Feather-based Jacobean Space Chariot

simonmsh writes "The article Cromwell's moonshot: how one Jacobean scientist tried to kick off the space race describes 17th century plans to build a space chariot out of springs, feathers and gunpowder. The design was based on the idea that gravity disappeared at an altitude of 20 miles, which was called into question by Hooke ^? and Boyle ^? 's work. It sounds like the plot of a Neal Stephenson book." Said book, and its sequels are phenomenal.

Re:Hmmmmmm, curious

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The difference, I think, is that our technology does what it's supposed to do. I mean, I look at an abacus or slide rule and I don't think, "Oh, hah hah, those silly pre-computer people, what cute toys they had!" I think, "Wow, that's a really elegant solution to a difficult problem ... but I'm glad I don't have to use that thing." Our cars and trains and ships and planes do move us around; our computers do crunch numbers; our space technology did (and hopefully someday will again) get us to the Moon. There's a difference between doing the best you can with what you've got, and flights of fancy.

Re:Hmmmmmm, curious

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, apparently what we know a lot more about now was highly speculative back then. So I suppose our most extreme ideas today would include things like negative matter, wormholes and our concepts for interstellar travel. 300 years from now they will look back at our such theories and smile the same we do now.

Always a damn plug for NS

[lidocaineus]

I love how we turn an interesting bit of history into a plug for Mr. Stephenson's ego.

Stephenson...

[kzinti]

It sounds like the plot of a Neal Stephenson book.

Hmm... Also reminds me of the plot of a Jules Verne book - one that predates Stephenson by a number of years.

Re:Always a damn plug for NS

[thelexx]

Not sure what it is with the Stephenson worshipping that goes on here. I suspect he rides a wave of young people just discovering a genre. I recently was given a copy of Snowcrash and have to say I didn't think it was that great. It read like a comic..err, graphic novel, but without the graphics.

Re:The "Mars Direct" of its day

[roystgnr]

All that hand-waving is vaguely reminiscent of "Mars Direct" or whatever they're calling it these days. Once upon a time, we didn't have to eat in space because of the absence of gravity. Now, we just hand-wave away radiation damage to the crew and the logistics of setting up a nuclear reactor on Mars to produce fuel for the return journey.

Radiation hazards are discussed on pages 10, 13, 81, 83, 95, and 114-120 of _The Case for Mars_. The fuel production processes are detailed starting on page 148, and end on page 156 with a mention of the power requirements (300 watts, which makes the "nuclear reactor" just another RTG) for a sample return mission. The mass requirements of a fission generator are on page 205. This is just the discussion in the popular non-fiction book; don't be too surprised if the actual studies (the first study by JPL claimed the human mission would be doable for $50 billion; more recent studies by NASA claim $33e9 + $7e9 per mission, and the ESA thinks they could do it for under $22e9 + $6e9 per mission.)

If you have some specific concerns with the proposals, it would be more credible of you to bring them up rather than pretend that these problems haven't been considered at all. Do you really think that a NASA engineer might read your post and exclaim "There's radiation in space! Why didn't I think about that!?"

Re:Hmmmmmm, curious

[dustman]

Our technology and science, though it may be primitive to someone in the future, will never be looked back on with the same feelings as this crap.

By actually using the concepts of the scientific method (experimentation etc), we come up with things that are true (as far as we can measure them) rather than stories we make up that sound good.

"Gravity is what requires us to eat, it pulls the food out of our bodies"... The fact that this explanation was considered shows that the concept of digestion wasn't understood. There is nothing wrong with that. The problem is that this theory is easily tested, by laying down or standing on your head for a day and seeing if you get hungry.

Newton's model of physics has been shown to be "wrong", but we don't fault him for that, he drew proper conclusions from the available data.

Re:Hmmmmmm, curious

[painandgreed]

The difference, I think, is that our technology does what it's supposed to do. I mean, I look at an abacus or slide rule and I don't think, "Oh, hah hah, those silly pre-computer people, what cute toys they had!" I think, "Wow, that's a really elegant solution to a difficult problem ... but I'm glad I don't have to use that thing." Our cars and trains and ships and planes do move us around; our computers do crunch numbers; our space technology did (and hopefully someday will again) get us to the Moon. There's a difference between doing the best you can with what you've got, and flights of fancy.

Not too much difference. it was a hypothesis that would have failed and was revised later as more information was gathered. There are plenty of failed hyothesis' around by notable scientists to discuss. From "wackos" like William Reich to respected scientists such as Tesla, there are plenty of ideas that later turn out to be funny or wrong. Even Einstein is saddled with the Cosmological Constant which was added at a whim and later claimed to be his biggest blunder. People are still debating if it was useless or genius.

Re:Interesting man

[Anonymous Coward]

And helps dispell the egregious myth that the Puritans were anti-intellectual, anti-science fanatics.

I suspect on the gunpowder boosters that he was following the dominant paradigm that gravity = magnetism, and by dropping to zero at 20 miles, would be rather less at 10 miles, etc.