The "SpacedOutX" Reusable Launch Vehicle

VIDEOS of 'Balancing Chariots in Action! 1sr CHARIOT COSMIC GRASSHOPPER A Frozen TINMAN A recent wedding gig! NY TIMES PHOTOS!  FUTURE Models! A SK8nHOPPER Concept! CONTACT INFO BURNING MAN photos PERPETUAL MOTION MAN Many PATENTS! FOLDABLE CHARIOT! Our OCEAN OF AIR! The Gooey Message Down Under! ALL WRAPPED UP IN BLUE! Welcome to GULLIVER Birds,Frogs,Fish & Fresh Air DREAMCATCHER SWINGS The CRYOPERK Engine Rickshaw/GRANNY TRIKE! Charioteering PHYSICS! AIRGULPER  HEALING CELLPHONES! A FLOATIN' FORD! SWINGSET Power A "LUNG ENEMA"!  Crystal Yurt GREENHOUSE SPINNING AIRSHIP GLIDER SANTA BARBARA Chariot WHALE'S TAIL Wind Energy Harvester A 'SNOWHOPPER' Concept! Let's Go Phi a Kite! Christmas Eve VENICEbeachHOPPIN' FLOAT To Space... Electric Chariot Dreamin' NASA Satellite Re-Entry Danger Monster Mars Rocket PINECONEspinningAirship / FanwingSOLARSHIP Oxygenating, Detoxifying, Mosquito-Repelling AEROPONICS A Festive PUPPETHOPPER A ONE-WHEELED Chariot! Some FACTUAL ERRORS of the SPACE PROGRAM  In Depth FANWING Charioteering Lifestyle The "'SpacedOutX' Dragon V2"

The Debut of the "SpaceX Dragon V2", and its "Spaced Out" Environmental Repercussions

It's the newest Earth-to-SpaceStation-to-Earth reusable launch vehicle!

And why is this seemingly 'cutting edge' rocket technology is so 'spaced out'? Because there STILL is no forethought to the environmental repercussions, or the detrimental effects from burning "hypergolic rocket propellants", and how that affects all living things!

Burning these propellants create INCREDIBLE amounts of toxic emissions with every firing of these rockets! 

This reusable spacecraft technology doesn't even bother using the energy-saving method of PARACHUTING, or even GLIDING back to Earth, as the Space Shuttle did!  Instead it uses RAW ROCKET POWER to muscle its way back down to Earth, all the while spewing 800 pounds of toxic emissions during its re-entry and landing phase. 

The hypergolic propellant would have to be something like 80% of Dragon's mass. And I've read that it carries 800 POUNDS of hypergolic propellant.


Although hypergolic propellants tend to be difficult to handle because of their EXTREME toxicity and/or corrosiveness, they can typically be stored as liquids at room temperature and hypergolic engines are easy to ignite reliably and repeatedly.

In contemporary usage, the terms "hypergol" or "hypergolic propellant" usually mean the most common such propellant combination, dinitrogen tetroxide plus hydrazine and/or its relatives monomethyl hydrazine and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine. These chemicals, stored in the SpaceX Dragon V2 payload capsule, are EXTREMELY toxic to all living things
.

d!

At the unveiling of the 'Space-X DRAGON V2'. it's all a fun-and-games glamour show, with all the 'oohs' and the 'ahhs' when the curtain gets raised.  But as Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX points out, all the rockets have been manufactured by 3D-PRINTING!

What this simply means is that it will now be very easy to REPLICATE this toxic nightmare technology, and accomplish it on a worldwide scale!  Over a period of this next decade and beyond, countries now having access to this 'open source' technology, will then be able to EXPONTIALLY increase the number of launches and landings! 



Spacecraft dump some of these TONS of pollutants directly into the upper and middle stratosphere, where they can start causing damage immediately. Not so with other ground-based pollution.

Here is a petition to sign started by the locals where the proposed SpaceX launch site will be, who do NOT want a rocket launching in their back yard.  And for good reason!

https://www.credomobilize.com/petitions/help-preserve-the-only-hypersaline-lagoon-in-the-nation

 Help Preserve Boca Chica & South Bay of Laguna Madre, the only Hypersaline Lagoon in Nation

 

Also, this Facebook page needs your support, to share with your friends about the Boca Chica, Texas locals' viewpoint on this proposed rocket launch pad construction, right on top of a fragile ecosystem.  

https://www.facebook.com/pages/People-opposed-to-Space-X-in-Boca-Chica-Texas/

  People opposed to Space X in Boca Chica, Texas

 

I quote this article, "...liquid fueled rocket exhaust is very toxic, which makes working around the launch pad difficult, damages the environment, and makes getting a launch license that much more difficult." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_rocket_propellants


Q: Whose pockets are being padded, waiving all of these OBVIOUS environmental hazards and authorizing these toxic launches? Who stands to gain when a rocket is launched? A: The military industrial complex.

Do a search on "independant study" "RP-1" "Environmental impact", and basically what comes up are biased report articles by NASA and the U.S. government, and they downplay any environmental hazards, so that their money, power, control and military agenda can continue.

In this one Q & A article alone, NASA blatantly lies about the environmental impacts of rocket launches. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#5

...and that is according to Helen Caldicott MD. http://www.helencaldicott.com/ This next link of information shows how scientific evidence supports her report.

NASA and the U.S. government clearly have an agenda to downplay and cover up any ecological repercussions associated with their militarizing of space rocket missions. http://www.ringnebula.com/project-censored/1976-1992/1990/1990-story4.htm 

 23 March 2013

 It is a huge gamble to launch an LEO satellite, for 100's of millions of dollars, and then have it continue to function for "decades". 

 

 Dragon spacecraft with solar panels deployed


The truth of the matter is that LEO satellites last for no longer than 5-8 years, tops.http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1212/why-is-the-life-span-of-a-leo-satellite-less-than-that-of-a-geo-satellite

And, we must also consider that rocket exhaust detrimentally affects our ozone layer, where other, heavier-than-air polluting sources are not able to reach to this fragile, and much-needed protective 'atmospheric envelope'.

 

With eyes open to this new bit of information, see for yourself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c4Wvgn9_CU

 If LEO satellites malfunction, which they have on countless number of occasions, the investment is basically written off, and it just becomes more 'space junk', unable to be retrieved or repaired, to eventually lose altitude and burn up in the atmosphere - releasing a TOXIC SOUP of chemicals, and actual hazards of falling debris to people on the ground. http://darinselby.1hwy.com/NASASatelliteReEntryDanger.html

 The Dragon spacecraft in 'crew' mode


Speaking of which, with all of the LEO 'space junk' now in orbit, the risk to astronauts has now become much greater.

What is the point in having human beings risk not only their lives, but their health, by going to the Space Station, 230 miles out, when ROBOTICS can now do the same job?  And, more importantly, accomplish it 16X closer with stratospheric airships!

 

The rocket being used to launch the 'SpaceX Dragon V2' into orbit is the RP-1 LOX and liquid kerosene.  Contrary to the FAA's ruling on RP-1 rocket fuel, it is highly pollutive and a petroleum product.  The oxygen in our atmosphere is a FINITE SUBSTANCE and not to be burned up by rocket launches for self-serving, thoughtless corporate greed.  Just more of the same ecological destruction ahead using this technology!

Here is an informative article on the toxic aftermath of the Space Shuttle launches at the Cape Canaveral cleanup site. 

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2011-07-31-nasa-environmental-cleanup_n.htm

NASA covered up the EXTENT of their toxic dumping and environmental destruction at Cape Canaveral, in favor of achieving their Space Shuttle ends.  

From the article just mentioned^:  "No one drinks water drawn at the space center, nor the air station, but federal law still mandates the cleanup, at taxpayer expense. Other potential harm to humans and wildlife is uncertain.

"Most of the contamination occurred before federal standards and science caught up with the potential dangers, and today's launches contribute little to the environmental pollution.

Spaceflight was a dirty business. And astronauts walked the moon in 1969, a year before President Richard Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency."

Then the article goes on to say, "Few, but chemical industry insiders, and scientists who studied groundwater understood the full implications of the early guidelines."  

What happened to those early studies?  Swept under the rug?  Who did these 'chemical industry insiders', and 'scientists who studied groundwater' work for?  NASA perhaps?

If it wasn't for the 'Freedom of Information Act', we never would have known the TRUE extent of the environmental pollution at Cape Canaveral.  

 NASA healthcare crisis and COVER-UP of the Downey toxic dump site. http://ftp.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stuart_Lichter 

There was a decades-long cover-up by the US Department of Energy. Regarding cleanup, the site's current owner is Boeing, with NASA and DOE liable for several parcels within that. To achieve them, the R.P.s (responsible parties) consisting of Boeing, DOE, and NASA, need to sign agreements of acceptance and cleanup compliance.
http://www.ssflpanel.org/files/BeyeaSSFL_0b.pdf

NASA poisoned wells in California with perchlorate hazardous waste
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/vwsoalphabetic/Jet+Propulsion+Laboratory+(NASA)?OpenDocument

EPA FINES SPACEX $45,600 FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE VIOLATIONS

During a 2009 inspection of the facility, EPA investigators found that SpaceX, a designer and manufacturer of orbital space delivery systems, had multiple hazardous waste violations. 

The SpaceX violations included:
*improperly storing hazardous waste on site for longer than the 180-day time limit;
*failure to close hazardous waste containers;
*not labeling or improperly labeling hazardous waste containers;
*storing hazardous waste in crowded conditions that impaired inspection;
*failure to perform waste determination.
*http://www.parabolicarc.com/2010/10/03/epa-fines-spacex-45600-hazardous-waste-violations/

And now SpaceX (with already a toxic dumping TRACK RECORD) wants to now TRASH the fragile environment with rocket launches at Boca Chica, TX? 

Here's what the viable SIERRA CLUB concerns are. http://valleygreenspace.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/sierra-club-scoping-comments-on-the-spacex-boca-chica-launch-site/

Here is the same TOXIC AGENDA being implemented over and over again in a different package.  Truly, pathological, self-serving corporate and MILITARY entities are at the helm, in which protecting a fragile environmental ecosystem comes secondary to achieving their ends. 

 

This obviously points to the fact that a lot of toxic dumping activity was covered up, in lieu of "Mom, apple pie and LAUNCH THE SPACE SHUTTLE".  Did NASA come forth and divulge this information?  No, it had to be obtained through the 'Freedom of Information Act'.   

  

'Environment Texas' attempts to stop SpaceX spaceport

 "Environment Texas launched a petition drive today to stop the proposed construction of a spaceport on private land almost completely surrounded by a south Texas park and wildlife refuge. California company SpaceX – which made news last week when their commercial spacecraft successfully attached to the International Space Station – has applied to the Federal Aviation Administration for a license to launch million pound rockets from an area home to endangered sea turtles, ocelots and falcons.

 “I love the space program as much, if not more, than anyone,” said Environment Texas Director Luke Metzger. “But launching big, loud, smelly rockets from the middle of a wildlife refuge will scare the heck out of every creature within miles and sprays noxious chemicals all over the place. It’s a terrible idea and SpaceX needs to find another place for their spaceport.”

 http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/06/environment-texas-attempts-to-stop-spacex-spaceport/#comments

Now more about the environmental hazards of HYPERGOLIC ROCKET PROPELLANTS, here is an article entitled:

Development of an advanced rocket propellant handler's suit

"Most launch vehicles and satellites in the US inventory rely upon the use of hypergolic rocket propellants, many of which are toxic to humans. These fuels and oxidizers, such as hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide have threshold limit values as low as 0.01 PPM.

It is essential to provide space workers handling these agents whole body protection as they are universally hazardous not only to the respiratory system, but the skin as well..."
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/26470397

Are you still with me? 

Here's more covered-up information about this ongoing environmental disaster. And ALL in the name of military superiority!

"The continued use of highly toxic propellants that generate environmental pollutants keeps program costs high—but the cost of developing and qualifying green alternatives also tends to be high. This has traditionally slowed development even when a green propellant provides potential performance benefits.



Also, the term “green propellant” is often confusing, as many assume a green propellant has no environmental impact. Such a propellant is generally beyond the realm of physical possibility. 

ALL propellants affect the environment in some way. For instance, all launch vehicles produce exhaust.
The components of this exhaust can include soot, carbon dioxide, alumina, inorganic chlorine, water vapor, sulfates, and nitrogen oxides. 

ALL of these have an environmental impact, and may contribute to climate change, ozone destruction, or upper atmospheric contrails, depending on the atmospheric layer in which they are deposited; however, the severity and duration of the impact can vary greatly.

Given this fact, a green propellant is more correctly viewed as one that seeks to minimize or eliminate a critical environmental impact in one or more of the four main areas.
A green propellant is likely to have its own environmental impacts, which may be equal to the current technology in certain areas. 

For example, many so-called "green" propellants seek to eliminate hydrazine because of its biologic impact, but they still present atmospheric or space-based effects." (i.e. destruction of the ozone layer)

.
Q: Do you know how much toxic RP-1 liquid propellant is needed to get the SpaceX Dragon V2 to the Space Station? A: 418 TONS of propellant. 


OXYGEN DEPLETION IS ACCELERATING, yet SpaceX wants to support a technology that consumes it up like there's no tomorrow? In an RP-1 liquid-fueled rocket, oxygen gets bound to carbon in the kerosene, to create carbon monoxide. That oxygen is now GONE. 
Yes, plants give off oxygen, but at a substantially lower rate than we are gobbling it up in our machines. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/O2DroppingFasterThanCO2Rising.php

A good analogy for the 'payload-to-fuel' ratio of the SpaceX rocket is this: Imagine that this 418 tons of RP-1 fueled rocket is a beverage soda can. The size of the PULL-TAB would then be the payload. 

 

And, what about the NOISE POLLUTION from these launches? What about the people who live nearby the launch pads? What about the surrounding environment affected by the TONS of chemical RP-1 rocket propellant exhaust? What about the prevailing winds, which may take this extremely toxic chemical exhaust into a populated area? 

Would YOU want to live nearby a SpaceX launch site, where the number of launches will inevitably increase as the years go by?

http://www.aerospace.org/2013/07/31/green-propulsion-trends-and-perspectives/

  

There is much wisdom to be gained from this age-old proverb, where Jesus states, "You cannot get good fruit from a poison tree." 

 

And what is already the LEGACY of the "V2" that is being promoted in the "SpaceX Dragon V2"s name?

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

How many "V2"s rained down destruction and death upon London, being launched by the Nazis?  Now supposedly, this same 'V2' technology is being used in"peacetime" rocketry, though it has never ceased to be at war with the environment!  


 

 

So, what exactly is the SOLUTION to the rocket exhaust pollution?  

 We could actually FLOAT to space instead of rocketing there!  Believe it or not, the International Space Station could accomplish just about everything it is doing now, and be 16X closer


Instead of being at 230 miles out, a mere 13 miles altitude will work...that is, if it were BUOYANT! Yes, buoyancy is the missing piece of the puzzle to the space program! 

Instead of utilizing an incredibly expensive, and toxic 'hypergolic rocketry' system that is the heart of the "SpaceX Dragon V2" reusable space vehicle, the STRATOBUS technology makes so much more sense!   http://www.blimpinfo.com/airships/stratobus-halfway-between-a-drone-and-a-satellite/#more-5504

 

The proposed STRATOBUS, a surprising vehicle halfway between a drone and a satellite, will be able to carry out a wide range of missions, including observation, security, telecommunications, broadcasting and navigation… and it offers a lifespan of FIVE YEARS." https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/space/case-study/stratobus-halfway-between-drone-and-satellite


The ability to easily retrieve this airship then for maintenance repairs, and then put it aloft again is only a FRACTION of an orbiting satellite's cost. $140 MILLION is required for one SpaceX launch. 

 

 

Check out this 5 minute video which demonstrates why the STRATOBUS is a totally better way to do the same exact thing that we're trying to do with the Space Station, and satellites in general!  And do it all at a mere 13 miles altitude!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1sGqQek3pqQ


At 13 miles out, 99.95% of the atmosphere is gone. Wouldn't that really be the true edge of space? 

 This scientific article explains how a 'Stratospheric Airship Telescope Observatory' would successfully work.  It debunks the idea that a telescope has be at LEO (low earth orbit of 230 miles out) to get any better resolution: 


"This study indicates that while the atmospheric absorption and emission characteristics impose some limitations on the spectrographic and photometric performance of the system in the 200μm to 1000μm band, the overall performance is more than adequate to render the concept viable and complementary to existing and planned ground, airborne and space based observatories." http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1315279



And also this article entitled: A Polar Stratospheric Telescope "The lower stratosphere in the polar regions offers conditions for observation in the near-infrared comparable to those obtained from space. We describe a concept for a 6-meter, diluted aperture, near-infrared telescope carried by a tethered aerostat flying at 12 km altitude, to serve as a testbed for future space astronomical observatories while producing frontier science."http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=960293

 


 One STRATOBUS airship would have a telecommunications area coverage the size of Texas. No need to build an expensive ground infrastructure. This airship could provide mobile internet and GPS to remote areas.

 

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."

Yes, FLOATING to space, instead of rocketing there, could pristinely accomplish everything that we're trying to do at 16X further out! 

A functional STRATOBUS prototype is about five years away from completion.  With the right investors, this could happen much quicker, and on a larger scale.

And also, here is information about the 'JP Aerospace's stratospheric buoyant craft.  Coined as America's OTHER space program. A much more sensible, low-cost approach to putting a communications airship satellite into a geostationary position. One that is easily repaired and serviced: http://www.jpaerospace.com/atohandout.pdf 

 

 

 

Further research that I've gathered:
http://darinselby.1hwy.com/floattospace.html

http://darinselby.1hwy.com/NASASatelliteReEntryDanger.html

http://darinselby.1hwy.com/MonsterMarsRocket.html

http://darinselby.1hwy.com/4spaceprogramerrors.html