And as far as Nasa's wasting of billions of dollars
goes (they awarded Onex $1.7 billion for more rocket
engines), they have to keep the fossils (rocket
engineers) happy till they die off.
I came too late on the Web to suggest to them again
(first time 1968) the propulsion system of flying
saucers (they had closed the proposal mailbox in
January 1999, and first have to waste their money on
the, in my opinion, ridiculous ideas that have been
forwarded. No matter what kind of marvelous formulae
they describe for their systems, the only formula that
counts is Q=CV). Shortly after the Challenger disaster
I had contacted Nasa, was referred to the Cleveland
Propulsion Experts, who shot it down again. You can
guess why. And in my country, the Canadian Space
Development Corporation is good for developing
space-outhouses, and can be written off as a serious
party. You are probably right, I may have to go to
another country for assistance.
In the mean time the useless and obsolete new space
station is being hit and damaged by countless
meteorites. Well, then "We Have to spend another
billion dollars on repairs!", right?
Joe Hiddink vliegschotel@yahoo.com
--- "Jerry W. Decker" <jdecker@keelynet.com> wrote:
> Hi Folks!
>
> I am continually astounded by the focus in past
> years on Mars, when we
> don't yet have a space station, nor a COLONY on the
> moon. Geez, we have
> so much to worry about with just achieving these as
> launching bases for
> more adventurous projects, like Mars or outward
> expansion.
>
> To my view, its just NASA biasing public opinion to
> try to bolster
> idealistic future projects so they can 'justify'
> that outrageous 13
> billion per year they spend for so many failed
> missions, something like
> 18 out of 30?
>
> However, the recent tinkertoy mission to Mars with
> the pathfinder showed
> the definite need for faster than light
> communications to be able to
> reliably and efficiently transceive information.
>
> I seem to recall seeing a report saying it took 20
> minutes for a signal
> to get from Earth to Mars and 20 minutes to get
> back. So their toy car
> could be moved only in small steps so that we never
> saw 'realtime'
> images, but rather images taken over time and played
> back like a cartoon
> strip.
>
> Here is an interesting article about how expansion
> of the Internet into
> space will depend on a new method of transceiving
> information at useful
> speeds.
>
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/325201.asp
>
> Back in 1997, Mars Pathfinder could only send 30
> megabits of data per
> day back to Earth, which averages out to 300 bits
> per second, he said.
> In contrast, typical modems on personal computers
> transmit data at rates
> up to 56,000 bits per second.
>
> By 2007, Edwards said, there could be a “permanent
> robotic presence” on
> Mars, pumping data back and forth using Internet
> protocols, and
> communicating with Earth via a central gateway.
>
> He even envisions a relay satellite flying 10,625
> miles (17,000
> kilometers) above Mars, in an orbit stationary with
> respect to the Red
> Planet. Such a satellite could transmit 1 megabit of
> data per second,
> enough for a continuous video feed via the Mars
> Channel.
> -----------------
> One approach for FTL that has been studied by Dr.
> Hal Puthoff, called
> the 'Alcubierre Drive' suggests creation of a warp,
> the same idea should
> be applicable for FTL communications;
>
>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_364000/364496.stm
>
> Miguel Alcubierre came up with the idea of expanding
> the space behind a
> starship and contracting it in front of it. The
> starship would rest in a
> "warp bubble" between the two spacetime distortions.
> The result would be
> a wave in spacetime along which the starship would
> surf.
>
> It was a fantastic idea. There would be no limit to
> the velocity that a
> starship could attain. It could travel faster than
> the speed of light
> because the starship would, strictly speaking, be
> stationary in the
> space of its warp bubble.
>
> Also, the starship and its crew would be weightless
> and would therefore
> not be crushed by the enormous G-forces of
> acceleration and
> deceleration.
>
> What's more, the passage of time inside the warp
> bubble would be the
> same as that outside it. The crew would not suffer
> from Einstein's "time
> dilation" effect where time passes at different
> rates for people
> travelling at different speeds.
>
> The time dilation effect means that anyone
> travelling to the stars at
> speeds approaching that of light would experience a
> journey of a few
> years. But when they came back to Earth they would
> find that thousands
> of years had passed and all their friends were long
> dead.
> ---------------------
> At least commerce is taking the right approach, more
> realistic and
> achievable, to setup a space station, followed by
> the much more
> practical approach of the moon as the next target.
>
> If it has to be tourism, not discovery as the
> primary impetus for
> getting into space, so be it, but in my view, it
> SPEAKS VOLUMES about
> how useless NASA has become, looking for anything
> sensational that will
> engender public sympathy and continue to support
> this out of date
> dinosaur and their archaic approach to overcoming
> and controlling
> gravity.
>
> The public will continue to pay this outrageous 13
> billion a year
> (that's $13,000,000,000 every year!!), paying them
> to keep screwing
> around with rockets, trusting these jokers until
> Germany, Japan, China
> and other countries will take the lead.
>
>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_324000/324846.stm
>
> The time when ordinary people can go into space as
> tourists is fast
> approaching believes space visionary Sir Arthur C
> Clarke. He told BBC
> News Online that it is about time we built a hotel
> in space.
>
> Consider the attractions and appeal, he said. "Where
> else could you get
> to see a sunrise and sunset every 90 minutes."
>
> His call for a renewed effort to get tourists into
> space comes on the
> day of the first of two conferences this year
> devoted to space tourism.
>
> The conferences, in Germany and in the United
> States, are tapping into
> the feeling that advances in technology are at last
> bringing the space
> tourist concept within reach.
>
> Sir Arthur points out that the market for space
> tourism could be
> enormous. "In many countries, more than half the
> people who were asked
> responded that they would go into space as a
> tourist."
> ---------------------
> Hilton and British Airways wanting to build an
> orbiting space hotel and
> ferry tourists back and forth.
>
> Note NASAs comment that using spent fuel tanks as
> modules was 'too
> simple'.....well, geez, let's go nuts, make it
> complex and expensive,
> after all, we can get all the money we need from
> those gullible
> taxpayers.
>
>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_293000/293366.stm
>
> The hotel group Hilton International is to become
> the first sponsor of a
> privately funded plan to build a space station. It
> will be constructed
> from used Space Shuttle fuel tanks.
>
> The project, called Space Islands, will connect
> together Space Shuttle
> fuel tanks, each the diameter of a Boeing 747
> aircraft. At present they
> are the only part of Nasa's Space Shuttle that is
> not reused.
>
> British Airways are also said to want to become
> involved in the project.
> Under consideration is a survey of BA and Hilton
> customers
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
-------------------------------------------------------------
To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com>
with the body text: leave Interact
list archives and on line subscription forms are at
http://keelynet.com/interact/
-------------------------------------------------------------