 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / October 2004Antigravity Technology Inventor Speaks Out
Michael McDonnough, CEO of Betavoltaic, will be speaking on the Kevin Smith Show on Monday, October 25, 2004. During the interview, he will be discussing his work in developing electromagnetic space engines. Since Burt Rutan has proven, with basically old rocket technology, that the private sector can get to space much cheaper than NASA can, Michael McDonnough's goals seem infinitely more achievable. Hear the heat at: http://kevinsmithshow.com --------------------------------------------- Get a sizzling sample of The KFILES Magazine, the e-magazine that has the world abuzz... mailto:kfiles-sample@freeautobot.com > Michael McDonnough, CEO of Betavoltaic, will be speaking on the Kevin > Smith Show on Monday, October 25, 2004. During the interview, he will [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that the private sector can get to space much cheaper than NASA can, > Michael McDonnough's goals seem infinitely more achievable. "Antigravity"? He'll never get off the ground, if that's what it (supposedly) is. --Damon > Michael McDonnough, CEO of Betavoltaic, will be speaking on the Kevin > Smith Show on Monday, October 25, 2004. During the interview, he will [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that the private sector can get to space much cheaper than NASA can, > Michael McDonnough's goals seem infinitely more achievable. ROTFLMAO. Burt has proven no such thing. D.  SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > > Since Burt Rutan has proven, with basically old rocket technology, > > that the private sector can get to space much cheaper than NASA can > > Burt has proven no such thing. You must live in some parallel universe Derek. Last I checked, Burt won the X-Prize after having spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 million. When's the last time NASA put anyone into space for less than $20 million? Jeff SignatureRemove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. >> > Since Burt Rutan has proven, with basically old rocket technology, >> > that the private sector can get to space much cheaper than NASA can [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > $20 million. When's the last time NASA put anyone into space for less > than $20 million? NASA generally has been putting people and payloads into >orbit<, which is the real thing, albeit expensively. They've got rovers on Mars, orbiters around various planets and human bootprints on the Moon. Rutan et al have so far managed to send one man on a low-energy joyride just outside of the atmosphere for a few minutes. It's not clear when, if ever, they will accomplish much more than that. I'd like to think eventually they could, but that's still in the indefinite future. NASA has been giving us a >lot< more for our money. And given the amount of money involved, they'd better have. --Damon, looking for some perspective > >> > Since Burt Rutan has proven, with basically old rocket technology, > >> > that the private sector can get to space much cheaper than NASA can [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > is the real thing, albeit expensively. They've got rovers on Mars, > orbiters around various planets and human bootprints on the Moon. It may be "the real thing", but it's a private club. US citizens can't buy a ride on the shuttle at any price. SS2 promises to open up space travel to anyone who can afford the $200k price tag. > Rutan et al have so far managed to send one man on a low-energy joyride > just outside of the atmosphere for a few minutes. It's not clear when, > if ever, they will accomplish much more than that. I'd like to think > eventually they could, but that's still in the indefinite future. Over the past 30+ years, NASA has not sent anyone beyond LEO. As far as manned space exploration goes, LEO is NOT the real deal. It's just going around in endless circles. > NASA has been giving us a >lot< more for our money. And given the > amount of money involved, they'd better have. Over the past 30+ years, NASA has spent something like 4 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more money than Rutan has spent on SS1, and they're still stuck in LEO. That's not a successful manned space exploration program, that's stagnation. Jeff SignatureRemove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. > It may be "the real thing", but it's a private club. US citizens > can't buy a ride on the shuttle at any price. SS2 promises to open up > space travel to anyone who can afford the $200k price tag. $200,000 for a few minutes of weightlessness? That's no bargain, nor much of an accomplishment even at a tenth of the price. Sorry, I can only see symbolism here, not substance. >> Rutan et al have so far managed to send one man on a low-energy >> joyride just outside of the atmosphere for a few minutes. It's not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > as manned space exploration goes, LEO is NOT the real deal. It's just > going around in endless circles. Lots better than a short joyride at ten times my annual income. That's not real for me, personally. When they can offer orbital flights for that amount of money, that'll be real progress--especially if it includes a station visit. The Russians charge $20 million for that service now and that's not realistic either. >> NASA has been giving us a >lot< more for our money. And given the >> amount of money involved, they'd better have. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > stuck in LEO. That's not a successful manned space exploration > program, that's stagnation. You want lunar and Mars colonies, right? You'll have to settle for the space station for the time being. It's still far more than private enterprise has attempted to accomplish. And NASA can do only so much as Congress funds it to, by extension, how much the public supports the idea. So far they haven't supported the necessary trillions for those grand schemes. Reality check in 20 years, okay? There's change in the wind. Too bad I won't be around for that. --Damon, 54 and not very healthy > >> NASA has been giving us a >lot< more for our money. And given the > >> amount of money involved, they'd better have. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You want lunar and Mars colonies, right? You'll have to settle for > the space station for the time being. There is no direct connection between the shuttle/ISS program and any program after. Some of the very research that would be useful for such follow-on programs has been cut from ISS. > It's still far more than > private enterprise has attempted to accomplish. And NASA can do only > so much as Congress funds it to, by extension, how much the public > supports the idea. So far they haven't supported the necessary > trillions for those grand schemes. Trillions aren't necessary. The end of shuttle/ISS will free up the necessary funding for NASA to return to the moon. > Reality check in 20 years, okay? There's change in the wind. Too > bad I won't be around for that. > > --Damon, 54 and not very healthy Sorry to hear that. I'm "only" 35, so I hope to be around for the first "return to the moon" flight. Unfortunately, due to the political realities of NASA funding (likely to stay at about current levels, adjusted for inflation), the longer shuttle/ISS drags on, the longer it will be. Jeff SignatureRemove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. >Over the past 30+ years, NASA has not sent anyone beyond LEO. As far as >manned space exploration goes, LEO is NOT the real deal. It's just going >around in endless circles. It's monumentally ignorant to assume they've been doing nothing but going around in circles. (The hundreds of scientific ocean vessels across the worlds oceans would be very surprised to learn they are useless because they are not, like their predecessors, discovering new continents and boldly going where no European had gone before.) >Over the past 30+ years, NASA has spent something like 4 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE >more money than Rutan has spent on SS1, and they're still stuck in LEO. >That's not a successful manned space exploration program, that's stagnation. That's only a problem for those that confuse stunts and spectaculars with science. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >> > Since Burt Rutan has proven, with basically old rocket technology, >> > that the private sector can get to space much cheaper than NASA can [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >You must live in some parallel universe Derek. Last I checked, Burt won the >X-Prize after having spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 million. Burt put someone on a suborbital joy ride. Many people delude themselves into thinking that's as important as actual orbital acess. As I've asked before: Would you consider the Chinese a space faring nation if they had only gone sub orbital? Experience indicates that most folks would not, instead they would have been asking and awaiting for them to go orbital. Also, as I've noted before; Prior to the X-Prize being fully funded and Rutan entered the race, most space pundits treated the X-prize as a sideshow and 'space acess' meant emphatically orbital. >When's the last time NASA put anyone into space for less than $20 million? NASA gave up suborbital joyrides forty years ago. Wisely. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.