Propulsion Question

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

MaxGain
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 4:25 pm

Propulsion Question

Unread post by MaxGain » Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:32 pm

Propulsion Question
Now that we know that traveling at , or close to the so called speed of light is not impossible we can now focus on what kind of propulsion can get up to seriously high velocities .
If we are not hindered by relativity why couldn't we travel at 1,000,000 miles or more -per second ?
What other than lack of engineering know how at the moment would prevent us from going up to ludicrous speed ? :geek:

User avatar
paladin17
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:47 am
Location: Minsk, Belarus

Re: Propulsion Question

Unread post by paladin17 » Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:04 pm

Modern types of propulsion are not even able to come near any noticeable relativistic effects. So the problems are many.
Roughly speaking, the main problem is the exponential character of Tsiolkovsky's formula (which tells you how much speed you can obtain by spending a certain amount of fuel with a certain engine). The more fuel you have, the less is the gain from a single unit of it, because the first spent unit of fuel accelerates not only the craft, but all the rest of fuel. Only the very last unit of fuel is spent at maximum efficiency - but it also has to accelerate the huge fuel tanks and all the rest.
One solution to that is simply have better engines (nuclear, ion etc.), but they have their own problems (nuclear is pretty good, actually; but ion is incredibly low thrust, so it's only for light spacecraft).
Other solution is not to use fuel in the first place, but other means of propulsion instead (solar sail, electric sail etc.), but it's also low thrust - and quite specific in terms of possible attitude.
Etc.

MaxGain
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 4:25 pm

Re: Propulsion Question

Unread post by MaxGain » Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:38 pm

What fuel's might the universe provide besides solar sail or electric sail .
Is there anything out there that could be scooped up and used for fuel or is that still an unknown or science fiction ?
What about electromagnetism ?

User avatar
paladin17
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:47 am
Location: Minsk, Belarus

Re: Propulsion Question

Unread post by paladin17 » Tue Nov 12, 2019 4:06 pm

MaxGain wrote:What fuel's might the universe provide besides solar sail or electric sail .
Is there anything out there that could be scooped up and used for fuel or is that still an unknown or science fiction ?
What about electromagnetism ?
So far we know no such other thing.
Perhaps nuclear fusion might be another possible source of energy (and propulsion), but it's hypothetical at the moment. For example: you might gather matter (Hydrogen, Helium, maybe some other elements) from the interplanetary/interstellar medium and then use it as fuel for fusion.

MaxGain
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 4:25 pm

Re: Propulsion Question

Unread post by MaxGain » Tue Nov 12, 2019 4:38 pm

Interesting , Thanks for the info .

User avatar
spark
Posts: 170
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 7:36 am

Re: Propulsion Question

Unread post by spark » Wed Nov 13, 2019 8:49 pm

There is Ether propulsion theory in which you electrically create pressure difference in the ether for very high velocity propulsion more than 36000 mph based on Nikola Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity. Ether can be treated like an atmosphere and used for propulsion as there is no such thing as empty space. Author of the book Occult Ether Physics, William Lyne collected what was said by Nikola Tesla and other scientists, from which he based his ether propulsion theory.

Nikola Tesla's quotes:

When Tesla was 82, instead of speaking at a dinner party, he issued a written statement:

“I have worked out a dynamic theory of gravity in all details and hope to give this to the world very soon. It explains the causes of this force and the motions of heavenly bodies under its influence so satisfactorily that it will put an end to idle speculations and false conceptions, as that of curved space. According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies.

“Granting a semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still very self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves."

“Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible -However, even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for them and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion.”

Another prepared statement on his 81st birthday in July 10, 1937, critiquing Einstein's theory of relativity:

"Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible – But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.”

Pioneer Radio engineer gives viwes on power - New York Herald Tribune in 11 September 1932:

"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view."

Source: https://teslaresearch.jimdo.com/dynamic ... f-gravity/

MaxGain
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 4:25 pm

Re: Propulsion Question

Unread post by MaxGain » Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:04 pm

Can you give me your thoughts on so called anti gravity propulsion .
That is to say somehow pushing against gravity to move forward , Is it Science Fiction ?
Do we come back to having to find the fuel to generate the power needed to use so called anti gravity propulsion ?
Is gravity a strong enough force to be pushed against ?

crawler
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: Propulsion Question

Unread post by crawler » Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:25 pm

MaxGain wrote:Can you give me your thoughts on so called anti gravity propulsion .
That is to say somehow pushing against gravity to move forward , Is it Science Fiction ?
Do we come back to having to find the fuel to generate the power needed to use so called anti gravity propulsion ?
Is gravity a strong enough force to be pushed against ?
Podkletnov claimed to have made smoke (ie air) rise above his spinning discs. Hencely he must have made an action & a reaction, which could be used for propulsion. But I doubt that that kind of force could be duplicated by say aiming Podkletnov's anti gravity beam towards say Earth or the Sun from his spacecraft out in space. But perhaps it could. What Podkletnov didn't say-admit-realise is that if he made such a beam then he must have at the same time made a second opposing beam. Hencely any mass (eg the milky way) directly ahead of his spacecraft would brake his effort (at least partly).

But if Tesla's theory involved an em source of anti-gravity then (a) no such em source exists & (b) if it did exist then it would probably be of no special use compared to other ordinary non-gravity em sources (hmmm, gravity only needs mass to act on whereas em needs mass combined with charge to act on)(so perhaps an em anti-gravity could be of special use)(except that (a) no such em source exists).

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:19 pm

Re: Propulsion Question

Unread post by JP Michael » Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:01 pm

I do wonder about the relevance of discussing advanced propulsion (besides for autonomous satellites) since it seems to me that humans cannot easily survive passage through the van Allen radiation belts and beyond?

And yes, I utterly reject the moon landings primarily, although not exclusively, on medical evidence: not a single one of the lunar astronauts suffered any significant effects of radiation sickness during their supposed, and in Lovell, Young, and Cernan's case, repeated, forays to the 'moon'.

The pre-Gagarin Russian space explorers were not so fortunate, but as military personel they were but expendable resources for the Soviet State.[1] There's a reason the Russians never sent men to the moon (indeed, why to this day no-one has ever sent anyone there): they knew before the Americans did that space is fatally radioactive.

[1] See Gerhard Wisnewski, One Small Step? The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth from Space (Clairview 2007), pp 11-28, esp. table on p.27, for excellent treatment on this point.
Last edited by JP Michael on Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
paladin17
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:47 am
Location: Minsk, Belarus

Re: Propulsion Question

Unread post by paladin17 » Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:24 pm

JP Michael wrote:Is discussing advanced propulsion even relevant (besides for autonomous satellites) since humans cannot easily survive passage through the van Allen radiation belts and beyond?
What makes you think they can't?
BTW, there were no pre-Gagarin space explorers, because he was the first space explorer.
Russians never sent people to the Moon because they had no launch vehicle capable of doing that.

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:19 pm

Re: Propulsion Question

Unread post by JP Michael » Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:16 pm

Unfortunately you would be wrong, Eugene. You've only eaten the psy-ops bait the whole world has been fed. Here's the data according to Wisnewski cited above, p.27:
  • DATE --------- NAME --------- (SOURCE)

    1957 Loss of Alexei Ledovskikh (Pravda)
    1958 Loss of Serenti Shaborin (Pravda)
    1959 Loss of Andrei Mitkhov (Pravda)
    Sep 1960 Construction of 3-man Vostok Begins (USSR)
    27 Sep 1960 Loss of Ivan Katshur (Judica-Cordiglia)
    11 Oct 1960 Vostok 'Official' Planned Space Flight Begins (USSR)
    11 Oct 1960 Loss of Piotr Dolgoff (Judica-Cordiglia)
    28 Nov 1960 "SOS to the entire world" in Morse Code heard from space (Judica-Cordiglia)
    2 Dec 1960 Loss of Sputnik VI (USSR)
    December 1960 Loss of Alexis Grassiov (Judica-Cordiglia)
    17 Jan 1961 'Voices from space' (Walter Kunz)
    2 Feb 1961 'Heartbeat and heavy breathing in space', possibly loss of Gennady Mikhailov (Judica-Cordiglia)
    Early April 1961 Cosmonaut Valentin Bondarenko taken to Moscow Bodkin Hospital with 99% burns. (Oberg)
    7 April 1961 Vladimir Ilyushin, successful space flight (The Cosmonaut Coverup, inter alia)
    12 April 1961 Yuri Gagarin, successful 'space flight' (USSR)
    5 May 1961 Alan Sheperd, successful suboribital space flight (NASA)
    17 May 1961 'Voices of two men and one woman from space' (Judica-Cordiglia)
    23 May 1961 'Female cries for help from space' (Judica-Cordiglia) [Transcript below]
    21 July 1961 Virgil Grissom, successful suborbital space flight (NASA)
    6 August 1961 Gherman Titov, Vostok 2. 'Second' Soviet into orbital space. (USSR)
    21 Feb 1962 John Glenn, first American into orbital space (NASA)
    15 May 1961 Loss of Alexis Belokoniov (Judica-Cordiglia)
Transcript of female voice from space, 23 May, 1961 according to Judica-Cordiglia (Translated from Russian to English):
  • Listen! Listen!
    Come in! Come in! Come in!
    Listen! Listen! Come in!
    Come in! Come in! Talk to me!
    Talk to me! I am hot! I am hot!
    What...? Forty-five? What...?
    Forty-five? Fifty?
    Yes... yes... yes... breathing...
    Breathing... oxygen...
    Oxygen... I am hot...
    Isn't this dangerous?... It's all...
    Isn't this dangerous?... It's all...
    Yes... yes... yes... How is this?
    What?... Talk to me!
    How should I transmit? Yes... yes... yes...
    What? Our transmission begins now...
    Forty-one... This way... Our transmission begins now...
    Forty-one... Yes... I feel hot...
    I feel hot... It's all... I feel hot...
    I feel hot... I feel hot... I feel hot...
    I can see a flame!... What?
    I can see a flame!... I can see a flame!...
    I feel hot... I feel hot...
    Thiry-two... Thirty-two... Forty-one... Forty-one...
    Am I going to crash?... Yes.. Yes... I feel hot!
    I feel hot!... I will re-enter!... I will re-enter!...
    I am listening!... I feel hot!...[1]
In terms of the radiation, Wisnewski cites early data from NASA themselves that space is horrendously radioactive. According to his sources, the inner van Allen radiation belt is 200 mSv/h and the outer is ~50 mSv/h. [2] Apollo spacecraft, including the lunar module, had 3mm of aluminum skin as shielding. Wisnewski cites other research that to mitigate that level of radiation one requires ~900mm of lead or 10m of water.[3]

Would you use 3mm of aluminum shielding to stand next to a 200 mSv radiation source and expect to retain perfect health? If so, I encourage you to wander on down to your local X-ray centre, dress up in your 3mm aluminium suit and stand there for approximately 2,000 chest x-rays (one chest x-ray is approximately 0.1 mSv) and see what happens afterwards. Except in NASA's case, its much, much worse than 2,000 chest x-rays- there's the return journey too. And they want us to believe they did this 6 times, three of those astronauts did it twice with no health effects. At all.

[1] Unfortunately, Wisnewski cites as his evidence what is now a dead link. The original account is sourced from the Judica-Cordiglia brothers, who released a total of nine transcripts of the recordings they had intercepted.
[2] Wisnewski, One Small Step? pp.187-188.
[3] Ibid, p.187.

JHL
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:11 pm

Re: Propulsion Question

Unread post by JHL » Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:42 pm

There's a lot of hardware poking around in space. Is it all radiation-hardened?

hlg
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:31 pm

Re: Propulsion Question

Unread post by hlg » Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:56 pm

crawler wrote:
MaxGain wrote:Can you give me your thoughts on so called anti gravity propulsion .
That is to say somehow pushing against gravity to move forward , Is it Science Fiction ?
Do we come back to having to find the fuel to generate the power needed to use so called anti gravity propulsion ?
Is gravity a strong enough force to be pushed against ?
Podkletnov claimed to have made smoke (ie air) rise above his spinning discs. Hencely he must have made an action & a reaction, which could be used for propulsion. But I doubt that that kind of force could be duplicated by say aiming Podkletnov's anti gravity beam towards say Earth or the Sun from his spacecraft out in space. But perhaps it could. What Podkletnov didn't say-admit-realise is that if he made such a beam then he must have at the same time made a second opposing beam. Hencely any mass (eg the milky way) directly ahead of his spacecraft would brake his effort (at least partly).

But if Tesla's theory involved an em source of anti-gravity then (a) no such em source exists & (b) if it did exist then it would probably be of no special use compared to other ordinary non-gravity em sources (hmmm, gravity only needs mass to act on whereas em needs mass combined with charge to act on)(so perhaps an em anti-gravity could be of special use)(except that (a) no such em source exists).
the russian rotating superconductor guy thought of somehow shielding the gravity of earth above his disc while the apparatus itself did not gain mass, if i remember the once read articles right...

the weight of objects in upper floors of the lab was reduced above the disk...

i thought of this effect being the proof for then so called electrogravity, much as wal thornhill described it. small distortions of the geometry of each atom through so called mass...

superconduction might have an effect on the transmission of the atom-distorting force, since the distortion in the superconductor can easily be made up by effortless charge movement...

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:19 pm

Re: Propulsion Question

Unread post by JP Michael » Sat Nov 16, 2019 2:31 am

JHL wrote:There's a lot of hardware poking around in space. Is it all radiation-hardened?
Mechanical/electronic systems do not need anywhere near as much protection (although they do need some) as biological systems require. The other option is, as per the transhumanist agenda, to upload human consciousness from the biological into the machine and thus become 'immune' to the perils of space travel.

Although, to get back to the OP, if an ultraluminal propulsion system was possible, it might be able to shorten the exposure time to space radiation, making biological space travel a possibility afterall. Advances in medical radiation treatment might also reduce the necessary shielding required to keep biological subjects healthy for distant space exploration.

And Eugene, apologies for being brash with my remark above. I've probably overshot the mark considerably with an over-reliance on strongly disputed 'conspiracy theories' regarding the Russian Space Program, but it remains, at least in my mind, food for thought.

I will be harder to convince that the American Moon Program was anything more than a nationalistic psy-ops operation to attempt to cover military abuses in the Vietnam war. Again, Wisnewski chronicles those correlations remarkably well in his book.[1] That the Moon Program terminated on 19 December 1972, the same month of Nixon's horrendously murderous Operation Linebacker, I feel is hardly co-incidental. Direct American involvement in Vietnam ended on 27 Jan 1973 with the signing of the cease-fire agreement, only 1 month after the last 'touchdown' of Apollo 17 and the termination NASA's Moon Program. Forever. Why? Because the homeland psy-ops of nationalistic delirium was no longer required.

If the Russians actually did lose a lot of personnel in their attempts for space, it does not surprise me that they never bothered to go to the moon because they already figured out it was an exercise in fatality, rather than one of insufficient funds, technology or rocketry prowess. And I would predict neither will China, India, European Union or any other space-capable world power of today will be sending humans to the moon for the same reasons the Russians knew in 1961. Space is fatal to biologicals and we (still) do not have the know-how to overcome that issue.

[1] Wisnewski, One Small Step?, pp.136-138

User avatar
paladin17
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:47 am
Location: Minsk, Belarus

Re: Propulsion Question

Unread post by paladin17 » Sat Nov 16, 2019 5:23 am

JP Michael wrote:Unfortunately you would be wrong, Eugene. You've only eaten the psy-ops bait the whole world has been fed. Here's the data according to Wisnewski cited above
What makes you think that the psy-ops bait that you've been fed is somehow better than the one that I've been fed?..
Why cite the old NASA estimates (one needs to check if they're even genuine) if you can use the modern information? Then check the trajectory, integrate the particle flux and find the dose.
Anyhow, this is offtopic here. If you really like to discuss it, let's move to a dedicated thread.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests