...instead of rocketing to space!  ^ 

Space Exploration, At What Environmental Cost?  

Einstein said, "True measure of the advancement of a civilizati­on is how it treats its oldest and weakest.” 

And, by simply observing how the air and water are being treated, will reveal how well the oldest and weakest among us can be taken care of.

FLOATING to space, instead of rocketing there, could pristinely accomplish everything that we're trying to do at 10X further out! 

What are the origins of rocketry, and for what purpose were they born out of? 

Does it matter how, and for what end, these ideas were conceived?   

Can there really be a 'peacetime use' of rocketry, jet aircraft, or nuclear power'?   

The minds from which these marvels of rocket technology came forth, what was their agenda? 

Are there consequences to following after technology obtained through exonerating war criminals, who's only use for it was to destroy people? 

I've looked through the European Space Agency brochure and also the ESA education section, and I find that there is nothing included to teach our children about the effects that solid rocket boosters  have upon our environment.  And also, the merits of other systems that could get the same satellite job accomplished for a fraction of the cost.

So, what is actually spewing forth into our atmosphere at each launch, and what are its long-term effects?   Does this stuff just hang around and accumulate?  Or does it take YEARS before precipitating to the ground?  Is there anything being discussed about the viable alternative of promoting floating to space, and all of the merits that it has over rocketing to space, to our youth?

Doesn't it appear that all of NASA's posts to the media are so glamorous and seeming well-intentioned? Think again. They have an agenda to militarize space with their warmongering technology, at the expense of our atmospheric envelope and all life that depends upon our 'ocean of air'.  

On both the NASA and ESA's website, they say things like, "improving daily life", "protecting the environment", "cleaning up with space tech".  And I wonder if they are really sincere about doing this?   For if they are, then both organizations must be restructured to include a viable solution to this orbital rocketry pollution.  

 ‘Space Junk’ Accumulation Is Past ‘Tipping Point’, NASA Urged to Clean It Up

At NASA's environmental cleanup page,

http://www.ssc.nasa.gov/environmental/cleanup/clean.html, it says, "We take full responsibility for any problems caused by past practices and ensuring the protection of the environment and the health of the surrounding community."

That's all well and good, now what about the ongoing solid rocket fuel program?  Is this present technology  ensuring the protection of the environment?   "To the Universe and beyond!" is really a kind of spell that has been cast forth upon most of us 'baby boomers'. 

Walt Disney and Wernher von Braun Spreading Moon Fantasy with Science Fiction Films and Literature.

The world has become drunk with the usefulness of solid rocket booster technology, and cannot see clearly enough to make the right decisions concerning it.  This is because of the continued stream of misinformation surrounding it.  

Analysis of the Columbia Shuttle Disaster—Anatomy of a Flawed Investigation in a Pathological Organization 

The turning of a blind eye to the environmental consequences, is an example of a pathological behavior.  It is seen in these world-wide money-bloated organizations, addicted to using only rockets for getting the payload to orbit.    

Soon our offspring will be in charge, with their PHD's of educated darkness, and then they will really have to deal with this environmental 'can of worms'.   It is not if, it is when.  

Who among us carries enough weight with their words, and is willing to step forward to passionately say "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!"  & really start humanity thinking and moving in the direction of only floating to space, and all of its many merits over rocketing? 

Michael Molen, Sanswire's chief executive says, "Floating in the stratosphere at an altitude of about 20km (13 miles), the airship will behave just like a geostationary satellite, hovering over a particular spot and relaying radio signals to and from the ground. Such airships will, however, be much cheaper to launch and maintain than satellites—and can do things that satellites cannot.  A single airship could potentially provide coverage over an area of nearly 800,000 square kilometres, or about the size of Texas.after hovering for 18 months they are recovered for servicing and then relaunched."

EUROPEAN solid booster rockets work on the same principle as NASA's.   For soon rocketing to Space Shuttle orbit (180 to 240 miles altitude) will be privatized, and escalate beyond what we can even imagine at this point.   LEO (low earth orbit) is between 160–2,000 km (100–1,240 miles) above the Earth's surface

Man thinks that he is so advanced just because he now has airliner jets and rockets.  This idea of wanting to blast-off into space had its origins in Nazi-based rocketry inventions during WWII.  They were called V-2's or buzz-bombs.

Wherner Von Braun's slogan was "I reach for the stars".  The satirist Mort Sahl added, "...but sometimes he hits London".  (In other words,  he had a V-2 when he coulda had a V-8 )

He teams up with Walt Disney to make space movies that brainwash most of us when we were kids.  The movies are about the 'conquest' of outer space.

A social parasite is able to stay alive if it remains undetected
(enter "Operation Paperclip").

Because of the intriguing nature of the V-2 technology, von Braun and his chief assistants achieved near-celebrity status inside the American military establishment. 

Nazi turned into NASA, with the obvious agenda to militarize space at 180 - 250 miles altitude for orbiting communications satellites.  This is almost 10X's farther out than necessary to accomplish the same task that a stratospheric airship could do as well.

The other reason for occupying this area where the Space Station lives is Ronald Reagan's legacy, the Star Wars Defence Initiative.

And here was the Soviet view of S.D.I.  

"SDI was high on Gorbachev's agenda at the Geneva Summit, November 1985

The Soviet response to the SDI during the period March 1983 through November 1985 provided indications of their view of the program both as a threat and as an opportunity to weaken NATO. The SDI was seen not only as a threat to the physical security of the Soviet Union but as part of an effort by the United States to seize the strategic initiative by neutralizing the military component of Soviet strategy."

In Nazi history, using Jews as the scapegoat, Hitler and his cronies orchestrated what they called "the big lie". This theory states that no matter how big the lie is (or more precisely, because it's so big), people will believe it if you repeat it enough. Everyone tells small lies, Hitler reasoned, but few have the guts to tell colossal lies [source: Hoffer]. Because a big lie is so unlikely, people will come to accept it.

So, what is the TRUTH of the matter concerning building and testing these glorious rockets?  Poisoned wells and drinking water is VonBraun's rocket legacy to the world.  Generations later, people are still suffering at the expense of the 'furthering' of a warmongering technology.

Russian study links rocket fuel, health woes

Here is a webpage with a condensed history of the rocket.  In every instance, war and military superiority was at the heart and purpose of the rocket's design.

Weapons are not proper instruments for gentle people;  

They use them only when they have no other choice. 

Peace and quiet are what they value. 

They do not glory in victory. 

To glorify it is to delight in the slaughter of people. 

Those who delight in the slaughter of people will 

never thrive among all that dwell under heaven.

The army that has killed people 

should be received with sorrow. 

Conquerors should be received with the rites of mourning.  

TaoTeChing 

..and launch the Space Rocket! 

The patternman Jesus said, 

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.  You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?  So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.  Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits."

To say, "Peacetime rocketry" or "Peacetime nuclear power" is an oxymoron.  For rockets and nuclear power are still being used to wage war, though maybe not on people directly.   It is happening to our environment that we depend upon.

Without Wernher VonBraun, a confessed war criminal, we weren't going to the moon.  "...it is hard to argue that he was not a party to 'crimes against humanity' as defined today by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum."

"Beginning on September 8, 1944, these forces began launching V-2s against Allied cities, especially Antwerp, Belgium, and London, England. Manufactured by concentration camp labor—a fact that tarnished the reputation of von Braun and his rocket team ever after-by the end of the war 1,155 V-2s had been fired against England and another 1,675 had been launched against Antwerp and other continental targets. The guidance system for these missiles was imperfect and many did not reach their targets, but they struck without warning and there was no defense against them. As a result the V-2s had a terror factor far beyond their capabilities."

With every launch of the Space Shuttle, an equivalent of 100,000 soda cans go into orbit.   And, how many launches with orbital rockets to date world-wide?   A chemtrail conspiracy anyone?  How many countries are now following suit and are involved with their own aluminum oxide rocketry program?

Using aluminum oxide obviously gives more bang for the buck. Much more than just using pure liquid H2 + O2 for rocket propulsion.   In the presence of nitrogen, (70% of the atmosphere) oxygen gets bonded to nitrogen to form nitrous oxides that contribute to acid PH rain, and the killing-off of our fresh water lakes.

How many of us know that life-giving oxygen is a finite substance?  Yet man has decided to burn it up in his machines like it is some vast, unending resource.  With the fate of the environment at stake, the entire rocketry and jet program must be replaced by a much more benign way of getting the same satellite job accomplished.   

By utilizing the laws of buoyancy to our advantage, even concepts such as 'fuelless flight' could eventually happen!

Am I missing some important, logical reason here to be doing any of this via solid rocket boosters?  The environment cannot take a escalation of the SpaceX dream to world-wide proportions!  

If this idea is for promoting space tourism?  Well then... promote FLOATING to the edge of space to win a big money prize!  With this once-in-a-lifetime thrill ride comes a long-lasting sense of accomplishment, just in knowing that this experience happened solid rocket booster-free!  

At 25 miles out, a gondola is suspended from a super-pressure 'pumpkin' balloon.  Witness the grandeur of it all, and see the curved horizon!  Three-way conferencing with 'holodeck' visors for friends and family, to share in the experience back on the ground.

What is the reason again for going out any farther than this?   Hmmmmm,

Perhaps what's driving our internal programming is none other than our favorite '70's space adventure movie, thefantasy version of reality?  The producer of Star Trek, military-minded Gene Roddenberry  patterned the show after life on a Nazi German U-Boat

Are we being motivated to act and make choices based upon something that we indoctrinated ourselves with, night after night, by watching the ole '70's boob tube?  Now, guess who's in charge?   We, the indoctrinated ones, of course!  Has there been any studies done to measure what's spewing forth from these X-Prize rockets?    What effects is this solid rocket fuel exhaust having upon our atmospheric envelope? 

According to the US Space Surveillance Network, which monitors space junk, there are more than 22,000 objects measuring 10cm or more currently above the earth. The International Space Station has to move out of the way of debris occasionally.

 Last year, a Pentagon report warned that space was so littered with debris that a collision between satellites could set off an “uncontrolled chain reaction” capable of destroying the communications network on Earth.

The volume of abandoned rockets, shattered satellites and missile shrapnel in the Earth’s orbit is reaching a “tipping point” and is now threatening the $250 billion (£174bn) space services industry, according to the US Defense Department's interim Space Posture Review.  

Here could be a viable solution to the orbital pollution:  DARPA's 'Operation 'Catcher's Mitt '.

A spacecraft with something like a large (1 mile dia?) "catcher's mitt" needs to be sent up to scoop up all of the paint flecks and every other 1 cm or smaller particle.  That's all it would take to destroy a spacecraft, a pebble-sized object.  A PAINT FLECK on the windshield just about destroyed the Space Shuttle.  

         Once you've learned to count backwards to zero"

 

    (Part 2)   Satellite Re-entry Environmental Impact