Anonymous WP user, direct your flak here.

[odeon]

He will be the last one laughing on Mars 

Once his meds kick in he might be there before he is 30.

I don't take any meds and nor do I need any. I'm going to help create a spacefaring civilization by designing spacecraft which will use less fuel, be able to be converted into space stations (the massive helium reservoirs would be able to be converted into chambers and the ships themselves be building blocks to centrifugal stations).

How would you get them up there to begin with?

The lighter-than-air spacecraft would have their primary stage be ascension via buoyancy. Now, that in itself is not going into orbit, but merely gaining altitude. A valve system would be in place to have the helium reservoirs decrease in pressure with increasing altitude so that density remains a near constant. Once the maximum altitude through buoyancy has been reached, then conventional propulsion systems would be used to ascend into orbit. With increasing altitude there is less air density which will allow for a more efficient usage of fuel, also it means that the conventional propulsion would be used once a fair bit of potential energy is already imparted to the ship.

A dirigible with rockets.  A wonder that NASA never thought of that.  Good thing the world has uneducated science fiction buffs to tackle all the real-world problems.

So, NASA has tried to do this how many years ago?

They did the math and realised there's no point.

[VenatorDraconum]

He will be the last one laughing on Mars 

Once his meds kick in he might be there before he is 30.

I don't take any meds and nor do I need any. I'm going to help create a spacefaring civilization by designing spacecraft which will use less fuel, be able to be converted into space stations (the massive helium reservoirs would be able to be converted into chambers and the ships themselves be building blocks to centrifugal stations).

How would you get them up there to begin with?

The lighter-than-air spacecraft would have their primary stage be ascension via buoyancy. Now, that in itself is not going into orbit, but merely gaining altitude. A valve system would be in place to have the helium reservoirs decrease in pressure with increasing altitude so that density remains a near constant. Once the maximum altitude through buoyancy has been reached, then conventional propulsion systems would be used to ascend into orbit. With increasing altitude there is less air density which will allow for a more efficient usage of fuel, also it means that the conventional propulsion would be used once a fair bit of potential energy is already imparted to the ship.

A dirigible with rockets.  A wonder that NASA never thought of that.  Good thing the world has uneducated science fiction buffs to tackle all the real-world problems.

So, NASA has tried to do this how many years ago?

They did the math and realised there's no point.

Really? One of the myriad impossibility proofs of the 1970's probably? I bet it can be done though and I'm going to do what I can to make space accessible even if it's not that.

[midlifeaspie]

He will be the last one laughing on Mars 

Once his meds kick in he might be there before he is 30.

I don't take any meds and nor do I need any. I'm going to help create a spacefaring civilization by designing spacecraft which will use less fuel, be able to be converted into space stations (the massive helium reservoirs would be able to be converted into chambers and the ships themselves be building blocks to centrifugal stations).

How would you get them up there to begin with?

The lighter-than-air spacecraft would have their primary stage be ascension via buoyancy. Now, that in itself is not going into orbit, but merely gaining altitude. A valve system would be in place to have the helium reservoirs decrease in pressure with increasing altitude so that density remains a near constant. Once the maximum altitude through buoyancy has been reached, then conventional propulsion systems would be used to ascend into orbit. With increasing altitude there is less air density which will allow for a more efficient usage of fuel, also it means that the conventional propulsion would be used once a fair bit of potential energy is already imparted to the ship.

A dirigible with rockets.  A wonder that NASA never thought of that.  Good thing the world has uneducated science fiction buffs to tackle all the real-world problems.

So, NASA has tried to do this how many years ago?

They did the math and realised there's no point.

Really? One of the myriad impossibility proofs of the 1970's probably? I bet it can be done though and I'm going to do what I can to make space accessible even if it's not that.

By achieving an advanced education in physics, or by reading lots of sci fi and writing in a journal and building models in your basement?

[VenatorDraconum]

He will be the last one laughing on Mars 

Once his meds kick in he might be there before he is 30.

I don't take any meds and nor do I need any. I'm going to help create a spacefaring civilization by designing spacecraft which will use less fuel, be able to be converted into space stations (the massive helium reservoirs would be able to be converted into chambers and the ships themselves be building blocks to centrifugal stations).

How would you get them up there to begin with?

The lighter-than-air spacecraft would have their primary stage be ascension via buoyancy. Now, that in itself is not going into orbit, but merely gaining altitude. A valve system would be in place to have the helium reservoirs decrease in pressure with increasing altitude so that density remains a near constant. Once the maximum altitude through buoyancy has been reached, then conventional propulsion systems would be used to ascend into orbit. With increasing altitude there is less air density which will allow for a more efficient usage of fuel, also it means that the conventional propulsion would be used once a fair bit of potential energy is already imparted to the ship.

A dirigible with rockets.  A wonder that NASA never thought of that.  Good thing the world has uneducated science fiction buffs to tackle all the real-world problems.

So, NASA has tried to do this how many years ago?

They did the math and realised there's no point.

Really? One of the myriad impossibility proofs of the 1970's probably? I bet it can be done though and I'm going to do what I can to make space accessible even if it's not that.

By achieving an advanced education in physics, or by reading lots of sci fi and writing in a journal and building models in your basement?

Starting next year, I'm going for a degree in aeronautical engineering.

[midlifeaspie]

Best of luck to you then.  I eagerly await your day in the sun.

[VenatorDraconum]

Best of luck to you then.  I eagerly await your day in the sun.

Nah, the sun's too hot, I rather send the environmentalists there since they're so fond of warming.

[odeon]

He will be the last one laughing on Mars 

Once his meds kick in he might be there before he is 30.

I don't take any meds and nor do I need any. I'm going to help create a spacefaring civilization by designing spacecraft which will use less fuel, be able to be converted into space stations (the massive helium reservoirs would be able to be converted into chambers and the ships themselves be building blocks to centrifugal stations).

How would you get them up there to begin with?

The lighter-than-air spacecraft would have their primary stage be ascension via buoyancy. Now, that in itself is not going into orbit, but merely gaining altitude. A valve system would be in place to have the helium reservoirs decrease in pressure with increasing altitude so that density remains a near constant. Once the maximum altitude through buoyancy has been reached, then conventional propulsion systems would be used to ascend into orbit. With increasing altitude there is less air density which will allow for a more efficient usage of fuel, also it means that the conventional propulsion would be used once a fair bit of potential energy is already imparted to the ship.

A dirigible with rockets.  A wonder that NASA never thought of that.  Good thing the world has uneducated science fiction buffs to tackle all the real-world problems.

So, NASA has tried to do this how many years ago?

They did the math and realised there's no point.

Really? One of the myriad impossibility proofs of the 1970's probably? I bet it can be done though and I'm going to do what I can to make space accessible even if it's not that.

Classical physics and thermodynamics are not very different today from what they were in the 70s or 60s, or in the 20th century for that matter. Remember that hot air balloons and such are still being used to lift stuff up, and calculations are being done, today. It's not just a question of hoping for the best--if you think that, you are underestimating the physicists of today, not just the NASA physicists.

[odeon]

Oh, and I suppose it might benefit you to know that I am a physicist by education. My training was in the 80s but I have been following the field to some extent.

If you want to study a more realistic approach, I suggest you to see what Branson is doing. His approach is very cheap, comparatively speaking.

[VenatorDraconum]

He will be the last one laughing on Mars 

Once his meds kick in he might be there before he is 30.

I don't take any meds and nor do I need any. I'm going to help create a spacefaring civilization by designing spacecraft which will use less fuel, be able to be converted into space stations (the massive helium reservoirs would be able to be converted into chambers and the ships themselves be building blocks to centrifugal stations).

How would you get them up there to begin with?

The lighter-than-air spacecraft would have their primary stage be ascension via buoyancy. Now, that in itself is not going into orbit, but merely gaining altitude. A valve system would be in place to have the helium reservoirs decrease in pressure with increasing altitude so that density remains a near constant. Once the maximum altitude through buoyancy has been reached, then conventional propulsion systems would be used to ascend into orbit. With increasing altitude there is less air density which will allow for a more efficient usage of fuel, also it means that the conventional propulsion would be used once a fair bit of potential energy is already imparted to the ship.

A dirigible with rockets.  A wonder that NASA never thought of that.  Good thing the world has uneducated science fiction buffs to tackle all the real-world problems.

So, NASA has tried to do this how many years ago?

They did the math and realised there's no point.

Really? One of the myriad impossibility proofs of the 1970's probably? I bet it can be done though and I'm going to do what I can to make space accessible even if it's not that.

Classical physics and thermodynamics are not very different today from what they were in the 70s or 60s, or in the 20th century for that matter. Remember that hot air balloons and such are still being used to lift stuff up, and calculations are being done, today. It's not just a question of hoping for the best--if you think that, you are underestimating the physicists of today, not just the NASA physicists.

No, I know that the understanding of physics is essentially the same, however within each assumption of such impossibility proofs there's a chance of a factor being overlooked. Heavier than air flight was considered impossible for a while since the only engines built at the time of the impossibility proof for that, but then combustion engines were made and heavier than air craft were then possible. If it is truly impossible, then it is, but if it's a matter of technology then that's another story.

Oh, and I suppose it might benefit you to know that I am a physicist by education. My training was in the 80s but I have been following the field to some extent.

If you want to study a more realistic approach, I suggest you to see what Branson is doing. His approach is very cheap, comparatively speaking.

What is his approach?

[midlifeaspie]

He will be the last one laughing on Mars 

Once his meds kick in he might be there before he is 30.

I don't take any meds and nor do I need any. I'm going to help create a spacefaring civilization by designing spacecraft which will use less fuel, be able to be converted into space stations (the massive helium reservoirs would be able to be converted into chambers and the ships themselves be building blocks to centrifugal stations).

How would you get them up there to begin with?

The lighter-than-air spacecraft would have their primary stage be ascension via buoyancy. Now, that in itself is not going into orbit, but merely gaining altitude. A valve system would be in place to have the helium reservoirs decrease in pressure with increasing altitude so that density remains a near constant. Once the maximum altitude through buoyancy has been reached, then conventional propulsion systems would be used to ascend into orbit. With increasing altitude there is less air density which will allow for a more efficient usage of fuel, also it means that the conventional propulsion would be used once a fair bit of potential energy is already imparted to the ship.

A dirigible with rockets.  A wonder that NASA never thought of that.  Good thing the world has uneducated science fiction buffs to tackle all the real-world problems.

So, NASA has tried to do this how many years ago?

They did the math and realised there's no point.

Really? One of the myriad impossibility proofs of the 1970's probably? I bet it can be done though and I'm going to do what I can to make space accessible even if it's not that.

Classical physics and thermodynamics are not very different today from what they were in the 70s or 60s, or in the 20th century for that matter. Remember that hot air balloons and such are still being used to lift stuff up, and calculations are being done, today. It's not just a question of hoping for the best--if you think that, you are underestimating the physicists of today, not just the NASA physicists.

No, I know that the understanding of physics is essentially the same, however within each assumption of such impossibility proofs there's a chance of a factor being overlooked. Heavier than air flight was considered impossible for a while since the only engines built at the time of the impossibility proof for that, but then combustion engines were made and heavier than air craft were then possible. If it is truly impossible, then it is, but if it's a matter of technology then that's another story.

Oh, and I suppose it might benefit you to know that I am a physicist by education. My training was in the 80s but I have been following the field to some extent.

If you want to study a more realistic approach, I suggest you to see what Branson is doing. His approach is very cheap, comparatively speaking.

What is his approach?

You are a space buff and don't know what Richard Branson is doing?

[odeon]

He will be the last one laughing on Mars 

Once his meds kick in he might be there before he is 30.

I don't take any meds and nor do I need any. I'm going to help create a spacefaring civilization by designing spacecraft which will use less fuel, be able to be converted into space stations (the massive helium reservoirs would be able to be converted into chambers and the ships themselves be building blocks to centrifugal stations).

How would you get them up there to begin with?

The lighter-than-air spacecraft would have their primary stage be ascension via buoyancy. Now, that in itself is not going into orbit, but merely gaining altitude. A valve system would be in place to have the helium reservoirs decrease in pressure with increasing altitude so that density remains a near constant. Once the maximum altitude through buoyancy has been reached, then conventional propulsion systems would be used to ascend into orbit. With increasing altitude there is less air density which will allow for a more efficient usage of fuel, also it means that the conventional propulsion would be used once a fair bit of potential energy is already imparted to the ship.

A dirigible with rockets.  A wonder that NASA never thought of that.  Good thing the world has uneducated science fiction buffs to tackle all the real-world problems.

So, NASA has tried to do this how many years ago?

They did the math and realised there's no point.

Really? One of the myriad impossibility proofs of the 1970's probably? I bet it can be done though and I'm going to do what I can to make space accessible even if it's not that.

Classical physics and thermodynamics are not very different today from what they were in the 70s or 60s, or in the 20th century for that matter. Remember that hot air balloons and such are still being used to lift stuff up, and calculations are being done, today. It's not just a question of hoping for the best--if you think that, you are underestimating the physicists of today, not just the NASA physicists.

No, I know that the understanding of physics is essentially the same, however within each assumption of such impossibility proofs there's a chance of a factor being overlooked. Heavier than air flight was considered impossible for a while since the only engines built at the time of the impossibility proof for that, but then combustion engines were made and heavier than air craft were then possible. If it is truly impossible, then it is, but if it's a matter of technology then that's another story.

It is impossible. You are confusing things here--heavier than air flight has very little to do with anything in this context. The issue at hand concerns the basics, nothing more.

Oh, and I suppose it might benefit you to know that I am a physicist by education. My training was in the 80s but I have been following the field to some extent.

If you want to study a more realistic approach, I suggest you to see what Branson is doing. His approach is very cheap, comparatively speaking.

What is his approach?

http://www.virgingalactic.com/

[VenatorDraconum]

He will be the last one laughing on Mars 

Once his meds kick in he might be there before he is 30.

I don't take any meds and nor do I need any. I'm going to help create a spacefaring civilization by designing spacecraft which will use less fuel, be able to be converted into space stations (the massive helium reservoirs would be able to be converted into chambers and the ships themselves be building blocks to centrifugal stations).

How would you get them up there to begin with?

The lighter-than-air spacecraft would have their primary stage be ascension via buoyancy. Now, that in itself is not going into orbit, but merely gaining altitude. A valve system would be in place to have the helium reservoirs decrease in pressure with increasing altitude so that density remains a near constant. Once the maximum altitude through buoyancy has been reached, then conventional propulsion systems would be used to ascend into orbit. With increasing altitude there is less air density which will allow for a more efficient usage of fuel, also it means that the conventional propulsion would be used once a fair bit of potential energy is already imparted to the ship.

A dirigible with rockets.  A wonder that NASA never thought of that.  Good thing the world has uneducated science fiction buffs to tackle all the real-world problems.

So, NASA has tried to do this how many years ago?

They did the math and realised there's no point.

Really? One of the myriad impossibility proofs of the 1970's probably? I bet it can be done though and I'm going to do what I can to make space accessible even if it's not that.

Classical physics and thermodynamics are not very different today from what they were in the 70s or 60s, or in the 20th century for that matter. Remember that hot air balloons and such are still being used to lift stuff up, and calculations are being done, today. It's not just a question of hoping for the best--if you think that, you are underestimating the physicists of today, not just the NASA physicists.

No, I know that the understanding of physics is essentially the same, however within each assumption of such impossibility proofs there's a chance of a factor being overlooked. Heavier than air flight was considered impossible for a while since the only engines built at the time of the impossibility proof for that, but then combustion engines were made and heavier than air craft were then possible. If it is truly impossible, then it is, but if it's a matter of technology then that's another story.

Oh, and I suppose it might benefit you to know that I am a physicist by education. My training was in the 80s but I have been following the field to some extent.

If you want to study a more realistic approach, I suggest you to see what Branson is doing. His approach is very cheap, comparatively speaking.

What is his approach?

You are a space buff and don't know what Richard Branson is doing?

No, I don't know about everything going on, only what I occasionally read on space and physorg. I haven't hear of Richard Branson by name. Is he one of the owners of the commerical spaceflight groups, such as Stone Aerospace, Space-X, working with the UK group that's making hydrogen jet spaceplanes which are single stage to orbit, or what?

[VenatorDraconum]

http://www.virgingalactic.com/

Ah, the suborbital plane company.

[odeon]

http://www.virgingalactic.com/

Ah, the suborbital plane company.

Do you have any idea of how much energy it requires to reach those altitudes? Branson is doing it cheaply.

[VenatorDraconum]

http://www.virgingalactic.com/

Ah, the suborbital plane company.

Do you have any idea of how much energy it requires to reach those altitudes? Branson is doing it cheaply.

In basic terms, PE_f - PE_o. Good that he is.