here by launching ever more low orbit satellites.
I have read they need to make hundreds of orbit correction each year to their sats to evade space debris.
Fuel to do that will run out at some point, so disaster is programmed.

It will be spectacular, a glowing snowstorm of re-entering debris that
lasts for decades at least. Kids won\'t know what a black sky is. That
will be Musk\'s real legacy, after people get bored with Teslas.


But then again, we need to go to the stars as species if we want to persist.
Some may make it.

Unlikely. What\'s wrong with living on Earth? I enjoy it.

Glowball Worming will get you LOL
Yea, but eventually earth will be engulfed by the dying sun, no life will persist,
so we need to move if we want to preserve our species.

Just move earth to a new orbit. That\'s practical.

Well, the bigger the mass the more power you need to move it...
It would have to be somewhere where it is the \'habitable zone\'
As the sun is going out you want to move to a different star.
The closest star we know with a planet in the habitable zone is Proxima Centauri
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri_b



OTOH we are just ants, limited horizons (garden edge) and knowledge of what is out there (what humans build for example).
Dinos are gone too, as are many other species.
But it is in the genes to explore and travel I suppose.
That is why we are still here anyways!
Did you not move to California for a reason, and your ancestors to N America?

Yes, but California had air and food and snow and girls. Still does.

Bit more climate change, nuclear wars, taxes, mass migration will happen.

Be as scared and depressed as you prefer. I\'d rather design
electronics and enjoy this beautiful planet.

It\'s crazy how life is better and safer than ever, and so many people
are neurotic and afraid.