17 thoughts on ““On The Cusp Of A Revolution””

  1. I’ve been harping about this for longer than the author has been alive. Just build a bigger rocket. Think SS/SH is big? Once upon a time there was a plan to build a rocket with 30 F1A engines! I don’t know if it’s available as a book, but there was a series of magazine articles about the Nova program called “They Might Be Giants.”

    1. As I said, we need somewhere to test big rockets- which would be floating ocean platform.
      We should also put floating breakwaters around it.

    2. It isn’t just a matter of building bigger rockets. The Nova would’ve been the SLS of its day or even worse in terms of affordability. The key breakthrough that SpaceX is on the cusp of achieving is high lift capacity combined with full reusability to achieve costs per kilogram to orbit lower by orders of magnitude over previous rockets.

      1. There’s no evidence that’s true. The problem is not intrinsic to the technology, but rather to the corporate culture of OldSpace. That’s something that didn’t have to happen, though since it did, there’s motivation to claim it was inevitable. In fact, there was no reason reusable spacecraft couldn’t have been built with the technology of ca. 1970, if not earlier. It was proven F1 could survive soaking in salt water.

      1. I love Wikipedia, with Musk’s Caveat: Wikipedia is 90% accurate. It’s just not clear which 90%. The Wikipedia Nova article is restricted to jut the Saturn C-8 version, and there was a lot more to it than that.

        “They Might Be Giants” was a series of articles in the earliest version of Quest magazine (from ca. 1998) and is well worth hunting down. There’s a website of limited use:


        I have the first few years of Quest in a box somewhere. That’s where the 30 F1 version comes from (launched from a sea platform, Gbaikie!). This is one of the wonders of living from the beginning of the Space Age (I was born in 1950): I have boxes full of amaing crap. When I was a kid, I sent away to NASA from some info, and got a giant box of books and magazines, including books by Von Braun, and pamphlets about everything imaginable. The other day, I was poking through a box and found a July 20, 1960 copy of The Washington Post, and also a 1969 copy of Soviet Life Magazine.

  2. I would say that the foreseeable future (space wise) belongs to Space-X, unless Jack Sarfatti turns out to be right ( he thinks he knows how Tic-Tac UAP’s work):

    Jack Sarfatti – Wormholes, Warp Drives & UAP Physics


    The short answer is that the critical equation (the one that describes how much input energy it takes to warp space) in the Alcubierre warp drive metric equation has the component “c” to the 4th power in the denominator. He (Sarfatti) thinks that said “c” should not be the speed of light in a vacuum but instead the many orders of magnitude slower speed of the light in a properly engineered “meta-material”. Thus explaining the apparently low-energy warp drive exhibited by the observed UAP’s. Going from 60K feet to 200 feet in less that half a second for instance.

    1. Anything that can cover that distance at that speed has to be decoupling itself from this inertial frame of reference.

      1. I’ve wondered about the possibility of some sort of propulsion system, a propulsion “field”, that acted on every molecule, every atom equally and simultaneously. If such a thing were possible and everything in the vessel is accelerated equally is the effect of acceleration eliminated? In simplest terms: the eyes can’t be forced into the back of the head by G forces if the eyes are accelerated at the same rate as the head.

        1. “Time to take evasive action.

          Mr. Sulu, hard to starboard.

          Now, hard to port.

          Hard to starboard.”

          Star Trek: The Last Voyage Saturday Night Live.

  3. If Sarfatti is right about the UAP’s propulsion system i.e. some sort of low energy Alcubierre warp drive then the “crew” inside of the Tic-tac UAP would experience no “g-forces”. Space in front of the craft’s direction of motion is compressed and space behind the craft is expanded; literally in a sense the craft doesn’t move only the space around it. Most theoretical metrics assuming said warp drive require prodigious amounts of energy; something like the mass of the planet Jupiter converted to energy. (Although Harold “Sonny” White’s version manipulated the shape/configuration of the warp bubble reducing said mass to “only” the energy equivalent mass of the Voyager Space probe ~1800kg).

    1. I was wondering if removed the hydrogen and helium from Jupiter, would it make Jupiter significantly better
      for gravity assist.

        1. Well. we do sort of have technology- if we have the technology of Nuclear Orion.
          You could say we don’t have the technology of reusable launch vehicles- yet.
          If so, nor do we have the technology of Nuclear Orion rockets.
          In theory we do [sort of].
          We also don’t have technology to mine oceanic methane hydrates- I guess mainly because we allowed government to try to develop it.
          Nor the technology to have ocean settlements.

Comments are closed.