CANADIAN ASTRONAUT HADFIELD TELLS IT LIKE IT IS: ROCKETS WON’T ...

Apropos of today's main blog, astronaut Hardfield tells it like it is: rockets, private or otherwise, won't get us there(thanks to Mr. T.M. for this article):

Here's Why Astronaut Chris Hadfield Doesn't Think SpaceX Will Bring Us to Mars

Let's face it, rockets won't do the job to get us to Mars, much less beyond it to mine the asteroid belt; heck, they barely worked to get us to the Moon, and if you follow my hypothesis that some sort of "deal" was struck with those Paperclip Nazis to gain access to their primitive kontrabary (anti-gravity) technology to get us off the Moon (and possibly even to it), then the inadequacy of rockets was known very early on. As I pointed out in Covert Wars and Breakaway Civilizations, even the late 1950s Brookings Report, instrumental in the early days of NASA, so often cited by space afficionados for its concentration on the possibility of contact with extra-terrestrials or their artifacts, mentioned something far more important (to my mind), in its extended treatment and review of exotic propulsion technologies; it even mentions, specifically, "magneto-hydrodynamic drives". That may sound like science fiction, but recall my blog from yesterday about the space-based experiments conference sponsored by Los Alamos, and my suspicion that the experiments being described were, in part, describing plasma drives (the plasma being the "hydro-dynamic" part), and plasma jets controlled by magnetic fields (that's obviously the magneto part), or lasers.

Hadfield lays it all out, but he does so in a fashion that should raise questions about why there is so much hype about the privatization of space and various private efforts to do "lunar space cruises" and Mars missions... with rockets:

Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield, known best for performing David Bowie’s “Space Oddity” aboard the International Space Station back in 2013, spoke with Business Insider about the possibility of humans traveling to Mars. He thinks there are multiple issues impeding humans from reaching the red planet, with rockets being one of the key problems.

“Personally, I don’t think any of those three rockets are taking people to Mars,” Hadfield told Business Insider. “I don’t think those are a practical way to send people to Mars because they’re dangerous and it takes too long.”

His reasoning to focus on the rockets is the fuel used to launch them into space. NASA, SpaceX, and Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin all use similar fuels that are not powerful or efficient enough to get to Mars. Hadfield also points out how dangerous the mission would be for humans and even suggest robots should be the first to travel to the planet in order to learn more. (Emphases added)

Hadfield is not speaking like an astronaut here, he's speaking like a businessman, for note that his concentration is on (1) the overhead costs, of inefficient fuels, and length of time, and (2) the risk of doing so.

So how to lower overhead, minimize risk, and optimize investment? The answer, which readers here all know, is that one needs an entirely different technology that is both faster, lowers risk, and is capable of efficient and reliable functioning.

Rockets are fine for launching satellites, and that, indeed, is where we've seen an explosion of private corporations with their own launch capability, and that will continue, But for tours to the Moon, or missions to Mars, or worse, to mine asteroids, it simply will not do.

And that raises an important question: why, then, is there so much attention being given to these corporations and their manned mission plans to other planets? As one might have guessed, this is the high octane speculation of the day, for I strongly suspect that part of the agenda is to keep people's minds focused on rocket technology, and not watching the much more significant developments and efforts to create "exotic" technologies, not just of propulsion, but for defense of those assets once they're "up there." The implication of that hypothesis should also not be missed, for most of that research, like it or not, traces back to government programs to do so, even if it is being conducted by private corporations such as Lockheed, Raytheon, or British Aerospace.  Listen to the Hadfields, and not the Muilenbergs and Musks, because Hadfield is right.

Rockets won't do...

See you on the flip side...

12 thoughts on “ CANADIAN ASTRONAUT HADFIELD TELLS IT LIKE IT IS: ROCKETS WON’T ...”

  1. The emperor is naked so says Chris Hadfield well he has joined the club of Jules Verne H.G.Wells. Rockets failed as military weapons down the centuries from the Chinese to the British at the beginning of the nineteenth century the gun wins hands down. The space program failed to create a surface to orbit vehicle that is reliable safe and cheap like a ship or airplane to transport cargo passengers at a moment notice. Rockets are and have always been prima donnas flip a coin they work or fail at a whim all they are good for is as an overpriced circus show.

    1. I’ve been thinking the same thing. With all the buzz down in Antarctica, and the massive wealth transfer that has been taking place since at least WWII, we’ve got the formula for select NGO’s to breakaway. As C.A. Fitts illustrated in her, “State of Our Pension Funds,” these NGO’s (LHM, Boeing, etc.) are squeezing the tax cattle for all their worth. As I’m sure most on here recognize, these companies get fully funded on the front end to produce a product, having ZERO risk or capitol investment in said project, only to sell the final product to the US Gov at a premium. Talk about astronomical profit margins!

      I believe it is highly likely for such NGO’s to develop advanced propulsion systems, weapons systems and even exotic energy tech under their own I.P. terms without sharing it with Mr. Uncle Sam. I think its highly likely that we will see said companies, go off world before anyone else.

      High Octane Speculation: I think the last election is an example of two Waring factions. Perhaps, the banking cartel, who have ruled the planet for eons, have finally met their match with the new kid on the block, the highly advanced global MIC?

      Link to Pension Fund article: https://pension.solari.com/2018/01/22/pension-fund-stats/

    2. I’m not sure where my original reply went? I’ll try again…

      I think the likely hood of a highly advanced breakaway civilization is at an all time high. I suspect this “group” will be composed primarily of NGO’s from the MIC community.

      As Mrs. Fitts points out in her “State of the Pension Funds,” these private corporations have been bleeding the tax cattle dry. With projects fully funded on the front end to cover all costs, business like LHM and Boeing have near ZERO risk or liability. Once a project is completed and selected, they sell the prefunded product to the US Gov at a premium. Talk about profit margins!

      I think it is HIGHLY likely that these NGO’s will quietly develop new advanced tech and use the prior profits and future gov projects to launch these secret technologies (weapons, propulsion, energy, etc.).

      Perhaps this past election was evidence of two Waring factions. Could it be that the Banking Cartel, who have ruled for eons, have met their match with the new kid on the block, the highly advanced MIC?

      Pension Funds link: https://pension.solari.com/2018/01/22/pension-fund-stats/

  2. It would appear that we are getting closer to, or have already developed, an “Epstein Drive”.
    http://expanse.wikia.com/wiki/Epstein_Drive

    All joking aside, the Expanse series, are among my favorite Sci-Fi novels of all time. I’m not sure of the Author(s) backgrounds, but they do an incredible job at, getting the science right. Perhaps they are getting help?

    The plot line is so relevant to the secret space program narrative and many of the corporate space oddities that JPF blogs about, that it’s almost eerie.

  3. What if it’s all a psy-op 100 years in the making, courtesy of the quasi-Jewish/Kazarian/Hivite Bankers. Everything from WWI, to WWII, to present day is suspect. That’s just the flip flop side of things.

    Not saying I don’t believe in any of it or not, like the good Terrence McKenna said “My technique is don’t believe anything. If you believe in something, you are automatically precluded from believing its opposite”.

  4. Ad Astra Rocket Company and its plasma drive, VASIMR:
    https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/nasas-longshot-bet-on-a-revolutionary-rocket-may-be-about-to-pay-off/
    https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/nasas-plasma-rocket-making-progress-toward-a-100-hour-firing/

    However, I disagree with “Astronaut Chris Hadfield doesn’t think SpaceX will bring Us to Mars.” First of all, the vast majority of DeltaV needed is simply to get from the ground to low-orbit velocity; this is something like 70% of Earth-escape velocity (circular orbit of 200 km is 7.79 km/s; escape velocity from Earth is 11.186 km/s). All of the super-efficient “magneto-hydrodynamic drives” only work in a vacuum; chemically-fueled rockets get you to that vacuum…

    The big paradigm-shift will be when rendezvous and assembly in orbit is finally given its day. You don’t need a ultra-mega-colossal-gigantic rocket to launch from Earth and go directly to Mars, super Saturn V style. Instead, launch the crewed components with empty fuel tanks or no fuel tanks. Half a dozen launches/rendezvous later, you have a fully-fueled rocket with as much DeltaV-capability as you want. Handy for getting-through the Van Allen Radiation Belts, ASAP, as well as short trip times. (Mount “magneto-hydrodynamic drives” for additional cruise-thrust, if you want…)

    And getting all your first stages back for multiple reuse makes the economic business case. Hadfield is ‘infected’ with old-school NASA/MIC think…

    1. Exactly what I thought, goshawks. Also, if antigravity works, it might reduce the effective mass but not eliminate it i.e. not enough to lift heavy payloads off earth, but perhaps enough to lift heavy payloads from the moon. And getting to the moon will still require those phallic things, and we have not been told anything that would suggest otherwise (UNLESS Dr. Farrell is withholding smthg.)

  5. Thanks to C.A.Fitt’s “Space Economy” report, ordinary people who would like to invest in or otherwise join the new technology train now have practical information available for looking into this.

    1. Good point. Her ability to “follow the money”, is amazing. I hadn’t followed Fitts very closely until JPF and her started the Quarterly Reviews. Now, I am an avid consumer of her wonderful content. IMO, they make a great team with investigative skills/talents that really complement their ability to connect the dots.

Comments are closed.