What's up at Team Prometheus

[rick m]

[Monroe]

Wont be long now and I can indeed.

Monroe

[Jay]

[Monroe]

Well Jay, I had to put that project on the back burner because the team rallied and we moved to a more active solution for the time being. Some form of nuclear propulsion (and there are quite a few) would be a great solution. I hope to get back to the nuclear propulsion at some point. I have a much more viable Peroxide/kero engine on the drawing board so if we can make that work then I can get back to the fusion engine idea. I get to work on things like that when I'm not so busy with an active team but this winter the team is more active than ever and I see that as a really good sign because normally in the winter I'm working alone.

Monroe

[Jay]

Busy is good! Are you planning to distill your own peroxide or have you found an affordable supplier?

Jay

[Monroe]

I can comment that Aeronautic Enterprises Inc. will be supplying our peroxide and propellant for large solids. These things are not amateur in nature and therefor not Team Prometheus projects. IMO anything above "O" impulse cant be classified as amateur or even as good for amateur rocketry. An O rocket can reach 100kft anything above that is too dangerous IMO to be considered amateur. I don't want to encourage rockets larger than O for amateur use. After the Q launch I have changed my mind about that. A Q impulse rocket is too dangerous IMO for amateur rocketry and unnecessary because not much can be accomplished worthy to science with such a rocket. New designs can be tested sufficiently using up to O impulse.

Having observed many large solid rocket launches I don't think there is enough science being done with whats available to be accomplished with rockets up to that size. I also don't think that until the amateur community has better control systems and the ability to abort properly such rockets are of little use. The amount of telemetry and data collected (or lack there of) during these large rocket launches proves to me pretty much it's a thrill seeking thing more than a scientific thing. Recovery systems as well are not well enough developed and unreliable. Just my opinion.

Monroe

[rick m]

When are you going to post info, data, video, anything about your Q-launch?
You said you would do it last April? If you are going to make statements about what is safe for amateurs it would be nice to show us what happened to your launch.

[Monroe]

I've already posted the launch video and a photo we got at 60kft. If that's not enough for ya. Too bad I've decided not to encourage this kind of rocket launch. It's a waste of money. I am nearly finished with our mission control I want to encourage THIS type of work. Getting real data and control of the missions rather than the thrill seeking aspect of large solid rockets that do nothing interesting for science.

Launching dumb rockets is a waste of time and money IMO and if you don't like that tuff. We will show you real science before we show you anymore work on rockets. It is a waste of an instrument that can provide real data and advancement. Rockets are not toys IMO and not to be wasted.

If you like watching rockets fly good for you! Enjoy it! I just don't agree with that mentality at all. The bigger the rockets I fly the more stupid waste I see. IMO rockets perform work and are not flown for enjoyment.

I'm entitled to that opinion Rick. Now how about you just leave me along and you do your thing.

If seeing a big solid rocket launch encourages young people to become interested in space that's great. More power to ya. But they are next to worthless to space from a cost point of view. Once we get our mission control fully functional you'll see what I'm trying to do to advance the knowledge and science of real space exploration.

So let me do my thing.

I'm more interested in economical science and learning on a more practical level for everyone. Large solid rockets are not the answer and are not practical for everyday science or exploration. They are not an economical safe means of exploring space for everyone and that's a FACT.

Small rockoons are far more practical. Uav spaceplanes are far more practical and balloons are the least expensive means of exploring REAL space. Spending money on real telemetry and scientific data collection is the smarter way to go IMO. We want to show how to collect more data and have more control over missions. I've only just begun to do this work in the last 10 years. I don't waste time or money and if you just wait a second I'll show you how we do that. I have not wasted any time or money everything I've done has taught me something and I'm learning fast. I'll show you what I've learned and what direction I think things should go in. I'm pretty sure I'm not wrong about this. You'll just have to wait and see.

Monroe

[Jay]

Good to hear from you again, Monroe. I’m really looking forward to seeing more pictures of all the work you’ve been doing on your mobile mission control.

Jay

[Monroe]

We may not be competing in the N-Prize anymore but we will lead the way for it to be achieved in the future. We will help establish an amateur tracking network and things that will make it possible.

Monroe