The First Step in Creating a Space Age - Treat Earth as a Planet

In article 44c7e23f-3ab2-4d3b-8c6f-d5da0b06f9c3
@u11g2000prn.googlegroups.com, says...
I suppose it would also be a reasonably good idea of not hauling pure
oxygen along within the same H2 displaced blimp, but that's just a
guess. Obviously our shuttle has little if any option but to abort if
there's more than any natural background level of H2 detected, because
there's actually quite a bit of pure O2 onboard.

I'm sure O2 leaks in the aft compartment of the shuttle are treated with
the same scrutiny as H2 leaks. In an oxygen rich environment, pretty
much anything burns, as the Apollo 1 fire so lethally demonstrated.

The trouble with hydrogen is, due to its very small molecular size, that
it finds ways of leaking no matter how careful you are (this is why
hydrogen leaks which scrub shuttle launches appear to be more common
than oxygen leaks causing the same).

Hydrogen leaks in an air ship are rightfully a concern.

Jeff
--
42

On Nov 8, 1:51*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 41b7993d-0921-4844-a040-b30d717782d6
@g20g2000prg.googlegroups.com, says...





On Nov 8, 1:10 pm, Jeff Findley wrote:

That said, there are still very real risks of using H2 as a lifting
gas.
Great care has to be taken to insure that H2 doesn't escape into
enclosed areas of an air ship which are filled with air, because a
flammable, or even explosive, air/H2 mixture can be created in such a
situation. H2 leaks into the atmosphere are far less of a fire risk.

Note that H2 leaks in the aft section of the space shuttle have been an
issue on several shuttle missions. When such leaks are detected and are
above a certain level, the launch is scrubbed until the leak is fixed..

In a typical terrestrial blimp application, H2 only leaks upwards.
When's the last time any cabins or equipment was located directly
along side or much less above the H2 cells?

Who said anything about cabins or equipment? *

* * Interactive Hindenburg diagram:
* *http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/html/e3-diagram.html

In the above, please note the areas which are inside the middle of the
H2 cells. *Such areas could become filled with a hydrogen/air mixture if
one of the hydrogen gas cells leaked or ruptured.

It's my feeling that there just weren't enough Hindenburg like air ships
built and flown to find all of the possible failure modes involving
hydrogen. *As a thought experiment: *In an alternate history where the
shuttle program ended after the Challenger disaster, the failure mode
which led to the loss of Columbia would never have been found.

Jeff
--
42

Nothing in the middle was ever an issue of any ignition risk.

~ BG

On Nov 8, 2:00*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 44c7e23f-3ab2-4d3b-8c6f-d5da0b06f9c3
@u11g2000prn.googlegroups.com, says...

I suppose it would also be a reasonably good idea of not hauling pure
oxygen along within the same H2 displaced blimp, but that's just a
guess. *Obviously our shuttle has little if any option but to abort if
there's more than any natural background level of H2 detected, because
there's actually quite a bit of pure O2 onboard.

I'm sure O2 leaks in the aft compartment of the shuttle are treated with
the same scrutiny as H2 leaks. *In an oxygen rich environment, pretty
much anything burns, as the Apollo 1 fire so lethally demonstrated.

The trouble with hydrogen is, due to its very small molecular size, that
it finds ways of leaking no matter how careful you are (this is why
hydrogen leaks which scrub shuttle launches appear to be more common
than oxygen leaks causing the same). *

Hydrogen leaks in an air ship are rightfully a concern.

Jeff
--
42

95+% hydrogen is essentially inert. At worse you'll likely have a
fuel rich burn, not an explosion unless pure O2 is introduced.

~ BG

On Nov 8, 6:17*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 8, 9:05*am, William Mook wrote:
As Jay Leno reported, the Hindenberg ignited not because of hydrogen
but because of the material that coated the surface of the balloon.
The magnesium struts didn't help either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHbaO...utube.com/watc....

Exactly,

Exactly wrong, as I pointed out elsewhere.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

You need to accept that hydrogen is a relatively friendly but
potentially lethal gas, like most every other hydrocarbon on Earth is
just as bad or worse. Any moron can get himself and others burned up
with hydrocarbons that have little if anything to do with raw
hydrogen, because it happens all the time. In most energy related or
buoyancy applications is where hydrogen would be safer than natural
gas(methane) that blows up homes, institutions and factories all the
time. If anything needs to get outlawed, it's oxygen, because O2
makes almost everything explosive or burnable, and H2 doesn't.

Most hydrocarbons are also responsible for having released helium, and
that's leaving Earth in amounts that shouldn't be allowed. All
naturally vented and/or extracted helium eventually gets released, or
at least 99.9999% of helium has been released thus far, and as a
result Earth is losing mass (1e3 kg/sec).

~ BG

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote:

It is true that the likely cuase of the fire was a spark which
ignighted
the flammable coating on the outside of the Hindenburg.


No, it isn't.

Fine, there are several competing theories as to what caused the fire
and you don't believe that a static discharge igniting the fabric is the
likely culprit.

Perhaps you could agree that once the Hindenburg started burning, there
were several flammable materials which would, and did, burn. These
include, but are not limited to, doped fabric skin, hydrogen, and diesel
fuel?

Jeff
--
42

On Nov 9, 6:39*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...



Jeff Findley wrote:

It is true that the likely cuase of the fire was a spark which
ignighted
the flammable coating on the outside of the Hindenburg.

No, it isn't.

Fine, there are several competing theories as to what caused the fire
and you don't believe that a static discharge igniting the fabric is the
likely culprit. *

Perhaps you could agree that once the Hindenburg started burning, there
were several flammable materials which would, and did, burn. *These
include, but are not limited to, doped fabric skin, hydrogen, and diesel
fuel?

Jeff
--
42

If Fred had his way, all use of hydrogen would be outlawed, and if
possible all hydrogen removed from our planet. Then because water was
still legal, he'd drown from some common storm flood, and at least
thereafter we'd all be better off.

~ BG

On Nov 9, 6:16*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 8, 6:17*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 8, 9:05*am, William Mook wrote:
As Jay Leno reported, the Hindenberg ignited not because of hydrogen
but because of the material that coated the surface of the balloon.
The magnesium struts didn't help either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHbaO...utube.com/watc...

Exactly,

Exactly wrong, as I pointed out elsewhere.

You need to accept that hydrogen is a relatively friendly but
potentially lethal gas, like most every other hydrocarbon on Earth is
just as bad or worse. *Any moron can get himself and others burned up
with hydrocarbons that have little if anything to do with raw
hydrogen, because it happens all the time. *In most energy related or
buoyancy applications is where hydrogen would be safer than natural
gas(methane) that blows up homes, institutions and factories all the
time. *

Uh, I'm not aware of anyone proposing methane for 'buoyancy
applications'. *The only reason methane "blows up" all the time is
that none of the places you list HAVE hydrogen feeds.



If anything needs to get outlawed, it's oxygen, because O2
makes almost everything explosive or burnable, and H2 doesn't.

I'd certainly like to outlaw you using oxygen.



Most hydrocarbons are also responsible for having released helium, and
that's leaving Earth in amounts that shouldn't be allowed. * All
naturally vented and/or extracted helium eventually gets released, or
at least 99.9999% of helium has been released thus far, and as a
result Earth is losing mass (1e3 kg/sec).

WOW, in a few billion years we might actually notice!

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

Your obfuscation and denial is noted, as is your disregard of our
environment and the very survival of humanity that's apparently
meaningless to those of your Semitic and ZNR approved kind.

~ BG

On Nov 9, 6:50*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote:

It is true that the likely cuase of the fire was a spark which
ignighted
the flammable coating on the outside of the Hindenburg.

No, it isn't.

Fine, there are several competing theories as to what caused the fire
and you don't believe that a static discharge igniting the fabric is the
likely culprit. *

Studies at the University of Colorado indicate it would have taken a
preposterous amount of time (days) for the skin to burn if that was
what caught fire. *Most likely cause is a static discharge igniting a
hydrogen leak from the #3 hydrogen cell.



Perhaps you could agree that once the Hindenburg started burning, there
were several flammable materials which would, and did, burn. *These
include, but are not limited to, doped fabric skin, hydrogen, and diesel
fuel?

The skin has been analyzed and judged "combustible but not actively
flammable". *In other words, exposed to a hot enough flame it will
burn, but it won't ignite on its own.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
* * live in the real world." *
* * * * * * * * * * * -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

You shouldn't fart like that in public.

~ BG

Nuking forests is not recommended.

Interesting you go from one extreme to the other and ignore the
rational path in between.

On Nov 8, 2:11*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 8, 10:38*am, William Mook wrote:



On Nov 7, 10:24*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Nov 7, 5:26*pm, William Mook wrote:

Earth as a planet means Earth treated as a single entity of production
and consumption. *Which stands in marked contrast to treating Earth as
a divided and fractious collection of 266 nations each on their own
geopolitical position defined by their access or not to resources and
defined by their ability to trick, cajole or force others to hand over
what they need at the expense of the rest.

It is clear that despite well defined limits and options we have not
made good decisions related to the development of energy resources on
this planet.

It is likely we have not made good decisions related to the
development of other primary resources as well.

So, its worth thinking of a goal and determining if this goal is at
all feasible!

It turns out that it may be!

8 billion millionaires is one place to start. *Its a well defined
target. *We find that to achieve this goal we need vastly more than is
currently being produced in terms of food, energy, wood, metals, and
so on.

When, we look at what the entire planet has to offer we find that we
have enough - surprisingly.

In the end, we look at the Earth as we might look at a space colony -
and we find that we have plenty of everything to go around - if we
trouble ourselves to invest in the most productive infrastructure
possible and apply it as broadly as possible leaving no one out.

When we do this we find that approximately 800,000 sq km of solar
collectors, 800,000 sq km of green houses in the desert, a few large
water works programs, and careful management of 800,000 sq km of Taiga
forest, combined with the development of a yet to be determined number
of deep sea trenches - connected together with space based
communications, space based navigation, space based sensing, and a
network of hydrogen filled hydrogen fueled UAV - creates a system that
achieves the initial target of 8 billion millionaires.

From the productivity of this asset we can see how our economy might
adopt it as a private public partnership - allocating what Ford calls
efficiency bonuses to workers, management, investors, government, and
buyers alike.

This is all well and good, except for the usual part where William
Mook does nothing.

Motivating poor folks to do whatever they can't possibly afford to
accomplish isn't exactly a working plan, and especially dysfunctional
if there's no actual leadership by anyone other than yourself. *Do you
even have a short list of who would be put in charge of what, and have
any of them been contacted by you?

*~ BG

The 10 million millionaires have $40 trillion. *With the collapse of
the US banking system and the imminent unraveling of the US monetary
system they're looking for a place to put their money. *A few billion
to build a 'production cell' that puts all the pieces together is the
first step. *Then, building a factory that makes factories to make the
things we need to live. *Like I said;

* Five Years to Engineer and Develop
* Five Years to build the supply chain
* Five Years to build the products

We start with 1 cell and grow it 100x over three years by building a
production cell per year - of each type needed to support the supply
chain.

They are looking for a relatively failsafe and untaxable place to put
their 40 trillion so that it turns into 80 trillion at the least
possible overhead, and Mook hydrogen balloon cells for accomplishing
global deforestation or those terrific satellite based energy notions
to go along with your terrestrial conversion of solar energy into dirt
cheap LH2 and LOx are probably not on any of their short lists,
perhaps because they is heavily invested in the existing hydrocarbon
and nuclear energy cartels as is.

However, if you can manage to brake any of those trillions lose for
whatever Mook contrived investments, I'm certainly not going to stand
in your way. *I totally agree that we need to get our upper most
wealthy loot reinvested into advanced technology, various productions
of products, goods and especially energy that insures better long-term
growth that's affordably clean and isn't restricted by government or
faith-based policies that only get in the way and run up the cost of
just about everything. *Any further delay is yet another cost that we
can not afford.

*~ BG

Here is one scenario the board members at Exxon Mobil have on their
books;

The USA following a limited nuclear war in Asia before 2040 between
the Hindus and the Muslims will be in an ideal position to take over
ALL the world's nukes to secure world peace. The USA will also
benefit from the flight of capital from a post-nuclear Asia. The
world's population will be reduced to 4 billions by the war, and the
demand for resources will be radically reduced. Following a limited
nuclear strike in Asia and a doubling of our background radiation, the
USA will then be in a position to introduce high-temperature nuclear
reactors using recycled nuclear materials gathered in the security
operation immediately following the war. These will be used to
implement the BNL plan for high-temp breeder type nuclear reactors and
move from energy at $500 per barrel to too cheap to meter within a
half-century. This will allow the major oil companies to retrieve all
the value from their remaining oil and then give them special entree'
to spend that money on the next big energy resource - the world's
stockpile of nuclear weapons materials.

Without pressing geopolitical needs present at the beginning of the
nuclear era, a portion of this resource will be cycled into nuclear
pulse spaceships which will be used to develop solar system resources
and other things I speak of, with a 4 billion, largely white, largely
Western, population.