A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old May 23rd 06, 02:26 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

On Thu, 18 May 2006 18:14:24 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Alan Anderson ) wrote:
:
(Eric Chomko) wrote:

: : New Mexico is investing over $200M in a commercial spaceport.
:
: Is this one going to be coneviently located near the the existing NASA
: facility (TDRSS Ground Station)?

: 1. What's convenient about being near a TDRSS ground station?

To steal employees of course.


Of what value would TDRSS ground station personnel be to a space
tourism spaceport?
Ads
  #92  
Old May 23rd 06, 05:05 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

In article , Paul F. Dietz wrote:
extraction of the uranium content of about a cubic kilometer of seawater
per *minute*. I'm not aware of any chemical process -- not even
purification of drinking water -- which has ever been done on anything
like that scale.


The chemical processing proper is done on the saturated adsorber.


No, that's the second stage of the chemical processing. The first stage
is running seawater through the adsorber. Just because that stage looks
simple and easy, doesn't mean that it *is* simple and easy... not when
you're trying to process cubic kilometers per minute.

has already been tested, in the ocean, and fouling was not a problem.


How do you know? It's not mentioned, that I've seen, but that doesn't
mean it wasn't a problem.

If you want to be concerned about fouling, worry about growth
of organisms on the support structure, not the adsorber itself
or its cages (if this was what you *were* worrying about, then
I agree it would need to be addressed.)


I'm concerned about all of the above. :-) They're all potentially
serious issues when trying to turn this from a lab-scale demo into a
large-scale production process.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |
  #93  
Old May 24th 06, 02:57 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

In article v,
Bill Higgins wrote:
The ace infrastructure people at Fermilab have, during a maintenance
shutdown several weeks long, been doing battle with the dreaded zebra
mussel. An April report indicated that divers had already removed 8000
pounds of the critters from our water systems...


Ah yes, those things. I'm on the Public Advisory Committee of Toronto's
main water plant, which draws from intakes offshore in Lake Ontario. A
few years back, during a maintenance shutdown, chlorine lines were run out
along the intake pipes, so that some chlorine can be injected right at the
intakes. This has nothing to do with disinfection, in the public-health
sense; it's to keep the damn zebra mussels out of the pipes.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |
  #94  
Old May 24th 06, 09:22 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

Alan Anderson ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: You mean the infrastructure for oil already exists (i.e. refeineries,
: travel routes, established business conteacts, etc.).

: The infrastructure for turning oil into a convenient fuel is indeed
: established. That's exactly *why* such fuel is available essentially
: everywhere.

Right, that's why we'll eventually use up the oil supply. When, is the
question. Hopefully when we do other forms (and I stress plural - a single form
of energy like oil is dangerous) will be available when we do run out. The
latter is paramount for any political agenda worth its salt, IMO.

: There isn't huge incentive to switch over to something like solar and wind
: power that can't be as well measured as a barrel of oil.

: I don't think it's a matter of measurement. Electricity is easily
: measured, and is *actually* measured as it enters almost every home in
: the United States of America. No, the disincentive to finding an
: alternative to gasoline is mostly because gasoline is a portable and
: reasonable energy-dense fluid.

But if everyone could harness solar and wind energy through a single purchase
item, unlike a car that needs gas, or a home that needs electrical power, then
the big money boys are out.

: Gasohol might be
: an exception and will probably be in more demand given curent gas prices.

: Gasohol is only an exception to your mischaracterization of the issue.
: It's a very good example of something which emulates the reasons pure
: fossil-fuel gasoline became so popular.

Please elaborate as you only provided more questions than answers.

Eric
  #98  
Old May 25th 06, 01:53 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation


Right, that's why we'll eventually use up the oil supply.


No, we won't. We will always have oil. We may stop using it, but
we'll never run out.


Huh? Oil is a finite resource. Since no more of it is being made, no
matter what rate we use it at, we will eventually run out of it.

  #99  
Old May 25th 06, 01:56 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation


But if everyone could harness solar and wind energy through a single purchase
item, unlike a car that needs gas, or a home that needs electrical power, then
the big money boys are out.


That demonstrably cannot happen - even at a 100% rate of conversion,
not enough wind and sunlight hit, say, an office building, to meet the
energy demands of that building.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.