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
  #71  
Old May 18th 06, 02:54 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


: NM House Bill 835, signed into law on February 24, 2006.

: http://legis.state.nm.us/lcs/BillFin...er.asp?year=06 will let you
: find it.


Here's a direct link to the bill:

http://legis.state.nm.us/Sessions/06...nal/HB0835.pdf

but it doesn't specify any specific amount of money that I could see.
I could be wrong.

Ads
  #72  
Old May 18th 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


Today's CNN.com:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html



Again, these are =proposals= not investments.

  #73  
Old May 18th 06, 03:05 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

wrote:

Here's a direct link to the bill:

http://legis.state.nm.us/Sessions/06...nal/HB0835.pdf

but it doesn't specify any specific amount of money that I could see.


Look at Section 1, Paragraph E. If you still don't see it, you're
blind. Might I suggest that you remove your blinders?

I could be wrong.


You're wrong.
  #74  
Old May 18th 06, 03:24 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

wrote:

Today's CNN.com:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html

Again, these are =proposals= not investments.


What do you mean, "again"? You were wrong to deny the fact of
investments before, and while you might be quoting a word from the
article, you're no more correct this time. The "proposals" are not
about the existence of and investments in the facilities, but about the
requests to the FAA for approval as a licensed space launch site.

You've been spoon-fed the relevant information about the New Mexico
spaceport. The Oklahoma one *is already built* and just needs the final
stamp of approval on its application for an FAA license, which is
expected to be granted before mid-June. The two Texas sites mentioned
in the article are still undeveloped, but they've definitely received
investment in the form of environmental impact studies; significant
construction is understandably being deferred until after a spaceport
license appears forthcoming.
  #75  
Old May 18th 06, 12:38 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

Okay, I give - states are making an effort to attract the Boy
Billionaires and get them to put -more- money than that into the
economy.

But it still all comes back to the Billionaire Hobbyists, and the
states wanting some of their money, just like attracting a new chicken
processing plant or something.

  #77  
Old May 18th 06, 09:55 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


"Neil Gerace" wrote in message
...

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...

Oh, and don't forget the costs of the storage systems you need for wind
and Earth-based solar, and the fact that tidal and geothermal are
cost-effective in only a few particularly favorable places, and the
limits
imposed on fission by uranium supply.



And the fact that most of the world's uranium is found in politically
unpalatable countries, like Australia :-)


Well, you do have to dig Down Under the ground to find it!


  #78  
Old May 18th 06, 09:59 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


Oh, and don't forget the costs of the storage systems you need for wind
and Earth-based solar, and the fact that tidal and geothermal are
cost-effective in only a few particularly favorable places, and the
limits imposed on fission by uranium supply.


Oil isn't exactly available everywhere either.

  #79  
Old May 20th 06, 03:10 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

Of course, any attempt to obtain serious amounts of power from space will
utterly dwarf today's space programs, so assuming that its costs will be
similar is ridiculous.


Absolutely. But, even if we are talking about Manhattan Project sized
efforts (which is really the crux of space cornucopia proposals) I'm
can't find any data supporting the preeminence of solar power.

Oh, and don't forget the costs of the storage systems you need for wind
and Earth-based solar, and the fact that tidal and geothermal are
cost-effective in only a few particularly favorable places, and the limits
imposed on fission by uranium supply.


Isn't the problem of supply obviated by using breeder reactors? And
what about the kilotons of U238 in storage?

  #80  
Old May 20th 06, 04:00 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

Fission is also massively expensive and a typical
reactor can take 15 or 20 years to be built.


Bureaucracy.

And a dramatic increase in fission will require a solution
to the nuclear waste issue that has yet to be solved.


It is solved. We are talking about few thousands cubic meters.

But I suppose we can turn Nasa into a great big
Waste Management company, and have them
blast the nuclear waste into the sun~


No comment.

Besides, I'm not talking about the foreseeable future.
I'm talking about the future. Ultimately, say a century
or two down the road, where will our energy come
from? Solar power is the obvious conclusion.


I think it's rather pointless to do anything other than speculate about
next century power sources. If you look up the energy situation during
the early 1900s it becomes pretty obvious.
Even so, IMHO in 100 years fusion will form the mainstay of power
generation.

The future should define the present.


I always thought that it was the other way around.

Consider this:
-current energy consumption is approx. 450 Quadrillion BTU (4.5 x
10^17) = 1.31882 x 10^17 Wh = approx. 15x10^12Wh installed power.
-current Si solar pannel weight is around 50W / Kg (GaAs pyramidal 150W
/ kg - probably too expensive).
-projected growth of energy consumption at aprox. 10% per decade.

Asuming same consumption, total installation (that's trusses and
antenae included) efficiency at 100W / Kg !!! a launch cost of $250 /Kg
to GEO and transmission efficiency of 80% (we are talking 'bout the
future heah), you would need ... mmm ... quiet a lot of dinero to
replace ALL current sources.

Now, how big a slice of the energy pie you want to cover with solar
CLEAN, WONDERFUL power ?

 




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 04:06 AM.


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.