Space Travel will save the world
|
|
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 |
|