Moon Race

Experiments being conducted by ISUS, primarily on "alternative" systems that the RS provides an explanation for.
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1187
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Moon Race

Post by bperet » Mon Feb 13, 2017 11:43 am

Google XPrize is offering a $20 million reward for any privately-funded company to send a robot to the moon and return high-res photographs.

Google Lunar XPrize

So, time to build that Dewey Drive?
Every dogma has its day...

duane
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:46 pm

Re: Moon Race

Post by duane » Mon Feb 13, 2017 7:45 pm

maybe it would be easier to use projective geometry and CGI........

I think it would be better to land a craft on the moon, have the rover travel 500 ft, take some pictures,
then blown itself up with sufficient force to be visible from earth.
a small tactical nuke, I think, should be sufficient

other wise how are we going to know
we'll be arguing forever
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hbf1LeNhj9g

MWells
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:29 pm

Re: Moon Race

Post by MWells » Mon Feb 13, 2017 9:40 pm

$20M to win. But mission cost would prob be more than triple that.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1187
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Moon Race

Post by bperet » Tue Feb 14, 2017 3:19 pm

duane wrote:
Mon Feb 13, 2017 7:45 pm
maybe it would be easier to use projective geometry and CGI........
That's the way it has been done in the past!
duane wrote:
Mon Feb 13, 2017 7:45 pm
other wise how are we going to know
Good point; nukes were Jules Verne's approach in From the Earth to the Moon, but odds are that the moon is at zero magnetic ionization, which means uranium will be stable.

So far, all the competitors are using chemical rockets, just as before. Space-X, using chemical thrusters, was only able to get 72 miles off the surface of Earth. That's a bit short of a lunar flight.

Just for the heck of it, if we were to build a ship using RS2 principles...

Propulsion: it has been demonstrated that "reaction thrust" does not actually work as described. Recent experiments in vacuum chambers have show that thrust needs an atmosphere to push against--it does not do much in a vacuum. This is probably why chemical rockets don't get very far off the planet after the atmosphere thins out.

My approach would be to use Goethe's ideas--observe Nature and copy it. Larson wrote a book on the two, observable "anti-gravity" engines in Nature--Quasars and Pulsars. Pulsars operate in the 3-x, ultra-high speed range (they move against the pull of gravity, but remain in the material sector) and Quasars operate beyond the 3-x range (moving out of the material and into the cosmic sector). If we were to create a micro-pulsar as an engine core (the Dewey Drive), the craft would simply move in exactly the opposite direction as the pull of gravity, regardless of atmosphere. Once you got out far enough with sufficient momentum, just turn off the engine and let lunar gravity pull it in. As you approach the surface, turn the engine on again to slow the decent and make a soft landing. No chemical fuel required, and could probably be powered by high-efficiency batteries.

Navigation: the antigravity propulsion system will create its own, local 3D coordinate system to the ship, so there a number of problems with navigation, since "inertial navigation" won't do anything, as there will be no inertia with respect to the exterior environment. About the only way would be stellar navigation, like the old sailboats--but there is also a problem with that, as once you reach the exosphere, the stars are not visible (including the sun), as there is no atmosphere to create the light from the stellar emissions. However, you CAN see the planets, because they DO have atmosphere refracting the sunlight (which I believe is in the uV range in space). Of course, the two, biggest planets are the Earth and Moon, so one could navigate by just using those two reference points, providing the navigation computer could recognize the difference between them, should the ship get flipped around.

Radiation: particularly, the Van Allen belts, some 40,000 miles of hard radiation and charged particles. Ionized matter would not be a problem (micrometeoroids), as they gravitate and the propulsion system would repel them. The problem would be the non-gravitating matter, which are primarily gamma rays, cosmic rays and charged particles. Cosmic rays crash computers when they hit the CPUs, and they are rather difficult to stop with conventional shielding. (This is actually becoming a problem, given the widespread use of computers in the world.)

I do not yet have a solution to this problem, other than to make the ship "mechanical," rather than electronic.

Communication: how do you talk back to Earth over 230,000 miles? And as Duane mentioned, how do you prove the communication is actually coming from the moon?

My initial thought is that radio may not work given the Van Allen belt noise, but we do know we can visually SEE the moon, so thinking of some kind of pulsed laser system. Even with a tight field, by the time the laser reaches the Earth it would be hundreds of miles across--which could work to advantage, as it could be picked up by amateur observers and triangulated upon.

Another option would be to use a quantum-entangled communication system, where an entanglement of matter on the probe with one on Earth would provide instant communication--but only to the receiver.

Return: The ship should be able to fly back after completing its mission, since there is no loss of "reaction material."

Other thoughts: I suspect that "hard drives" would not survive the trip, due to the propulsion system and magnetically active environment of space. Programs would have to be in ROMs, with redundant systems to check each other for failure.

Roaming around the surface of the moon... I would think hovering around it would be better, given the propulsion system. That way, all the mechanics involved with wheels/tracks can be avoided.

And after the ship returns successfully, we all get mega-rich selling it to Bigelow Aerospace!
Every dogma has its day...

Nick
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2014 8:06 am

Re: Moon Race

Post by Nick » Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:37 am

bperet wrote:
Tue Feb 14, 2017 3:19 pm

Propulsion:
it has been demonstrated that "reaction thrust" does not actually work as described. Recent experiments in vacuum chambers have show that thrust needs an atmosphere to push against--it does not do much in a vacuum. This is probably why chemical rockets don't get very far off the planet after the atmosphere thins out.
This passage seems a bit strange to me. Could you provide us with the papers where the results of "recent experiments in vacuum chambers" are described?

Or maybe we have a misunderstanding somewhere...

Because one of the rocket engine advantages is their ability to work the same way both inside and outside of the atmosphere (Earth's or otherwise). Indeed, there are high altitude and low altitude engines with the optimal performance at given heights, nothing new here.

And we know that properly build rocket engines does what they need to do in a (nearly) vacuum just fine. They worked when ISS were being built and work now to correct its orbit. They worked when probes to the Moon, Mars or Venus were sent.

Maybe some of the numerous space missions were indeed a CGI, but not all, because there are landing sites on the Moon still visible from Earth.

Nevertheless new systems of propulsion are needed today. And some people in the aerospace industry (official, not a top secret, branch) are open to the new ideas. But both working engine prototype and detailed physical theory behind its function are needed, before we could begin Solar System exploration in earnest.

duane
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:46 pm

Re: Moon Race

Post by duane » Thu Feb 16, 2017 7:17 pm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/spe ... 8209fd56b7

NASA, heeding Trump, may add astronauts to a test flight moon mission

Newt Gingrich, an influential adviser to Trump when it comes to space issues, is among those pushing for a more entrepreneurial space program. In an email to The Washington Post, Gingrich, who said he was on a trip to Antarctica, blasted NASA for becoming an agency that avoids risk, and said the space program should leverage the enthusiasm and money of the many billionaires interested in commercializing space.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1187
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Moon Race

Post by bperet » Sun Feb 19, 2017 4:00 pm

Nick wrote:
Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:37 am
This passage seems a bit strange to me. Could you provide us with the papers where the results of "recent experiments in vacuum chambers" are described?
I thought it was common knowledge. It should be; just look at rocket nozzle design.

But for the purposes of this discussion, just take it "as is" that chemical rockets won't get you very far into space, so an alternate propulsion system would be required. Preferably one that does not require carrying large volumes of explosive chemicals with you on the trip.

I did see another interesting flight mechanism, years ago, in a book called The Millennial Project, by Marshall Savage. In it, he proposed using ice as a propellant, placed at the base of a rocket and vaporized at a distance via a ground-based laser. I'm not sure that is practical to do, but the idea of pushing something into orbit from a ground-based system is good. That overcomes the problem of escape velocity by keeping the weight of the satellite low.

I've got my white board full of equations at the moment, considering the possibility of a diamagnetic based propulsion system that would basically "push" off the Earth's natural magnetic field (analogous to buoyancy). But it appears that it will disrupt the rotational structure of atoms before you can get it to sufficient magnitude to actually generate "float." Probably why diamagnetism does not occur at high levels in Nature.
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1187
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Moon Race

Post by bperet » Sun Feb 19, 2017 4:02 pm

duane wrote:
Thu Feb 16, 2017 7:17 pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/spe ... 8209fd56b7

NASA, heeding Trump, may add astronauts to a test flight moon mission
So, the race is on between free-lancers and mega-funded government!
Every dogma has its day...

duane
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:46 pm

Re: Moon Race

Post by duane » Sun Feb 26, 2017 4:14 pm

a long discussion of "Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?"
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1632






I'm only about half way thru ......

duane
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:46 pm

Re: Moon Race

Post by duane » Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:54 pm

it seems like space travel somehow went from hard to child's play
another entry into the race

http://gizmodo.com/jeff-bezos-wants-to- ... 1792952893

Jeff Bezos Wants to Set Up Amazon on the Moon


what next ? Bill Gates offering a windows based Moon Trip?


why do I get the feeling this is some sort of money laundering scheme?

Post Reply