Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI
SpaceKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Space Forum / Space Policy / July 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Space Travel will save the world

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com - 29 Jun 2008 15:01 GMT
Space travel technology has already given us an extension of our writ
on this world, and saved us from premature destruction.   We will
survive only as long as we invest in space travel in the future.

The Past -ending warfare as we knew it.

Konstantin Tsiolkovsky a Russian math teacher worked out the
principles of rocket travel and in 1903 published his famous equation,
showing that it was possible to leave the Earth using rockets.
Goddard after reading a translation of Tsiolkovsky's paper in 1909
began working seriously on rockets.

Tsiolkovsky and Goddard stick out in my mind as part of that
generation that brought space travel to us by the middle of the 20th
century.  Tsiolkovsky, a math teacher, who worked out the principles
of rocket travel.  Goddard the experimentalist who worked out the
technical details of making working rockets and later advancing the
art of liquid fueled rockets.   Goddard built a number of rockets for
the military during the first world war.

Goddard was famous in the 1920s - and was supported by National
Geographic Society and Lindbergh among others in his efforts to reach
beyond Earth.  He inspired rocket societies around the world, not the
least being the German Rocket Society - with its members Werner
vonBraun and other notable rocket men in later years.

In 1905 as the details of rockets were being worked out, details of
the atom were being discovered - and Einstein showed us in his famous
paper of that year "Does the Inertia of a body depend on its energy
content?" that matter and energy were the same thing.

Since that time, people were thinking that perhaps someday the
tremendous energy held stationary within each and every particle of
nature might be released and used by human industry to transform life
on Earth from one of deprivation, to one of plenty.

On September 12, 1933, the famous physicist Lord Rutherford was quoted
in The Times of London as saying that anyone that looked to the atom
as a potential source of power was "talking moonshine."

The Hungarian theoretical physicist Leo Szilard who left Germany at
the start of World War 2 to live in London, later said,
"Pronouncements of experts to the effect that something cannot be done
have always irritated me." As a consequence, as Szilard stopped on a
street corner in London’s Southampton Row after reading the article
waiting for the light to change, he was thinking of how Rutherford
might be proved wrong.

As the light changed to green and he began to walk across the street,
he realized that the solution was to find an element that would be
split when struck by neutrons and would release two neutrons for every
neutron that it absorbed.

With a large enough quantity of this element a chain reaction could be
created, with two neutrons becoming four, four becoming eight, and so
on. This simple, yet profound insight, would lead to nuclear power
plants, and their more sinister cousins, atomic bombs.

On December 2, 1942 in Chicago's Stagg field, the first self-
sustaining nuclear reactor was built that realized Szilard's vision.
On July 16, 1945 - the first atomic bomb was detonated at the
Alamagordo Gunnery and Bombing Range.

The first use of the atomic bomb in warfare quickly followed - on
August 6, 1945 against the Japanese city of Hiroshima.  On August 9,
1945 another bombing followed against the Japanese city of Nagasaki.
On August 15, 1945 Japan announced its surrender to the Allied Powers
and World War 2 was at an end.

Even though in the previous year 67 Japanese cities were firebombed by
the allies using conventional weapons, it was the attack and total
destruction of two cities, each by a single bomber, carrying a single
bomb, to each city that killed 140,000 people outright, and led to
cessation of hostilities.

Rocketry development paralelled the development of atomics during this
era.  The German Rocket Society disbanded under the NAZIs, later had
its most prominent members working for the German Wehmacht, which
built the V1 and V2 rockets that bombed England and Belgium.   The V1
was the first cruise missile.  The V2 the first sub-orbital rocket.

Project Amerika was to build a two-stage rocket using the V2 as an
upper stage it would be capable of reaching across the Pacific from
Germany to bomb New York City with a German atomic bomb.  The V2 was
also known as the A9 which would ride atop an A10 rocket.   An A11
would carry the V2 into space as a 3 stage rocket.  A12 would turn the
A11/A9 upper stages into a space transporter that would carry 10 tons
into LEO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregate_series#A9

This all by 1940s.

In 1946 Convair built the MX-774 rocket for the USA derived from
captured V2s.  In 1951 the USA began the Atlas program which resulted
in a space capable rocket in 1957.  In 1953 the Russian space engineer
Korolov built the R1 - a copy of the V2 based on captured materials.
Later Korolov evolved his own rocket design the R7 - the first of
which was launched in August 1957, and the second flight in October
1957, orbited the first satellite Sputnik, which led to the space race
between the USA and USSR.

The ability to orbit the earth implies the ability to strike at any
part of the Earth from any other part of the Earth.  The ability to
destroy a city with a single device carried aboard an orbital vehicle
means that anyone anywhere with the technical means to do so can
destroy any city anywhere on Earth.

The entire world is now the front line of a new battlefield.

Before the development of this capability, humanity fought two global
wars - calling into question our ability to usefully manage what
science and technology have given industrial humanity - not only do
humans grow and can beans with tremendous efficiency using modern
industrial techniques, but humans also are able to dispense death with
amazing efficiency as well, using the same industrial techniques;

World War 2 -   72,000,000 died - 1939-1945
World War 1 -   59,000,000 died - 1914-1918

For comparison

Vietnam War -     5,000,000 dies - 1945-1975

Atomics and rockets magnified our capacity for destruction many times
- leading to the real possibility that humans could nearly extinguish
themselves from the face of the Earth by fighting a global
thermonuclear war

World War 3 -  6,600,000,000 died - present day

The prospect of nuclear annihilation had led to a situation where all
out global war is unthinkable.  This led to the Cold War and the
posturing of the world's super powers throughout the latter half of
the 20th century.  Despite increasingly difficult regional and civil
wars - no all out war has been fought following the development of
rockets and atomics that gave us the capacity for nuclear
annihlation.   In this sense, the development of these technologies,
the technologies that have the capacity to take us to the stars, gave
us first the impetus toward global peace.

Control of terror, and the propensity toward terror acts, along with
the exitence of loose nukes, in the modern era, will lead toward a
more inclusive, and practical system of instituting world peace.  This
too will use the results of space faring technology, space
communications, space sensing, space navigation.

The Present - tying the world together

Sputnik 1 carries a radio relay that operated at 20 and 40 MHz.   AT&T
and British General Post Office orbited Telstar 1 in 1962 to provide
radio relay across the Atlantic between Britain and the USA.   Syncom
3 was the first satellite launched to GEO in 1964 - to televise the
Japanese 1964 summer Olympics.

Since that time hundreds of satellites have been orbited, to provide a
wide range of information services - tying our world tightly
together.   We have moved from early satellites which communicated
from one point to another point - so called point to point
transmissions -to more direct broadcast satellites - that communicate
one to many receivers.   Today the frontier of communications is many
to many - with systems like Teledesic and Iridium.  Ultimately, the
entire Earth will be a wireless hot spot with a seamless digital
information resource available everywhere.   This provides the basis
of a global economy and cooperation among all governments of the world
to achieve mutually beneficial goals.

This is the second great benefit of space travel

The Future - meaning in the modern world

Werner vonBraun began research on a 1 million lb thrust engine in 1953
- and established the feasability of such an engine by 1955.    A
400,000 lb thrust engine was built and test fired by 1956 in Santa
Susana California.  The largest in history up to that time.   A
1,000,000 lb thrust test stand was activated in 1956.   In 1957 a 1.5
million lb thrust engine - the F1 - was designed.  In 1958 a contract
to build these engines was let.   In  January 1959 a 1 million lb
thrust engine was demonstrated.  Later that year, in March, the first
F1 - a 1.5 million lb thrust engine was test fired.  In June, the
first serious study of flight to the moon was begun using the results
of these tests.

In 1965 the first test firing of a fully configured S-1C first stage
was completed, also the S-II was test fired, the same month.  A month
later the SIVB was test fired.   A month later, all 3 stages fired -
simulating a lunar mission - was completed.

May 1966 - the first full scale Saturn V Apollo spacecraft combination
rolled out at the Cape - AS-500F pathfinder test.

Following a series of explosions with the SIVB, a fire during a ground
test in the Apollo capsule, and budgetary cutbacks due to the
escalating costs of Vietnam and entitlement programs - the moon
program was delayed and costs escalated.

Nov 1967 - SA-501 - test launch of an unpiloted Saturn V rocket
Apr 1968 - SA-502 - test launch of an unpiloted Saturn V rocket
Dec 1968 - Apollo 8 - first manned circumlunar flight

In December 1968 three astronauts orbited the Moon and broadcast
images of the Earth back to Earth in the vicinity of the moon.  The
high quality photos they returned to Earth released a revolutionary
idea - of the Earth as a single place in the cosmos.  With that idea,
related ideas began to surface.  That the Earth - as a planet - had
common problems, that humanity - as a single people -have common
issues.   With these ideas, radical concepts, that previously seemed
irrelevant to many became central - and meaningful and gave rise to a
plethora of movements and issues - not the least of which was a outre
concept called the Environmental Movement.  The image of Earth from
the moon, the blue marble taken that December still emblazons the
Earth Flag - which embodies the hopes and dreams of many

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_flag

Later, some of the astronauts that went to the moon, and returned to
Earth, were transformed by their experience.  Some of these were
motivated to create institutes to further the insights they gathered
from their experience

http://www.noetic.org/

So, space travel as it has been practiced has changed the world for
the better.  It has ended modern industrial warfare as practiced in
the first half of the 20th century.  It has tied the world together
creating a common vehicle for commerce and politics.  It has given us
insight to our place in the cosmos, and informed us and organized us
going forward.

Next, I will discuss what we can expect today of this capacity, and
where it might lead us in the future.
Martha Adams - 29 Jun 2008 16:16 GMT
Space travel technology has already given us an extension of our writ
on this world, and saved us from premature destruction.   We will
survive only as long as we invest in space travel in the future.

The Past -ending warfare as we knew it....

<Large message/small dissertation, well worth reading
but clipped here in interest of moving on....>

===================================================

In short, Larry Niven's words (approximately): "The reason
there are no dinosaurs today is they didn't have a space
program."

I.e., we can be foolish and in a few million years, nature
can come up with something else.  What Niven should have
said was not "space program" but "space settlements
program."  Thus when Terra gets blasted, as is absolutely
certain to happen sooner or later, our species being solar
system oriented not Terra oriented any more, survives.

How can that happen?  The outline is there in small scale
in our own history.  Think of the settlement of the
American East Coast in the later 1500's and in the 1600's,
or of the railroad system development in the early to mid
1800's.  And we can see lessons in that.

One of which is, the core people who participate and make
these things happen, create large fortunes which last
over generations.  They risk all they have; they overwork;
some die and some succeed: I think this is in short, the
future of space settlement.  *If* we can find people who
are strong enough today to do it; if we can build the
needed social and engineering organizations; if our local
governments don't strangle such society changing efforts
because they'd ...rock the boat.

I wonder if the people in this newsgroup have enough
capacity for clear original thinking; the maturity to
work things through and express them usefully, to
contribute to an objective of off-Terra settlements
with functional business ecologies, and make someone
very rich as well as improve the odds for us humans
to continue our line into the remote future?  ??

Titeotwawki -- mha  [sci.space.policy 2008 Jun 29]
kT - 29 Jun 2008 16:22 GMT
> I wonder if the people in this newsgroup have enough
> capacity for clear original thinking; the maturity to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> very rich as well as improve the odds for us humans
> to continue our line into the remote future?  ??

I think that the people here who are actually performing these kinds of
experiments, Martha, are rather more concerned with a functional 'LIFE
SUPPORT SYSTEM' ecologies, you know, one that cleans the air, recycles
the water, produces food and oxygen and thus keeps the astronauts alive.

You have capitalism on the brain, Martha, as do most right wing cranks.
BradGuth - 29 Jun 2008 20:56 GMT
> > I wonder if the people in this newsgroup have enough
> > capacity for clear original thinking; the maturity to
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> You have capitalism on the brain, Martha, as do most right wing cranks.

Her being another Zionist/Nazi supporter, the likes of DARPA and
William Mook, means that her motives and goals are always justified by
the actions and means taken.  There's no need of remorse with the
likes of such loyal DARPA supporters.

So, it's actually much worse off than mere "capitalism on the brain".

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com - 30 Jun 2008 03:45 GMT
> > I wonder if the people in this newsgroup have enough
> > capacity for clear original thinking; the maturity to
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> You have capitalism on the brain, Martha, as do most right wing cranks.

You are being discourteous - and disingenous. Systems that work
efficiently are emergent systems.  The marketplace when it works well,
is one such system.  It does have a common mode failure, its reliance
on scalar values.   This was proven by Arrow a half century ago.

Centralized control is a virtual guaranteed recipe for death by common
mode failure.  All collapsed cultures were centrally controlled - and
single minded in their pursuit of the centrally mandated goal.
Whether it be greater profits, more perfect socialist ideals, more
Easter Island heads, or smarter weapons.

Our dominance was surrendered for a faulty idea that we thought
brought us national security.   We thought it important to abandon our
core values to protect ourselves in the nuclear age, to avoid a
nuclear Pearl Harbor.  So, as a result, we created secrets and
societies to watch over those secrets isolated from every mechanism of
control and oversight and accountability.

We created a disparity of income based on a faulty and changing
premise of wealth and created an environment that guaranteed that we
become subject to negative attention going forward that brought about
the very thing we feared.   In the process we also took a world that
honored and respected us as a nation and caused it to revile us - by
following ill-concieved faulty policies that guarantee our eventual
destruction if continued for much longer.

We need to go beyond politics of right wing or left wing -as they're
both flawed - go beyond the politics as usual and seek to construct
real solutions to real problems facing us.  I have limited myself to
the technology of survival by moving beyond the center into the
frontier to develop new resources.   However, I have also given some
thoughts to the problems posed by Arrow and Schumpeter - and come up
with a possible solution to those as well.
kT - 30 Jun 2008 03:51 GMT
> We need to go beyond politics of right wing or left wing -as they're
> both flawed - go beyond the politics as usual and seek to construct
> real solutions to real problems facing us.

Like for instance, sustainable life support systems using the resources
we already have at our disposal? But you know humans, they go ape sh.t.

> I have limited myself to
> the technology of survival by moving beyond the center into the
> frontier to develop new resources.

It won't make any difference at all, the apes will still go ape sh.t.

sh.t, f.ck, piss, eat - more ape babies.

Space won't help them at all.

You might try ... education.
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com - 30 Jun 2008 13:15 GMT
> Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > We need to go beyond politics of right wing or left wing -as they're
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Like for instance, sustainable life support systems using the resources
> we already have at our disposal?

How does that work exactly?   You got that worked out?   Fact is, we
need to reach beyond the center to the resources of our frontier.
Fact is, we are already farming every square inch of land the best we
can, and still 3 billion go to bed hungry and 300,000 die every day of
malnutrition.

You think we should use scientific farming methods instead of
susbsistence farming everywhere we can?   Good idea Bongo.   Howd does
that work exactly?  You got that all worked out do you?  I'd love to
see the plan.  Fact is, we can't scientifically farm every square inch
of arable land, we don't have the resources to do it.

The USA and its Cold War Allies are in a sweet spot - that technology
and terrestrial resources cannot sustain, let alone EXPAND to include
everyone on Earth in a growing vital economy.

There are two solutions possibles;

 1) tap the resources off-world
 2) collapse

That's it.    We can't magically wave the technology wand and make do
with everything here.   You gonna quote me about the great advances
we've had with computers?   Why don't you look at capacitors - and
specifically - the tantalum required for high performance capacitors.
Or what about the great advances in head phones eh?   You know, back
in the day, we had Old School headphones - and microphones too.  And
to get any good quality they were as big a freaking blackberry on each
ear!   and they used a lot of power too!   Well, today - we've got
super magnets - made the lollypop microphones and softball sized
headphones into point mikes - and ear buds - vastly reducing power -
why we do that with our cars and homes - my God - they'll be plenty
for everyone right?

How does that work exactly?   Look at the mining of Neodymium.   You
want to know what's propping up the murder states of Africa right
now?   Yep, those earbuds and i-pods, and all the rest have blood on
them - you couldn't make enough batteries, capacitors, and other
advanced technology gizmos for 3 billion people let alone 8 billion
people every 4 years or so - the life time of most equipment.

Even today, though, getting your ipod at a price you can afford
requires that the raw material be extracted by slave labor in a murder
state, and assembled by indentured technicians living in a Communist
slave state.   And that will last only as long as there are enough
strategic materials to keep the process working.   Who are bearing the
real cost of declining reserves?   The slaves who are murdered by the
millions searching every square inch of their land for the rare
materials demanded by the owners of this planet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7472650.stm

> But you know humans, they go ape sh.t.

Seeing our raw materials shortages as a personality defect in humans
generally is an interesting response.  I guess it must be an artifiact
of the propaganda they feed the consumers to keep them blind to the
damage they do and the human costs they incur to maintain their
'lifestyle'.

> > I have limited myself to
> > the technology of survival by moving beyond the center into the
> > frontier to develop new resources.

Really?  How much lithium have you mined today?   How much lithium do
you use?
How much oil have you pumped today?   How much oil do you use?
How much platinum did you refine today?   How much platinum did you
use?
How much tantalum did you smelt today?  How much tantalum do you use?
How much copper did you mine today?   How much copper did you use?

I could go on with about 100 strategic materials - and continue on to
over 1,000 less strategic materials - and I would bet that you don't
even know your footprint let alone know how to maintain your standard
of living with a reduced foot print.

And before you answer none -you use ALL those materials I listed, just
by being able to communicate with me on the internet.   Do you know
what your footprint is for tantalum?   Count the capacitors in your
computer, and in the communications link and power supply that feeds
it - and all the other systems you touch...

> It won't make any difference at all, the apes will still go ape sh.t.

You are blind and stupid and ignorant of the facts - and have nothing
of real importance to say as a result.

> sh.t, f.ck, piss, eat - more ape babies.

Interesting.   If you don't like babies, why the f.ck are you alive?
What is the point of your existence?

Let me give you the only answer that works.

Taking care of one another is the only worthwhile activity on this
planet for humans.   We are doing a shitty job of it - that's because
the wise guys that work for the owners of this planet - have
determined we cannot take care of one another with the resources at
our disposal.   Technology has got us into a trap - according to these
wise guys.  That trap is - technology has increased population above
sustainable levels - and given us nuclear weapons and all sorts of
horrible killing machines.   The owner's problem is to maintain their
position while managing a 'die down' of human numbers to a more
reasonable level.   That's the most favorable version of the collapse
scenario I mentioned above.   Problem is, its incredibly rosy
scenario.   Problem is, certain of the hired hands for the owners are
making their own plans to take advantage of the 'die down' of human
numbers.   They're secretly supporting terror cells that naturally
arise when people's lives are frustrated.   By frustrated I mean
getting your family blown up in front of your face because you didn't
want to mine copper for nothing while your babies were sick.  That
sort of frustration.  Survivors of this mayhem are motivated and
willing to undergo any hardship to get back at the people they think
are responsible.  These are perfect tools for the hired hands who are
secretly plotting against the owners.   The owners can even be
engineered into training and supplying these terror cells.   Al Queda
for instance, were our boys in Afghanistan when we wanted a proxy
force to kick the Russian's a.s.   They were efficiently turned
against the owners, and their leaders are hiding in the hinterlands of
the hired hands.   Gang members - outcasts among the owners - and bad
boys generally - are urged to join the Armies of the owners to get
training - then, when those bad boys learn to kill efficiently, they
leave the Army and start a revolutionary cell of their own in the very
heartland of the owners - supplied with guns and drugs and money by
the hired hands.   Meanwhile, loose nukes and nuclear technology are
flowing throughout the lands of the hired hands - into the control of
the terror groups.   So, a less rosy scenario for the owners of this
planet, is the detonation of a few loose nukes in their major cities -
with the rising up of highly militarized 'gangs' at every surviving
city center - and the owners will be put down - while the hired hands
take over - assuring that the owners will bear the brunt of the die
down - rather than ride the crest on the back of impoverished
billions.

Of course these are just variations in the collapse of human
numbers.   Anyone looking back at our current age - in a post collapse
world - will properly see it as a golden era of opportunity and
adventure - if you're smart enough to see it.   After collapse we
won't have the resources, we won't have the people, we won't have the
talent, we won't have the skills - of a planet of 6.6 billion people -
we'll be struggling with perhaps 1 billion people and space travel
will be a remote fantasy.

> Space won't help them at all.

Yes it will.  It is the ONLY thing that will help us.   The owners of
this planet don't want widespread missile or nuclear technology for
obvious reason, so they have gone out of their way to create the
fiction that space travel is necessarily expensive, dangerous and
impractical.   I was told this flat out in Washington back in the
1990s.  Teledesic and Iridium were taking the next logical step in
satellite development - many to many - this required a lot of
satellites - and it created a lot of value when done well.   So, I
started a company, Orbatek - to build a two-stage reusable launcher
around off-the-shelf hardware.   Of course, you can't even advertise
such a program without getting approvals, so I went to Washington to
the DOT to get the approvals needed.   As I developed my program, I
ran into a number of interesting people.  Most interesting were the
folks at the Pentagon.   I had a frank discussion with a Colnel
there.   You cannot do this cheaply!  he said.  Mistaking his comment
for a statement of fact, I went on to show how I could do all this
within my budget.  No, he said, you CANNOT do this cheaply.   Why?  I
asked.  Because $500 million is a hefty sum for you to raise - but its
easy for nations like Korea or India, or you name it, to raise.  You
succeed in building an orbital vehicle for less than $1 billion - you
succeed in making it reliable and all the rest - and you are sending
the wrong signal.  Missile proliferation will be a thing of the past.
Every tin pot dictator in the world will create a space program and
have missiles within 3 years of your first successful launch - so you
CANNOT do this cheaply.   Got it?

I thought the guy was mad.

But, Connestoga went up in flames.  Iridium and Teledesic went bye
bye.   Rotary rocket was a fiasco.  Why?  Because it scared the owners
of this planet with the potential that they would lose their grip on
the control of technologies they have come to regard as their own.

We have avoided progress because progress scared the powers that be.
This insures our ultimate failure.  The powers that be think they're
insuring their survival.

> You might try ... education.

Right, and the first one I'm educating is you you arrogant blow hard!
lol.   Terrestrial solar is an off-world resource that arrives here
with very little effort.   So, its the first off-world resource we
will use.  Humanity spends about $8 trillion per year on food and $4
trillion per year on energy, and $2 trillion per year on 'defense'
basically maintaining the power structure that keeps the food and
energy flowing in the right direction at the right prices.

This is where we start.

This is where the opportunity lies.

Develop a solar powered replacement for fossil fuels.

Using the profits from this operation, capture rich asteroids, bring
them into orbit around Earth, and using tele-robotics -which allow
everyone everywhere to work in a civilized way in space - and solar
power in space, process those asteroids in space, into products that
are then distributed world-wide to everyone everywhere using GPS
guided entry vehicles.

Use captured asteroids and orbiting factories that process them, to
make large numbers of pressure vessels that then use tele-robotic
systems to grow food and distribute it globally at low cost.

Expand the number and size of pressure vessels to grow forests in
space, and distribute fiber along with food to everyone on Earth.

Use captured asteroidal resources and orbiting factories, along with
tele-robotic labor and solar power to build aerostat cities powered by
laser beams from space - similar to 'cloud nine' cities envisioned by
Buckminster Fuller back in the 1960s.

These aerostat cities circulate around Earth supplying materials and
know-how to disaster areas - and rescuing populations - by removing
them from harms way.   Providing a decent place to live, medical care,
food, training a decent job - and a fair and balanced financial
services program to accumulate wealth - to anyone who asks -

Use captured asteroidal resources and orbiting factories, along with
tele-robotic labor and solar power to build large numbers of
autonomous fliers that use beamed laser energy from space to power
propulsive skins that implement personal ballistic transport systems
at extremely low cost.   People first rent, then fractionally own, and
then own outright - personal veihcles that span the globe in less than
an hour.

Use captured asteroidal resources and orbiting factories powered by
sunlight, with tele-robotic labor - to build pressure vessels that
operate as independent space homes on orbit - supplied by the very
system that build them.  People use their personal ballistic transport
systems to attain orbit - and shuttle back and forth between Earth and
their space home.   Most stay at home and use telerobotics to go to
work, and telepresence to socialize.

The energy and material resources of the inner solar system are
adequate to all our foreseeable needs for growth of the human culture
through this difficult time of transition.   This is important to
know.   The more that know it, the more we will make rational
decisions going forward - rather than the continuing stream of
irrational decisions based firmly in insane belief systems or the
fantasy of self serving propaganda.
kT - 30 Jun 2008 14:52 GMT
>> Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> We need to go beyond politics of right wing or left wing -as they're
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> How does that work exactly?

Well, nothing is exact in nature, but it roughly uses photons and
nutrients to grow plants and trees.

> You got that worked out?

Pretty much. The trick is to do it in space.

> Fact is, we
> need to reach beyond the center to the resources of our frontier.

Fact is, the only reason we have to reach out is that we have f.cked our
way into a serious overpopulation problem, and we have dumbed ourselves
down into a serious educational problem. Barack Obama has got it right.

> Fact is, we are already farming every square inch of land the best we
> can, and still 3 billion go to bed hungry and 300,000 die every day of
> malnutrition.

f.ck! That seems to be the mammalian solution.

> You think we should use scientific farming methods instead of
> susbsistence farming everywhere we can?

I think we should stop f.cking our children, and start educating them.

> Good idea Bongo.   Howd does
> that work exactly?  You got that all worked out do you?  I'd love to
> see the plan.

It's rather what you don't see - f.cking children.

If only the Catholic clergy would see the light.

> Fact is, we can't scientifically farm every square inch
> of arable land, we don't have the resources to do it.

But we do have the resources to stop f.cking and start educating.

[snip - I don't have time for it right now, maybe later]
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com - 30 Jun 2008 17:10 GMT
kT

Most of humanity has never seen the inside of a classroom.  Most of
humanity hasn't even elementary education.  Most of humanity could
possess Phds, that won't increase the reserves of needed raw
materials.

So your comments about dumbing down, and about f.cking children are
merely red-herrings designed to radicalize the discussion and bury the
relevant issues in a sea of highly emotional irrelevancies.   Besides,
education is something wealthy societies do for themselves.
Education, like environmentalism, is a luxury item.   If we are less
educated today than we were 50 years ago, its because we're poorer
than we were 50 years ago.  Why?  Because the commodities on which our
industrial world are based are limited and their costs are rising -
subtracting from our wealth - thus, those things we buy with our
wealth, go wanting.

So,

The relevant facts are;

 1) there are a handful of strategic materials (including oil) that
are in short supply
 2) modern industry requires these materials in increasing quantity
 3) rising living standards among larger populations increase demand
for these materials
 4) We have two choices;
       a) expand the availability of these materials by tapping off
world resources
       b) collapse our demand by radical reduction in use

4a) involves developing off world resources using existing space
faring techniques
4b) involves a die off of human populations

Since the 1950s our society has elected to covertly manage 4b and
manage the global information environment to avoid all blame, pointing
out that we didn't cause 4b, but we certainly have a right to manage
events to they don't affect us.

Others don't see it that way, and any idea that we can usefully manage
collapse and remain unaffected is a greater fantasy than any space
travel scenario you can imagine.

4a) proceeds as follows;

     1) Terrestrial solar replaces fossil fuel use
     2) Develop RLV technology, deploy global wireless broadband
     3) Expand RLV technology, deploy powersats
     4) Develop NPP technology, capture asteroids to LEO
     5) Deploy tele-operated factories to LEO
     6) Distribute needed materials throughout the world
     7) Expand space manufacturing to include farming, forestry
     8) Distribute needed foods and fibers throughout the world
     9) Distribute aerostat cities to act as warehouses, and relief
centers
    10) Distribute personal ballistic transport vehicles
    11) Develop space homes

The profits in step #1 will be used to;

      1a) develop inflatable homes and green houses
      1b) develop tele-robotics and tele-presence technologies

Step #2 will expand upon 1b) to provide jobs and financial services
for everyone on demand.  So, we will quickly have reasonable housing
and jobs everywhere - relatively quickly.  Each home will have a
teleoperated robot in it, to provide a means to RECEIVE services as
well as tele-operation suites to provide services - and of course a
wide range of video and audio services.  So, medical care and hands on
training is quickly available to many.

Asteroid capture and development will take 12 years from the day the
program starts.   It may be 3 to 8 years from today before the program
starts - so we're 15 to 20 years out on that.   It may be possible to
work the issue other ways prior to this.

Once we have adequate supplies of raw materials, and capacity on
orbit, we are perfectly suited to resolve all the remaining supply
problems - and permit resolution of many issues going forward.
kT - 30 Jun 2008 18:10 GMT
> kT
>
> Most of humanity has never seen the inside of a classroom.  Most of
> humanity hasn't even elementary education.  Most of humanity could
> possess Phds, that won't increase the reserves of needed raw
> materials.

Thus, the problems. Admittedly, we have made great strides since the
pioneer and renaissance days, but since the post Sputnik educational
era, America has demonstrably degenerated into television nonsense,
propaganda, religious indoctrination, and babysitting Generation Xers.

> So your comments about dumbing down, and about f.cking children are
> merely red-herrings designed to radicalize the discussion and bury the
> relevant issues in a sea of highly emotional irrelevancies.

No, the root of the problem is ignorance. I'm all for giving the rubes
the space program they will need to survive in the future, but that
won't solve the fundamental problems of society - dogmatic nonsense.

Have you even bothered to look at American television and the media
lately, I just turn it on to see the degeneration occur before my eyes.

> Besides, education is something wealthy societies do for themselves.

America is not wealthy, America is broke and heavily in debt :

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Hence, the endless barrage of daily propaganda, on television, in the
media, in our schools and in our churches. It's all complete sh.t,
unless you don't have the education to recognize it for what it is.

> Education, like environmentalism, is a luxury item.

Sure, like air, water, food and shelter.

> If we are less
> educated today than we were 50 years ago, its because we're poorer
> than we were 50 years ago.

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

> Why?

Because of commercial, political and religious propaganda in lieu of a
good practical post Sputnik education.

> Because the commodities on which our
> industrial world are based are limited and their costs are rising -
> subtracting from our wealth - thus, those things we buy with our
> wealth, go wanting.

No, it's the wanting, instead of the needing.

> So,

What. You completely are wrapped up in your own materialism.

[snip]
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com - 30 Jun 2008 21:18 GMT
> Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > kT
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Thus, the problems.

Classrooms will not resolve the world's immediate problems - an
adequate supply of a handful of strategic materials will.   Why are
you so focused on obscuring this fact?

> Admittedly, we have made great strides since the
> pioneer and renaissance days,

We are speaking of humanity in total.  3 billion have not seen any
progress since those days.   This is all besides the point.  Education
is what wealthy societies buy with their wealth.  You are creating an
unsolvable problem by ignoring reality.   Saying that education is the
solution to poverty is about a smart as saying malls are the solution
to poverty since that's where all the stuff is.   Malls along with
educational institutions are the products of a wealthy society not the
causes of wealth.   The source of wealth in the modern industrial
world are a list of a handful of strategically important materials.
The world has about 10% of what's needed for everyone to live the
American dream.   That's the problem.  Education won't fix it.   Using
materials more efficiently won't fix it.  Only getting more materials
will fix it - or reducing the number of people drastically will fix
it.    We are headed toward a die off, using space travel technology
to capture the materials we need and bring them to earth in a safe
controllable way - is another way - that is what I am promoting in
this thread.

> but since the post Sputnik educational
> era, America has demonstrably degenerated into television nonsense,

Relative to what?   Like I said, in real terms, America was at its
peak in the 1960s.  Since then, in real terms, we've lost ground
economically.  Obviously, education being a product of wealth,
education suffers as we decline in economic surplus.

> propaganda, religious indoctrination, and babysitting Generation Xers.

These are words, they do not connote a logical or cogent argument
about anything.  I guess that's a reflection of your poor educational
attainment.   You really need to construct a logical argument in order
to have a meaningful conversation.

> > So your comments about dumbing down, and about f.cking children are
> > merely red-herrings designed to radicalize the discussion and bury the
> > relevant issues in a sea of highly emotional irrelevancies.
>
> No, the root of the problem is ignorance.

The root of the problem I am discussing, is not merely an American
problem, its a global problem.  Namely, insufficient material
resources to sustain everyone at a living standard where things like a
decent education are universally possible.   The rising cost of
commodities, principally energy, since the 1960s have eroded real
wealth in the USA, this has had a deliterious effect on education -
which is the product of a wealthy society, not the cause of a wealthy
society.    Your comments might be accurate in some sense, they are
however not germaine to the argument.  You would know this if you were
better educated!  lol.  Or if you do know this, you would realize it
if you were being honest in your argumentation.

> I'm all for giving the rubes

The propensity of people to label and denigrate others is a problem in
creating a sustainable society.

> the space program they will need to survive in the future,

As I keep saying, educational attainment is something people buy with
surplus wealth.  Education doesn't create surplus wealth.   It has
zero impact on our immediate problems of energy and food shortfalls.
We must do something else.  We must capture solar energy from off-
world and make use of it industrially.  We must capture raw materials
off world and bring it to Earth in a controllable way.  We must then
export our industry off world to ease our burden on the environment.
We can do all these things with technology easily available today, and
once we do all these things, universal education will be the norm -
and the quality will be far higher than it is today.

> but that
> won't solve the fundamental problems of society - dogmatic nonsense.

You label things in such a generic way it is difficult to see what
you're saying.  In fact you have no argument.  You are arguing against
'dogmatic nonsense'  - who wouldn't agree with that?   The central
point - which you've avoided to delineate in a logical or meaningful
way - is what is dogmatic nonsense and how is it creating the raw
materials shortfalls humanity is facing?   Fact is, you haven't a
clue, you're just running your mouth - and have nothing of real value
to contribute to this conversation.

> Have you even bothered to look at American television and the media
> lately,

Doing so will do nothing to increase the number of barrels of proved
reserves, or number of kilotons of tantalum in the Congo, or make it
any easier to extract.   So, you even asking this question proves that
you haven't even read with understanding my first points - which means
you're not contributing in any meaningful way to my point - that Space
Travel will Save the World!

> I just turn it on to see the degeneration occur before my eyes.

No, you seek things that inflate your ego and allow you to call others
rubes - and feel good about yourself.   This makes you part of the
problem, not part of the solution.   Wake up and actually read what is
written here and then maybe you can make a meaningful cogent and
useful statement.   Up to now, this has not happened.

> > Besides, education is something wealthy societies do for themselves.
>
> America is not wealthy, America is broke and heavily in debt :

Non-sequitor.  America is the wealthiest society on the planet.   With
300 million people it generates $13 trillion per year.   The rest of
the world by comparison possesses 6,300 million people and generates
$53 trillion per year. By any measure it has the best secondary
education system in the world, and one of the leading primary
education systems of any society.   The quality has eroded in recent
times, but this is due to fundamental reduction in of wealth in real
terms over the past 50 years due to escalating commodity prices.

> http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Immaterial to the points we're discussing.   By any measure America is
the wealthiest nation on Earth.

> Hence, the endless barrage of daily propaganda, on television, in the
> media, in our schools and in our churches. It's all complete sh.t,

This is to hide from the American people the reason they occupy a
superior economic position in the world relative to all others.

> unless you don't have the education to recognize it for what it is.

There's your ego again, strutting around acting all superior and
sh.t.  lol.  Idiot.

> > Education, like environmentalism, is a luxury item.
>
> Sure, like air, water, food and shelter.

Obviously, you don't understand the basics, so why discuss anything
with you?   You clearly have nothing useful to contribute to this
conversation.  So, why do you go out of your way to hi jack it and
fill it with your illogical stupid bullshit?   You're a freaking crank
who has not clue about anything.   Give it up and move on.

> > If we are less
> > educated today than we were 50 years ago, its because we're poorer
> > than we were 50 years ago.
>
> What came first, the chicken or the egg?

In 1970 the production of oil in the USA peaked.   From 1870 to 1970
the cost of oil declined at a rate of about 5% per year.   Since 1970
the cost of oil has increased an average of about 8% per year.  The
cost of energy determines the cost of everything else in an industrial
society.   In real terms, our wealth began to erode starting in the
1970s.  We had to go off the gold standard a few years after, and then
the S&Ls collapsed, and things got worse from there on out.

Obviously, increasing commodity prices have eroded our wealth, and
that shortfall in real wealth translates to less education, which
results in the sorts of transformations you speak of.   Clearly, this
is a minor problem compared to the underlying problem of resource
shortages.  Plainly building up the capacity of everyone in the world
so we can ALL benefit from eduction - is a far more daunting task than
the one you delineate.   You are merely calling people rubes you don't
agree with and saying nothing of value.

> > Why?
>
> Because of commercial, political and religious propaganda in lieu of a
> good practical post Sputnik education.

These are the results of spending relatively less in real terms on
education - they're not the cause of real spending decreases.

> > Because the commodities on which our
> > industrial world are based are limited and their costs are rising -
> > subtracting from our wealth - thus, those things we buy with our
> > wealth, go wanting.
>
> No, it's the wanting, instead of the needing.

Obviously you missed the point.   You buy education with surplus
wealth.  Reduce that surplus, and the amount of education spending in
real terms must decliine.  You look at the effects and somehow think
it a cause - and miss entirely the underlying cause.

> > So,
>
> What. You completely are wrapped up in your own materialism.

Labelling me a materialist is another disinformation tactic.  We're
talking about commodity shortages.  You have said nothing to indicate
you understand what I've said, let alone say anything that usefully
addresses those shortages.   You make all sorts of statements about
education that is designed to garner an emotional response  even
though education does nothing to increase the commodities in this
world.

> [snip]

You have snipped the important facts.

1) There are a handful of strategic materials that are in short
supply
2) Industrial society requires these materials to support high living
standards
3) There is only 10% of the materials we need to support everyone at
reasonable standards
4) There are two solutions to this dilemma;
     4a) gather resources off world
     4b) collapse

Our present leadership in the world has dedicated itself to managing
the collapse contenting itself with the fact that it didn't cause the
collapse.   It is not likely that no matter how well managed, that the
collapse of humanity to radically reduced numbers will leave America
and its allies unscathed.  In fact, there is every indication that
China is managing the predictable emergence of terror groups to take
out America before the collapse using them as proxies.

The only real solution for our long term survival, as a great nation,
and as a species, is the rapid development of off world resources,
starting with terrestrial solar power, and moving from there to power
satellites, and the capture of rich asteroids and developing them on
orbit, to provide the materials and food and fiber everyone in the
world needs to sustain a high standard of living.

Once these are in place it is very likely that a high level of
education will be uniformly and universally available.
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com - 02 Jul 2008 12:37 GMT
Even though education is something wealthy societies buy with their
surplus wealth, education can benefit from improvements in efficiency
and cost of delivery.  The methods of education that we use today are
scarcely changed from the methods used 200 years ago.  In the USA and
among USA allies, these methods have been mass produced to provide a
resonable degree of learning nearly universally, but at a cost of
creating institutions that appear incapable of innovation or change.

I have a daughter in Switzerland, who lives there with her mother.
Both are Swiss citizens and intend to stay so.  I am an American, and
intend to stay American.  We do visit every month, when I visit my
office in Zurich.  We have a house there, and we spend one week in
four together.   Their native language is German and French.  Mine
English.  I spent years in high school and college attempting to learn
a foreign language.   Now, I speak French, German and English. I do so
in part because I was motivated to do so to be part of my daughter's
life.  I also had the help of the Pimsleur discs - and total
immersion.  I quickly learned to speak fluently these languages.

This taught me something about learning -

It can be improved with technology and modern behavioral theory -
dramatically.

I think back to my days in school and wonder what pecentage of my time
I spent really and truly learning?   It has to be less than 10% -
perhaps less than 1% - haha-   Using the higher figure means that 4
years of college and 2 years of graduate school could be squeezed into
7 months.  Using the lower figure means that 20 years of education -
including post graduate work could be squeezed into 1 month!!!

We accept these sorts of improvements in efficiency in other realms,
why not education?   I think 100 fold improvement in efficiency is
possible.

Furthermore, we accept a 'reject rate' far higher in education than we
do in any other human endeavour.  Why is that?   I think its because
we use educational myths to enforce social structure.  If someone went
to school and flunked out, well, that's why they didn't advance so
far.  If someone else went to a better school and was at the top of
their class, well, that's why they are where they are.   The first
fellow only has themselves to blame.  Right?

Well, what if independent testing showed that the fellow who went to
the better school didn't know as much as the fellow who flunked out.
What if a review of both students showed that the fellow who graduated
at the top of his class partied a lot while the other fellow was
studious?   What if the fellow who flunked out had financial
difficulties all along, while the fellow who graduated tops of his
class, was extraordinarily wealthy, had a family who donated heavily
to the ivy league school, and was friends with the administration?

Does the first fellow only have themselves to blame?   Was the system
fair?   Is it fair that a leading light of the community, a family
that built this school NOT take away a few honors during their
academic career?  If not, why not?  Because some sniveling bastard is
clever?   That's not what we're about is it?   lol.

We lie to each other at so many levels.  We lie to ourselves as well.
That makes it hard to know what's really going on - and hard to figure
out how to make things better.

So, why are we so slow to adopt new methods and techniques in
education?   Why do we use testing to exclude access and not as we use
it in every other activity - of increasing yeild of quality product?
If students were botlles of soda in a bottling plant would we accept a
25% yeild and 75% reject rate?    This is typical of state colleges.
Of course go to an ivy league college and you have a 98% yeild and a
2% reject rate - and even the rejects do well - just as Bill Gates -
whose father went to Harvard before him, and whose father worked at
IBM at the time Microsoft got their first $5 million contract.   Bill
bought CPM from its creator for $50,000 - and sold it to IBM for $5
million after a few mods.  He also held rights to CPM in perpetuity,
while he only sold limited rights to IBM.   Very clever of Bill - or
was it his lawyer dad (who was being paid by IBM at the time) who
helped him out  hoping to get his son out of his basement playing with
computers - after his first failed attempt with the Altair 8800.

What would have been a failure for one class of person in the USA,
turns into a success - no matter how many sports cars he crashed or
J's he smoked. - a poorer kid would be reviled as living beyond his
place - and not taking his life seriously.

Its just how you want to look at it.  Microsoft created a lot of
value.   I don't want to take that away.   However, how much wealth
would we have today in the world if we gave EVERYONE the sorts of
breaks Gates had?   Some would say there's not enough to go around  -
that's ancient crazy thinking that is infecting logic.   We CREATE the
wealth we have.   The more we let the creative impulse out - the more
everyone will have - and the happier everyone will be.

The only real problem at present is the shortage of strategic
materials.  That is easily resolved by reaching out into the cosmos
and getting whatever we need in energy metals you name it.  We just
have to wake ourselves up and do it.

I think a video game company could be adapted to create a kick a.s
immersive environment that engineers every detail of an educational
experience - perhaps even incorporating exercises, meditations, and
brain enhancing drugs - like caffiene - 24/7 - to bring about
educational 'experiences' that impart a rich and lasting knowledge and
skill base in incredibly short times.   I think we could develop such
a system in 3 to 4 years - and distribute it over a global wireless
network - built over the same period.  Once that system is in place -
then I think 98% of the world's population will be college educated to
a PhD level within a year of that - and then?

Who knows?
BradGuth - 01 Jul 2008 03:27 GMT
> Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > We need to go beyond politics of right wing or left wing -as they're
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> You might try ... education.

Our resident wizard willie.moo is a god among apes.

It seems we can't even affordably get ourselves to/from the moon's L1,
much less safely or efficiently to/from our Selene/moon.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
Rand Simberg - 29 Jun 2008 18:40 GMT
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:16:45 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Martha
Adams" <mhada@verizon.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

>I wonder if the people in this newsgroup have enough
>capacity for clear original thinking; the maturity to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>very rich as well as improve the odds for us humans
>to continue our line into the remote future?  ?

It seems quite unlikely.  Most of the people in the group who are like
that have left.  They're off doing useful things where they don't have
to deal with all the loons and trolls.
Quadibloc - 30 Jun 2008 04:25 GMT
On Jun 29, 11:40 am, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:16:45 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Martha
> Adams" <mh...@verizon.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
> such a way as to indicate that:

> >I wonder if the people in this newsgroup have enough
> >capacity for clear original thinking; the maturity to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> >very rich as well as improve the odds for us humans
> >to continue our line into the remote future?  ?

> It seems quite unlikely.  Most of the people in the group who are like
> that have left.  They're off doing useful things where they don't have
> to deal with all the loons and trolls.

Well, people with multi-million dollar fortunes that let them own
companies that build three-stage rockets don't have much time to post
on newsgroups anyways. This is partly why I support such socialist
institutions as NASA. That and I just find it hard to imagine what
people call a "business model" for private enterprise space
development... just yet. People pioneering now in *that* fashion are
not going to get much more than the proverbial "arrows in their backs"
for their pains, I fear.

John Savard
Ian Parker - 30 Jun 2008 11:38 GMT
> On Jun 29, 11:40 am, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> not going to get much more than the proverbial "arrows in their backs"
> for their pains, I fear.

Look Arianespace has just such a model. If you take one very simple
metric - cost/Kg at LEO it is clear that NASA has been a spectacular
failure. If you had free enterprise no one would have bought shuttle
space.

There are some failures of Capitalism which William Mook touched on.
If you have a constant supply of X barrels coming out of the ground,
supply and demand will fix a price. If you have a price of a commodity
that varies according to technlogy pure Capitalism alone will not
necessarily give you the right strategy. Capitalism alone does not
tell you what you should do if the price of oil is $140 and we don't
know what the price will be in the furure. Let me explain, supose we
develop a new energy source which costs $80 per barrel equivalent.
This source will take at least 5 years to come on stream at which
point the price of oil has dropped.

There is a case for "socialist" subsidies to ensure stability. This is
not, of course, to say that a large socialist organization like NASA
should continue to exist. There is a socialogical constraint too. A
socialist organization tends always to "play safe". In the absense of
an objective efficiency metric promotions are made on the basis of not
"rocking the boat".

Double cost/Kg of Ariane? Even more for Proton. In a capitalist world
NASA would have sued for chapter 11 and been savagely pruned.

Another argument for capitalism is that there are many possible
technical solutions. For solar power we have.

1) Photovoltaics.
2) SSP
3) Mirrors to raise steam and drive a turbine.
4) Biological methods, genetically engineered algae.

Not being cetain which technology will win in the end it makes sense
to have them competing against one and other on a level playing field.

Space needs heavy capital investment. Is socialism the only way to
achieve this? No, in point of fact the best way to achieve this is to
go all out for capitalism and globalization. Energy is a concern of
THE WHOLE WORLD, not just the US. This being the case, why do we
insist in national space programs? It would make a lot more sense to
have a joint stock company which the whole world could buy into. This
company would put Kgs into LEO at the LOWEST rate.

The present space set up is in fact what might be described as socio
fascist.

 - Ian Parker
Quadibloc - 30 Jun 2008 12:39 GMT
> Energy is a concern of
> THE WHOLE WORLD, not just the US.

If the world rejects nuclear power firmly enough that we must accept
the large capital investment of solar power satellites instead, and if
that has to be done through private investment, not government
programs with massive tax funding, then what probabilities favor is
not the colonization of space.

It is a new dark age when we run out of oil or when global warming
runs rampant.

I would like us to make policy decisions that *minimize* the
probability of that. To me, space is a means, not an end; the survival
and progress and well-being of humanity are the end. A prosperous,
energy-rich Earth is the one more likely to have something to spare
for space.

John Savard
Ian Parker - 30 Jun 2008 14:09 GMT
> > Energy is a concern of
> > THE WHOLE WORLD, not just the US.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> programs with massive tax funding, then what probabilities favor is
> not the colonization of space.

In the case of Nuclear Power it is safety concerns that are worrying
people, not the ability of Capitalism to invest. This perhaps tells us
what the role of government should be. Governments are there to set
the rules. It takes about 4 years to build a nuclear power station
GIVEN THE PLANNING GO AHEAD. Planning is an area that only a
government can tackle.

Governments can tax oil and other fossil fuels. $140 effectively means
that the tax is imposed for them. Green taxes are irrelevant at that
price level.

I do not believe there is any project that private enterpriose cannot
tackle. SSP may be a solution if the economics are right, space
colonies are simply not cost effective. The fallacy of doing it though
tax is that you are thereby railroading one solution through. One of
the best arguments against socialism is technological advance. One
technology will be the winner, we don't know which.

One thing that governments can do is to provide incentives for a
solution any solution. They can also ensure that if the price of oil
should drop they pick up the revenue in tax and the consumer STILL
pays $140

> It is a new dark age when we run out of oil or when global warming
> runs rampant.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> energy-rich Earth is the one more likely to have something to spare
> for space.

It is indeed a means to an end. It may be the best solution or it may
not be. We need viable SSP schemes that don't cost the Earth. If SSP
can directly lower the cost to LEO (laser heating of exhausts) so much
the better.

Another areas where governments can help is in the provision of funds
for long term research.

  - Ian Parker
G. L. Bradford - 01 Jul 2008 09:58 GMT
>> Energy is a concern of
>> THE WHOLE WORLD, not just the US.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> John Savard

 You are out of your mind. The hungry, needy, due-time infant births.
Hungry!...though the mother is still so richly provisional. Why so hungry
now? Why things so different than before?

 The unborn infant is now so many more dimensioned, so greater dimensioned,
so much more dimensional, than before. Space Age energies. Space Age limbs.
Space Age organs. Space Age powers. Space Age complexity. Space Age
reaches.... Space Age needs and wants. The mother now so fewer dimensioned,
so lesser dimensioned, than before. The infant is (so to speak) now
3-dimensional going on 10-dimensional, the womb-world now, still, (so to
speak) its permanent constant of 1-dimensional.

GLB
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com - 30 Jun 2008 14:47 GMT
Two RL10 engines adapted to operate through a wide range of ambient
pressures from sea-level to orbit, cost about $5 million in quantity
and the pair produces 30,000 lbsf thrust.   The engines are
throttable, restartable, and reusable.

7 of these engine pairs housed in 7 airframes - clustered in a hcp
array -with cross-feeding - make an interesting launcher.    Viewed
looking down on the system from above the cluster is numbered

 (1)(2)
(3)(4)(5)
 (6)(7)

All elements fire at launch, and produce 210,000 lbsf thrust - and
lift 168,000 lb mass vehicle into the sky at 1.25 gees.  Each elements
masses 24,000 lbs full, and carries 21,000 lbs of propellant.

Element 1 feeds propellant into element 3
Element 6 feeds propellant into element 3
Element 3 feeds propellant into element 4

Element 2 feeds propellant into element 5
Element 7 feeds propellant into element 5
Element 5 feeds propellant into element 4

So, 1,2,6,7 are drained during launch.

This is the first stage.   84,000 lbs of propellant are burned, in a
168,000 lb vehicle at launch - into a rocket with an exhaust velocity
of 4.1 km/sec.  So, without gravity or air drag losses, the delta vee
of this first stage is 2.84 km/sec.

The four empty elements separate - reenter - deploy wings at subonic
speeds  and glide to be recovered mid air downrange - and towed back
to the launch center by air.

Meanwhile 3 elements continue to orbit.

(3)(4)(5)

Now element 3 feeds into element 4
and element 5 feeds into element 4

So, 42,000 pounds of propellant are burned to accelerate 72,000 lbs of
propellant with rockets having a 4.2 km/sec exhaust speed.  That
imparts another 3.67 km/sec to the vehicle speed - a total of 6.51 km/
sec - without gravity drag or air drag losses.

Now element 4 continues on its own, while the other two elements
separate re-enter and are recovered downrange.

To attain orbit, element 4 must add another 2.69 km/sec to its
speed.    With an exhaust speed of 4.2 km/sec this implies 11,351 lbs
of propellant.   Subtracting this figure plus 3,000 lbs of element
structure, obtains 9,649 pounds of useful payload on orbit.

This vehicle would cost $70 million to build and require another $30
million for test articles and a test program.  Recurring costs are
less than $500,000 per launch.   $100 million divided among 200 uses -
is another $500,000 per launch.

So, the cost of this system is $100 per pound.

With flights once a week - the vehicle has a 4 year life span.
Charging $500 per pound - or $5 million per launch - produces $1
billion over 5 years from a $100 million investment - which is a HUGE
return on investment over 77% per year!!

A wide range of payloads, including a piloted payload is possible with
this vehicle.  The Russians are selling launches for about $25 million
each.   Two people sharing a ride aboard this vehicle could pay $2.5
million each and maintain revenue.

A larger vehicle with RS-68 engines - with 660,000 lbs of thrust - one
per element - is 22x larger - capable of putting 220,000 lbs into
LEO.   This is sufficient to do some serious work in space.  Including
putting up satellite networks.

A still larger vehicle built along the same lines - with 7 RS-68
engines per element - is 154x larger - capable of putting 1,540,000
lbs into LEO - This is large enough for a reasonably sized power
satellite
kT - 30 Jun 2008 14:54 GMT
> Two RL10 engines adapted to operate through a wide range of ambient
> pressures from sea-level to orbit, cost about $5 million in quantity
[quoted text clipped - 78 lines]
> lbs into LEO - This is large enough for a reasonably sized power
> satellite

So what you're saying is, that after another 10 years or so of posting
on the usenet, we are right back to where we started.
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com - 30 Jun 2008 17:32 GMT
> So what you're saying is, that after another 10 years or so of posting
> on the usenet, we are right back to where we started.- Hide quoted text -

Look, you can ask the question What is 1 plus 1 ?   and the answer
will be 2 - no matter if you ask the question 10years ago or today.
Its still 2.   Same here.

We build a series of increasingly capable RLVs - and use them to
deploy a variety of missions including the current inventory of
satellite missions, as well as some new ones - including satellite
constellations and powersats.

We take the inventory of weapons grade materials world wide and
convert that to non-threatening impulse units, and build a small fleet
of highly capable nuclear pulse ships.  With these we establish cites
on the moon and mars, and manned outposts throughout the solar
system.  We also survey the asteroid belt in detail, and return rich
asteroids to Earth orbit.  Once there, we deploy solar powered tele-
operated factories to process the asteroids into products that are
demanded on Earth - raising living standards - ending our resource
shortages.
kT - 30 Jun 2008 18:13 GMT
>> So what you're saying is, that after another 10 years or so of posting
>> on the usenet, we are right back to where we started.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Look, you can ask the question What is 1 plus 1 ?   and the answer
> will be 2 - no matter if you ask the question 10years ago or today.
> Its still 2.   Same here.

William, I'm fer ya, not agin ya.

But until some individual, corporation or nation executes that simple
cryogenic launch vehicle design (admittedly, the Delta IV Medium is very
close already, if they would just USE it) then nothing will be done.

We'll just be here 10 years from now, talking about the same damn thing.

> We build a series of increasingly capable RLVs

I'm just proposing a single demonstration project, to get it started :

http://webpages.charter.net/tsiolkovsky/
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com - 30 Jun 2008 21:25 GMT
> Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> So what you're saying is, that after another 10 years or so of posting
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> http://webpages.charter.net/tsiolkovsky/

An ill-concieved demonstration project, that is underfunded and
results in spectacular fireballs will demonstrate quite the
opposite.   The first step is to get the money and power needed.

I am sponsoring 8 coal-to-liquid projects around the world.  Each
project when completed produces 200,000 b/d from 30,000 tons of coal
per day using a solar-assisted Bergius process.   I own 70,000 b/d
from each facility.  That's a total of 560,000 b/d.

A margin of $100 per barrel translates to $56 million per day in
EBITDA.   This is $1.97 billion per year.

Allocating $40 million per year to the RL10 based unit I just
described, will complete that project in 3 years - and produce $250
million per year in revenue, and EBITDA of $200 million per year.

Allocating $400 million per year to the RS-68 based unit described
earlier, will complete that project in 3 years as well - and orbit a
satellite constellation in 4 more years.

That constellation will produce $50 BILLION per year in profits - by
selling telecom services worldwide.

This money will be used to develop the super-heavy unit, along with
powersat construction - and support expeditions to Mars and the Moon
using this super-heavy RLV.
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com - 01 Jul 2008 02:21 GMT
On Jun 30, 4:25 pm, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> So what you're saying is, that after another 10 years or so of posting
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

$50 billion per year from the communications constellation will
provide the wherewithal to purchase space faring assets from the
Lockheed and Boeing.  I would then canvas Congress and the White House
for an Enhanced Non-proliferation Treaty - that called for the
abandonment of nuclear weapons world wide.  All nuclear weapons, and
nuclear research centers (along with all nuclear power plants) would
be shut down, and all nuclear materials would be converted to non-
threatening impulse units, and exported to the moon (a lunar base will
have been established at this time using super-heavy RLV described
above.)

At lunar base, experimental impulse units will be built, and in a
short period of time, a nuclear pulse propelled interplanetary cruiser
will be built - tested, and on that basis, a small fleet of cruisers
will be built and operated from luna.

A manned grand tour of the solar system will take place, along with a
detailed survey of all the minor bodies in the solar system.  The
richest of these will be harvested, and returned to Earth orbit.  Once
there, space factories will be orbited - that will process these
asteroidal materials into products for human consumption, both on
Earth and across the solar system.

Super-heavy RLV - payload to LEO - 700 metric tons.

    4.47 km/sec = Ve

To accelerate from 7.0 km/sec to 10.85 km/sec requires that 295 tons
of propellant be burned to accelerate the vehicle to lunar free return
trajectory.   This forms a 45 ton stage - that fully fueled masses 340
tons.  This leaves a lunar landing stage of 360 metric tons.   The 45
ton empty stage loops around the back side of the moon and returns to
Earth, aerobraking to be recovered mid air by a tow plane.
Meanwhile, the lunar landing stage executes a direct powered landing
at the lunar base - killing 2.38 km/sec escape speed by burning 150
metric tons of propellant.   The vehicle is refueled on the lunar
surface with hydrogen and oxygen.   Empty the vehicle masses 70 tons -
giving the vehicle the ability to carry up to 140 metric tons per
trip.

A fleet of 30 ships provides the means to carry out three flights per
day to the moon.  This supplies the lunar base with 420 metric tons of
materials per day.   A local water supply not only provides refueling
capacity, but also the ability to support people on the moon with as
little as 1/4 metric ton per year - with about 3/4 metric tons of
local water.  This implies that 320,000 people would be supported on
the moon by this fleet if only half the materiel carried to the moon
were supplies for the lunar inhabitants.

A midrange Orion type vehicle masses around 2,000 metric tons.  At 200
tons of hardware per day, the proposed fleet of 30 chemically powered
super-heavy RLVs would transport the parts and impulse units of a
fully fueled midrange Orion in 10 days.  A fleet of 36 mid-range
Orions would be assembled on the lunar surface in 1 year.
kT - 01 Jul 2008 02:26 GMT
> On Jun 30, 4:25 pm, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>>> We'll just be here 10 years from now, talking about the same damn thing.
>>>> We build a series of increasingly capable RLVs

>>> I'm just proposing a single demonstration project, to get it started :
>>> http://webpages.charter.net/tsiolkovsky/

>> An ill-concieved demonstration project, that is underfunded and
>> results in spectacular fireballs will demonstrate quite the
>> opposite.

First of all thank you for taking the time for responding to my
occasional rant here on sci.space.policy. I don't have a lot of time
right now for the usenet, so if I appear ... abrupt don't be discouraged
in your efforts. Thank you also for you concern for my fireballs, we too
are so concerned about fireballs that we plan to torch one or two off in
the desert to look specifically at fireball ejection. We're on it, ok?

Rockets occasionally blow up. Got it.

The first step is to get the money and power needed.

Right, excuse me while I sell my soul and kiss the sky.

>> I am sponsoring 8 coal-to-liquid projects around the world.

It's the occasional subject of debate in our working group.
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com - 01 Jul 2008 05:39 GMT
> Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 4:25 pm, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>
> Rockets occasionally blow up. Got it.

The Saturn rockets never blew up in flight.

> The first step is to get the money and power needed.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> It's the occasional subject of debate in our working group.

How does that affect me?   lol.
kT - 01 Jul 2008 06:43 GMT
>> Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Jun 30, 4:25 pm, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>
> The Saturn rockets never blew up in flight.

If we ever get to the point where we are flying bleeding edge high
performance cryogenic engines 50 times a year, we fully expect to be
blowing one up in mid flight somewhere along the line. Statistics ...

>> The first step is to get the money and power needed.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> How does that affect me?   lol.

It doesn't, until I communicate directly with you on the usenet.
More power too ya. We both agree that fundamental experiments in high
performance space flight still need to be accomplished, and that unless
an individual, corporation or nation steps up to the plate and does
these things, those experiments in operability will not be accomplished.

It doesn't affect me one way or the other much either.

What I have presented is the minimum experiment.

http://webpages.charter.net/tsiolkovsky/.

The Falcon I also qualifies for hydrocarbon TSTO.

Even the Taurus II qualifies in its own perverse way.

Both EELVs certainly qualified when they we developed as well.

Most acute observers agree that Orion and Ares I is a complete
perversion of the ordinary process of launch vehicle development.

I attribute the aberration of the Ares I and ESAS to a complete
breakdown of the American educational and university academic system.

I am open minded in my pursuit of the cause of this decline and outright
failure of the technological and engineering capabilities of the USA.
Certainly if you look at what is going on in congress, you can also see
the glaring evidence of the complete breakdown of scientific reasoning,
at the most fundamental primary and secondary educational level.
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com - 01 Jul 2008 12:21 GMT
> Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> performance cryogenic engines 50 times a year, we fully expect to be
> blowing one up in mid flight somewhere along the line. Statistics ...

Statistics that depend on engineering details.  The statistics of the
Saturn
series is that NONE of them blew up.  This is a goal.  I believe it to
be an
achievable goal - given that MEMs based rocket arrays will one day out
perform macroscopic engines - while reducing catastrophic failure to
zero.

Of course perfection isn't needed, even though its achievable.

> >> The first step is to get the money and power needed.
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> an individual, corporation or nation steps up to the plate and does
> these things, those experiments in operability will not be accomplished.

Yes, we need to spend $5 billion or so a year efficiently on some very
fundamental things - for a half a decade or so - and then an
additional $10 billion a year on flight hardware for another half
decade - then we will be in a position to spend $50 billion per year
on payloads that achieve the sorts of visionary programs described
here.

In all, perhaps half a trillion dollars are needed.

The 9.5 million millionaires in the world today control over $38
trillion - mostly liquid assets.  They're always looking for a good
investment.  So, anything that can be structured to provide a
reasonable shot at a good return, would likely garner interest.

That is, humanity has $38 trillion in liquid assets currently, and the
program I described costs less than $500 billion.  The only thing any
aerospace engineer must do is convince very bright and motivated
people to part with $1 of every $76 by providing the possibility of a
reasonable return on their investment.

A constellation of satellites deployed for less than $10 billion has
the capacity to generate $50 billion per year in service charges
worldwide.

Of course, I'm working in energy right now.  The energy markets are
now around $4 trillion per year.   If we get to a point where we can
moderate fuel prices, and get money flowing into capital formation
instead of commodity price rises, then we can expect with unrestrained
productive ability for that figure to rise well above $50 trillion per
year as the global economy grows from $66 trillion to $1,000 trillion
over the next 70 years - which reflects a real 4% per year growth rate
compounded.

Owning 15% of this energy market going forward, with a 60% profit
margin generates $360 billion per year in today's markets, and grows
that to $5.4 trillion in 70 years.

> It doesn't affect me one way or the other much either.
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Most acute observers agree that Orion and Ares I is a complete
> perversion of the ordinary process of launch vehicle development.

This isn't surpsrising given the history of space travel.   The USA,
has made a decision that missile technology will not proliferate
around the world.  The USA has decided that a practical low-cost
reliable method of space access is not in its interest.  It
proliferates missile technology, it causes the USA to over-spend on
space efforts, and it creates a global view rather than a national
view among US citizens.  Just look at the environmental movement.  It
was going nowhere until Apollo 8 snapped those photos of the blue
marble.

Fact is, vonBraun experimented with recoverable V2 rocket stages.   He
planned to recover the booster stage of his a9/a10 for Project Amerika
- to bomb New York City with atom bombs atop missiles, and he planned
to recover all the stages of his a10/a11/a12 three stage vehicle that
orbited 10 metric tons.

http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/lvs/a4b.htm
http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/lvs/vonbraun.htm

vonBraun's efforts to create reusable stages for the Saturn V moon
rocket were unheeded.  It wasn't for lack of trying.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/winturnv.htm

When NASA wanted to build a fully reusable space shuttle, only the
most difficult part - the high speed winged re-entry vehicle, was
tackled.  The relatively simple, low speed recovery of boosters, which
paid huge savings in cost, were ignored.

Political haggling over cross-range and participation of the services
- made sure the shuttle was a poor performer.   Using solid boosters
and a throw away external tank along with low flight rates, and total
lack of investment in infrastructure at the launch center, guaranteed
that the space shuttle would also perform poorly as a low cost space
access vehicle.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuenara.htm

> I attribute the aberration of the Ares I and ESAS to a complete
> breakdown of the American educational and university academic system.

That's because you're an idiot.   The USA has policies to secure its
interests.   Where those policies are likely to run afoul of popular
support, those policies are kept secret and apart from the public.
The only way you can reliably find out if a secret program is
operating is to look for consistent patterns of activity over long
time periods.  From day one the USA has avoided low-cost recovery
methods to reduce space access cost.  From day one there is a cadre of
specialists who have exercised their influence and power to keep this
space travel thing from getting out of control and doing serious
damage to USA interests.   That's why Eisenhower put the VP in charge
of NASA, and not a board drawn from the National Academy -
guaranteeing NASA would forever be a political foot ball, and become
less and less effective over time, as 'specialists' tied it in knots,
and it accumulated a humiliating record of public failure, lack of
exciting performance, and high costs.  The GAO for the past 20 years
has annually told Congress to end funding of manned space travel.   If
Ares fails in a high profile way, Congress will some day take them up
on it.

> I am open minded in my pursuit of the cause of this decline and outright
> failure of the technological and engineering capabilities of the USA.

The USA pursued a policy of turning all its allies during the Cold War
into manufacturers for its retailing and financing companies.   This
was due to the decision taken to maintain a huge disparity of income
between the rest of the world and the USA.

Extractive functions like mining and farming create a dollars worth of
stuff.   Manufacturing functions take that dollars worth of stuff -
think ore and wheat - and turn it into more valuable stuff - worth 3
to 5 dollars.   think steel wire and bread.   Retailers and financiers
take that stuff and bring it directly to the people who will pay most
for it - that's 9 to 25 dollars - from 1 dollar worth of stuff.

Obviously with markets running like this, if you want to maintain a
large disparity of income, you concentrate all your efforts in retail
and finance - and give the plum manufacturing jobs to your friends,
and buy food and ore and commodities from everyone else.  Your enemies
you isolate from your trading regime, after you've tied up
everything.

So, a guy in India grows cotton that is shipped to Korea and made into
T-shirts, that are shipped to the USA and sold.  In terms of T-shirts,
we've conned the Indian to grow all the cotton for one t-shirt, out of
25, and the Korean to make the T-shirt for 4 out of 25, and we get to
keep 20 of the t-shirts for setting the system of trading up and
financing it.

Indians or Koreans that say they want more t-shirts for their efforts,
are called communists, or revolutionaries, and the CIA infiltrates
them and kills them.   If too many people are like that, we set up a
puppet government to enforce fair and reasonable markets.   If that
doesn't work, we isolate them from our trading regime until they are
starving in the streets, and then begin negotiations.

We *must* do this because to do otherwise is to invite disaster in the
nuclear age.

We don't want every tin-pot dictator to build nuclear weapons put them
on rockets and blast them into your home town.

That's what would happen -according to some- if a small private
company, or NASA even, succeeded in operating a profitable reliable
space business.   So, it can't happen.  It won't happen.   Penetrating
the mish mash of agencies that make up NASA's decision process - is
child's play.   It was organized by Eisenhower to BE that way.

> Certainly if you look at what is going on in congress, you can also see
> the glaring evidence of the complete breakdown of scientific reasoning,
> at the most fundamental primary and secondary educational level.

If you look at the history of space travel, and how vonBraun was
marginalized from the very first - from Project Horizon onward -  its
clear what the policy of the USA is.  Commercial space travel will not
be developed until these policies are brought out into the open and re-
evaluated in the modern age.  This isn't 1950, and 9/11 shows that
well motivated nations lacking EVERY resource can successfully mount
an attack on the USA homeland.   So, we must do something to address
the motivation, not the capability.

That is, the very disparity of income we have enforced is not only
eroding with rising commodity prices, and widespread use of the
internet to lower logistical and finance costs, but our efforts to
maintain this disparity in the modern world attracts unwanted negative
attention and motivates hundreds of thousands every year to view the
USA negatively, many to the point they take up arms against the USA.
This must stop.

In a world with more rational US goals, space travel would form a bond
that unites the world in seeking resources adventure and riches off
world and help stabilize a diverse world.

Using the metaphor of an ocean liner, the US has to learn to move from
being the engine of democracy to the rudder of democracy as others
take their rightful place in the world, and ultimately the trim tab -
in effectively directing world affairs.
Ian Parker - 01 Jul 2008 11:20 GMT
On 30 Jun, 21:25, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:

> I am sponsoring 8 coal-to-liquid projects around the world.  Each
> project when completed produces 200,000 b/d from 30,000 tons of coal
> per day using a solar-assisted Bergius process.   I own 70,000 b/d
> from each facility.  That's a total of 560,000 b/d.

I think coal to liquid is quite interesting. There is a classical
method - SASOL done during the Apartheid era, and thereare more modern
variants.

Question :- Are you using Carbon Monoxide/Carbon to produce hydrogem
(SASOL) or are you thinking in terms of solar prime moved
elrctrolysis?

Methane is formed by direct combination of elements and this can be
turned into gasolene, diesel etc using pressure and catalysts. Is this
the route you are thinking of. This is again very much classic SASOL
with the hydrogen this time coming from a non fossil source.

There may be another route - Could genetically engineered bacteria
produce hydrocarbons from coal and hydrogen? Genetic engineering might
even be able to produce a specific isomer, such as iso octane.

Following on from this I have yet another point. The oil crisis is not
quite as simple as simple supply and demand. Many high sulpur oils
remain unsold. One of the attractions of biology is the possibility of
it being used to remove the sulphur. Coal in fact contains rather a
lot of sulphur, and coal fired power stations produce sulphuric acid
as a by product.

A few ideas to get round.

 - Ian Parker
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com - 01 Jul 2008 12:53 GMT
> On 30 Jun, 21:25, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> (SASOL) or are you thinking in terms of solar prime moved
> elrctrolysis?

check out

http://www.usoal.com

I have developed a concentrating photovoltaic panel made of water
filled lenses, where the sun's image is focused INSIDE the lens - and
the water keeps it cool.

The lenses are made with two sheets of hot press molded PET that are
bonded together in a water bath - forming a bubble wrap type array.  A
4 ft x 8 ft panels consisting of over 4,000 lenses - each over a
square inch in area - illuminate 4,000 dots each 1/2 of a sq mm in
area.

The PV dots that operate at 2,400x solar intensity, are germanium/
gallium arsenide/indium phosphide - junction that convert 30% of the
incident solar energy to DC current.  The dots have a dichroic film on
them that redirects the light to a black body - so only effective
light falls on the PV surface while ineffective light heats a black
body.   The black body forms a high-temperature electrolysis unit -
that is coated with sulfide.    The process works like this

    SO2 + 2 H2O --->    H2SO4 + H2(aq)
    H2SO4 + H2(aq) + e-  --->  H2SO4 + H2 (gas)
    H2SO4 + heat --->   SO4 + H2 (gas)
    SO4 + heat --->   SO2 + O2 (gas)

Overall, by using both electricity AND heat to electrolyze water -
sunlight is converted to hydrogen and oxygen gas with 55% overall
efficiency.   Bubbles of gas that are formed and heated, expand
through shaped channels to create jets of water from each dot that
carry colloidally suspended hydrogen and oxygen - in different
directions.   These are carried by channels molded into the PET to
separating filters that extract the gas - clarified water is pumped
back into the lens array through other channels - after make up water
is added.

Each 4 ft x 8 ft x 3/4 inch panel, is attached at the factory into a
string 1,100 panels long - and they are z-folded together to form a 12
ft x 8 ft x 53 ft shipping block.   They are arrayed in 4,400 ft
strings - with water flowing in one end, and hydrogen and oxygen
flowing out the other.

Total cost is less than $0.07 per peak watt - each string described
produces 1.8 MW of energy - in chemical form.  30 kg per hour under
full illumination is possible from each string which costs $125,000
installed.

A square mile consists of 660 strings laid side by side - and
produces  21 metric tons for each hour of illumination at a fixed
capital cost of $80 million.   With a 20 year life span, and no
servicing to speak of, and put in a place with 1,800 hours per year of
illumination - each square mile produces 777,600 metric tons of
hydrogen - $102 per metric ton - plus recurring costs (including
financing).

Each ton of hydrogen and 8 tons of oxygen may be burned directly to
form an air independent power plant of any thermal plant.   No special
hardware.  Just burner changes.  The water vapor may even be
recaptured and recycled through the system.   A square mile exposed to
1,800 hours of illumination will produce an average of 4.3 tons of
hydrogen per hour over a 24 hour period.   Storing 4300 tons in a
pressurized pipeline gives a 1,000 hours supply.   This is sufficient
to power 65 MW electrical baseload generation -saving 640 tons of coal
per day and avoiding 2,000 tons of carbon dioxide.

640 tons of coal may be converted into 4,600 barrels of liquid fuels
by adding 64 tons of hydrogen per day to the coal using another half
square mile of solar panels.

The process proceeds as follows using the Bergius process;

    Hydrogen is combined with coal to form

      1/3 carbon methane
      1/3 carbon liquids
      1/3 carbon char

The methane is partially oxidized to form methanol.
Methanol is dehydrated to form octane

Liquids are mixed with octane and fractionated

Char is partially oxidized to form carbon monoxide.
Carbon monoxide is methanated with hydrogen for form methanol
Methanol is dehydrated to form octane.

7.2 barrels of liquid fuel, gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel are made
for each ton of carbon processed.

Heavy oils are hydrocracked with hydrogen and recycled through the
fractionator.

Vapors are recycled through the Bergius reactor

Char ash, and asphaltenes from the hydrocracking unit are mixed to
form asphalt.

There are no pollutants produced by the process at all.

> Methane is formed by direct combination of elements and this can be
> turned into gasolene, diesel etc using pressure and catalysts. Is this
> the route you are thinking of. This is again very much classic SASOL
> with the hydrogen this time coming from a non fossil source.

SASOL uses Fischer Tropsch and Lurgi reactors - they produce 2.2
barrels per ton of carbon and 3 tons of CO2.

> There may be another route - Could genetically engineered bacteria
> produce hydrocarbons from coal and hydrogen? Genetic engineering might
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> lot of sulphur, and coal fired power stations produce sulphuric acid
> as a by product.

Hydrogen is a perfect getter gas - and bubbling hydrogen through oil
to produce hydrogen sulfides, and then use electrolytic processes to
decompose the sulfides into sulfur and hydrogen - is simple enough to
do.  Sulfur is adds lubricity and is required in most fuels to some
degree.

It is a simple matter of supply and demand.

> A few ideas to get round.
>
>   - Ian Parker

I've been working on this for 15 years and I've built some pilot
operations as well as laboratory systems.   I wouldn't be getting
investment if this were not the case.
Ian Parker - 01 Jul 2008 13:28 GMT
On 1 Jul, 12:53, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:

> > On 30 Jun, 21:25, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 145 lines]
> operations as well as laboratory systems.   I wouldn't be getting
> investment if this