It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Let's build a ship

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 04:11 AM
link   
using the current space station is a problem. They want to regulate everything and you take away the control of being independent. They didn't even like the idea of the guy that paid to go to space and was off to the side away from all their 'secret' stuff. They don't want the average joe in space, they lose all their power.

building our own space station launch center is good and bad. It does allow a few test missions into space ... the ability to stock up on supplies through multiple trips. It gives the practice of several launches and space 'adventures' before making a larger leap to the moon ... and beyond.

One of the ideas earlier, though in simplistic concept works, but I see a major problem in the real world application is the ship launch that uses the 'mother' ship to turn the space vehicles trajectory. Though in low speed, low thrust applications it may be feasible ... in the realm of every ounce of power being used most efficiently, the moment of drag to turn would make a big impact, and the timing of release would be incredibly small. Timing aside, this would not be the same as say ... the use of the grappling hook on batman's car in the movies where most of the energy is transferred, and very little is lost do to friction and turning. Though, the idea can be used in conjunction with another.

Take the idea of turning under power, and add it to the controlled use of exhaust. The tube is a great idea, but I wish to further expand on a way to use it. See if you like it.

I would like to use a combination of a tube, and a magnetic system.

For a length, have it run parallel to the surface, building up momentum without directly fighting gravity at first. This reducing the amount of energy required to get things 'rolling' so to speak ... then at a certain determined speed/distance it slowly curves upwards into the desired angle of ascent.

The second part is magnetic ... like a monorail type system. Levitating the ship takes away the friction ... more of the force of the engine is used for pure thrust ... but I am not done yet
Use the magnetic force assist in take of and acceleration until the point the switching of the magnets can no longer keep up with the (increasing) velocity, then the magnets are set to pure opposite poles to keep things frictionless and allow the engines to do the rest of the work.


I feel this would be the most efficient launch set up ... thought complicated and expensive. It would most certainly require heavy investment ... and may take away the independent factor of this project.

Hey, maybe I will have some NASA recruiters knock on my door
I would definitely want a ride and give the site some pictures



I do think the size of the crew area, the storage needs to be worked on. It makes a huge difference on ship and wing design.

I also agree that the whole 'rocket' thing is a little primitive and was shocked and saddened by the news NASA was returning to such a thing instead of developing a innovative technology that works. Though, I am skeptical about them anyway, since we could go to the moon decades ago, but it would take us a couple more decades to go back? Something is very fishy considering how much more advanced out material and computational abilities are in comparison.

Back on topic. I think, the magnetic launch system could be used in space. Having a secondary system that strategically placed around the outside of the ship, we could create a 'magnetic forcefield' around the ship to protect the crew and internals from the Van Allen belt and most debris. If we look into MRI type technology/other and see how advanced they have become on he fields, maybe even tweak and boost the best of them a bit more. This of course would not replace using proper physical shielding and protection from meteorite impact, re-entry, etc. But a very powerful supplement to it for safety. A problem I can see is ... the amount of power needed to run the ship, may start to need a nuclear or more advanced power source to supply it, so it doesn't add an enormous amount of weight and take up critical space.

I agree, there is no excuse for using nuclear detonation to power a ship ... destroying the environment/atmosphere ... nor creating nuclear garbage in our orbit and procession to the moon and back.

I say we do look into multiple forms of propulsion for both the air and space, even though there has been excellent ideas already, in the concept phase, gathering as many ideas and options as possible and considering them will keep us from limiting ourselves such as the national space agencies currently do


That is enough for now




posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   
I'm more of a three craft type person myself. Some sort of assist plane to get the craft up to a good launch altitude, a space built carrier to make the trip to the moon, and a shuttle to do the landing and return to the carrier. The shuttle type ship makes the whole trip, but not under it's own power. And it is stored in/on the carrier during the transit to the moon while the crew fly and live in the carrier.
A space dock would be nice, but not necessary. If the space carrier (mothership) were built in sections and assembled in orbit, it could be done just as they did with the ISS. Only without the cost overruns.
I'd suggest a regular liquid fuel rocket for the shuttle, with some sort of jet engine/scram jet set up for the assist plane. The assist plane wouldn't have to be all that fast, as long as it could reach extreme altitude. I'm not sure what the optimum altitude would be, but I wouldn't object to taking an hour or so to get there if it saved a million dollars in fuel.
The carrier or mothership could have a combination of liquid fuel rockets and ion thrusters for atitude control. Maybe a solid fuel thruster to give it the initial impetus for the moon shot.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist

I would like to use a combination of a tube, and a magnetic system.

For a length, have it run parallel to the surface, building up momentum without directly fighting gravity at first. This reducing the amount of energy required to get things 'rolling' so to speak ... then at a certain determined speed/distance it slowly curves upwards into the desired angle of ascent.

The second part is magnetic ... like a monorail type system. Levitating the ship takes away the friction ... more of the force of the engine is used for pure thrust ... but I am not done yet
Use the magnetic force assist in take of and acceleration until the point the switching of the magnets can no longer keep up with the (increasing) velocity, then the magnets are set to pure opposite poles to keep things frictionless and allow the engines to do the rest of the work.


I feel this would be the most efficient launch set up


How are you going to keep a vacuum in your launch tube? In order for this system to be effective you are going to have to accelerate the ship to several thousands of miles per hour. This is going to cause atmospheric heating and severe hypersonic shock waves that might tear a ship apart. There is one big benefit of a rocket. It accelerates slowly down low where the atmosphere is the most dense, it doesn't reach full speed until it is in the thinnest part of the atmosphere.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Hopefully this is not going too far off topic, maybe some of you can get some ideas from it. This is a long article from Popular Mechanics of Buzz Aldrin's Roadmap to Mars. It could be useful for making mutiple trips to the moon or mars for less money than each individual trip combined. At any rate it's worth the read.


Roadmap to Mars



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Im still all for launching a shipyard into orbit and building the ship there, if we are smart we might be able to give it greenhouse areas to make it slightly self sufficient.

But there isnt much wrong with the rocket technology, it just needs to be refined and, if built in space, biggerised to allow more equipment, staff and robots.

The reason i am all for a shipyard is thus:

1. Its long term, more ships can be built later meaning it is a good long term investment.

2. Less fuel is required because we dont need to escape earths atmosphere.

3. We dont need to reenter earths atmosphere with the same craft.

4. Its psychological effect would be that we will finally be able to realise our potential for space exploration and colonisation.



On to the actual ship, i imagine something following this kind of design (i know its from a game)

www.forgeworld.co.uk...

The VTOL engines allow greater control, meaning the ship can actually move over a planets surface, not like the rockets now who have...up and down.

I think it should be done like this.

1. Space station built on earth, it is created in a number of sections which are then detached and put away into a storage container (probably more)

2. The containers are launched into orbit on a conventional satellite launch, robots are controlled from the ground to put the sections back together and check its hull integrity

3. Pilots, techies, computer specialists, crew, etc all shuttled up to the station, with the pieces for the space only shuttle

4. The space shuttle is built and the crew get used to its systems.

From here you can launch missions, make new spacecraft, create more space stations, etc.

Also, you could create space stations eventually in the orbit of other planets for more close range observation and testing.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I like the idea of a space based construction yard Octavius.

So how do we lift stuff to the construction yard from Earth? This seems to be the first part of the jigsaw?

Traditional rockets? That's all we have today but what about a huge lift to space?



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
I like the idea of a space based construction yard Octavius.


So do I, but let's go one further. Why lift all of the mass for the construction yard into orbit and leave it there? Let's take it with us.
We launch the whole thing as part of the ship. On the way to the destination we can refurbish the ascent engines and use them when we get to our destination. We launch everything we need as seperate components, assemble them in orbit, launch from orbit and then build our lander along the way. Manufacture fuel at our destination, complete what ever mission we have and then reverse the process on the way back.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 01:45 AM
link   



Traditional rockets? That's all we have today but what about a huge lift to space?


The space elevator idea has merit except for one small problem, there is no caple strong enough to hold.

To make a cable out of steel it would be about 20 centimetres across at the bottom while it would be several miles across at the top!

No, the only thing close enough to the strength required for such a cable is something built using carbon nanotube technology.

I say traditional rockets will do fine, no need to reinvent the wheel right at the beginning. Get the station in orbit built and ready first.


We launch the whole thing as part of the ship


That would make the ship have to be exceptionally large. Im not talking about a small crane and dock to be brought back to earth after mission completed, im talking about a permament structure. One which would need to be large enough for a crew, research centre, and all the modcons such as greenhouses and things.

No, this thing would be large. It would need to be assembled up there. Then the ship would be built to make sure all things are good to go, take off and landing mechanisms and so on.


Manufacture fuel at our destination, complete what ever mission we have and then reverse the process on the way back.


Your idea has merit, but still it is a tad uneconomical. Why create something to manufacture fuel there when you can just have larger fuel pods?



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Octavius Maximus
That would make the ship have to be exceptionally large. Im not talking about a small crane and dock to be brought back to earth after mission completed, im talking about a permament structure. One which would need to be large enough for a crew, research centre, and all the modcons such as greenhouses and things.

No, this thing would be large. It would need to be assembled up there. Then the ship would be built to make sure all things are good to go, take off and landing mechanisms and so on.


I think you might have misunderstood what I said. We launch everything in sections and assemble it in orbit. Instead of launching two sections for crew quarters, we launch one. We use it during assembly of the ship and for the mission. I am suggesting that we use the assembly station in Earth orbit and then take it with us and use it in orbit around our deatination.



Your idea has merit, but still it is a tad uneconomical. Why create something to manufacture fuel there when you can just have larger fuel pods?


Why waste energy in hauling a large quantity of fuel (mass) all the way to our destination when we just take a small plant capable of making fuel, with us?



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   
If we think of using "traditional" rockets to get all the sections of our ship into space, (same as we are doing for the International space station), what currently is the largest by weight/volume/size we can blast up?

Is it safe to assume we would use the International Space station as the platform for the construction yard or would we need to create our own.

Ignoring the politics (and yes a very simple notion), it would seem sensible to use an existing environment.

I can see JIMC5499's point of using a crew module while we construction our ship and then utilize as part of the actual ship as well. If we are using the International space station as well for crew quarters, we can increase the number of people in the construction crews.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 03:47 AM
link   
Hey dire tried to U2U but im a lurker and dont have the 20 posts.

Give me an email

Hey there, names Doug Eldridge.

I came across your post tonight and its actually something I have thought about for some time. I was curious to more about you, your backround, and any progress you have made on this.

Let me give you a bit about me:

Doug Eldridge
College student: Computer Science Degree

I have always been interested in extraterrestrial intelligence, space travel, solar system anomalies, moon anomalies, etc. Which of course brought me to this site in an attempt to perhaps locate small pieces of information regarding my interests. In the end I came to the conclusion that nothing I was interested in could be proved because the only conduit for facts regarding space and our solar system comes through government’s; chiefly mine the USA.

So I began to think about ways to independently get there. A huge task to be sure, possibly impossible. However stranger things have happened and Virgin is starting to break new ground in the private sector with there Friendship One flight. To make a long story short, the propulsion, the engine is the key to a craft.

If we were able to locate, or develop some kind of new propulsion possibly antigravity related I think that all the other pieces of the ship could easily be created through various means. Including product sponsorship, hobbyists who hold varying degrees, etc.

There are a number of people developing or experimenting with Anti-gravity propulsion (the use of magnetic fields to repel, or shield gravity), however there results while encouraging are infantile and in no way close to a viable propulsion system. This is the problem. We would have to probably fund a scientist for years possibly and even then there is no guarantee he would come back with results. Thoughts on this problem?

I also considered a probe. Building a much smaller craft that uses a more conventional power/propulsion system and just have it relay data back to a home base.

Hope to hear back from you.

Doug
DougEldridge@cox.net



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   



I think you might have misunderstood what I said. We launch everything in sections and assemble it in orbit. Instead of launching two sections for crew quarters, we launch one. We use it during assembly of the ship and for the mission. I am suggesting that we use the assembly station in Earth orbit and then take it with us and use it in orbit around our deatination.


Alright, i get you now. Sort of a thunderbirds kind of gig?

Hmmm, im thinking that could be good, but that means the station is limited to one craft, is it not? I would prefer this to be able to hold a number of craft for simultanious missions.



Why waste energy in hauling a large quantity of fuel (mass) all the way to our destination when we just take a small plant capable of making fuel, with us?


because you cant make fuel from nothing, its either bring the fuel, or bring the components to make fuel AND the plant.

I think a fuel plant on the station would be a fine idea, not on the ship though.



If we think of using "traditional" rockets to get all the sections of our ship into space, (same as we are doing for the International space station), what currently is the largest by weight/volume/size we can blast up?


This is the reason i said blast everything up into orbit in pieces, because im not sure if we can carry that much weight all in one go and still have a good chance of reaching orbit.

Ive always wondered what would happen if we put a rocket in a sort of Trebuchet, and launched it from there (for abit of extra kick)



Is it safe to assume we would use the International Space station as the platform for the construction yard or would we need to create our own.


Usually its easier to build something new, so drastic changes would require an almost complete rebuild of the International space station, leaving it pointless.



Ignoring the politics (and yes a very simple notion), it would seem sensible to use an existing environment.


Destroying that environment and creating another one out of it seems a bit counter productive, just have both.


the engine is the key to a craft.


Remember what spaceships are? they are engines with a box for the crew!




If we were able to locate, or develop some kind of new propulsion possibly antigravity related I think that all the other pieces of the ship could easily be created through various means. Including product sponsorship, hobbyists who hold varying degrees, etc.


Of course...i doubt it.

I think the only way this could every actually happen is by creating the idea and selling it to a company who does this kind of thing. No personal project could do it.

Anyway, we dont need new prepulsion methods. The ones we have now are fine, they just need to be rethought. Also, once in orbit prepulsion becomes less of an issue (Except when regarding time to target)



There are a number of people developing or experimenting with Anti-gravity propulsion (the use of magnetic fields to repel, or shield gravity), however there results while encouraging are infantile and in no way close to a viable propulsion system. This is the problem. We would have to probably fund a scientist for years possibly and even then there is no guarantee he would come back with results. Thoughts on this problem?


Why Anti Gravity?

Ive always found the concept tough to realise mostly because the lack of control, or the amount of energy and thought you need to put into simply controlling your craft.

No, Anti gravity isnt the answer. The hardest part i can think of now is constructing a viable space station which can be built in seperate pieces and then constructed by remote, WITHOUT killing the crew.

Anyway, probes are boring, they only give data based on what they were created for, etc, etc.


six

posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Good post.

First, before you design a ship, I think you would need to know several things such as:
1. The purpose of the ship ( ie deep space exploration or say... local exploration)
2. Mission length. If missions are going for several years, A ship would be hard to resupply. Would have to be self sustaining.
3. Propulsion. I think building it in space has merits. It takes a incredible amount of energy just to break through the gravitational force of the earth. Building it in space you have a head start. Fuel the engines would use would have to be easily obtainable or again.. self sustaining. Why not something along the lines of a Ion engine. If I remember correctly they have had one running for several years in a lab.
4. Crew. How many. How long will they be gone.... Their needs and comfort..so forth
5. Communications. That where I think technology will really lag behind. With current technology..anything past say Jupiter or Saturn still takes a day or two to get back/forth to earth



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Octavius Maximus
because you cant make fuel from nothing, its either bring the fuel, or bring the components to make fuel AND the plant.


There is a 95% certanty that the chemicals necessary to make fuel can be extracted from the soil of most planets. The equipment necessary to do this have to have alot less mass than the fuel required to make the round trip. You are going to probably have to make oxygen anyway so might as well factor it in.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Anyway, we don’t need new propulsion methods. The ones we have now are fine, they just need to be rethought. Also, once in orbit propulsion becomes less of an issue (Except when regarding time to target)

Sell what, there’s nothing to sell. Many private companies have had the model to go to space but its always in a commercial sense, rarely if ever exploration

As to our current propulsion systems they are uneven, and loose a lot of energy.. Having 3 million gallons of fuel to lift 4 men into orbit is ridiculous. There have been some successes with plasma but that’s way off.

Propulsion is the key. Unless we find another kind, plasma, magnetic, etc this project would never get off the ground. Fuel costs, fuel productivity would be a great hindrance.



There are a number of people developing or experimenting with Anti-gravity propulsion (the use of magnetic fields to repel, or shield gravity), however there results while encouraging are infantile and in no way close to a viable propulsion system. This is the problem. We would have to probably fund a scientist for years possibly and even then there is no guarantee he would come back with results. Thoughts on this problem?



Why Anti Gravity?

Ive always found the concept tough to realize mostly because the lack of control, or the amount of energy and thought you need to put into simply controlling your craft.

No, Anti gravity isnt the answer. The hardest part i can think of now is constructing a viable space station which can be built in separate pieces and then constructed by remote, WITHOUT killing the crew.

Anyway, probes are boring, they only give data based on what they were created for, etc, etc.


Antigravity is the Holy Grail of propulsion. If one can manipulate gravity then theoretically one could move a craft faster than anything we have. Which is why many people, scientists, private scientists; normal people do R and D into it. Hell even Boeing does research into antigravity. It was just a thought; I would be open to any kind of new propulsion.

Again a space station is a terrible idea. You have to have craft that is large, or runs off a fuel that has much lower cost v. payload weight. Look at our current space station, it’s a piece of crap. One of the reasons is we can only take small little modules there every so often. Building a space station before you build a craft that can easily get to and from it is putting the cart before the horse.

As to a probe this is the only thing we can agree on, they are a bit boring. However with the proper type of cameras, video cameras, sensors, etc. I think one could get a lot out of a probe, as well as having a much easier time launching it even with your crappy conventional fuel.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 08:27 AM
link   

1. The purpose of the ship ( ie deep space exploration or say... local exploration)


Local, of course. A station should just be able to regulate and control the ships which make the actual trips. Even then we have no need to go too far, let us servey the closer planets first.


2. Mission length. If missions are going for several years, A ship would be hard to resupply. Would have to be self sustaining.


It depends what you mean by 'mission'. The Space station itself wouldnt be a mission (but would need to be resupplied AND self sustaining)


3. Propulsion. I think building it in space has merits. It takes a incredible amount of energy just to break through the gravitational force of the earth. Building it in space you have a head start. Fuel the engines would use would have to be easily obtainable or again.. self sustaining. Why not something along the lines of a Ion engine. If I remember correctly they have had one running for several years in a lab.


Ion Engine? I will look into it.


4. Crew. How many. How long will they be gone.... Their needs and comfort..so forth


Willing paid volunteers (hopefully single or whole families, separation for a long time would take its toll)


5. Communications. That where I think technology will really lag behind. With current technology..anything past say Jupiter or Saturn still takes a day or two to get back/forth to earth


Communications is a factor, i find that if we could create a relay, dropping off a few tiny communications satellites on the way to the destination, we could easily keep up communications



There is a 95% certanty that the chemicals necessary to make fuel can be extracted from the soil of most planets.


When you have a living crew far away from home 95% isnt enough.

If something can go wrong, it will. The only way to combat this is to make sure nothing can go wrong.



Sell what, there’s nothing to sell. Many private companies have had the model to go to space but its always in a commercial sense, rarely if ever exploration


Thats because humankind is focused on cost vs gain. Exploration doesnt have a cost, so not many see a gain.



As to our current propulsion systems they are uneven, and loose a lot of energy.. Having 3 million gallons of fuel to lift 4 men into orbit is ridiculous. There have been some successes with plasma but that’s way off.


its rediculous, but its all we have so far. Once a better more efficient way is made, fine. But for now the idea for a space station is purely to avoid these kinds of trips.



Propulsion is the key. Unless we find another kind, plasma, magnetic, etc this project would never get off the ground. Fuel costs, fuel productivity would be a great hindrance.


We have spaceships flying off now with the fuels we have, why wont it work for us?



Again a space station is a terrible idea. You have to have craft that is large, or runs off a fuel that has much lower cost v. payload weight. Look at our current space station, it’s a piece of crap. One of the reasons is we can only take small little modules there every so often. Building a space station before you build a craft that can easily get to and from it is putting the cart before the horse.


Its an idea, though. One which many see has merit.

A craft that is large, yes. we already have large craft in orbit, going larger is a trouble, but not impossible.

Our current spacestation has been keeping the people inside alive for awhile now, i say its serving its purpose rather well actually. it wasnt built to be a limo.

Building a space station before you build a craft is putting the cart before the horse?

hmmm...well im sure you could build both simultainiously, but that means the craft would need to have systems built in to allow it to escape the earths gravity. Making it larger and bulkier and able to fit less equipment.

having a PURELY spacegoing vessel, one which doesnt need to contend with earths gravity would allow us to try out new techniques, building it in space allows us to adapt it to its environment much easier.

Otherwise its like making icecubes in a volcano. Its possible with the right equipment, but it would be easier in a freezer.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Not had time to read the whole thread yet but if the plan is for moon to earth trip(s) I'm thing the bigger the better for crew comfort (may as well do it in style) and more importantly cargo.

With that in mind the logical way to go would be a modular design that could be used many times.

Modular means it can be assembled in orbit and sections can be launched in the tried and tested way - only a re-entry veh has to cope with the stresses of Earth atmosphere, and similarly the Lunar lander for the crew and the cargo modules intended to end up on the moon have to cope with landing. Leaving the main craft to act as a ferry back and forth between the two orbits.

The beauty of a system like this is that each mission can be configured to suit, it would be perfect for many trips needed to put bases and then mining operations on Lunar surface. It would be the most cost effective way to use current tech (once the inital ferry sections are assembled in orbit). Not every mission has to be manned. Redundant units can be adapted for a variety of uses (possible ad hoc space stations? Life boats for emergency's?).

No idea what it should look like or what the best propulsion would be just chiming in really



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 09:38 PM
link   
I think the problem with your idea is...

your ferry people to the moon..

Then what?

"Off you go! we'll be back in a few months! Just hold your breath and tighten your belt!"

I think a ferry isnt the way to go. But any craft going to the moon could easily double as habitation. So it goes and lands and becomes a basically permament structure?



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Lots of good stuff here. I'm glad I started this one.
I've been doing some checking, and to me, it seems that the best idea is a space dock built out at around 40,000 km. That gets you well past our space junk and alows a cheaper, geosyncronous orbit. This also makes it easier to find.
Use the ISS in its LEO orbit as a transfer point. Shuttle up to the ISS, and take the loads from there to the GEO station with purpose built space craft. IN GEO, build a stationplatform for the building, refit and storage of space craft. You can play around and get it self sufficient, while keeping a large safety back up of supplies stored under the platform.
Build a spacecraft that will comfortably house a contingent of science types as well as the cooks,mechanics, doctor and pilots required for a sustained mission to the moon. Include a shuttle bay with several ships capable of landing and taking off on the moon repeatedly.
Fly this behemouth into lunar orbit and go to work. Use the shuttles to land for a day or two. Use inflatable habitats to sleep in and do paperwork. Explore the area and collect your samples. Then either fly to another area or back to the ship to let someone else take a turn. After several hundred orbits of the moon, taking high definition video and stills, you can return to the GEO station for unloading and refit of the ship.
The GEO station can also be building modular components for a lunar base. When it is complete, it can be dragged to lunar orbit and shuttled down. Bolt it together and you have the beginning of your second space colony.
Another interesting idea is to send the structure up to LEO orbit using those techniques that are too high speed for fragile components. Shuttle them separately to the GEO station, and then send up the fragile equipment and people on a more conventional flight. I'm sure that they can run the wiring and fit the instrument panels just as well at the GEO station as they can on earth. And this way, they don't have to spend millions to shock isolate it so it will stay in place while it is loosted into orbit.
OK guys, let me have it!



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Id like to hear more thoughts on NEW PROPULSION and how to get it.

Example:

Running a website for donations to fund scientists on the fringe of new propulsion r & d. Sell the site to the public in an enviormential setting. Since the enviorment has really come to the the forefront as of late its an interesting idea I think.

Again we get no where without a new engine.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join