Page Content (OCR)
All the types of rocket in service today are pencil-shaped. Is that absolutely necessary? Surely there is constant proof that the pencil shape is neither necessary nor ideal in airless space? When a space-ship, which, unlike the multi-stage rocket, is at least cone-shaped, flies to the nearby moon, it has to revolve repeatedly on its own axis. How involved and dangerous! We know from all the accounts of space flight that every change of course calls for a highly complicated steering manoeuvre. The ship's computer has to find out deviations from the flight path in thousandths of a second and equally quickly actuate the small steering jets for course correction. A single, minute steering mistake would have devastating consequences, as only limited amounts of propulsive material are carried and they would soon be used up. Then the steering jets would no longer be able to carry out the course corrections, the space-craft would be unable to return to the earth's atmosphere and it would shoot Undoubtedly the rockets now in use have proved themselves technically. For with the present rocket motors, which are still comparatively weak, only pointed flying objects offering small frictional surfaces can pierce the thick 'wall' of the earth's atmosphere. Yet sharp needles are not ideal for interstellar traffic. The liberation of higher propulsive energy is the key that would lead to the manufacture of new types of space-craft. The time when technology will have as yet incredible energies as its disposal is no longer so far away. When that time comes, it could lead to pure photon propulsion units that reach a velocity close to the speed of light and can provide propulsion for an almost unlimited period. Then we should no longer have to economise on every pound of payload, as we do today, when for every pound that a space-craft takes on a journey to the moon, an extra 2,590 Ib of fuel is needed. Once that was the case, space-craft would soon be built in a very different shape. Old texts and archaeological finds around the world have convinced me that the first space-craft that reached the earth many thousands of years ago were spherical, and I am sure that the space-craft of the future will (once again) be spherical. I am no rocket designer, but there are a couple of reflections that we can all make and which seem completely convincing. A sphere has no ‘forward’ or 'aft', no 'above' or 'below’, no 'right' or ‘left’. It offers the same surface in every position and direction. So the sphere is the ideal shape for the cosmos, which also has no 'above' or 'below', no ‘forward’ or ‘aft’. Let us take a walk round a space sphere that still seems like a science-fiction dream today. But let's not skimp matters. Imagine a sphere with a diameter of 17,000 ft. This monster stands on sprung, retractable spider legs. Like an ocean liner, the interior is divided into decks of various sizes. Around the belly of the gigantic ball—at its equator— runs a massive ring housing the twenty or more propulsion units that can all be swivelled through 180°—a simple technical feat. When the countdown has reached zero, they will radiate concentrated light waves amplified a million-fold. If the cosmic sphere is to rise from the surface of the planet or one of the launching areas stationed in orbit, the propulsion units shoot their columns of light directly down on to the launching pad, giving the sphere 5 - The Sphere The Ideal Shape For Space-Craft through the universe out of control until it burnt up.