Slashdot Mirror

Another link, to one of his first site entries:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/archives/archivesvie w/view1.html

The date is June 4 1998. This is not the day of the first content on his site, and he had already been creating content for BYTE magazine for many years before this, but it's a sample of his archive.

He also has reader mail from back then.

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/ancient/mail1.htm

And all bloggers ought to thank Jerry Pournelle for starting the original blog, although back then he called it a daybook. His site still has his original content going back many many years.

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/#blog

You could use the exaust plume of a rocket as heat shielding! Nobody's tried it yet and it's just a concept for now, but if it works it could be awesome. The DC-X program was on its way to finding out stuff like this, but then NASA took over the program from the Air Force and ran it into the ground. (literally)

How it works: you have a throttleable rocket launching vertically. You don't use up all your fuel on launch, you save a little bit. Then when coming down, you come down tail-first and fire the rocket at low throttle. The exaust plume theoretically would act as a heat shield and most of the superhot gases formed at reentry speeds would be deflected away from the rocket by the plume. So you will not need much heat shielding for reentry. The weight savings from not needing Space Shuttle-type heat tiles could even be greater than the weight of fuel you carry for reentry (!)

Then when you're safely in the lower atmosphere, you could pop a parachute for landing or something. (this is my notion, the link doesn't mention this) All depends on how much fuel you need to build a sufficient plume, what percentage of gross takeoffweight is fuel, etc. X-programs is where you find out stuff like this, but they don't run X programs any more.

This seems like a useful place to point out an interesting read on Jerry Pournelle's web site on overclocking the brain.

I don't see a direct connection between the two articles, but perhaps someone more informed about neurochemistry could point one out.

Here's a design of the spacecraft based on their Footfall novel

I always thought Pournelle to be a bit loony to push for such a technology. I guess I was wrong.

Clem.

A more efficient, cheaper design that requires less employees runs counter to that goal.

Just look at the comments about NASA said by some of the giants in the aerospace industry. Burt Rutan for starters...

Jerry Pournelle has long advocated the establishment of contests for various space related goals. (he also was at the spaceshipone launches - story and pictures here) Peter's vision of annual space-related contests is slightly different - Each "meet" will have different, specific, goals, each year. At the same time the organization will provide consistency in place, time, and rules that the participants will function under. NASA's goals are so hopelessly fragmented by internally competing projects and ever changing budgetary reality that they are still mired in finally flying designs mired in 60s thinking. We are entering a new era. Space advocates can "vote with our feet" - and our new technologies - and our wallets - for whatever we feel is the best way to enter space.

In the early 1990s research was done on quick turn around vehicles for low cost space access. Two very good articles by Dr. Jerry Pournelle are The SSX Concept and SSTO Revisited.

You may or may not agree with Dr. Pournelle, I sure don't, on a lot of things, but he's spot on about what happened to the SSTO concept, NASA got control of it, let a contract out to Lockheed to develop the X-33, spent a whole bunch of money and didn't produce any real hardware unlike the SSX project which spent 60 million dollars and produced a prototype that was able to take off and land twice with a 26 hour turnaround with a support crew of 14 and which also managed to land safely after a hydrogen explosion tore off part of the aeroshell.

In the early 1990s research was done on quick turn around vehicles for low cost space access. Two very good articles by Dr. Jerry Pournelle are The SSX Concept and SSTO Revisited.

You may or may not agree with Dr. Pournelle, I sure don't, on a lot of things, but he's spot on about what happened to the SSTO concept, NASA got control of it, let a contract out to Lockheed to develop the X-33, spent a whole bunch of money and didn't produce any real hardware unlike the SSX project which spent 60 million dollars and produced a prototype that was able to take off and land twice with a 26 hour turnaround with a support crew of 14 and which also managed to land safely after a hydrogen explosion tore off part of the aeroshell.

In the early 1990s research was done on quick turn around vehicles for low cost space access. Two very good articles by Dr. Jerry Pournelle are The SSX Concept and SSTO Revisited.

You may or may not agree with Dr. Pournelle, I sure don't, on a lot of things, but he's spot on about what happened to the SSTO concept, NASA got control of it, let a contract out to Lockheed to develop the X-33, spent a whole bunch of money and didn't produce any real hardware unlike the SSX project which spent 60 million dollars and produced a prototype that was able to take off and land twice with a 26 hour turnaround with a support crew of 14 and which also managed to land safely after a hydrogen explosion tore off part of the aeroshell.

Jerry Pournelle's blog is one of the oldest blogs on the web, and when it's politics season, he comments on that. Even when he's wrong, he's worth reading.

Jerry Pournelle on his web page http://jerrypournelle.com/ has described himself as an "old cold warrior" and a "paleoconservative." (As opposed to "neoconservatives", which he has a few sharp things to say about...)

As for social conservatives, though politically he seems more liberal, Orson Scott Card has generated quite a few flame wars on Usenet for some of his articles in the Mormon press.

Jerry Pournelle. You can read visit his Web site (www.jerrypournelle.com to get a better idea of his political views. There are many right-wing contributors to his site; and be warned, Pournelle has nothing good to say about the neocons.

Let's put it this way: in the Known Universe he and Larry Niven created, the U.S. and Soviet Union (they've been writing for a while) colonize space after the invention of the Alderson Drive. The resulting empire has a monarchy and aristocracy for a government.

Sorry to butt in here, Gentlemen, but this reminds me of the motto of the old L5 Society, which I read on Jerry Pournelle's website:

"The meek shall inherit the Earth. The rest of us will go to the stars."

Does anyone feel that this is just publicizing what every GOOD developer has been saying for the last 10-15 years?

Or more: "That's the thing about people who think they hate computers. What they really hate is lousy programmers" - Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, "Oath of Fealty"

sPh

sPh

THOR

In 1964 Dr. Jerry Pournelle described a potential weapons system concept consisting of a guided orbiting element with terminal guidance. In 1975 he published a new and more complete description of the system that could have been deployed in the mid-1980's. The completion of the GPS (Global Positioning System) satellite system eliminated one of the largest expense requirements for deploying Thor.

The basic weapon system consists of an orbiting element some 20 to 40 feet long. It requires a GPS receiver to locate itself; a means of taking it out of orbit; an atmospheric guidance system, such as a means of changing its center of gravity (moving weights, small fins, etc.), and a communication system to give it a target and activate the system. No warhead is wanted or needed. Thor will impact a target area at about 12,000 feet per second; that is sufficient kinetic energy to destroy most hard targets, with minimum collateral damage and of course no fall-out. Achievable accuracy has been estimated at ten to twenty feet CEP.

perhaps you should have read about it before telling him he was full of it

He's talking about spaceships, spacestations and Lunar bases and he's talking real money

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/topics/gettospace.ht ml#prizes

The main problem, I gather, is that the fuel used just doesn't have the delta-V needed. Another poster mentions using the technology to put up satilites, but unless my very well informed source Jerry Pournelle is wrong, that's not going to happen.

Ararcho-tyranny.

For more info, go to Dr. Jerry Pournelle's EXCELLENT site and do a search on "THOR." He helped develop the idea. There are 32 hits, one of which is MEGAMISSIONS AND SPACE POWER. Another is for the book he co-authored with Dr. Possony and Dr. Kane called THE STRATEGY OF TECHNOLOGY, which was a required text at the USAF Academy for YEARS.

For more info, go to Dr. Jerry Pournelle's EXCELLENT site and do a search on "THOR." He helped develop the idea. There are 32 hits, one of which is MEGAMISSIONS AND SPACE POWER. Another is for the book he co-authored with Dr. Possony and Dr. Kane called THE STRATEGY OF TECHNOLOGY, which was a required text at the USAF Academy for YEARS.

For more info, go to Dr. Jerry Pournelle's EXCELLENT site and do a search on "THOR." He helped develop the idea. There are 32 hits, one of which is MEGAMISSIONS AND SPACE POWER. Another is for the book he co-authored with Dr. Possony and Dr. Kane called THE STRATEGY OF TECHNOLOGY, which was a required text at the USAF Academy for YEARS.

Jerry Pournelle developed the concept of a space-launched kinetic energy weapon in 1964. It's been used a decent amount in his science fiction since then, but we do have to wonder why it's taken the military so long to consider implementing it. The high cost to orbit such weapons could be part of it, but we could definitely bring costs down a lot if we ended NASA's excessive bureaucracy and came up with a launch system that didn't cost half a billion per launch.

Jerry Pournelle developed the concept of a space-launched kinetic energy weapon in 1964. It's been used a decent amount in his science fiction since then, but we do have to wonder why it's taken the military so long to consider implementing it. The high cost to orbit such weapons could be part of it, but we could definitely bring costs down a lot if we ended NASA's excessive bureaucracy and came up with a launch system that didn't cost half a billion per launch.

Pournell's column was non-fiction, although it was published in an SF mag ("Galaxy" if I recall right). Here is a page that contains some info (seek the word "suit").

Hey, thanks for filling me in on that "I wonder what ever happened to . . .". IBM seems to have misplaced more cool tech than most other companies have produced at all.

I remember Pournelle writing in Byte about that time that he complained to the IBM booth at Comdex that they wanted hundreds of dollars for a device driver kit for OS/2, whereas if he went to the Microsoft booth they would be stuffing diskettes in his bag for nothing.

sPh

Well, duh, if you'd checked, you'd see it was a collaberation between Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. If you're going to make a reference, at least get it right.

It must be Jerry Pournelle.

--
Evan

The X Prize isn't about putting another man on the moon, or even putting another one in orbit. It's just about building a rocket that can get people above the atmosphere repeatedly, quickly, safely, and cheaply. Such a rocket doesn't need much in the way of performance compared to a real launch vehicle.

For that goal (especially the "cheaply" part), increasing the amount of prize money could actually be detrimental. An expensive winning vehicle in 2000 (which could have been done, if the prize money was enough to lure a big aerospace company into the race) would have been much less of a "return on investment" than a cheap winning vehicle in 2005.

A big part of the reason why space exploration is stuck in a rut is that when we started it, we had a post-war technology (expendible artillery rockets) that could be used to "get people to space, and damn the cost". Well, we've been using those sorts of rockets ever since, and "DAMN, the COST!" Rocket fuel is cheap, but rockets and rocket engineers are expensive, and when we throw away the former and hire armies of the latter to supervise a few launches a year it gets really expensive. There are a lot of people (myself included) who think that the only way to change this is with reusable, rapid turnaround launch vehicles, and who speculate that the natural way to develop those vehicles is from technology developed flying suborbital prototypes. Our previous strategy of "start with a huge orbital rocket, and try to make it cost effective" (the Space Shuttle) turned out to be so expensive that when it failed we couldn't afford to try again. Hopefully the alternate strategy of "start with a cost effective rocket, and try to make it orbital" will be more successful, and even when it does have failures it's a lot easier to repeat a multimillion dollar experiment than a multibillion dollar one.

The reason these Centennial challenges (and the X Prize) are so exciting is that there's a problem with our alternate strategy: revenue. There's a commercial market for orbital rockets, but not much of a market (except for tourism, war, and the occasional science experiment) for suborbital rockets, and nobody wants to start a multi-decade research program if it's not going to bring in any money until the end. If NASA can provide funding for those projects in such a way that they can't be "cheated" into paying for failures (like they were with the X-33), it makes that long term strategy into a short term opportunity.

Hmm... I didn't intend that to be so long; I should shut up now, find a link for anyone who's actually still reading this, and go to sleep. There's a large relevant discussion at Jerry Pournelle's website; Pournelle's opinions on this subject don't differ much from mine, he's had most of them longer than I've been alive, and he's better at articulating them.

sPh

Damn, pushed the wrong button.

The point is that if you want working technology, on time and on budget, you don't try to cram 4 untested technologies into one project. If you don't care about on time and on budget, well we already have NASA.

And Jerry Pournelle has already suggested new X-prizes.

Saturn was the most powerful machine ever made by man; and NASA took two working Saturns and laid them out as lawn ornaments so that they would not compete with Space Station and Shuttle. This was deliberate destruction of the people's property, but those who did it were promoted, not sent to prison where they ought to be. Perhaps that is too strong: but they ought to be dismissed with prejudice, barred from ever working on any government or government financed or government approved project whatever. It was done for pure politics to ensure the need for Shuttle. And it was criminal.

I just did a quick scan for Pournell on Amazon.com and essentially everything listed for him is "out of print" and only available through "zshops". I haven't seen anything from him in years (I always liked his stuff more than the people he recommended).

Just a quick look at Chaos Manor says that he is finishing up a sequel to the burning tower.

myke

• A secret panel! To come up with Vision! NASA needs vision! An INTERAGENCY GROUP will provide it!
  
  Where are the adults?
  
  I suppose we can generate a vision statement here in this forum. But in fact there needs to be something of a plan, and I am weary: I have written space plans for decades, they get adopted by someone, and ignored as NASA works to make thing happen the old ways with the old gang in charge.
  
  A "National Goals in Space" statement by the President might be a good thing; but what is needed is specific projects.
  
  I will give you a space plan now:
  
  
  • "Be it enacted by the Congress of the United States:
    
    the Treasurer of the United States is directed to pay to the first American owned company to build and fly a space ship that carries at least 10,000 pounds payload to orbit and returns to Earth eight times in a period of six consecutive months the sum of $2 billion dollars, tax free.
    
    To the first American owned company that constructs an American owned space station that is continually occupied by at least five Americans over a period of three years, the sum of $4 billion dollars, tax free.
    
    To the first American owned company that shall keep 31 Americans alive and well on the Moon for a period of three years and a day, the sum of $10 billion dollars, tax free.
    
    No payments shall be made until the above conditions are fulfilled."
  
  
  Note that one company could win all those prizes, or many could, or a consortium of American companies could win. Nothing is paid until the feats are accomplished.
  
  Of course we won't do that.
  

Of course, his view is that the purpose of NASA is not to explore space, but to expand and maintain the bureaucracy first.

and this would be a more efficient use of government funds. can't have that, now, can we?

Jerry Pournelle's got a great plan, for 16 Billion, we get orbital travel, a space station that works, and a moon colony!

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view274.html#NA SAfix

Jerry Pournelle has some informative commentary on his website (Dont call it a blog!). Here is the link

I'm interested in reading this to see how Heinlein progressed as a writer and a person over his career. I wish that I could find copies of his "unpublishable" stories (the ones he sold off to editors that he didn't like, just to see how they compared to the mainstream Heinlein genre.

Here's the relevant link.

THIS ALL BEGAN WHEN I SAID:

I can solve the space access problem with a few sentences.

Be it enacted by the Congress of the United States:

The Treasurer of the United States is directed to pay to the first American owned company (if corporate at least 60% of the shares must be held by American citizens) the following sums for the following accomplishments. No monies shall be paid until the goals specified are accomplished and certified by suitable experts from the National Science Foundation or the National Academy of Science:

1. The sum of $2 billion to be paid for construction of 3 operational spacecraft which have achieved low earth orbit, returned to earth, and flown to orbit again three times in a period of three weeks.

2. The sum of $5 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a space station which has been continuously in orbit with at least 5 Americans aboard for a period of not less than three years and one day. The crew need not be the same persons for the entire time, but at no time shall the station be unoccupied.

3. The sum of $12 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a Lunar base in which no fewer than 31 Americans have continuously resided for a period of not less than four years and one day.

4. The sum of $10 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a solar power satellite system which delivers at least 800 megaWatts of electric power to a receiving station or stations in the United States for a period of at least two years and one day.

5. The payments made shall be exempt from all US taxes.

That would do it. Not one cent to be paid until the goals are accomplished. Not a bit of risk, and if it can't be done for those sums, well, no harm done to the treasury.

Henry Vanderbilt points out that having a prize, say $1 billion, for the second firm to achieve point (1) above will get more into the competition, and produce better results. I agree.

In case anyone's interested, Jerry Pournelle has a blog:

The View from Chaos Manor

Jerry Pournelle posted some more photos on his web site a couple days ago: http://jerrypournelle.com/view/view258.html#SS1

The shuttle was a wrong design from the start and can't be fixed. Read this:

• Beam Me Out Of This Death Trap, Scotty
• Feynman on the Shuttle
• Pournelle on "Why have NASA"

Shuttle was designed to employ about 20,000 people. It met that goal admirably; you can't fly Shuttle with fewer people. It just can't be done.

I don't see that anyone's mentioned Jerry Pournelle yet.

Somehow he finds time to write novels while running a very insightful blog, writing a column for Byte, keeping active in the amatuer aerospace community, and generally having a life. I don't know how he does it, epecially at his age.

He proves that blogs and more, the internet, can coexist with real life(tm)
(for authors at least).

What advice would you give to an aspiring science fiction writer who has already read Jerry Pournelle's How to Get My Job and Cory Doctorow & Karl Schroeder's Complete Idiot's Guide to Publishing Science Fiction?

Pournelle was definitely involved in promoting SDI and had earlier co-authored a book The Strategy of Technology. I haven't heard about Niven being involved, though

I can solve the space access problem with a few sentences. Be it enacted by the Congress of the United States:

The Treasurer of the United States is directed to pay to the first American owned company (if corporate at least 60% of the shares must be held by American citizens) the following sums for the following accomplishments. No monies shall be paid until the goals specified are accomplished and certified by suitable experts from the National Science Foundation or the National Academy of Science:

1. The sum of $2 billion to be paid for construction of 3 operational spacecraft which have achieved low earth orbit, returned to earth, and flown to orbit again three times in a period of three weeks.

2. The sum of $5 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a space station which has been continuously in orbit with at least 5 Americans aboard for a period of not less than three years and one day. The crew need not be the same persons for the entire time, but at no time shall the station be unoccupied.

3. The sum of $12 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a Lunar base in which no fewer than 31 Americans have continuously resided for a period of not less than four years and one day.

4. The sum of $10 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a solar power satellite system which delivers at least 800 megaWatts of electric power to a receiving station or stations in the United States for a period of at least two years and one day.

5. The payments made shall be exempt from all US taxes.

That would do it. Not one cent to be paid until the goals are accomplished. Not a bit of risk, and if it can't be done for those sums, well, no harm done to the treasury.

I had Newt Gingrich persuaded to do this before he found he couldn't keep the office of Speaker. I haven't had any audiences with his successors.