NASA: Orion Mission. Amazing Science or Intellectually Insulting?

#1
I'm having a very difficult time rationalizing all the fanfare and excitement being ginned up over NASA's Orion Mission. I mean has it occurred to anyone that our civilization uses a technology, for achieving orbital escape velocity, that is still basically glorified bottle-rocket science invented in China during the Three Kingdoms period nearly 2,000 years ago. Has it also occurred to anyone else that there is something very wrong with that?

I do. But, not just wrong, it's nonsensically disturbing.

Besides the fact it has to be the ridiculously least efficient method, obscenely expensive, but mostly and worst of all, that it's unconscionably dangerous.

And what an enormously sad joke on humanity. All one need do is spend an hour net searching advanced propulsion systems to realize there is technology already available, and has been for decades, that makes the Delta IV Heavy rocket look exactly like a bottle rocket from Iron Age China.

Matt²
 
#4
I'm having a very difficult time rationalizing all the fanfare and excitement being ginned up over NASA's Orion Mission.
First of all, Chinese bottle rockets were first used after 1100 AD, which by my calculations is umm . . . slightly less than 2000 years ago. Though the term rocket can be found earlier - it refereed to arrows shot with the heads alight.

Second, the danger with current rockets is well within reasonable parameters. Plus no one is forcing anyone to ride on one.

Third, if other systems were both more cost-effective and efficient, they'd be the ones in primary use.

Fourth, I've been on your side of the fence a few times. I sometimes have the strong sense that humanity is currently very backwards. But even so it is what it is . . .


Fifth, no one is pressuring you to celebrate anything but it's puzzling that you want to rationalize what others are happy and enthusiastic about.

Sixth, why in blazes am I up and online at this time?
 
#5
I'm highly skeptical of the last line. That's all. Witness testimony would lead us to believe it, but from there it reveals itself to be some sort of decades-long, covert mind control and psiops program.
 
#6
First of all, Chinese bottle rockets were first used after 1100 AD, which by my calculations is umm . . . slightly less than 2000 years ago. Though the term rocket can be found earlier - it refereed to arrows shot with the heads alight.

Second, the danger with current rockets is well within reasonable parameters. Plus no one is forcing anyone to ride on one.

Third, if other systems were both more cost-effective and efficient, they'd be the ones in primary use.

Fourth, I've been on your side of the fence a few times. I sometimes have the strong sense that humanity is currently very backwards. But even so it is what it is . . .


Fifth, no one is pressuring you to celebrate anything but it's puzzling that you want to rationalize what others are happy and enthusiastic about.

Sixth, why in blazes am I up and online at this time?
1st I stand corrected Saiko. Rocketry was first used by the the Song Dynasty (960-1279) - ChinaCulture.org. Current rocket technology is then based on a 1,000 year old Chinese bottle rocket invention.

2nd That's an opinion. And there aren't any alternatives being offered. That the public is made aware of, that is.

3rd Another opinion. A very naive opinion, IMO, but you're still entitled to it.

4th What side of the fence am I on exactly? Just so I know where I am too. I'm not sure how, what your strong sense sometimes alerts you to, could possibly be missed.

5th Pressuring me? That didn't make sense. Why is it puzzling what I'm rationalizing? I'm actually just commenting on what I have observed surrounding the Orion Mission in the media, which includes all previous missions using the same bottle-rocket technology too.

6th Insomnia and I are buddies.

I suggest researching the topic. It's very fascinating.
 
Last edited:
#7
I'm highly skeptical of the last line. That's all. Witness testimony would lead us to believe it, but from there it reveals itself to be some sort of decades-long, covert mind control and psiops program.
Yes and no. It's not that difficult to find very credible scientist researching and working in and with advanced propulsion.

But, I have no doubt there is a very intense and concerted propaganda campaign being carried out on this topic.
 
#9
Yes and no. It's not that difficult to find very credible scientist researching and working in and with advanced propulsion.

But, I have no doubt there is a very intense and concerted propaganda campaign being carried out on this topic.
Oops, nevermind. I was thinking anti-gravity. hehe I'm an idiot. Forget it.
 
#10
Last edited:
#12
http://boingboing.net/2014/11/24/the-quest-for-a-reactionless-s.html
Ever since H. G. Wells imagined a gravity-shielding material in "The First Men in the Moon," space enthusiasts have fantasized about ways to achieve thrust without any need for reaction mass.
...
In October of this year, at the laboratory of Dr. James Woodward in California State University at Fullerton (above), I watched a very small-scale experiment that was surprisingly persuasive. Unlike all the "free energy" scams that you see online, Woodward's device does not violate basic physical laws (it does not produce more energy than it consumes, and does not violate Newton's third law). Nor is Woodward withholding any information about his methods. He has written a book, published by Springer, that explains in relentless detail exactly how his equipment works--assuming that it does, indeed, work. He published his theory in Foundations of Physics Letters, vol. 3, no. 5, 1990, and he even managed to get a US patent -- number 5,280,864, issued January 25, 1994.
 
#13
Sorry, a little sleepy, so I'm unsure what you mean.
I just wanted to insert some lighthearted humor before the masses descended into arguing over the disturbing-yet-probable notion that we could be living in the Star Trek universe right now if a secret group of powerful people who think we're maggot idiots (casually disregarding the next logical conclusion that it's their fault we are so) weren't so lustful in getting and keeping their hands in as many financial, governmental, and industrial cookie jars as possible.

If you didn't read that, no worries. They would rather you didn't, anyway.
 
#14
Insulting. Because the secret government / break away civilization already has alien technology for space travel.
Forgive me but . . .
1st I stand corrected Saiko. Rocketry was first used by the the Song Dynasty (960-1279) - ChinaCulture.org. Current rocket technology is then based on a 1,000 year old Chinese bottle rocket invention.

2nd That's an opinion. And they aren't any alternatives being offered. That the publicly is made aware of, that is.

3rd Another opinion. A very naive opinion, IMO, but you're still entitled to it.

4th What side of the fence am I on exactly? Just so I know where I am too. I'm not sure how, what your strong sense sometimes alerts you to, could possibly be missed.

5th Pressuring me? That didn't make sense. Why is puzzling what I'm rationalizing? I'm actually just commenting on what I have observed surrounding the Orion Mission in the media, which includes all previous missions using the same bottle-rocket technology too.

6th Insomnia and I are buddies.

I suggest researching the topic. It's very fascinating.
Okay Matt, let's have at it (in a friendly way)

Most glaringly stating "that's an opinion" is - in the realms of this discourse - silly. And, given that your OP is almost nothing but opinion, self-defeating. I could have responded to it in that way"oh that's just an opinion" but I proceeded based on the assumption that the point of the thread was to discuss opinions.

So again:
#2 - It's an opinion shared by those building the craft and those who ride in them. I'll also add that I'll bet a safety analysis would back up that opinion

#3 - Whoa! That is not an opinion but a fact. Easily provable to be so.
Okay, it's possible that there's some system that at this point meets both those criteria but in years of actively following space flight tech I haven't come across one. There are of course systems that might be that if/when fully developed but they aren't there yet.

#4 By "side of the fence" as I explained I meant being one of those griping about the backwardness of something many people were enthusiastically celebrating.

#5 ?? You opened your OP be stating that you're" having a hard time rationalizing" that was just a jab back at you ala "your hard time with people being happy about it is your problem." It wasn't meant to be a point of discourse.
 
#15
Forgive me but . . .


Okay Matt, let's have at it (in a friendly way)

Most glaringly stating "that's an opinion" is - in the realms of this discourse - silly. And, given that your OP is almost nothing but opinion, self-defeating. I could have responded to it in that way"oh that's just an opinion" but I proceeded based on the assumption that the point of the thread was to discuss opinions.

So again:
#2 - It's an opinion shared by those building the craft and those who ride in them. I'll also add that I'll bet a safety analysis would back up that opinion

#3 - Whoa! That is not an opinion but a fact. Easily provable to be so.
Okay, it's possible that there's some system that at this point meets both those criteria but in years of actively following space flight tech I haven't come across one. There are of course systems that might be that if/when fully developed but they aren't there yet.

#4 By "side of the fence" as I explained I meant being one of those griping about the backwardness of something many people were enthusiastically celebrating.

#5 ?? You opened your OP be stating that you're" having a hard time rationalizing" that was just a jab back at you ala "your hard time with people being happy about it is your problem." It wasn't meant to be a point of discourse.
Why do you believe...

"Most glaringly stating "that's an opinion" is - in the realms of this discourse - silly. And, given that your OP is almost nothing but opinion, self-defeating. I could have responded to it in that way"oh that's just an opinion" but I proceeded based on the assumption that the point of the thread was to discuss opinions"

How can you make that determination concerning my knowledge base?

"#2 - It's an opinion shared by those building the craft and those who ride in them. I'll also add that I'll bet a safety analysis would back up that opinion"

I don't think you understand what I said and where I'm coming from. And if you don't, I'm not going to take the time to spoon feed you what you supposedly already stated you did...

"Fourth, I've been on your side of the fence a few times. I sometimes have the strong sense that humanity is currently very backwards. But even so it is what it is . . ."

So what was this supposed to mean? I'm confused.

"#3 - Whoa! That is not an opinion but a fact. Easily provable to be so.
Okay, it's possible that there's some system that at this point meets both those criteria but in years of actively following space flight tech I haven't come across one. There are of course systems that might be that if/when fully developed but they aren't there yet."


How is that easily provable? How would that even be possible? Again, I doubt you really were ever on whichever side of the fence you were vaguely eluding too. You neglected to inform what or where this side was supposedly. Care to elaborate? Let's start there.


I think we'll stop there till we can get on the same page.
 
Last edited:
#16
Why do you believe...

"Most glaringly stating "that's an opinion" is - in the realms of this discourse - silly. And, given that your OP is almost nothing but opinion, self-defeating. I could have responded to it in that way"oh that's just an opinion" but I proceeded based on the assumption that the point of the thread was to discuss opinions"

How can you make that determination concerning my knowledge base?

"#2 - It's an opinion shared by those building the craft and those who ride in them. I'll also add that I'll bet a safety analysis would back up that opinion"

I don't think you understand what I said and where I'm coming from. And if you don't, I'm not going to take the time to spoon feed you what you supposedly already stated you did...

"Fourth, I've been on your side of the fence a few times. I sometimes have the strong sense that humanity is currently very backwards. But even so it is what it is . . ."

So what was this supposed to mean? I'm confused.

"#3 - Whoa! That is not an opinion but a fact. Easily provable to be so.
Okay, it's possible that there's some system that at this point meets both those criteria but in years of actively following space flight tech I haven't come across one. There are of course systems that might be that if/when fully developed but they aren't there yet."


How is that easily provable? How would that even be possible? Again, I doubt you really were ever on whichever side of the fence you were vaguely eluding too. You neglected to inform what or where this side was supposedly. Care to elaborate? Let's start there.


I think we'll stop there till we can get on the same page.

Well. This is not helping as most of what's in your post makes little sense to me.

"How can I believe . ." ?? What I stated was just a simple fact - that using the response of "that's an opinion" is - in this case - a cop-out.

#2 I understand what you stated. Perhaps it doesn't convey what you meant. My response is an accurate one based on your words.

#3 If you are claiming that there is such a system which currently meets both those criteria then simply point out what it is.

#4 I have explained what I meant by "side of the fence" twice now. Re-read and grasp it please. It's nothing complex.
 
#17
Well. This is not helping as most of what's in your post makes little sense to me.

"How can I believe . ." ?? What I stated was just a simple fact - that using the response of "that's an opinion" is - in this case - a cop-out.

#2 I understand what you stated. Perhaps it doesn't convey what you meant. My response is an accurate one based on your words.

#3 If you are claiming that there is such a system which currently meets both those criteria then simply point out what it is.

#4 I have explained what I meant by "side of the fence" twice now. Re-read and grasp it please. It's nothing complex.
"Well. This is not helping as most of what's in your post makes little sense to me."

Then how did you initially believe you were going to make or even able to have an informed response, if what I posted made little sense to you?


This is....

"Fourth, I've been on your side of the fence a few times. I sometimes have the strong sense that humanity is currently very backwards. But even so it is what it is . ."

...what you're claiming was this...

"#4 I have explained what I meant by "side of the fence" twice now. Re-read and grasp it please. It's nothing complex."

...having been a cogent explanation of this so called side of the fence? Really? Because I do not see any side you seem to believe I'm on mentioned in my original post.


I don't really care to continue this discussion Saiko if you're going to assume some imaginary high ground by claiming to know my position, proceed to criticize this fabricated position, and then ask me spoon feed you what exactly my position is. How does that make any sense? I recommended researching the topic. Clearly you didn't and likely never have, so how can I take you seriously?

Either educate yourself on the topic or don't engage with those that have. But, don't complain when you don't understand or it makes no sense, if you have no knowledge of the subject. Sorry, but that's idiotic.
 
Last edited:
#20
Well. This is not helping as most of what's in your post makes little sense to me.
"How can I believe . ." ?? What I stated was just a simple fact - that using the response of "that's an opinion" is - in this case - a cop-out.
#2 I understand what you stated. Perhaps it doesn't convey what you meant. My response is an accurate one based on your words.
#3 If you are claiming that there is such a system which currently meets both those criteria then simply point out what it is.
#4 I have explained what I meant by "side of the fence" twice now. Re-read and grasp it please. It's nothing complex.
Honestly, I had not seen myself responding to you or even a desire to engage you again, but then I saw the post for "You Don’t Believe this crap, Do You?". I decided to read this expecting some disagreeable thoughts and attitude , but I was perplexingly shocked. You shared a story from an exchange that challenged scientism orthodoxy, that you had first defended, but then admitted the logical and rational scientific course of action would be to acknowledge and accept this unknown. Because, it's dogma that this orthodoxy has manifested from and only serves to stifle new ideas and ingenuity in order for an unknown to be known.

You seem like a person in the midst of a life altering epiphany as the result. Something I surmise many in the forum have experienced, yet your responses in this thread appear contradictory, even hypocritical, because your initial response came across as nothing more than an attempt at shutting me down. You state, more or less; here are the facts and figures, they're from authority figures, it's chiseled in stone, so yeah...you're unhinged, off in the weeds, and so forth etc... End of discussion.

Would you mind clearing this up please.
 
Top