Author Topic: GravInertial Spacecraft--the shape of things to come  (Read 75861 times)

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
I'm just pondering what future spacecraft would be like given the gravinertial science proves out and we indeed end up with gravinertial technology.  That means we get lots of stuff of science fiction: propellantless propulsion, gravity generators, gravinertial dampeners, warp drives and wormhole generators.  (Sorry, not transporters.)  Supposing we had access to these sorts of technology, and even a step further; supposing GI thrusters are so efficient they can be strapped to a flywheel and used to harvest GI flux from the universes GI field; what would future human crewed spacecraft look like?

Personally. I think unless you have a need to jet about in the atmosphere, you can forget wings and tiles.  Go slow in the atmosphere and fast in vacuum.  So, spacecraft may well end up in general looking like a "flying brick" such as the Millennium Falcon only without the glowy rear-end and with the deck normal to the acceleration vector.  Better, we might cut the flats off the sides of the brick so as to get a little aero ability.  In atmosphere, we can use the planet's gravity to make motion inside a spacecraft simpler, like walking around inside a modern airliner; so there's some call to cutting the sides off the brick and building a saucer.

Or alternatively one might just build the cheapest hull one can--a cylindrical wet-wound filament composite structure with pointy ends for movement in aero--the classic "cigar" shape.

These seem to me to have the most utility.  Perhaps others have better ideas?
« Last Edit: 06/05/2009 04:27 pm by GI-Thruster »

Offline synchrotron

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: GravInertial Spacecraft--the shape of things to come
« Reply #1 on: 06/05/2009 03:32 pm »
There's already a forum for discussing this:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=14758.0

Offline Eric_S

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: GravInertial Spacecraft--the shape of things to come
« Reply #2 on: 06/05/2009 03:51 pm »
To regress a bit...

I can't say I hold much hope for GI thrusters, albeit I hope I'm wrong.

But IF (_very_ big if) you can build a Mach-Lorentz thuster, AND it's efficient enough it'll not only revolutionize space travel, but allso more mundane and everyday things, like mining and construction equipment not to mention trade. ... And of course we could get hover boards and floating cars.  ;)

No but really, get a GI "floater" and put holders for concrete elements under it. Now it can float from the elements factory straight to the construction site, place said elements itself ... perhaps apply the "glue" cement and presto, faster building times. No need to get a crane involved, or a cement truck, or having to deal with the trafic just to get to the build site (well, ok, safety concerns might put a stop on the latter point).

What about mining? Instead of having a dumptruck crawl up and down the meandering trails of a stripmine, fit GI-thrusters and navigational computers to a dumptruck bed, and go the straight line to the ore processing plant.

Not to mention the other implications on express deliveries of heavy goods it'd have if those transports (and thus trade) would suddenly get cheaper and cleaner.
« Last Edit: 06/05/2009 05:37 pm by Eric_S »

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: GravInertial Spacecraft--the shape of things to come
« Reply #3 on: 06/05/2009 04:24 pm »

There's already a forum for discussing this:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=14758.0


No, that is certainly a very different topic.  I'm instigating discussion about what use of this technology would look like given we prove out the science.  the note most direct above comes to the issue.  Certainly, if we have MLT's or UFG's with high enough thrust/weight ratio, then we can build all sorts of human and robotic craft for moving mass around Terra or from here to Titan, for example.  I think I've already mentioned a fondness for the idea of a robotic craft for moving large masses that holds the cargo externally, much like a SkyCrane:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-64_Skycrane

Also, there's a note in Paul March's WarpStar paper than his spacecraft design can be used as a skycrane for things like construction on the Moon.

These are the kinds of questions I'm hoping we can address.  Just what would future GI spacecraft be like, given the science proves out?

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6694
  • Liked: 1005
  • Likes Given: 140
Re: GravInertial Spacecraft--the shape of things to come
« Reply #4 on: 06/05/2009 04:25 pm »
A Skycrane moves small masses, not large ones.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: GravInertial Spacecraft--the shape of things to come
« Reply #5 on: 06/05/2009 04:58 pm »
SK has a 10T payload and weights just under that.  The mass can be very long, like a tree for instance, because it's not constrained by a container.  So, we can dicker over what is a "large" payload but the point is you have enormous utility in such a design.

Much of shipping technology comes down to the container.  One of the biggest breakthroughs in shipping over the last century is the "C" container that we see on tractor trailers, oceangoing vessels and on rail.  The same trailer is configured to fit all three and be butted up against buildings where they're on and off loaded.  So imagine a robotic skycrane that clamps onto C containers and flies them from point to point, and when empty and out of atmo, returns at very high gee loading so it has reduced down time.  Craft like this can move fantastical amounts of mass very cheaply, even to places like Titan.
« Last Edit: 06/05/2009 05:05 pm by GI-Thruster »

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: GravInertial Spacecraft--the shape of things to come
« Reply #6 on: 06/05/2009 06:21 pm »
SK has a 10T payload and weights just under that.  The mass can be very long, like a tree for instance, because it's not constrained by a container.  So, we can dicker over what is a "large" payload but the point is you have enormous utility in such a design.

Much of shipping technology comes down to the container.  One of the biggest breakthroughs in shipping over the last century is the "C" container that we see on tractor trailers, oceangoing vessels and on rail.  The same trailer is configured to fit all three and be butted up against buildings where they're on and off loaded.  So imagine a robotic skycrane that clamps onto C containers and flies them from point to point, and when empty and out of atmo, returns at very high gee loading so it has reduced down time.  Craft like this can move fantastical amounts of mass very cheaply, even to places like Titan.

This is exactly the sort of thinking that is lacking from the launch business. BTW take the Typhoon Container Vessel as a design concept for a hull structure etc for a gravinertial container earth to orbit ship.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline Spacenick

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: GravInertial Spacecraft--the shape of things to come
« Reply #7 on: 06/05/2009 06:32 pm »
I think for larger manned spacecraft we will propably see a cigar shape, simply because this is the most mass/volume efficient and has not to bad atmosphere flight chacracteristics.
It's also the lightest because the pressure inside stabilizes the hull directly.
Spacecraft will probably look like current submarines maybe with some gondolas for nuclear reactors (so they can be jettisoned in an emergency and so that one can mount large heat spreading surfaces). They will also have much mor antennas on them than submarines.

Offline bpb3

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: GravInertial Spacecraft--the shape of things to come
« Reply #8 on: 06/05/2009 08:02 pm »
Given the nearly magical capabilities listed by Mr GI-Thruster it seems that all you really need for a GravInertial Spacecraft is some sort of solid-ish framework to which you may attach your thrusters.  An open lattice-work box (ala the Borg cube ships) may be the basic design.  Most of it open to space with pressurized compartents as needed. 

If you really want to push the paradigm presented - think about Jame Blish's 'Cities In Flight' novels.  I know - its science fiction - but thats what we are talking about here - almost....   In 'Cities' an anti-gravity device ("Spindizzy" due to what it does to electron spin) is discovered that is so efficient that entire cities could be uprooted and transported to other planets.   If the GI gizmos are that powerful it would be possible, if not very likely, to move entire structures, city blocks, entire cities, to other locales including other (interstellar) planets. 


Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 854
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 937
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: GravInertial Spacecraft--the shape of things to come
« Reply #9 on: 06/05/2009 09:49 pm »

Snip-

If you really want to push the paradigm presented - think about Jame Blish's 'Cities In Flight' novels.  I know - its science fiction - but thats what we are talking about here - almost....   In 'Cities' an anti-gravity device ("Spindizzy" due to what it does to electron spin) is discovered that is so efficient that entire cities could be uprooted and transported to other planets.   If the GI gizmos are that powerful it would be possible, if not very likely, to move entire structures, city blocks, entire cities, to other locales including other (interstellar) planets. 


It's interesting that you bring up "Cities in Flight" by James Blish and his use of the Blackett-Dirac Equation based "Spin-Dizzy" space drives, which were loosely based on the work of the British astronomer P. M. S. Blackett.  See: http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw41.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Blackett,_Baron_Blackett

Dr. Woodward started down the M-E research road back in the 1970s after doing research into Blackett's work which he reflects on in the following 2005 e-mail excerpt from him:

"In the '70s and '80s I was convinced that straight-forward E+M and GRT would not lead to any physics of interest in solving the propulsion / transport problem; that one would have to find "new physics" coupling E+M and GRT.  That's why I was interested in "non-minimally", or inductively coupled theories.  They are all (well all the physically interesting) theories are 5 (or more) dimensional theories.  The only remotely credible physical leads in this business were Faraday's attempts to show inductive couple of E+M and gravity, and Arthur Schuster's and P.M.S. Blackett's conjectures on rotational generation of magnetic fields by electrically neutral massive bodies.

The theory I used as a guide was a simple 5-D formalism developed by George Luchak to describe Blackett's conjecture.  It clearly displayed "non-minimal" coupling terms in the E+M equations.  And it appeared to show such terms in the gravity equation -- or so I thought at the time.

In the fall or 1989, after finding a calculational error, it dawned on me that the time-dependent term in the gravity equation really had nothing to do with "non-minimal" coupling.  The term was present only because of the inertial behavior of matter in a relativistically correct way of looking at things.  Being pretty slow, it took me several years to figure out the details of "Mach Effects".  That path can be traced in the papers I published on this between 1990 and 1995.

When I figured out that all that was needed to do the propulsion / transport thing was a correct understanding of inertia -- that no "new physics" was needed -- I was relieved and disappointed.  Disappointed because I knew then that no "new physics", and the attendant glory, was involved in what I was about.  Relieved because I foolishly thought that if no "new physics" was involved it would be relatively easy to convince main line physics types that they should pay attention to the arguments and experiments.  I have learned in the last 15 years that it's much harder to get people to pay attention to things that they think they already understand than it is to get them to pay attention to novel "new physics" types of stuff."


Now, just after I gave my AIAA/Houston 2009 Technical Symposium presentation on the M-E and its possible application, I sat down next to the retired lead manager (Guy Thibodaux) for the Apollo command and service modules reaction control system (RCS) and he asked me if I thought the M-E could be used for astrodynamics engineering, i.e., the reorganization of the planetary system around a star.  I told him that if the M-E drives are perfected, this was a real possibility.  A possibility that Greg Bear's "Moving Mars" book could become a reality.  Needless to say I was impressed with the fact that this 80+ year old engineer from the Apollo era immediately picked up on the possibilities that the M-E presents.

Meanwhile back to making the thing work now…
« Last Edit: 06/05/2009 10:23 pm by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3038
  • Liked: 294
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: GravInertial Spacecraft--the shape of things to come
« Reply #10 on: 06/06/2009 01:23 am »
Picture this:

A Mach-effect thruster capable of 1 N/W and (say) about a 10:1 thrust-to-weight ratio.

Stick four one-ton units on a big steel flywheel with a 3 metre radius.  Use conductive bearings or mercury brushes or something to get the necessary 400 kW onto the rotating structure. That's 400 kN, at 3 m.  Say 600 RPM (hooked to a 12-pole generator), so 188.5 m/s at the thrust radius.  Add a few MJ of ultracap to get the thing started.

Power out?  75.4 MW.  Useful (net) power out?  75.0 MW.

In other words, it looks, waddles, and quacks exactly like a perpetual motion machine of the first kind.  A big one.

Thrust from hooking the spacecraft's main drive (also 1 N/W) to a bank of four of these?  67 million pounds, or more than 30,000 metric tonnes.

A Polywell might offer more power in a smaller and lighter package, but I'm sure there are plenty of ways to improve the above design - the thrust/weight ratio of the Mach-effect units comes to mind...  Besides, a Polywell still needs to refuel every now and then...

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: GravInertial Spacecraft--the shape of things to come
« Reply #11 on: 06/06/2009 02:09 am »

In other words, it looks, waddles, and quacks exactly like a perpetual motion machine of the first kind.  A big one.


Yes well, you're just catching up.  We discussed this in another thread several times now.  But to catch you up, yes.  It does appear to look like an overunity device.  This is appearance only.

All M-E thrusters, either MLT or UFG or future designs, are NOT transducers, transforming electrical into kinetic energy, but rather are gravinertial transistors, opening a way to harvest and control gravinertial flux.  So you can't do the calculation in the manner you're attempting.  It's like complaining that a hydroelectric power generation system can't work because you neglected to account for the water!  If you did neglect the water, you would make the same complaint about a hydro plant

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3038
  • Liked: 294
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: GravInertial Spacecraft--the shape of things to come
« Reply #12 on: 06/06/2009 02:32 am »
Sheesh...  can't I have a little fun on a Friday evening?

I've been following the other thread since inception, and I know all about the Far-Off Active Mass coupling and all that.  The remaining issues are (a) whether the evidence to date really does indicate that the Mach effect is real, or whether someone screwed up somewhere, and (b) whether it's possible to scale it up to 1 N/W or better with a decent thrust-to-weight ratio (you'll note I basically picked a T/W value at random).

Incidentally, my back-of-the-eyelids design from when I was walking home from the institute today was in the GW range, but material strength limits forced the output down when the pencil met the phone bill envelope.  This technology will be very weird to design with if it works...

...can you see anything wrong with the design as proposed?

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: GravInertial Spacecraft--the shape of things to come
« Reply #13 on: 06/06/2009 02:34 am »
". . .The remaining issues are (a) whether the evidence to date really does indicate that the Mach effect is real, or whether someone screwed up somewhere, and (b) whether it's possible to scale it up to 1 N/W or better with a decent thrust-to-weight ratio. . ."

Absolutely true.  And with regards the former, this is precisely why Dr. Woodward's process is an entirely open one.  Anyone who thinks they see a problem is invited to vet it.  This is the opposite of pathological science where folks are protecting their faults.  Instead, Dr. Woodward has taken the time to go through the peer review process, to file for patents and to do very open science experiments in order to determine whether the physics is flawed.  To date it looks like its not but just as you say, someone could have screwed up.  You're invited to see if that's so.  None of us want to follow a crazy pipe dream.  Life is to precious to waste it on mistakes and broken dreams. . .

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2513
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: GravInertial Spacecraft--the shape of things to come
« Reply #14 on: 06/06/2009 03:04 am »
I want this:


I wanna live in an era where star travel is practical! Where I can chose wherever to go in holidays - on Europa of Jupiter or Alpha Centauri for the same amound of time.
It don't care how the ship would look like, all that matters is if it has FTL capacity. However for sure a round craft would look more elegant. Especially when it's strip out of sharp edges.

I want a pony ... and a sandwich :)

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: GravInertial Spacecraft--the shape of things to come
« Reply #15 on: 06/06/2009 05:42 am »
Picture this:

A Mach-effect thruster capable of 1 N/W and (say) about a 10:1 thrust-to-weight ratio.

Stick four one-ton units on a big steel flywheel with a 3 metre radius.  Use conductive bearings or mercury brushes or something to get the necessary 400 kW onto the rotating structure. That's 400 kN, at 3 m.  Say 600 RPM (hooked to a 12-pole generator), so 188.5 m/s at the thrust radius.  Add a few MJ of ultracap to get the thing started.

Power out?  75.4 MW.  Useful (net) power out?  75.0 MW.

In other words, it looks, waddles, and quacks exactly like a perpetual motion machine of the first kind.  A big one.

Thrust from hooking the spacecraft's main drive (also 1 N/W) to a bank of four of these?  67 million pounds, or more than 30,000 metric tonnes.

A Polywell might offer more power in a smaller and lighter package, but I'm sure there are plenty of ways to improve the above design - the thrust/weight ratio of the Mach-effect units comes to mind...  Besides, a Polywell still needs to refuel every now and then...

The problem here is you are making a lot of WAG in order to make it seem like a perpetual motion machine. Furthermore, as G-I said, you're ignoring the water (the energy potential) being used outside of the power being put in.

And yes, it does seem like a game changing technology that is too good to be true for many to swallow. So you have to ask yourself, what is the risk of it being true or false? If its false, we dont lose anything, were just in the same crappy situation we already are in wrt the gravity well. If it's true, then the universe is ours.

Do the cost benefit analysis. If I offered you a lottery ticket with a prize larger than the entire GDP of the US, yes, your bogosity sensor would be whooping. Thats the sane rational response. But thats truly what we are talking about here: this technology promises the owner the keys to the universe. Are we fans of space travel so jaded and cynical that we wouldn't risk a buck on a ticket in that lottery?

I rarely play the real lottery. The return on risk most of the time is below 1 (the distinction between gambling and investment is games of chance, esp since the house always gets a cut, have a return on risk of less than 1 dollar per dollar risked, while investments on average return more than a dollar per dollar risked on average). A state lottery, the state keeps 50 percent off the top. The other half, if you choose an annuity, you get in dribs and drabs over 20 years, the state makes as much as you do, and if you take the cash out instead, you really only get about 25-30% of the total revenues. Subtract a third for national/state income taxes, and generally speaking, the return on risk for a state lottery is about 15 cents on the dollar, UNLESS the prize accumulates when its not won. If odds of winning are 1 in 70 million, and the cash-out prize has accumulated to be over 91 million, then the return on risk is over 1 and has entered investment grade (albeit still high risk) territory. This is the only rational time for an intelligent person to buy a lottery ticket.

Now, lets apply this logic to high risk, high return technology concepts, like the mach effect thruster.

How much would it cost to develop this into a viable reference vehicle for a given mission (earth to orbit, earth to luna/mars/jupiter/the stars) capable of completing a trip in a matter of days (or in the case of the stars, reaching a respectably high percent of C)???

What is the potential economic return of developing such a technology?

What are the odds of this technology being valid and developable into a useful propulsion system?

These are the three key questions to ask.

Lets say the answers to questions A, B and C were as follows:
A: $10 million
B: $10 billion per year (discounting future revenues to present day, this is equivalent to about $250 billion in current dollars)
C: Odds:Lets be conservative and say there's less than 10% chance they are right.

Return on Risk: 25,000. Thus, taking into account the odds, the average return on risk would be 25,000 dollars per dollar risked.

Lets get more cynical and say theres only 1% chance that Woodward is right. The return on risk becomes 2500 dollar return per dollar risked ON AVERAGE.

Lets get really curmudgeonly and say theres only a 0.001% chance Woodward is right. The return on risk is still 2.5 bucks per dollar risked. That is an investment grade return of 250%, far in excess of anything seen by most people on any stock exchange anywhere unless they leave it sitting for over a decade.

So, the real question is, what do you think the answers to those three questions are?
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32552
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11357
  • Likes Given: 335
Re: GravInertial Spacecraft--the shape of things to come
« Reply #16 on: 06/06/2009 06:53 am »

This is exactly the sort of thinking that is lacking from the launch business.

It exists.  There are standardized adapters (37, 47, 62 inch) on the launch vehicles and the fairings are standard sizes (4m & 5m).  spacecraft

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3038
  • Liked: 294
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: GravInertial Spacecraft--the shape of things to come
« Reply #17 on: 06/06/2009 06:53 am »
Apparently I'm too subtle for you guys.

I was serious.  My scenario was not intended as anything other than a straight-up contribution to the thread.  I just yanked together some numbers because I don't have enough data on the parameter space to optimize the system.  I could have gotten a lot more power out for the same input, but the centrifugal loading on the flywheel was starting to look significant.

Now, admittedly I'm not entirely sure how this system avoids being a PMM of the second kind, but I haven't put anything like the amount of thought into it that would be necessary to back up a claim that it doesn't.  If the thruster works (cautious optimism), then it works, and in theory you should be able to do stuff like this.

Right?

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: GravInertial Spacecraft--the shape of things to come
« Reply #18 on: 06/06/2009 07:00 am »
Apparently I'm too subtle for you guys.

I was serious.  My scenario was not intended as anything other than a straight-up contribution to the thread.  I just yanked together some numbers because I don't have enough data on the parameter space to optimize the system.  I could have gotten a lot more power out for the same input, but the centrifugal loading on the flywheel was starting to look significant.

Now, admittedly I'm not entirely sure how this system avoids being a PMM of the second kind, but I haven't put anything like the amount of thought into it that would be necessary to back up a claim that it doesn't.  If the thruster works (cautious optimism), then it works, and in theory you should be able to do stuff like this.

Right?

And provided you measure the gravointertial potential being utilized by it and account for that potential in your energy budget, then it doesnt come out as a PMM any more than, as GI said, a hydroelectric dam. Or a windmill.

The way you are measuring it is like taking a nuclear plant, measuring the electricity going into the plant from the grid to run the facility, and treating that as the only energy in, totally ignoring that the output is actually coming from the fission reaction.
« Last Edit: 06/06/2009 07:02 am by mlorrey »
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: GravInertial Spacecraft--the shape of things to come
« Reply #19 on: 06/06/2009 07:06 am »

This is exactly the sort of thinking that is lacking from the launch business.

It exists.  There are standardized adapters (37, 47, 62 inch) on the launch vehicles and the fairings are standard sizes (4m & 5m).  spacecraft

I understand what you are saying, and I was aware of these adapters. What were talking about, though, is whether these adapters match up with standardized shipping container form factors used on land, sea and air, which enable freight containers to move from one mode of transport to another relatively seamlessly.

Conversely it is fair to say that the markets not there yet, the launch technology doesn't allow for the economies of scale that would make using C containers worthwhile, etc. However to use that as an excuse to not work to make the launch market set up to work that way only adds barriers to its eventual achievement.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Tags: