Conscious Choice cover

From the press release: In this ground-breaking new history of early America, historian Robert Zimmerman not only exposes the lie behind The New York Times 1619 Project that falsely claims slavery is central to the history of the United States, he also provides profound lessons about the nature of human societies, lessons important for Americans today as well as for all future settlers on Mars and elsewhere in space.

 
Conscious Choice: The origins of slavery in America and why it matters today and for our future in outer space, is a riveting page-turning story that documents how slavery slowly became pervasive in the southern British colonies of North America, colonies founded by a people and culture that not only did not allow slavery but in every way were hostile to the practice.  
Conscious Choice does more however. In telling the tragic history of the Virginia colony and the rise of slavery there, Zimmerman lays out the proper path for creating healthy societies in places like the Moon and Mars.

 

“Zimmerman’s ground-breaking history provides every future generation the basic framework for establishing new societies on other worlds. We would be wise to heed what he says.” —Robert Zubrin, founder of founder of the Mars Society.

 

Available everywhere for $3.99 (before discount) at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and all ebook vendors, or direct from the ebook publisher, ebookit. And if you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and I get a bigger cut much sooner.


SpaceX’s Grasshopper rocket successfully did a vertical take off and landing to a height of 130 feet last week.

SpaceX’s Grasshopper rocket successfully did a vertical take off and landing to a height of 130 feet last week. With video.

This is very cool engineering, but I remain skeptical any first stage rocket could carry enough fuel to both return to Earth vertically and also provide its payload enough thrust to get into orbit.

Readers!
 

My July fund-raising campaign for 2021 has now ended. Thank you all for your donations and subscriptions. While this year’s campaign was not as spectacular as last year’s, it was the second best July campaign since I began this website.


And if you have not yet donated or subscribed, and you think what I write here is worth your support, you can still do so. I depend on this support to remain independent and free to write what I believe, without any pressure from others. Nor do I accept advertisements, or use oppressive social media companies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook. I depend wholly on the direct support of my readers.


If you choose to help, you can contribute via Patreon or PayPal. To use Patreon, go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation. For PayPal click one of the following buttons:
 


 

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


 

If Patreon or Paypal don't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 

Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

13 comments

  • Paul Lake

    I’m sure we both hope your skepticism will be proven unwarranted. A reusable launch system must be achieved to enable human settlement into space. Are there better ideas being worked on right now?

  • A. Feit

    You’ve just got to run the numbers. Need more fuel, fly more strap-ons. They are reusable anyway. Who said 4, 6 or even 8 strap-ons are not viable? But like I said, you’ve got to run the numbers.

  • Hey, I hope you are right.

  • Yes, and it would seem that one wouldn’t have to carry enough fuel to cancel all of the velocity, just enough to prevent too much heating on reentry, use parachutes to void much of the verticle velocity and then just a bit more at the very end. Perhaps this is why, in their reusability video they don’t show the first stage coming down to the cape but only the last portion (after the parachute disconnected).

    Also, initial reusability doesn’t have to be 100% in order to make a big difference. Even if only the first stage were reusable and if it didn’t cancel horizontal velocity but landed on a ship or an island, that would still significantly lower their launch costs and make them much more competitive than others. This would give them more time and money to perfect reusability further.

  • Regarding strap-ons, if you use crossfeed, then the strap-ons will detach earlier and so require less fuel to cancel vertical velocity.

  • wade

    isn’t This what von Braun and others designed back in the ’50s ? those designs proved to be too large to be cost efficient and were scrapped.

  • That is cool, but the coolest part of that video isn’t the engineering, it’s that it’s being done by private enterprise.

  • Tom Billings

    “isn’t This what von Braun and others designed back in the ’50s ? those designs proved to be too large to be cost efficient and were scrapped.”

    No.

    The stages of the launch vehicles of “Projekt Mars”, and other pre-sputnik proposals, were using different propellants, and were using wings to fly back into the atmosphere. They were hoping that enough wing surface could lower the heat load on the vehicle. It turned out that the wings that could do that enough were far too heavy, and the payload too small. In addition, the nitric acid oxidizer and hydrazine fuels were too corrosive on the one hand, and too poisonous on the other for continual rapid turnaround of vehicles.

    In addition, until Vostok1 flew, there was no money in either ABMA’s or later NASA’s budget to build anything like that, anyway.

    The vehicles cancelled in the Saturn program were steps between Saturn 1 and Saturn 5 that would push the Moon Landing back into the 1970s. Unfortunately, the Earth-Orbit Rendezvous techniques looked like they *might* do the same, and so they were cancelled as well. By the time Gemini 3 flew, Lunar Orbit Rendezvous was the assumed mode of flight.

  • Chris Kirkendall

    Well, obviously a lot to be worked out here, but at least it looks like the basic concept works. Whether it will become practical is another matter, but it’s great to see someone trying. Many things we can do today take for granted once looked impossible or impractical, but someone had the courage to dream & actually try…

  • libs0n

    I’m just a layman, and I’m bound to be a bit wrong, but this is how I understand it.

    1. The first stage dry mass doesn’t go to orbit, just part of the way, that means only a small part of the deltav is proportioned to speed it up. That means it isn’t traveling as fast when it needs to be slowed down. It also means that additional mass added to the first stage for recovery doesn’t exact a full 1:1 payload costs, but something like 10 to 1, or adding 10 pounds to the mass of the first stage booster only costs 1 pound reduction in orbital payload.

    2. The first stage mass is mostly fuel. Once its burn is completed, the first stage is much much lighter, like only a few percent of the mass it was. It is basically an empty fuel tank. This is the dry mass. That means it costs much less in fuel to decelerate and land it. Using the estimated first stage mass figures at spacelaunchreport.com, a Falcon 9 weighs 419 tonnes at liftoff, but only 28 tonnes at burnout.

    The rocket is also very overpowered for that duty, since the engine thrust is sized to get the whole fueled rocket off the ground.

    So you are only returning a ~28 tonne mass(plus whatever recovery mass is necessary) to the ground, and the fuel and gear for that, as stated in point 1, doesn’t extract a full penalty from your orbital figures.

  • wade

    i agree libs0n, and further, these are the concepts of rocketry long Before any space programs were even tried. watch an old space movie, for instance, the 1955 film ” the Conquest of Space” .

  • Chris Kirkendall

    Re: The first stage mass is mostly fuel. Once its burn is completed, the first stage is much much lighter, like only a few percent of the mass it was…

    Right – good point…

  • mpthompson

    I have to assume that the folks at SpaceX have run the numbers and the math works out with respect to having enough remaining fuel to slow and land a booster. If so, it then turns into an engineering effort to prove out the math. Something SpaceX seems to be making good progress on.

Readers: the rules for commenting!

 

No registration is required. I welcome all opinions, even those that strongly criticize my commentary.

 

However, name-calling and obscenities will not be tolerated. First time offenders who are new to the site will be warned. Second time offenders or first time offenders who have been here awhile will be suspended for a week. After that, I will ban you. Period.

 

Note also that first time commenters as well as any comment with more than one link will be placed in moderation for my approval. Be patient, I will get to it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *