 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Space Policy / August 2008Super-heavy lift reusable launcher
Imagine a hydrogen oxygen rocket engine with an exit nozzle diameter of 17 meters in diameter, 36 meters long and produces a thrust of 53,300 tonnes with a specific impulse of 450 seconds. Now imagine a three stage rocket built around this engine. The first stage Consists of a truncated cone that has a base diameter of 196.96 meters and a ring of 36 engines around the base - exhausting into a zero height aerospike engine arrangement - that doubles as a re-entry heat sheild. The vehicle has 316 support legs around the base to form its own self supporting platform. These legs are equipped with powered wheels that allow the vehicle to move on the ground after landing and before take off. The legs also have powered anchors, reusable hold down clamps. The stage length is 154.88 meters. The stage masses 217,415 metric tons empty and carries 136,164 metric tons of hydrogen in a single spherical tank 154.88 meters in diameter. At the base of the cone, above the 36 engines are 8 smaller oxygen tanks each 27.76 m in diameter, together they carry 816,988 metric tons of liquid oxygen. Total stage weight is 1,225,567 metric tons. All 36 engines produce nearly 2 million tons at lift off. The second stage Consists of a smaller truncated cone that has a base diameter 112.81 meters. It is equipped with a ring of six engines around the base - exhausting into a zero height aerospike engine - that also doubles as a re-entry shield. The vehicles has 36 support legs around the base to form its own inter-stage connection during lift-off and landing gear during vertical touchdown. The legs are powered and can also operate as anchors as above. The stage length is 88.71 meters. The empty stage masses 50,993 metric tons and carries 25,582 metric tons of hydrogen in a single spherical tank that is 88.71 meters in diameter. At the base of the cone, above the 6 engines are 8 smaller oxygen tanks each a sphere 15.90 meters in diameter. Altogether the 8 tanks carry a total oxygen load of 153,495 metric tons. Total stage weight is 230,070 metric tons. The third stage Consists of a smaller truncated cone that has a base diameter of 64.61 meters. It is equipped with a single engine at its base - exhausting at the center of a heat sheild that is equipped with a door. Smaller vernier engines surround the heat sheild for vehicle recovery. There are 6 support leges around the base to form its own inter-stage connection during lift off and operate as landing gear during vertical touchdown. The legs are powered and can also operate as anchors. The stage length is 50.81 meters. The empty stage masses 9,580 metric tons and carries 4,806 metric tons of hydrogen in a single spherical tank 50.81 meters in diameter. 28,839 metric tons of oxygen are carried in 8 tanks each 9.11 meters in diameter. Total stage weight is 43,225 metric tons. Payload fairing The payload fairing rides atop the third stage, and ispart of it. It consists of 6 clamshell type doors that open 20 degrees and are self powered and have a powered clamping mechanism. The fairing base sits atop the third stage and is 37 meters in diameter and has an overall length of 91.94 meters. It is cylindrical from the base for its first 23.78 meters. It then tapers at a half angle of 15.75 degrees until it comes to a point another 68.16 meters above the top of the cylinder. Total volume within the fairing 50,000 cubic meters. Total payload capacity 10,000 metric tons. Piloted option Around the base of the payload fariing is a 37 meter diameter torus that is 3 meters in diameter - this 116 meter long ring is equipped to carry a crew of up to 35 - although the vehicle is capable of unpiloted operations. 90 tele-operated humaniform robots are attached throughout the fairing volume to allow operators in the pressurized zone access to the cargo and spacecraft. These robots may also be teleoperated from the ground. Notes on Cost: Fighter aircraft and spacecraft range in prices from $5 million to $10 million per ton. Transport aircraft range in prices from $1 million to $1.8 million per ton. Cargo ships cost $1,500 to $2,000 per ton. The variation in cost has to do primarily with non-recurring engineering charges, scale of production, and volume produced - to a smaller degree the sort of environment and the nature of the materials used play a part. On the scale we're discussing here - it should be possible to achieve $2,000 per ton for structure cost, and $20 per ton propellant cost. This means each vehicle can be built for $664 million - the payload costs $20 million - and recurring cost per flight is $48 million. Notes on Size: Total mass of the empty vehicle is 331,986 metric tons. This is about the size of a very large ocean going ship. Its total length when fully stacked is 386.34 meters. Total mass at lift off is nearly 1.5 million tons and it burns nearly 1.2 million tons of propellant. Operation The first stage lights, and powers up, and the anchoring gear releases. The stage rises at 1.3 gees. When the vehicle reaches 3.5 km/sec the stage falls away and re-enters downrange. There it executes a powered touchdown at a downrange field. There it is partly refueled and flown back to the launch center ballistically, in a 'bounce back' maneuver. At the launch center it re-enters, lands - and motors over to the launch center again to be reused. The second stage ignites and continues upward achieving a final speed of 7.7 km per second and placing the fully loaded 53,225 metric tons into LEO. The second stage after release of the third stage, deorbits and re-enters so that it lands vertically in a powered touchdown near the launch center. Once down, it motors to the 400 meter tall assembly crane where it is placed atop the booster stage once again. The third stage ignites and enters a GTO and rises to GEO. There it executes a circularizing burn - and releases its payload after opening its nose shroud. Once the payload is released and the payload successfully deployed, the reusable kick stage, deorbits slowing to GTO velocity, and re-enters the atmosphere and lands at the launch center - motors over to the tower, and is placed again on the stack after refurbishment. Once the stack is assembled, the vehicle is then refueled and reused. A fleet of 6 vehicles are built to deploy 52 payloads per year - with a cycle time of 6 weeks. * * * * > Imagine a hydrogen oxygen rocket engine with an exit nozzle diameter > of 17 meters in diameter, 36 meters long and produces a thrust of > 53,300 tonnes with a specific impulse of 450 seconds. Not even if I were using drugs would I be able to imagine something so ridiculous as this. >> Imagine a hydrogen oxygen rocket engine with an exit nozzle diameter >> of 17 meters in diameter, 36 meters long and produces a thrust of >> 53,300 tonnes with a specific impulse of 450 seconds. > > Not even if I were using drugs would I be able to imagine something so > ridiculous as this. ============================================ "Ridiculous" is a very bad word, because it shuts-off thinking. I might go for "extravagant," but I'd like to point out, if it's out toward the far end of a good imagination, it's realistic, and I have guessed a scenario where the national effort would be directed to building a "small" fleet of these things. If you restart your thinking, maybe you can guess something too. Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 208 Aug 09] > > <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:8da89bd5-ea9c-4622-9843-cd27982a08b4@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 208 Aug 09] Reading declassifie reports about what is possible also helps. What's surprising is that many of these reports are 50 years old - and are based on sound engineering and materials science practices of the 1940s and 50s. Using today's abilities - we can far exceed the visionary thinking of the 50s - if the folks doing the thinking had the technical skill to design a rocket with a slide rule and handbook of materials! lol. On Aug 9, 4:35 am, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote: > > "Alan Erskine" <alan.ersk...@bigpond.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > the technical skill to design a rocket with a slide rule and handbook > of materials! lol. If we put those physics and science smart Zionists/Nazis of the 50s in charge (aka New World Order), most all of what you suggest should happen in short order. Is that your plan? Perhaps as long as we're at $50+ trillion in debt, what do we got to lose? ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth >>> Imagine a hydrogen oxygen rocket engine with an exit nozzle diameter >>> of 17 meters in diameter, 36 meters long and produces a thrust of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > restart your thinking, maybe you can guess something > too. 17 metre diameter rocket nozzle? Rocket engine over 100ft long? 53 THOUSAND tons of thrust? Regardless of what Mookie says about the possible, the practical must hold sway. Oh, and don't forget that you'll never (NEVER!) get an ISP of 450 at sea level; that means that Mookie is referring to a second stage (100 times the thrust of the S-II of the Saturn V)- the first stage would be even larger. Hell, we're arguing on these forums against the Ares V being too big. With as much thrust as Mookie suggests, you'd be able to launch a payload of 11,800 tonnes into LEO (based on the thrust of the second stage of the Saturn V). And then there's the support infrastructure - where do you build the engine (not to mention the propellant tanks and other structures). And where do you launch it; at The Cape or out at sea? The noise would be incredible, not to mention the probably seismic effects. Now, we can always assume ("never 'assume'; you make an 'a.s' out of 'u' and 'me'" - The Odd Couple) that it's intended to be launched from the Moon or Mars or whatever, but geez, assumption leaves all sorts things in the ball park. Then again, the (proposed) nuclear fusion rocket would be even better (forget the effects of radiation) and then there's the (proposed) engine for the BIS Daedulus - nuclear BOMBS! Proposals are one thing; making them practical and useable are two entirely different things. And I didn't say it was impossible, just ridiculous. For the reasons above, Mookie's suggestion is unrealistic. Not impossible mind you, just unrealistic. If Mookie wanted to build his SSP's, it would be more economical to use the resourses of the Moon - combined with an electromagnetic launcher (they're planning that for the next series of U.S. Navy aircraft carriers - they use something called an 'ultracapacitor' to store electricity until the 'shot' - fascinating stuff). We don't need SSP's anyway. Check out a process called TDP; I first heard about it on the sci.space forums a couple of years ago (2003?) and I've been captivated by it ever since. It provides liquid fuels (diesel for trucks, buses, trains and ships; kerosene for aircraft and petrol [gasoline] for cars) for our transport needs without any changes in infrastructure from the refinery to the fuel tanks and no changes to engines either (the same doesn't apply to any other alternative energy - ethanol, electricity etc). It's also carbon negative (just in case all the doom-sayers [mainly the mass-media] are right about climate change) and can even be used to increase crop production by utilising something called 'biochar'. All at the same time. From landfill waste (food scraps, garden waste, plastic, rubber, waste oils and chemicals), agricultural waste (straw, chaff and animal waste) and even sewage (at the same time, water released from the plant contains no bacteria at all, let alone any that are alive, unlike normal sewage treatment). TDP also produces gas which can be burned in a gas turbine to produce electricity (I know, the gas turbine doesn't produce the electricity...). Starting with an investment of $1 billion Australian, Melbourne (3.8 million people) would be able to close all its landfills within five years of go-ahead. From then on, there would be over $200 million per year (profit from selling the TDP oil to refineries) to build additional TDP plants - Australia could stop using crude oil for transport fuels altogether within ten years of go-ahead, and export twice the amount of liquid transport fuels we currently consume (not just imports either, but all of it). Alternatively, the excess oil can be burned to displace coal for electricity generation (Victoria has about 500 years of brown coal at the current rate of consumption). The heat from the gas turbines is used in the process itself. Biochar has been shown to increase wheat production by two times and soy bean production by three times. Ten years after biochar starts being applied to fields, it could be used to double the productivity of over 32 million hectares (just starting with landfill waste-derived biochar and adding the crop residue from the 'treated' land to the TDP plant) and that's just with the biochar made from Melbourne's landfill waste. Mookie's off-target. >>>> Imagine a hydrogen oxygen rocket engine with an exit nozzle >>>> diameter [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > > Mookie's off-target. ============================================== I understand some people need small ideas. Maybe some personal environment causes that. But size can have useful consequences, not to say Mookie proposes a whole new topic area for space opera. For my part, the more I think on these very large machines, the better I feel about it. At the least, it's a remedy for the inner vacuum I've been feeling since Apollo was killed to free up a little money for the Vietnam war. A booster so large its liftoff has seismic consequences. Wonderful! How close to this thing lifting off could you be and survive to tell of it? *That* is where I'd like to watch it from. A good thing about so much hydrogen and oxygen is, it burns without creating pollution. (But I think the launch site might be kind of foggy for a day or two.) The problems I see are, 1) where does the energy come from that makes all that fuel? And, 2) how do you store that much cryogenics stuff? I can see a rapid evolution of high-speed pump tech in this large-booster technology. I like big ideas, but few so big are realistic. This one has made my day. Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2008 Aug 08] > >>> <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>>news:8da89bd5-ea9c-4622-9843-cd27982a08b4@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 130 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The vibrations of the 1.5 milion lbf M1 rocket engine were far less than the F1 engine - because hydrogen has different combustion characteristics relative to kerosene. Also advanced computer modelling available today, with modern materials, mean that these 100 million lb thrust engines will not be 60x noisier - though they will be noisier. I have thought this through pretty much - I have even met with government officials in Brazil, Gabon and Indonesia about it. I have even visited the islands and inland sites that I intend to use. (see my reply to Alan nearby) A set of 3 launch centers means that the 'bounce back' maneuver I've described elsewhere, will be obsolete by the time all the launch centers are fully functional - that is a booster will fly 1/3 the way around the world - and re-enter downrange. There a rocket base will refurbish and reuse the booster again - and it will be reocvered 1/3 the way around the world. Arriving after the second launch at its starting point. 'working' its way around the world. That's most efficient. 120 ships of tihs size, operating out of 3 fields, provide 1 launch to orbit every 8 hours - and provide a natural duty cycle to the 30,000 people involved - and puts up 30,000 tons per day - beyond LEO - 150,000 tons per day TO LEO. This is likely to take 15 years to 20 years to get started, and 20 to 30 years to complete the fleet build out. Today we need 17TW of power to run our economy. Growing at 7% per year means that need doubles every 10.7 years. We need 85 of the 10,000 ton satellites on GEO to meet TODAY's needs. In 20 years - we'll need 340 satellites - that's when we start - if we are to support continuous rapid pollution free growth. In 30 years we'll need 680 satellites. In 40 years, 1,400 satellites. This is for terrestrial use. The 210,000 sq miles oflands from a handful of today's large surface mine operators located in sunny regions - provide the receivers and basic infrastructure. Developoing this develops revenue streams and energy from terrestrial solar, and funds the development of the space leg. Once we get our economy back on track, - we'll find there are shortages in other things than energy. Raw materials. This will require a stream of materials harvested from the asteroid belt - using laser rockets powered by solar energy. This kicks demand up a notch - and begins to decouple power sat from energy needs, and starts involving it in material needs as well. This kicks demand up multiplying it - requiring the large rocket fleet within 30 years or so - when we fully populate GEO with power sats - we will have to adapt the laser targets at the focal point of each concentrator - to operate as free flying satellites - orbiting around the sun inside the orbit of mercury. Just as the terrestrial solar panel arrays were adapted to become powerful and efficient recievers of power from space, so too will the GEO based satellite fleet be adapted to reform powerful laser beams generated near the sun - this provides an additional factor of 100x to the powersat fleet's output - which allows it to easily handle all our material and factory needs as they develop on orbit. In sunsync polar orbit down around 1,100 km above Earth - a ring of rich asteroidal fragments, act as shepherd moons to a growing collection oflarge pressure vessels built on orbit. These start out as factories and smelting plants - but develop into farming satellites, forestry satellites,- built largely on orbit -and operated by telerobotic links from the ground - via satellite lbroadband. Products food, wood and paper, rain down in response to demand. Large pressure vessels are built and folded for entry into the Earth's atmosphere. There they deploy as they fall, creating floating cloud nine cities - that are powered by space laser beams, and fly through the skies of Earth as hot air dirigibles - carrying cities of 50,000 to 150,000 each. 30,000 of these citeis are eventually built and deployed, and provide an important stepping stone for the betterment of the poorest 1/3 of the human population. Eventualy the pressure vessels are built as private space homes robotically by the billions - and people by the billions will arrive in personal laser powered spacecraft to live and work on orbit. Laser and nuclear powered rockets will be purchased by many to move their space homes across the solar system. Laser light sails of tremendous capacity will be attached to space homes to move them beyond the solar system to the nearby stars beyond. This is our future. I am working on it today. I will be done within 80 years. I fully intend to be here then - haha- longevity research is advancing rapidly! - even so, human numbers will peak late 21st century and fall gradually thereafter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey The 37 meter diameter torus at the base of the payload shroud might also carry up to 200 tourists who would pay to ride aboard the ship as it deployed the power satellite. They might also go on a space walk. Also a portion of the 90 teleoperated robots would deploy on the powersat to provide continuing maintenance capability from the ground. In terms of size, here's an interesting chart http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3f2.html The engines I've talking about would have a bell diameter that would neatly cover the city bus and would be about as tall as the Millenium Falcon. They would attach to a structure about the size of the Eiffel Tower. The payload could easily loft three fully loaded Saturn Vs into an escape trajectory at the same time - not that you would actually do that. Stage layout and operation is very similar to this vehicle http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/rombus.htm but larger.. > In terms of size, here's an interesting chart > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > but larger.. ============================================ Well, well, well. There is another of those wonderfully future oriented things "we" discarded in the late '60's and in the '70's, so as to free up money for that war in Vietnam. The effect of choices then upon the present and future now, is plain to see. ...Will this list ever end? ?? Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2008 Aug 10] > <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Ran across this this morning in my research - we could have saved $200 billion and 50,000 American lives. Spending $50 billion on space over this period, instead of $20 billion - would have opened the interplanetary frontier to us and transformed the world, both politically and materially, and the US would have been the leading force in this bold new frontier. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG7jjF6xuKM&feature=related America wasn't really committed to the war, until the Gulf of Tonkin attacks - which some think were a put up job - to stir up support for the war - in August 1964. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbJLwk-bJaA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw0F0YF6h7o&feature=related http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident South Vietnamese President Diem when he lost support of his people - which JFK referred to in his CBS interview in September 1963 - with Walter Conkrite - JFK authorized the assasination the following month, which occured on November 2, 1963. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeNv_62v6WQ&feature=related http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem#Coup_and_assassination LBJ was so matter of fact in his telephone conversation it does make you wonder about the Kennedy assasinations. I want to be clear about the dates of the assasination of Diem, because the video on You Tube makes it seem like LBJ was behind that assasination. He wasn't. JFK was. So, by pointing to this video, I don't want to say I buy into the BS the maker of the video is putting out. Yet, these are people who will stick at nothing to gain and maintain and expand their power - despite their carefully crafted public image. That's why they HAVE power. I think oft-times the American people - all people - get lost in the fray - which is too damned bad - and is the sort of common mode failure I'm talking about constantly. True leadership seeks power certainly, but also sees that power as a responsibility to look beyond self - which marks off poor leaders from great ones. Kennedy was no god certainly - yet, I do think he had a different sort of vision than that promoted by the powers that be in the State Department and elsewhere by folks responsible for charting our growth as a nation - and that scared people. Did it scare them enough to kill JFK? We don't know that - no one does really. But LBJ's matter of factness about an assasination he didn't authorize - does make you wonder. We certainly have the skill sets in government to do it. . On Aug 13, 1:17 pm, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote: > > <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > > . You seem to be suggesting that our faith-based government snookered us, but good. You seem to be suggesting that our faith-based government hasn't been entirely honest with us. What special interest groups and individuals are most in charge? Why do you think no one but yourself really knows? ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth > On Aug 13, 1:17 pm, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > You seem to be suggesting that our faith-based government snookered > us, but good. I don't know what you mean when you say 'our faith-based government' - I do understand that I live in a Constitution-based federal republic with a strong democratic tradition. You seem not to know this. I don't know what you mean when you say that the government 'snookered us, but good.' - I do understand that my government engages in covert and clandestine operations from time to time and that those operations may from time to time be directed at controlling the range of political discourse in the United States for the purposes of maintaining or improving our National Security standing in the world. > You seem to be suggesting that our faith-based government hasn't been > entirely honest with us. I don't know what you mean when you say 'our faith based government' - I do understand that I live in a Constitution-based federal republic witha strong domocratic tradition. You seem not to know this. I don't know what you mean when you say that the government hasn't been entirely honest with us. I do understand that my government engagesin covert and clandesinte operations from time to time. A covert operation is a military or political activity carried out in such a way that the parties responsible for the action can be an open secret, but cannot be proved. Covert and clandestine are related terms, but not interchangeable. According to a United States Department of Defense definition, a covert operation is: “ An operation that is so planned and executed as to conceal the identity of or permit plausible denial by the sponsor. A covert operation differs from a clandestine operation in that emphasis is placed on concealment of identity of sponsor rather than on concealment of the operation. ” Covert operations are generally illegal in the target state (and the United States when internally directed) and are frequently in violation of the laws of the enacting country. Therefore covert operations are typically performed in secrecy because they break specific laws or compromise policy in another country or this one. Covert operations are employed in situations where openly operating against a target would be politically or diplomatically risky, or be counterproductive to the mission's purpose. In the case, to negative media attention. Operations may be directed at or conducted with allies and friends to secure their support or too controversial component of foreign policy throughout the world. The equivalent Soviet terminology would be "active measures". Again, this may be directed within the United States to control the range of political discourse if it is felt by experts, to the point of scientific certainty, that such discourse is harmful to our long term national security. The fact that covert and clandestine operations are routinely carried out is proven by the fact that law enforcement agencies use such operations to infiltrate suspected criminal organizations. There is also political subversion using front organizations. CIA- owned airlines that supplied Hmong fighters in Laos during the Vietnam War, is an example of such a front organization. These sorts of front organizations have been known to be used within the United States to subvert political organizations and reign in the range of political discourse. These techniques have from time to time been used by the President of the United States to subvert the power of the Democratic Party by 'ratfucking' strong candidates and promoting weaker candidates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfucking These covert and clandestine operations have been known to engage in targeted killings of high profile individuals for political, economic, and ideological ends. The killing of JFK and RFK may be the result of a clandestine operation within our own government. The discrediting of Edward Kennedy may be the result of clandestine operations. I do not know this, but it seems a very real possibility to me. Now, despite the presence of these operations in our government, despite the potential misuse and abuse of power inherent in these skill sets, despite the occasional actual misuse and abuse of power to subvert and distort the political process, and despite the common mode failures created by such use of these powers, I cannot say that I am snookered by my government, nor can I realistically say my government ROUTINELY lies to me. Anyone who suggests this is the case is insanely mad. The only reason I know the things I do about covert and clandestine operations, the only reason I know about ratfucking and targeted killings and all the rest, is because I live in a Constitution based Democratic Republic with a strong democratic tradition. > What special interest groups and individuals are most in charge? There is no special interest group in charge. I am free as are you to do and say and think whatever you wish. If our goals and desires and beliefs should on very rare occasion run afoul of a covert or clandestine operations, if I should become the target of an operation to kill me even, by my government even, illegally for selfish purpose even - THESE ARE ONLY FACTORS IN MY LIFE - I AM STILL FREE AS ARE YOU! > Why do you think no one but yourself really knows? I'm not the only one who knows these things. Its general knowledge. That's the nature of a free society. Only people looking for scapegoats outside themselves to explain their total lack of achievement and their abject frustration with their lives - people I would call losers - think as you do. Placing the source of your problems securely outside yourself - not having the guts or the gumption to stand up and do what you can to live as you wish be as you wish and achieve as you wish. NOBODY IS STOPPING YOU! THIS IS A FREE RICH AND WONDERFUL COUNTRY! STOP WHINING AND MAKING UP CRAZY BULLSHIT AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT YOU FREAKING MORON!!!! haha.. > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I didn't see before, Martha's question about energy and water vapor. Good points. 1.2 million tons of hydrogen and oxygen burned in the launch of the super-heavy I've described here releases a total of 171.6 million gigajoules of energy and produces 1.2 million kiloliters of water. This volume of water is equivalent to 1/1,000th of an inch of rainfall over 1800 square miles. Since the ground track where most of the water vapor is released is over 180 miles long, a plume that spread only 5 miles on each side of this ground track would cover 1800 square miles and as a consequence would add 1/1000th of an inch of water to the atmosphere. Of course if the atmosphere was ready to rain, adding a small quantity could push it over into a rainfall condition soon after a launch, if it was going to rain anyway. So,this might be noted by some. In terms of total energy, humanity uses 28.3 billion barrels of oil each year. Each barrel of oil contains approximately 6.1 gigajoule on average. That's a total of 172.6 billion gigajoules of energy. This is over 1,000x the amount used by humanity. Two flights per week of these vehicles constitute 10% of all energy currently used by humanity, yet such flights I believe would transform life on Earth. The hydrogen and oxygen propellant is made from water drawn from the ocean. The water is desalinated, decomposed into hydrogen and oxygen, and the gases sent by pipeline to the launch center, where it is stored in liquid form until needed. 171.6 million gigajoules x 2 launches per week divided by the numbrer of seconds in a week (606,876) implies an average load of 565 Gigawatts of electrical capacity. The elelctrolytic processes I use are around 72% efficient, so actual average load is 800 GW.when pumping, liquefaction and desal energies are added into the total. Using unassisted solar panels to provide this energy requires that 4.1 trillion watts of solar panels be installed and operating. This requires a total area of 23,100 sq km. I have options on over 250,000 sq km of mine lands in the USA today and have a program to acquire more. Solar panels assisted by bandgap matched infrared laser beams from a power satellite in space, reduce the required solar panel installation from 4.1 trillion watts peak to 800 billion watts peak. Furthermore, because of the improved energy density, total area is reduced to 1,834 sq km. Four power satellites are required to augment this much power. 23,100 sq km of solar panels augmented by 48 power satellites increase their output of hydrogen from 126 million tons per year to 1.57 billion tons per year. 900 million tons is enough to displace 5.5 billion tons of coal - and adding 570 million tons to that total is enough to make 38.5 billion barrels of liquid fuels with that coal, more liquid fuels than we use today - while cutting our carbon footprint. The value of today's liquid fuels market exceeds $4 trillion per year. The order of battle is such that we start with 500 sq km of desert lands, and work with a small fleet of vehicles 1/5th the size of this one - . We grow over time to 2,000 sq km of solar panels in Northern Nevada and expand out from there. The vehicle size, fleet size and launch rate are increased along with panel area, producing not only sufficient power for the launch center, but also excess hydrogen for export the production of synthetic fuels.. Power satellites once operational, allow exponential expansion of launch capacity to approach and eventually exceed this rate.. On Aug 17, 3:58 pm, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote: > I don't know what you mean when you say 'our faith-based government' > - I do understand that I live in a Constitution-based federal republic > with a strong democratic tradition. You seem not to know this. I also do not believe in the tooth fairy, nor in the salvation of Earth via Mook and your New World Order of pretend-Atheists that follows the Old Testament as though they were Zionist/Nazis. Of government and their faith-based puppet-masters go hand and hand (either one can not hardly function without the other). > I don't know what you mean when you say that the government 'snookered > us, but good.' - I do understand that my government engages in covert > and clandestine operations from time to time and that those operations > may from time to time be directed at controlling the range of > political discourse in the United States for the purposes of > maintaining or improving our National Security standing in the world. You know there has been a Zionist/Nazi perverted command in charge of our intellectual and scientific knowledge, whereas otherwise we'd be decades advanced of where we are, and at not one tenth the global inflation. Of course there wouldn’t be 1% as many rich and powerful folks to take those spendy Mook orbital rides. Does your version of rich and powerful = smart and honest? (I don’t think so) > > You seem to be suggesting that our faith-based government hasn't been > > entirely honest with us. [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > Constitution based Democratic Republic with a strong democratic > tradition. Of killing off the opposition without remorse, and of excluding evidence and otherwise keeping those public funded secrets until hell freezes over is clearly a “strong democratic tradition“. > > What special interest groups and individuals are most in charge? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to kill me even, by my government even, illegally for selfish purpose > even - THESE ARE ONLY FACTORS IN MY LIFE - I AM STILL FREE AS ARE YOU! In other Mook words, no one is ever in charge of the bad or inefficient sorts of stuff. > > Why do you think no one but yourself really knows? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > read more » All spoken like a true brown-nosed DARPA (aka Zionist/Nazi), except highly bipolar and fully bigoted at the same time (aka intellectually racist). Being in denial of your being snookered and dumbfounded past the point of no return is after all a rather tough position for the likes of our lord all-knowing Mook to master, but that you have seems impressive. How about sharing another 100,000 of those Mook words of wisdom for good measure. Btw, your sicko government has been and is still corrupt and otherwise Zionist/Nazi perverted, just the way you and others of your silly brown-nosed kind like it. Btw No.2 When (as within which decade or century) are you going to give us all of that clean and cheap liquid Mook synfuel energy, so that we can keep burning up and polluting our mostly N2 atmosphere? I have a very nice Jewish yachting client that needs to consume 500+ gallons per hour of low sulphur No.2 diesel. What has Mook synfuel got that’s consumer (end-user) available, extremely cheap (say less than $1/gallon [incl. State and Federal tax]) and clean burning? Each refueling is for sustaining a 24 hr run, meaning that he needs 12,000 gallons at each pit-stop (so to speak). This yacht holds nearly 15,000 gallons, having a 27 hr 1350 nm range w/10% reserve. In full standby, the auxiliary energy demand is capable of burning 40 gallons per hour. Efficiency standby gets that fuel consumption down to less than 10 gallons per hour. Skeleton standby (minimal crew of 6) brings the auxiliary fuel consumption down to roughly 4 gallons per hour. Where do I tell my trickle-up funded client to fuel-up his yacht with all of that cheap Mook synfuel? ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth Brad likes calling me and other people names when we tell him he's reponsible for his life and is free to do what he likes. That gets him so upset! On Aug 18, 3:40 am, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote: > Brad likes calling me and other people names when we tell him he's > reponsible for his life and is free to do what he likes. That gets > him so upset! And you just keep lying to mostly yourself, like there's no tomorrow. I seem to have trouble keeping my Google Usenet/newsgroup "views of your messages" accounting below the 4000 mark. How about yourself? On a good week I've exceed the 5000 mark, and once having exceed 6000. So, in so many ways, it seems Mook synfuel of any sort of affordable green energy is just more of the same old lies upon lies, just like your republican Mafia and their Zionist/Nazi DARPA. btw, where are the other usual ten thousand reply words of Mook wisdom? ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth On Aug 18, 3:40 am, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote: > Brad likes calling me and other people names when we tell him he's > reponsible for his life and is free to do what he likes. That gets > him so upset! At least I didn’t put Christ or anyone else I didn’t like on a stick for accomplishing yet another faith-based PR stunt. I also didn’t 36,000 fold gamma and X-ray dosage those of my own dark-skinned kind, like those of your DARPA did. I also didn’t artificially perpetrate a spendy and indirectly bloody as well as starvation and highly inflation worthy cold-war, nullify the better goodness of JFK, try to destroy our good ship LIBERTY, cause 911 or take out the wrong TWA flight 800 and then cloak everything with both LLPOF butt-cheeks flapping in the mostly Republican winds of denial and evidence exclusions. I also didn’t cause 6400% in fossil energy inflation within 64 years. What’s the matter this time, lord Mook. Isn’t your Zionist/Nazi trickle-up policy working quite as well as you’d hoped? Why don’t you tell us what’s objectively different about the William Mook mindset, from that of Hitler’s Zionist New World Order, because I seriously can’t seem to tell the difference. ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth > >> <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>news:8da89bd5-ea9c-4622-9843-cd27982a08b4@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > 17 metre diameter rocket nozzle? Rocket engine over 100ft long? 53 > THOUSAND tons of thrust? http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730065121_1973065121.pdf This is only 70x larger than the M1 - which was built and test fired - which means the size of the engine is about 8 times the diameter of M1 with the same area ratios and so forth. The real issue is the size of the turbo machinery. Scaling laws for such machinery show that we can make something the size needed. After all we already make turbomachinery and engines the size of the turbomachinery now anyway in other applications. There is no reason in principle that we cannot make rocket engines the size indicated. http://people.bath.ac.uk/ccsshb/12cyl/ Look at the size of the engine here. There is no reason we cannot build turbomachinery on a comparable scale. http://www.flickr.com/photos/nhodges/793855846/in/set-72157601337385711/ Check out the size of this wind turbine http://www.organiclightsculptures.com/NNP/files/worlds-largest-wind-turbine.jpg A careful analysis of the details involved reveals no reason we cannot in principle build airframes the size needed, turbomachinery the size needed, or rocket nozzles the size needed. We already build ships that size and components that size - routinely... >Regardless of what Mookie says about the possible, Its not me saying it, its DOD and then NASA saying it - in declassified literature that's over 50 years old. A quick look at the largest intricate machinery we build today indicates that we have the means to make turbomachinery nozzles and airframes of the requisite size. In fact, a careful review of the scaling laws associated with cost, indicates this is nearly the optimal size. > the practical must hold sway. 2 and 3 meter diameter pistons in diesel engines, 20 meter diameter flow nozzles in turbines, 100 meter impeller blades in other turbines.. these things are ROUTINELY built today. The scale isn't the problem. Create turbomachinery along the lines shown in the M1 on the appropriate scale - computer model the details to avoid the problems the F1 had with vibrations - and you're there man. > Oh, and don't forget that you'll never > (NEVER!) get an ISP of 450 at sea level; Obviously this is an average over the entire flight cycle which is easily achieved. Clearly a prelminary study is not the same as a complete study. haha.. So, alan is grasping at straws trying to present things as they are not. Fact is, a detailed engineering analysis would next do a calculus of variation analysis to determine ideal staging fractions and so forth. When that is done in order to increase mass flow rate (and hence thrust) at lift off - using minimal turbormachinery - you don't need high Isp (specific impulse) That's why they use SRBs on the shuttle. On this vehicle you do something more advanced . Something that has been suggested by rocket designers for 50 years. haha.. Namely mix methane solids in with the hydrogen to create a milkshake like slurry. Here's a recent (11 year old) review http://sbir.grc.nasa.gov/launch/GELLED.htm Mix methane/hydrogen in with your hydrogen - and layer it so the propellant is denser at the bottom of the tank. This gives you more propellant and better structural fraction at lift off - and you start out around 380 sec Isp and end up 465 Isp at the end - this is a way to modulate fuel flow rate and thrust - with very little change in turboequipment - which makes the system more reliable. Since you can optimize chamber pressure and do a number of other things when you do this trick - it produces a vastly superior system.. I didn't do all these calculations, but obviously I will as I proceed. In any event, clearly a 450 sec Isp over the entire flight cycle in this preliminary analysis is well justified. > that means that Mookie is referring > to a second stage (100 times the thrust of the S-II of the Saturn V)- the > first stage would be even larger. No it doesn't. It means I'm referring to the entire ascent curve and averaging the Isp to get a preliminary estimate of vehicle size and so forth. The level of detail you're talking about comes next - you do a calculus of variation - with Isp compensated for altitude along the ascent profile and vary that profile to optimize it - then you vary the stage separation to optimize that - then, you vary the propellant mix as described to optimize that - and then do that spin over and over again, until you close in on the optimal stage fractions, and so forth. The point is, 1) the stage fractions will be within 10% of those already given, 2) the Isp will likely be higher ON AVERAGE than the AVERAGE given. > Hell, we're arguing on these forums against the Ares V being too big. So? Its mission requirements are different. > With > as much thrust as Mookie suggests, you'd be able to launch a payload of > 11,800 tonnes into LEO (based on the thrust of the second stage of the > Saturn V). This vehicle, if you actually use the rocket equation with understanding will put over 50,000 tons into LEO - and 10,000 tons into GEO - or send 5,000 tons directly to the moon - and return it - or 5,000 tons to Mars and return it - and recover all the pieces involved. > And then there's the support infrastructure - where do you build > the engine (not to mention the propellant tanks and other structures). You build the supply chain for it. The first step is to get the money. That's done by building a terrestrial based solar hydrogen production unit that hydrogenates coal and produces 200,000 b/d of gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel. The $8 billion facility, using waste coal on a 500 sq km spent coal field - generates $7 billion per year in free cash flow - of which only 40% is leveraged to raise the original $8 billion. The remaining $4.2 billion in free cash flow is directed toward building other facilities, and R&D on interesting projects - like this one. I start with a warchest of about $50 million - and contact folks like Enercon http://www.enercon.de/en/_home.htm to build large airframe parts or Aioi Works of Japan's Diesel United for large turbomachinery,actuators, hydraulics and so forth or Sumitomo Heavy Industries for airframe and so forth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock_Nevis spend a few tens of millions of dollars to detail things out - and by that time, I have a half dozen facilities operating - generating $30 billion per year in free cash flow for me - and from that I start buying up or partnering with - creating a consortium - to build the supply chain needed for building maintaining and operating this fleet- and its payloads (power satellites initially) Along the way a subscale version of the spacecraft is built that lofts a mere 500 tons to LEO - this orbits subscale powersats, but more importantly it lofts large numbers of large comsats that provide the world with a global wireless internet service - 50 billion channels - each channel sold on average for $6 per year - generating $300 billion per year - in free cash flow - the system costing less than $60 billion to build. This adds to the cash warchest. . >And > where do you launch it; at The Cape or out at sea? I have an equatorial island chain chosen owned by Indonesia. The islands are uninhabited, and the Indonesian government would be very keen on developing them, if they got to build a portion of it, and have nationals operate it. The first stage booster would re-enter and land near Manus - the falls on the Amazon river. There, the Brazilian government would allow the operation of a rocket field. The booster lands, is refueled and 'bounced back' to the launch center as described above. The Manus equatorial facility also operates a launch complex, with its booster coming down in Gabon - on the Haut-Ogooué Province - using the well-established cargo ships that support the mining industry there to bring in supplies. I would build the ships and launch infrastructure and parts in Asia, and float them - like off shore drilling platform parts - to shore side facilities where they would then be assembled into a launch center. The Brazilian facility would be floated up the Amazon,and the Gabon faclity would be floated up the Congo. http://www.diamondoffshore.com/ourCompany/ourcompany_offshorerigbasics.php Watch these videos to get an idea of how that works. >The noise would be > incredible, Yes. > not to mention the probably seismic effects. http://www.diamondoffshore.com/ourCompany/ourcompany_offshorerigbasics.php Since we already use siesmic detectors to detect the launch of ballistic missiles, I am absolutely certain that these rockets will also be detected that way. Obviously the ability to detect these missiles seismically has no bearing on their practicality or utility in developing space based assets off world.. > Now, we can always assume ("never 'assume'; you make an 'a.s' out of 'u' and > 'me'" - The Odd Couple) that it's intended to be launched from the Moon or > Mars or whatever, Obviously, rockets built on Earth have been used to land people on the moon and then carry them back to Earth. Clearly, a 10,000 ton payload on a lunar free return trajectory, with all parts reusable - has the capacity to establish a significant transport capability between Earth and moon. Ditto for Earth and Mars. Of course this isn't the reason it was orignally built - but it is easily adapted to this purpose. > but geez, assumption leaves all sorts things in the ball > park. ??? so, you are saying because alternatives to this proposed system pale in comparison to it we shouldn't do it? No matter how much money is made generating energy and communications off world using it? Obviously your idea makes no sense whatever. > Then again, the (proposed) nuclear fusion rocket would be even better We don't know how to build fusion rockets - excepting nuclear pulse rockets that have fission triggers. > (forget the effects of radiation) Why? Detractors won't. Plainly this system has none of those shortcomings. Clearly successfully operating these vehicles without incident establishes the need for super heavy lift capacity - while showing its safety. Obviously this is the first step to even larger lift capacity. > and then there's the (proposed) engine for > the BIS Daedulus - nuclear BOMBS! The only fusion reaction we've been able to reliably engineer. > Proposals are one thing; making them > practical and useable are two entirely different things. Right, and the obvious way to achieve these later goals is to take a step toward them - with an intermediate goal. Clearly the proposed super launcher is that step. > And I didn't say it was impossible, That is wise. > just ridiculous. Why? > For the reasons above, None of those hold water. > Mookie's suggestion is unrealistic. No it isn't. > Not impossible mind you, Agreed. > just > unrealistic. Not at all - in fact application of the scalaing laws and examination of the skill sets already out there in the world indicate this is nearly an optimal size. Sure, subscale systems will be built and tested - and likely find use in space launch and as tenders to larger payloads launched by the heavies - but these will be the workhorses until better engines are built - laser engines, and fusion engines as you pointed out. > If Mookie wanted to build his SSP's, it would be more economical to use the > resourses of the Moon - No it wouldn't. > combined with an electromagnetic launcher How do you plan to get it up there? > (they're > planning that for the next series of U.S. Navy aircraft carriers - yes, electromagnetic rail guns - they'll offload the research by painting pretty pictures (remember when nuclear power would be too cheap to meter - that's when the DOD needed money for nuclear research) - and when they got what they wanted, they'll classify it and deny they ever said anything about it - and call anyone who reminds them of it - crazy or misinformed. lol. launchers of the type you envision have a number of interesting applications - and evne interesting space applications. But starting from where we are, it makes a lot more sense to have Sumitomo think about the airframe and Aioi think about the turbomachinery and rocket nozzle - and let diamond offshore think about big a.s test stands and launch centers - if you want to actually build something today that works at a reasonable cost. Once your shipping 5,000+ metric tons to the moon every day - THEN you can think about what the benefit of a rail gun is. But, once you've got this sort of capacity on orbit, it makes more sense to use rail guns on Ceres or other rich asteroids and send a stream of material back to Earth orbit - and bring it into orbit here - use teleoperated robots in orbiting factories placed by these rockets, and solar power from satellites put up by these rockets to process that stuff into consumer goods, food and fiber - and deorbit it directly to consumers. With the profits from that operation, then you expand space launch to include a laser rocket ship in every garage -and then build space homes on orbit - but not before building and deorbiting cloud nine floating cities - to provide refuge for those stuck in bad places. > they use > something called an 'ultracapacitor' to store electricity until the 'shot' - > fascinating stuff). Yep, I worked at Ohio State with Dr. Turchi, we had a room filled with capacitors that we charged up at night when everyone was asleep, and then shorted them through a variety of interesting stuff we built at the machine shop. We compressed deplete uranium in MHD tests, and we fired some rail guns - this was back in the 80s. So, I know a little about this subject. The problem is, that's not where you start. You start with the sort of vehicles I'm talking about, plugged into the sort of program I'm talking about. You start solving the world's energy needs, and then its raw material needs, then its food and fiber needs, its job needs, its communications and financial service needs - all iwth space based assets and off world resources. This is the way to proceed. > We don't need SSP's anyway. Yes we do. > Check out a process called TDP; This is a way to do coal to liquids. The problem is where do you get your hydrogen? and oxygen? If you get your hydrogen from the shift reaction - you make 44 tons of CO2 for each ton of hydrogen you use. And then make more CO2 running the TDP process - BEFORE you even burn the fuel. Yeilds are as a result, very low. If you get your hydrogen and oxygen from the electrolytic reduction of water, and get your heat and electricity from either a solar or nuclear source - then you don't have any pollution and you have far higher yeilds. This is what I do!! http://www.usoal.com haha.. This is the first step. I use very low cost solar collectors, to make hydrogen and oxygen, then use direct hydrogenation processes to convert coal into liquids very efficiently. Its ludicrous to say TDP will solve our energy problems, since TDP doesn't create a primary source of energy. It NEEDS a primary source of energy to work. If you use coal as the primary source, or a combination of coal and natural gas - you are adding to the carbon burden of our air,and decreasing the value of coal. By tapping into a pollution free source of primary energy - like nuclear or solar - TDP is a step in a direct hydrogenation process that increases coals value by adding solar energy to it - while reducing our carbon footprint. Check it out - using my approach of tapping into solar to make hydrogen and oxygen from sunlight and water - we convert 5.5 bilion tons of coal each year into 38 billion barrels of gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel. We eliminate 18 bilion tons of carbon dioxide - by supplying 867 million tons of hydrogen to the coal fired plants to replace teh coal - and eliminate our need for conventional oil. > I first heard > about it on the sci.space forums a couple of years ago (2003?) and I've been > captivated by it ever since. Its a chemcial conversion process - not a primary energy source. How you power it determines whether or not it can be beneficial. Power it with my solar panels, and it makes sense - power it with coal and it makes things worse. > It provides liquid fuels (diesel for trucks, > buses, trains and ships; kerosene for aircraft and petrol [gasoline] for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > mass-media] are right about climate change) and can even be used to increase > crop production by utilising something called 'biochar'. Converting biomass into industrial fuels starves billions, lowers food quality, while increasing the cost of those fuels it makes. Converting coal into industrial fuels, increases electricity prices, creates electricity shortages, impoverishes the coal and utlities, while increasing the cost of liquid fuels while increasing pollution.. Using solar energy generated at 1/5th cent per kWh - to reduce water into hydrogen and oxygen -and using the hydrogen to replace coal in stationary power plants, while converting the released coal to liquid fuels with more hydrogen, increases teh value of coal, and reduces the cost of liquid fuels - while eliminating pollution. Furthermore, low cost hydrogen combined with air makes fertilizer at very low cost increasing volume and quality of food while reducing its costs. Finally, low cost solar water desalination, creates water at extremely low cost - allowing the irrigation of marginal lands and abundant water everywhere - increasing quality of life, lowering water costs,and increasing crop yeilds. > All at the same time. You have ignored where the primary energy is coming from. Details count, and this is an important detail. TDP is a chemical process that is very efficient - and I use a version of it in my direct coal hydrogenation processes. Howeve,r HOW its powered, WHAT it is used for - determines its ultimate utility. Now, obviously generating hydrogen from sunlight is the best way to go. Clearly, once large tracts of solar collectors are in place,they are easily improved by adding a bandgap matched laser beam on orbit to illuminate the panels 24/7 - Plainly this is an obvious next step once a number of coal-to-liquid facilities are built. http://www.bni.co.id/Portals/0/Document/Coal.pdf http://www.mitrais.com/mining/miningNews060818.asp > From landfill waste (food scraps, garden waste, plastic, rubber, waste oils > and chemicals), agricultural waste (straw, chaff and animal waste) and even > sewage (at the same time, water released from the plant contains no bacteria > at all, let alone any that are alive, unlike normal sewage treatment). Humanity today uses 28.3 billion barrels of liquid fuels. It takes liquid fuel to make plastics, paper, and other waste. So, the volume of waste is far smaller than the volume of fuel we use. Converting that waste may be a good way to get rid of the waste by reusing it, but in total, it does little to change our energy supply situation. Furthermore, by focusing on waste streams which have a very high cost of recovery - we increase the cost of liquid fuels- which is fine by the oil companies - but not pointing us in the right direction. From 1870 to 1960 the price of oil dropped 5% per year throughout the entire period. A barrel fo oil in the 1950s and 60s cost less than a gallon of gas does today!! Since the US peaked in oil output in the 1970s our economy has suffered tremendously, and the price of oil has risen at an average compoound rate of 11% - nothing that has been seriously proposed challenges this view. All those programs that have the potential to challenge the price of oil today - and put us back on a trend toward low cost energy - are opposed and marginalized by a dedicated cadre of people who know better. Why? Because it undercuts the value of oil that's why. Ultra-low-cost terrestrial solar power - making hydrogen for coal conversion - reduces the cost of oil and provides more oil than we use today. Management of this technology allows us to sustain 7% or more increases per year in energy use worldwide, while reducing our carbon footprint - High temperature nuclear reactors - making hydrogen for coal conversion - achieve much the same ends. Using wastes and biomass - is at best marginal and raises the cost of food. . Wind power is at best marginal. Coal to liquid using shift reaction - triples pollution levels and wastes 2/3 of our coal while raising the price of oil and dpressing the price of coal. > TDP also produces gas which can be burned in a gas turbine to produce > electricity (I know, the gas turbine doesn't produce the electricity.). TDP is a chemical process - its not a source of primary energy. You need a carbon source and a hydrogen source. Solar provides that - without the solar source this is not a solution by itself. > Starting with an investment of $1 billion Australian, Melbourne (3.8 million > people) would be able to close all its landfills within five years of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > of consumption). The heat from the gas turbines is used in the process > itself. http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/drs/indicator/330/index.html Over this period 3.8 million australians used 970 million GJ of energy. Converted to oil at 6.1 GJ per barrel we have 159 million barels. At $200 australian per barrel we have $31.8 billion Australian. Now, your TDP program that converts the waste from those 3.8 milion australians to $0.2 bilion worth of liquid fuels - may be a good thing to do - but it isn't even a drop in the proverbial bucket. furthermore since the costs of collecting the waste - which was off- loaded to the government in order to make the profits (there was a political fight about that in melbourne) you are ignoreing the fact that this source of oil is MORE costly than buying it today. That's why the oil companies don't object to it. There's not enough made to really challenge the market price, and the cost of production is way higher. Not so with solar assisted conversion of coal at $8.57 per barrel - that's why you don't hear about it much. > Biochar has been shown to increase wheat production by two times and soy > bean production by three times. Depends on the details - biochar can contain metals and radioactive materials in greater abundance than isnaturally found in soil. http://newenergynews.blogspot.com/2007/03/nuclear-radioactive-economics.html Even if this is resolved, it doesn't change the fundamentals. Yes, we might be able to process our wastes in this way to make our economy slightly more efficient - by less than 1% - but it will cost far more than 1% of what we spend on generating energy to do -(which is why it hasn't been done) it won't materially affect our supply situation (you need waste made from energy processes in the first place for it to work) - so its not the answer as you wrongly say. Its a useful chemical process - one I have adapted to my systems - but you need to ask the basics. Where are you getting the energy and what does it cost? solar panels and coal combine to create a real challenge to the oil monopolies and have a real chance to bring costs down while reducing carbon emissions. once you have large solar arrays beaming bandgap matched laser energy to those arrays is an obvious way to increase their output of hydrogen, and create a hydrogen economy. improved optics on the laser powersats provide a means to eventually displace or augment hydrogen with laser power networks. > Ten years after biochar starts being > applied to fields, it could be used to double the productivity of over 32 > million hectares (just starting with landfill waste-derived biochar and > adding the crop residue from the 'treated' land to the TDP plant) and that's > just with the biochar made from Melbourne's landfill waste. If we took ALL our wastes and processed them into liquid fuels, and used biochar cleaned of metals and radioactives to cover our fields, we'd increase our efficiency by about 1% - and cover about 20% of our fields - our basic supply situation won't be materially affected. if we however cover 210,000 sq miles of mine lands in deserts (owned by a handful of people) with solar collectors at $0.07 per peak watt - we would make 3.34 billion tons of hydrogen from 30 billion tons of water each year - enough to displace all fossil fuels everywhere - at a cost equivalent to $4 per barrel. Before that however, we will begin by converting waste coal to oil with hydrogen and oxygen made with solar collectors covering stripped out surface mines - using cleaned up run off water for the hydrogen source - and make oil at $8 per barrel. As the system expands, we displace coal in coal fired power plants with hydrogen, eliminating carbon emissions - and use hydrogen with that coal to make more liquid fuels at $9 per barrel. Converting ALL coal fired power plants to hydrogen, and all stranded coal to liquid fuels, generates 38 billion barrels of liquid fuels per year - more than is currently consumed. Which means, prices willl drop for liquid fuels! Economies will expand. Within 15 years of general expansion, there will be a NEED to take those converted surface mines and increase their power output 15 times - by orbiting solar power satellites to feed them bandgap matched laser energy - and increase the energy supplies of this world to 15x their current level. When the world has grown to need more energy it wil then be supplied by advanced lasers beaming energy directly to users anywhere. > Mookie's off-target.- Hide quoted text - No you are. You droned on and on and on about TDP - but proved incapable of seeing the essential fact that TDP is a chemical conversion process, not a source of primary energy. It needs a source of hydrogen and oxygen adn carbon to work. Biomass can be that source of carbon - but the shift reaction is typically the source of hydrogne - and when that's the case, its a dirty process indeed. Details count, when you don't get the details right, you are off target. This has been your problem from the outset. You really need to address it in yourself, before calling me names! lol. > - Show quoted text - > <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Not even if I were using drugs would I be able to imagine something so > ridiculous as this. Why? Are you not familiar with the scaling laws of rocket engines? As early as 1959 the US Army concluded that there was no fundamental reason rockets of several thousand tons thrust could not be built if there were a reason for it. Furthermore,study after study since that time also concluded that vehicle cost could be reduced by; 1) increasing launcher size 2) making components reusable 3) increasing flight rate This proposal achieves that. > >> Imagine a hydrogen oxygen rocket engine with an exit nozzle diameter [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ridiculous as this. > At least Sea Dragon got into that engine size category: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/searagon.htm Pat > At least Sea Dragon got into that engine size category: > http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/searagon.htm Again; imagining something and actually making it happen are two different things. >> At least Sea Dragon got into that engine size category: >> http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/searagon.htm > > Again; imagining something and actually making it happen are two > different things. =========================================== OK on the obviosity. What's the point? Titeotwawki -- mha [2008 Aug 10] > "Alan Erskine" <alan.erskine@bigpond.com> wrote in message >> Again; imagining something and actually making it happen are two [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > OK on the obviosity. What's the point? Just like Mookie's 'dream'; it'll never happen. For the reasons I've already stated. > >> At least Sea Dragon got into that engine size category: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > things. > Oh, it's easy! Some old oil drums, a little welding, some vacuum cleaner parts, some soldering, a couple windshield washer pumps, some epoxy cement, a old jet engine...and there you are...super rocket engine. Good do-it-yourself project for the weekend. Next month we'll show you how to build one of these using old radium clock dials, a lampshade, and a surplus aircraft drop tank: http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/w/waldebar.jpg Pat > Oh, it's easy! Some old oil drums, a little welding, some vacuum cleaner > parts, some soldering, a couple windshield washer pumps, some epoxy [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Pat Regardless of everything else, that's a spectacular-looking ship (both of them, actually). > Regardless of everything else, that's a spectacular-looking ship (both of > them, actually). > > Although it's not quite accurate, the ocean liner is the United States. The big thing is the Aldebaran super nuclear powered spacecraft: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/aldbaran.htm Looks like they are lining up for a race...I think the Aldebaran will win. :-D Pat > Although it's not quite accurate, the ocean liner is the United States. > The big thing is the Aldebaran super nuclear powered spacecraft: > http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/aldbaran.htm > Looks like they are lining up for a race...I think the Aldebaran will win. > :-D The SS United States won - it existed. >> Although it's not quite accurate, the ocean liner is the United >> States. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The SS United States won - it existed. =================================== Is the date on that picture correct? 1962? If so, that is a further example of America's remarkable failure to realize a possible and desirable future. Too many wars! And what have we to show for that? *However* did we come to this? Is it a fatal social flaw, and we wind up in the history books as another failed experiment? ?? Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2008 Aug 11] > Is the date on that picture correct? 1962? If so, > that is a further example of America's remarkable > failure to realize a possible and desirable future. The thing was a complete pipe dream, it was about as workable as anything found in a Buck Roger's comic strip. We discussed it a while back on sci.space.history, and we can't even figure out how the engine is supposed to work. It apparently uses a gaseous core fission reactor of some sort, but that doesn't explain the huge engine bell at the back or the air intakes on the sponsons. The engine bell makes it look like it's designed for some sort of nuclear pulse drive, like the old Orion concept, but with the blast being contained in the bell rather than acting on a pusher plate. This says it dates from 1960: http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3c.html Dandridge M. Cole had all sorts of big ideas: http://discoveryenterprise.blogspot.com/2007/08/islands-in-space-challenge-of.html Pat > > Is the date on that picture correct? 1962? If so, > > that is a further example of America's remarkable > > failure to realize a possible and desirable future. > > The thing was a complete pipe dream, it was about as workable as > anything found in a Buck Roger's comic strip. That's what the military industrial complex would like you to think. Obviously, a major aerospace company getting paid by a government office to do a real engineering study is something more than a comic strip. > We discussed it a while back on sci.space.history, and we can't even > figure out how the engine is supposed to work. Yes we can. You build a carefully shaped shell and detonate a small nuclear device inside after coating the inner surface with propellant. The propellant evaporates and exhausts through a nozzle, pushing the ship forward. A guy named Cole developed this fully enclosed nuclear pulse engine in response to General Atomics system. It was energetically more efficient, which means you got more bang out of your radiation load. This design was written up in Aviation Week all over the place, the two systems were compared. Bosch who worked on the injectors for Cole did an ad which showed a ship with a fully enclosed engine - and a space station stuck to the nose - flying toward the moon. Cole's system heated a working fluid injected into the walls of the engine.- and held there by surface tension - a form of tar was suggested with little pop up sprays the pre-dated lawn sprinklers - and then retracted into the engine wall before the blast protected from the blast by a layer of tar. . A lot of folks talk about hoop stress being too large and stuff like that in these groups 'proving' it wouldn't work. Their stuff is closer to comic book fantasy1 lol. The fully enclosed system was actually based on the test results of some of the atom bomb tests done in tanks above ground - before they started testing underground. This led to detailed engineering analysis of what could be done to do atomic bomb tests in a tank so we couldn't see it sesmically or radiologically - a worry in the 50s - and how could this data be used to make bomb proof buildings, shelters, missile launch centers and so forth. All that stuff was immediately classified - since it was so useful in avoiding dtection of development of nucleaer weapons and defending against nuclear weapons. Still,some got the information out - in this form. Note, this tank fully contained a blast - which wasn't meant to fly. Allowing the pulse to evacuate through a carefully shaped nozzle- produced sufficient thrust to make an engine possible. You could do 10 to 1 thrust to weight - which was not as good as a chemical engine's 70 to 1 - because of the massive pulse of energy that had to be contained. Still, this was first generation. GA s pusher plate concept could do 20 to 1 - far better - but used more radioactives. A nuclear thermal engine like NERVA - would be around 5 to 1 at worst.- 7 to 1 at best in 1960s - but released zero nuclear materials during normal operation. > It apparently uses a gaseous core fission reactor of some sort, but that > doesn't explain the huge engine bell at the back or the air intakes on > the sponsons. Its easy. You spray tar all over the inside of the engine you use a bazooka to launch a small nuclear weapon into the center of the engine. It detonates. The gamma blast vaporizes the tar - the blast wave compresses it against the walls.while water flows behind the walls to keep them cool and transpires through the walls while the plasma evacuates from the system. When pressures drop, tar again sprays onto the walls, repeating the cycle. Just as a pulsejet engine tunes its exhaust to its detonation rate - think of a tuba blowing middle C - and the engine detonating at 440 Hz - so too does this engine cycle at 50 Hz to 5 Hz - to maintain a relatively constant thrust with a 2,000 sec Isp.. The pusher plate concept didn't try to contain the blast and merely rode the pressure wave. This made the plate relatively easy to design relative to the chamber here. They used larger bombs - and a lower detonation rate - 2 HZ to 0.5 Hz - with a big a.s shock absorber. The shock absorber mass was a big reason the pusher plate concept wasn't leagues ahead of the chamber concept. Since the shock absorber was a complex mechanical device compared to the chamber - it was more prone to failure. Riding on the GA pusher plate would have been like sitting on a swing. lol. Riding on Aldeberan would be like being aboard a big cargo ship under heavy seas. . > The engine bell makes it look like it's designed for some sort of > nuclear pulse drive, YEs. > like the old Orion concept, but with the blast .> being contained in the bell rather than acting on a pusher plate. Precisely. > This says it dates from 1960:http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3c.html > Dandridge M. Cole had all sorts of big ideas:http://discoveryenterprise.blogspot.com/2007/08/islands-in-space-chal... http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/aldbaran.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandridge_M._Cole This says the design is Cole's - it should actually read General Electric Space Technology Center.- which also employed an engineer, turned author - Kurt Vonnegut at that time. Kurt was a friend of mine.- haha - we met n NYC once - and exchanged a few letters - lol. According to Vonnegut he thought GEs D-2 spacecraft was stolen by the Soviets back in the day - before he was a published author. He wasn't responsible for the theft haha -, but he thinks that was the reason GE never got any major traction in the aerospace community despite fabulous designs. In Russia's mind GE was the top design bureau for the USA. They copied their refrigerators and air conditioners. So, they had them pretty well penetrated. > Pat Designs such as these will be preceded by very large chemical launchers. The determining factor is engine size, and that is given by pump size and that is given by scaling laws and maerials used. Modern materials and methods are far superior to those in use in the 1950s and 60s. It is possible and practical to build 40 foot diameter 100 foot tall engines that burn hydrogen and oxygen and produce 60,000 tons of thrust. Its possible to gang them together on large airframes this size of supertankers,and build a 1.4 milion ton vehicle that produces 2.0 million ton thrust and lofts 50,000 tons into LEO and 10,000 tons into escape - with return of all stages. It is not only possible - it is optimal if we are serous about developing off world resources. People look at the size of payloads and the size of rockets,the cost of construction and the fragility of the system- and say - other than comsats and spysats and navsats - and exploration of the planets by unmanned probes - what is the use? They can be forgiven this question given the factors I've just described. By increasing the size of the vehicles, increasing their number, and increasing their launch rate, costs are dramatically reduced, payloads dramatically increased, and robustness and safety dramatically improved. The difference is the difference between night and day. To get an intuitive feel about this, without getting too technical, consider maintaining trade with Europe across the Atlantic by Canoe, by a handy sized freighter,and by large container ships. When you plot costs, travel time, losses, and contribution to economys of both places, as a function of vehicle size - the trends are clear. For fundamental physical and logistic reasons - the same thing applies to aircraft - and spacecraft. You see a continuing increase in the size of aircraft over time for this reason. When we were investing in space travel there was a similar push for larger and larger spacecraft - again for the same reason. The vehicle I have proposed here - is an optimal starting point - in the development of the solar system to benefit humans here on Earth today - and from this starting point not only will we be vastly richer here and now, by making efficient use of off world assets and resources - but it will be a starting point for future expansion and growth of humanity as it crosses the cosmos. > >> Although it's not quite accurate, the ocean liner is the United > >> States. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2008 Aug 11] If that last part is a question, of course. But it won't be in our history books, the history books of those who come after - before they fail of course. > > Oh, it's easy! Some old oil drums, a little welding, some vacuum cleaner > > parts, some soldering, a couple windshield washer pumps, some epoxy [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Regardless of everything else, that's a spectacular-looking ship (both of > them, actually). I'm forbidden to see it for some reason. lol. Now, imagine a 200 GW laser power satellite on orbit. It has the capacity to beam energy to the upper stage of the vehicle just described. Now imagine that a second stage engine is equipped to receive laser energy from space, sufficient to produce 339,556 metric tons of thrust by heating 167 metric tons of hydrogen per second - to exhaust it at 20 km/sec. This requires the power 33 TW of laser energy - the output of 167 power satellites. The second stage is equipped with a stretched second stage hydrogen tank with a 16.84 meter spacer between spherical end caps, which is filledwith 129,644 metric tons of hydrogen in the 105.55 m long stretched tank. the base of the second stage is the same, but has a 16.84 m long 88.71 m diameter cylinder inserted mid way through the stage, before narrowing to a 64.61 meter at the top - with a 112.81 meter base. This vehicle delivers 102,658 metric tons to GEO - using the same booster and an improved upper stage. A stretched deep space stage is attached to the top of this two stage booster. The deep space stage is a stretched version of the third stage which is capable of landing on the moon and returning to Earth - with 20,000 tons of payload. The vehicle is also capable of executing a powered touchdown on Mars and returning to Earth - again with 20,000 tons of payload. A laser propelled version of this vehicle is capable of flying to the asteroid belt, surveying to find rich feedstock for human industry, and attaching laser powered rockets that use the asteroid itself as propellant. > Now, > > imagine a 200 GW laser power satellite on orbit. It has the capacity > to beam energy to the upper stage of the vehicle just described. No it doesn't. There's no such thing as a laser that powerful. There's also no satellite that can generate that much power. Oh, and what if the laser misses the 'target'? Of course, in _your_ imagination, it wouldn't do that. > <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No it doesn't. There's no such thing as a laser that powerful. Are you familiar with Bob Forward's plans to use laser light sails to send payloads interstellar distances? This rocket is far less powerful than that. > There's > also no satellite that can generate that much power. Not today. However the powersats that have been proposed can generate that much power. 480 sq km of sunlight - harvested by a mylar disk 24.72 km in diameter, shaped by very low pressure gas into a near parabolic shape, illuminating a thin film PV/FEL/MEMs device 400 m in diameter - does produce 200 GW of controlled laser energy. > Oh, and what if the laser misses the 'target'? You misapprehend a detail. The laser cannot miss the receiver. That's because the power laser beam is functionally GENERATED BY the receivers 'pilot beam' which interacts with the nonlinear optics IN the laser controlled window to create a conjugate beam that makes its way back precisely to the receiver. This is just the methodology proposed by SDI to shoot down thousands of warheads at once. Except here the reciver is cooperating. Now, what happens when the pilot beam disappears? The power beam shuts off. >Of course, in _your_ > imagination, it wouldn't do that. Nonsense. I've worked out the details which you haven't yet. Of course that doesn't stop you from growling your nonsense does it? On 9 Aug, 04:57, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote: > Imagine a hydrogen oxygen rocket engine with an exit nozzle diameter > of 17 meters in diameter, 36 meters long and produces a thrust of [quoted text clipped - 124 lines] > > * * * * You are assuming that heavy lift is need for SSP. In fact what you require is the phase locking of small (a few Kw) units. - Ian Parker > On 9 Aug, 04:57, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 133 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Not when you look at lowest system cost. There are cost differences when scale changes. While it is feasible to build on the scale you speak of, it is not AS cost effective. Demonstration projects using subscale systems - will certainly be built as you suggest. The size I propose here is nearly optimal to transition from chemical launcher, to chemical/laser launcher, and deep space laser probes, and laser recovery of asteroidal feedstock. haha.. even at 200 GW per satellite - which is broken down using conjugate optics into many many beams some as small as 10 kW - you still have to combine 100s of satellites to do heavy lifting with laser energy - so 200 GW satellite size WILL also operate in phase locked mode - sharing a common pilot beam from a common receiver to usefully combine energies to do heavy lifting. What's interesting is if you look at the consumption curve of each person throughout the day and by season at each latititude in an industrial society, and then you shift that curve by longitude and latitutde for each person - and then sumall the component curves - to get a global energy demand curve - you end up with something like 210 TW average power - which peaks at over 300 TW and drops to less than 100 TW - throughout the day. This means there will be 1,500 satellites of this size!! So, they'll certainly operate in a variety of modes - including combining their outputs for space workmostly. Harvesting asteroids, sending out space probes, sending out interstellar probes, and so forth. This means that there are certain times of the day that you'll have the 33 TW available for launch for 10 minutes or so at a time. You'll be limited to launching fewer than 6 vehicles per day - once your system is fully use and integrated into the world's economy. Ultimately - 100 or so of the 200 GW satellites will be permanently dedicate to supporting space operations. On 9 Aug, 12:33, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote: > > You are assuming that heavy lift is need for SSP. In fact what you > > require is the phase locking of small (a few Kw) units. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > speak of, it is not AS cost effective. Demonstration projects using > subscale systems - will certainly be built as you suggest. I am not talking about a sub scale system. Phase linking produces a full size system. There is one other point too. The system must be engineered to fail soft. This means that we need to divide up both solar power and computer power. The Internet is composed of a lot of small units. The Internet has never failed even if individual units have. The optimal size for a transportation system is far from being clear cut. Weight goes up as L^3 whereas strength goes up only as L^2. Large units go better through the lower atmosphere, bur small units reenter better. I think we need to concentrate on $/Kg at LEO and on building an ion drive from LEO to GEO. Plus of course material from space. > The size I propose here is nearly optimal to transition from chemical > launcher, to chemical/laser launcher, and deep space laser probes, and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > locked mode - sharing a common pilot beam from a common receiver to > usefully combine energies to do heavy lifting. As I said $/Kg not Kg at one go. You need to ask the cost of the TOTAL weight. Can the weight be reduced by contributions from space? I am not convinced you need more than 1000Kg at one go. > What's interesting is if you look at the consumption curve of each > person throughout the day and by season at each latititude in an [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Harvesting asteroids, sending out space probes, sending out > interstellar probes, and so forth. If you choose a laser you can in fact supplement terrestrial photovoltaics from space. This is quite interestin. I think you wil find that peak demand tends to be daylight hours. Space would be very useful in the early evening. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message