A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Commercial Moonship



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 10th 16, 08:12 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Commercial Moonship

Consider eight external tank sized airframes. Seven are clusted in a hexagonally close packed array, and the eighth is stacked upon the central tank. The seven tanks are filled with 762 metric tons of propellant (117.23 tonnes of hydrogen and 644.77 metric tons of liquid oxygen. The weight of each tank's structure is 34.29 metric tons.

The eighth tank carries 412.14 metric tons of propellant (64.41 metric tons of liquid hydrogen and 348.74 metric tons of liquid oxygen). The tank structure is 18.55 metric tons. The remaining 221.31 metric tons is dedicated to 10 decks. Four passenger cabin decks consist of 28 seats facing radially outward and a central cabin behind those seats. A fifth crew deck consists of 14 seats facing radially outward and a central cabin behind those seats. There are five additional decks with supplies, rocket belts, airlocks, propellant and so forth.

112 passengers and 14 crew members are taken to the moon and they fly to the lunar surface on individual rocket belts 7 times in a week - and return to Earth.

Propellant 762.00 MT
Hydrogen 117.23 MT
Oxygen 644.77 MT
Structure 34.29 MT
Payload (LEO) 652.00 MT

Take Off Weight 6,226.03 MT
Propellant Weight 3,048.00 MT
Propellant Fraction 0.489558 ratio
Exhaust Velocity 4.20 km/sec
Final Velocity (Stage) 2.82 km/sec
Total Velocity 2.82 km/sec

Stage Weight 3,040.87 MT
Propellant Weight 1,524.00 MT
Propellant Fraction 0.501172 ratio
Exhaust Velocity 4.40 km/sec
Final Velocity (Stage) 3.06 km/sec
Total Velocity 5.88 km/sec

Stage Weight 1,448.29 MT
Propellant Weight 762.00 MT
Propellant Fraction 0.526138 ratio
Exhaust Velocity 4.45 km/sec
Final Velocity (Stage) 3.32 km/sec
Total Velocity 9.21 km/sec

LEO - LFR Delta Vee 2.95 km/sec
LFR - LLO Delta Vee 0.75 km/sec
LFR - ERT Delta Vee 0.75 km/sec
Total Delta Vee 4.45 km/sec

Propellant Fraction 0.632121 ratio
Stage Weight 652.00 MT
Propellant 412.14 MT
Hydrogen 63.41 MT
Oxygen 348.74 MT
Structure 18.55 MT
Payload (LLO) 221.31 MT
Passenger & Crew 126 people
Passenger 112 people
Crew 14 people

Passengers per Deck 28 people

Outer Diameter 330.71 inches
Circumference 1,038.95 inches
Cabin Width 37.11 inches

Inner Diameter 259.84
Circumference 816.32
Cabin Width 29.15 inches

Deck Height 86.61 inches
Number of Decks 5 count

Diameter 330.71 inches
Length 1,929.13 inches
  #2  
Old September 11th 16, 11:06 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Commercial Moonship

A communications satellite network that consists of 722 satellites each massing 900 kg placed on orbit by a single launch. Using solar powered ion engines, with a 50 km/sec exhaust speed, the satellite network migrates across 19 orbital planes with 38 satellites per orbital plane, each separated by 9.4738 degrees. Each illuminating an area 1,052.6 km square at the equator. At 45 degrees latitude, it is a trapezoid with a height of 1,052.6 km and the north border is 739.7 km and the south border is 913.8 km. At the North or South pole each satellite passing over the pole illuminates a circular region 1,052.6 km in diameter.

A multi-beam open optical data link connects each satellite to its nearest neighbour in space at 250 terabits per second forming a substantial optical back bone. Each satellite uses a phased array inflatable radio telescope antenna that links each satellite to the ground points on the ground. At 60 Ghz a 30 meter diameter phased array antenna produces a 203.3 meter diameter spot. Up to 25 million unique locations are identifiable on the ground by each satellite.

Each satellite acts as a router linking wireless handsets on Earth using unlicensed WiMax V-band at 70 MBit/sec using OFDM on typical handsets - that see this as near field communications options and is discoverable on 90% of all telephone handsets and computers world wide.

There are 6.8 billion cell phones world wide nearly all 7.4 billion people on Earth. They pay a total of $1.7 trillion per year for cell phone services. Approximately $20.83 per month per subscription. 90% of these are accessible by the system described above. Providing instant long-distance connectivity - an alternative to ground based systems - even if the primary SIM based system is shut off - could easily capture $10 per month - from 6.1 billion of these phones. This is more money each month than the entire world spends on space travel in three years. $732.0 billion per year.

The satellites are also equipped with an advanced time base that allows a synthetic L1C GPS compliant signal that allows emergent OCS with no distributed emergent control. Furthermore, each satellite has a live data feed from a 266 megapixel 60 fps hyper spectral camera (30,976 x 8,776 pixel) providing live images of the entire Earth with 30 meter resolution accuracy from IR to UV spectrum. This forms a searchable database similar to Google Earth, that provides records on demand to all people everywhere of everything that happens on Earth.

125 Ultrastar He8 drives provide one petabyte of storage consuming less than a kilowatt - massing less than 85 kg and occupying less than 0.4 m on a side - costing less than $60,000!

722 petabytes of storage on orbit to support advanced funcitonality.

https://www.hgst.com/sites/default/f...tar-He8-DS.pdf

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6...reat-to-intel/

Each satellite has millions of parallel processors, to support its functionality, and provide cloud based services via handsets and laptops and tablet computers throughout the world - equivalent to a supercomputer for each user.

Equipped with appropriate software...

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6...reat-to-intel/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnUYcTuZJpM


  #3  
Old September 11th 16, 09:22 PM posted to sci.space.policy
jacob navia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 341
Default Commercial Moonship

Le 10/09/2016 Ã* 09:12, William Mook a écrit :
Consider eight external tank sized airframes.


Seven are clusted in a hexagonally close packed array,

An hexagon has 6 sides. Hence six tanks. I do not see how you write 7
instead of six.

and the eighth is stacked upon the central tank.

OK. I see now, you have an hexagon with six, and a central cilinder that
makes seven. That is why you write seven above. No, the central cilinder
is not the eighth but the seventh.

The seven tanks are filled with 762 metric tons of propellant

(117.23 tonnes of hydrogen and 644.77 metric tons of liquid oxygen.

It would be interesting that instead the numbers you write how you come
to those numbers. You need two mol of hydrogen for one mol of oxygen.
Considering the molecular weight of each probably you are right, but it
would be much more interesting to see the formulas than the numbers.

The weight of each tank's structure is 34.29 metric tons.

Probably. There is no way to know since you do not tell the reader what
is the general outlook of what you are describing.

It is probably feasable to figure out the structure from its weight in
metric tons, but since there are MANY (actually infinitely many)
structures that can be built from 34.29 metric tons, the figure you
advance is unquestionable...

If you say so. OK. 34.29 metric tons.

What is interesting in your post is the actual effort of trying to build
a spaceship. Starting with your design, instead of just throwing some
number around in metric tons, it would be much easier for the reader to
see some kind of schematic isn't it?

At least I would expect that from a spaceship construction project.


  #4  
Old September 11th 16, 10:30 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Commercial Moonship

A thin film reflector made of giant birefringent optics (GBO) may be charged with an electrostatic charge to maintain a precise shape in the vacuum and gravity of space. This may be used to create very large light weight optics for remote sensing and astronomical observations. This may also be used to concentrate sunlight precisely with very low mass systems.

https://research.cems.umn.edu/macosk..._shows/gbo.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a410726.pdf

A 20 micron thick layer of mulitlayer polymer film that is 99.99% reflective weighs 31 grams per square meter. This is 31 metric tons per square kilometer. Allocating 620 tons of the 652 ton payload to reflector covers 20 square kilometres. Such a reflector, some 5.04 km in diameter focuses up to 25.3 gigawatts of solar power to a spot 23.4 meters in diameter.

At this spot a multi-spectral thin-disk laser converts the solar energy efficiently into laser energy. That laser energy passes through a holographic process that forms beams from a 23.4 meter diameter emitter capable of forming one thousand 1 meter diameter spots simultaneously each 25 MW of power on Earth's surface from GEO to properly equipped receivers. These receivers located anywhere that's visible to the satellite may receive power from the satellite and conduct it to optical loads via optical fibres, or open air optics. Optical loads include;

(1) heaters, 99.9% efficiency -
(2) lights (laser pumped optical dyes) 90.0% efficiency
(3) bandgap matched photovoltaics (electricity) 95.0% efficiency

10,800 homes may be supplied in this way for each 25 MW receiver.

Heating.................... 1400 heat
Hot Water................. 340 heat
Cooling/Refrigeration 140 electrical
Lighting..................... 140 light
Washing/Drying......... 110 electrical
Cooking..................... 110 heat
Electrics..................... 70 electrical

******************** 2310 Total

At $0.11 per kWh the average home pays $185 per month. Each satellite supplying 1000 communities of 10,800 homes each, all visible to the satellite from space earns $24.16 billion per year. 138,000 communities supplied by 138 satellites in GEO -

https://vimeo.com/37102557

https://www.rp-photonics.com/thin_disk_lasers.html

https://www.scribd.com/document/1304...ower-Satellite

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/38689.pdf


Fuel type................. 1980 2004 2006

Oil........................... 4.38 5.58 5.74
Gas......................... 1.80 3.45 3.61
Coal........................ 2.34 3.87 4.27
Hydroelectric.......... 0.60 0.93 1.00
Nuclear power......... 0.25 0.91 0.93
Geothermal, wind,...
solar energy, wood.. 0.02 0.13 0.16

Total...................... 9.48 15.0 15.8

Gas is used for heating and electrical generation primarily. Oil is used primarily for transport. Coal is used primarily for electricity generation and primary material production ore refining to metals for example. The direct application of laser energy to the efficient production of electricity in transport for example, has the potential to radically reduce energy consumption.

Average fuel efficiency is 17.5 mpg. With 131.76 megajoules per gallon is 7.53 megajoules per mile 4.68 megajoules per kilometre. A Tesla P90D motorcar has a 294 mile range on 324 megajoules (90 kWh charge) that's 1.10 megajoules per mile 0.68 megajoules per km.

https://www.tesla.com/models

Travelling 12,000 miles (19,300 km) per year - consumes 13,200 megajoules of electrical energy per year. That's an average demand of 419 watts! Thus a 25 MW ground station supports the operation of 59,665 Tesla type motor vehicles. A power satellite supports the operation of 59,665,000 motor vehicles.

It costs $0.60 per mile or $7200 per year for an automobile. $0.50 per mile, or $6,000 per year is for fuel. That's the equivalent of $1.62 per kWh! Dropping this cost to $0.11 per kWh - essentially eliminates this cost.

There are about 1.2 billion motor vehicles in the world, and so, 20 satellites can support these.

The Airbus e-fan aircraft consumes 60 kW at take off and 40 kW in cruise and travels at 147 mph. (237 kph). This is 0.98 megajoules per mile. (0.61 megajoules per km).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJKYekL7JsY

Proving that air drag is less than rolling friction - and an efficient air transport system is possible that exceeds the efficiency of electric motorcars - without the trouble of roads!

Now another interesting thing, is considering the E-hang 184 - a self contained one passenger drone.

http://www.ehang.com/ehang184/specs/

Or a multi-passenger drone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=undX_rxY-dQ

Small helicopters are nothing new - they were perfected in 1950s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh1SGnNte5Q

This is a 100 kg helicopter - that carries up to 120 kg passenger.

A small ballistic vehicle that has a 350 kg payload and 600 kg of inert propellant (mostly air and when air is too thin, water carried on board) that is ejected at 6 km/sec flies to any point on Earth in a few minutes. To eject 600 kg at 6 km/sec requires the application of 10,800 megajoules of energy. A flight to the opposite side of the world travels 20,000 km. This is 0.54 megajoules per km (0.87 megajoules per mile).

This proves that tossing something consumes less energy than gliding something through the air which is less energy intense than rolling something over the Earth. At $0.11 per kWh a ticket to anywhere costs $330.

Such a vehicle, powered by beamed energy from space, provides flight on demand point to point travel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33_-teBjZ4w

Now, by operation of various economic principles, making something easier and cheaper and more efficient, increases the demand for it! So, transforming transport in the manner describe above.

Using clean laser energy to break down rock into plasma

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4igknwxA1g

to separate it efficiently into its elemental form, then reassemble the material into any object desired using 3D print technology, provides distributed self-replicating machine systems, powered from space.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ONcxXlXLAY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s94mIhCyt4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWOVvSfSjCM

8 billion people living in two billion homes each with two ballistic transport VTOL/aircraft/spacecraft consuming on average 5 kW - per home - consumes a total of 10 trillion watts - a little less than the legacy system supplying only part of humanity with polluting production using only 400 satellites.

At $24 billion per satellite and 400 satellites the system earns $9600 billion for all satellites each year. Working with manufacturers and innovators, to develop consumer items powered from space satellites.

* * *

At 42,164 km radius - the circumference of the geosynchronous orbit is 264,924 km. Divided by 400 the separation from each satellite is 662 km.


  #5  
Old September 12th 16, 12:58 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Commercial Moonship

jacob navia wrote:

Le 10/09/2016 à 09:12, William Mook a écrit :


snip


It would be interesting that instead the numbers you write how you come
to those numbers.


He generally pulls them out of his ass.


The weight of each tank's structure is 34.29 metric tons.


Probably. There is no way to know since you do not tell the reader what
is the general outlook of what you are describing.


And no reason to believe that the structure weight he describes (which
is no doubt based on Shuttle ET numbers or general 'mass fractions'
for large tanks) could support the several hundred tons he's going to
stack on top of it (his eighth 'tank' which makes up his second stage)
under several g's of acceleration.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #6  
Old September 12th 16, 01:43 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Commercial Moonship

On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 7:12:21 PM UTC+12, William Mook wrote:
Consider eight external tank sized airframes. Seven are clusted in a hexagonally close packed array, and the eighth is stacked upon the central tank. The seven tanks are filled with 762 metric tons of propellant (117.23 tonnes of hydrogen and 644.77 metric tons of liquid oxygen. The weight of each tank's structure is 34.29 metric tons.

The eighth tank carries 412.14 metric tons of propellant (64.41 metric tons of liquid hydrogen and 348.74 metric tons of liquid oxygen). The tank structure is 18.55 metric tons. The remaining 221.31 metric tons is dedicated to 10 decks. Four passenger cabin decks consist of 28 seats facing radially outward and a central cabin behind those seats. A fifth crew deck consists of 14 seats facing radially outward and a central cabin behind those seats. There are five additional decks with supplies, rocket belts, airlocks, propellant and so forth.

112 passengers and 14 crew members are taken to the moon and they fly to the lunar surface on individual rocket belts 7 times in a week - and return to Earth.

Propellant 762.00 MT
Hydrogen 117.23 MT
Oxygen 644.77 MT
Structure 34.29 MT
Payload (LEO) 652.00 MT

Take Off Weight 6,226.03 MT
Propellant Weight 3,048.00 MT
Propellant Fraction 0.489558 ratio
Exhaust Velocity 4.20 km/sec
Final Velocity (Stage) 2.82 km/sec
Total Velocity 2.82 km/sec

Stage Weight 3,040.87 MT
Propellant Weight 1,524.00 MT
Propellant Fraction 0.501172 ratio
Exhaust Velocity 4.40 km/sec
Final Velocity (Stage) 3.06 km/sec
Total Velocity 5.88 km/sec

Stage Weight 1,448.29 MT
Propellant Weight 762.00 MT
Propellant Fraction 0.526138 ratio
Exhaust Velocity 4.45 km/sec
Final Velocity (Stage) 3.32 km/sec
Total Velocity 9.21 km/sec

LEO - LFR Delta Vee 2.95 km/sec
LFR - LLO Delta Vee 0.75 km/sec
LFR - ERT Delta Vee 0.75 km/sec
Total Delta Vee 4.45 km/sec

Propellant Fraction 0.632121 ratio
Stage Weight 652.00 MT
Propellant 412.14 MT
Hydrogen 63.41 MT
Oxygen 348.74 MT
Structure 18.55 MT
Payload (LLO) 221.31 MT
Passenger & Crew 126 people
Passenger 112 people
Crew 14 people

Passengers per Deck 28 people

Outer Diameter 330.71 inches
Circumference 1,038.95 inches
Cabin Width 37.11 inches

Inner Diameter 259.84
Circumference 816.32
Cabin Width 29.15 inches

Deck Height 86.61 inches
Number of Decks 5 count

Diameter 330.71 inches
Length 1,929.13 inches


Seven tanks of LOX/LH2 and an eighth tank atop the seven, in the system described above, contains 884 metric tons of hydrogen.

884.02 MT hydrogen

At $1 per kg of hydrogen and 8 kg of oxygen from each 9 litres of water, each launch costs $884,020 and produces 2,210.05 MT of EXTRA liquid oxygen. Sold at $0.15 per kg this produces a revenue of $331,508 per launch, so the net cost is $552,513 per launch.

We can size a system based on launch rate knowing that each metic ton of liquid hydrogen requires 141.8 gigajoules per metric ton

141.8 GJ/MT

so, we have 125,354 gigajoules of hydrogen per launch.

125,354.311 GJ/launch

This is extracted from 1,276.2 kiloliters of water (1 kiloliter = 1 metric ton)

1,276.2 kL (MT water)

Now, if we launch 104 times per year, we have 84.2 hours between launches, which is a little over 303,000 seconds between launch, which means we have an average rate of energy usage of 413.1 MW.


84.2885 hours between launch
303,438 seconds between launch
413.11 MW power consumed to produce liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen

Now at 82% efficiency

0.82 efficiency

We need a primary energy source that produces 504 MW of power to support the electrolysis needed to make the propellant to sustain the flight rate.

503.80 MW - mains power level required to sustain propellant production.

Now beaming energy from space to Earth via efficient solar pumped laser beam is an ongoing development.

http://lasermotive.com

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-japan-s...ss-energy.html

http://www.lgarde.com/assets/content...s/overview.pdf

Using concentrating photovoltaics and thin film reflectors, its possible to generate 22 MW of beamed energy in space for every metric ton put into low Earth orbit.

22 MW/MT

The launcher described here puts 652 metric tons into low earth orbit

652 MT

So, it is capable of generating 14.3 giga-watts of power in space and beaming that power to Earth

14,344 MW

Using 544 MW at the launch centre leaves 13.,800 MW of surplus power that may be beamed anywhere its needed earning $0.08 per kWh - earning $93.05 million between launches. $9,677.644 million per year.

Now, putting a 120 MW gas fired generator set as a back up at the launch center, and using 100 MW of power to produce fuel for the rocket

https://powergen.gepower.com/product...ne-family.html

5.04 rate
424.6 hours between launch
17.7 days

So, this is the flight rate until the first solar power satellite is launched.

Each of the eight flight articles cost $60 million. Twenty test articles are required prior to final launch approval. So, the entire programme costs $1.2 billion for the vehicle development. Another $0.8 billion is required for the launch infrastructure. Another $0.25 billion is required for promotion and another $0.20 billion is required for extra lunar shuttles (the eighth flight element). A total of $2.45 billion for the programme.

The power satellite costs another $1.5 billion - and 722 0.9 tonne satellites costing $1.05 billion total, bring programme total $5.00 billion. Development cycle 48 months - $100 million per month with a $200 million reserve..

The returns are;

11,648 tourists to the moon per year
6 solar power satellites per year - 14,000 MW each
341 satellite global hotspot

At $1 million profit per tourist that's $11.6 billion free cash flow from tourism, $0.08 per kWh that's $58.06 billion *increase* in revenue each year from power. Capturing/growing by 60% the world's telecom market, generates $720 billion per year.

$11.6 billion/year - tourism
$58.1 billion/year (year 1) - power sales
$720.0 billion/year (year 1) - communications services

Three-quarter of a trillion dollars per year in free cash flow!

That has a present value of $8.06 trillion when discounted at 8.5% per annum over 30 years! Using this present value as hot money in a fractional reserve bank system, this support $580 trillion in debt at the same leverage as the Federal Reserve using the same discount rates.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newse.../20150717a.htm

This is a substantial amount of money that may be created to build off-world infrastructure, by solving a few of the problems facing humanity today.

Growing to 400 satellites in 12 years

Year Launch Income $B Days

2020 6 $ 150.0 61
2021 8 $ 350.0 46
2022 10 $ 600.0 37
2023 13 $ 925.0 28
2024 17 $ 1,350.0 21
2025 22 $ 1,900.0 17
2026 28 $ 2,600.0 13
2027 36 $ 3,500.0 10
2028 46 $ 4,650.0 8
2029 58 $ 6,100.0 6
2030 74 $ 7,950.0 5
2031 94 $10,300.0 4

TOTAL 412

Laser Launcher - from Earth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhUasBcoj-Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3jAdHBCgiU

and then deeper in space

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owitVAgcrTI

using photonic thrusters and cryogenic sleep. Then, when colonists arrive at Mars or the major asteroids, self-replicating micromachines process raw materials into large space colonies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK54Bu9HFRw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVYz7g-qLjs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvN9Ri1GmuY
http://www.iase.cc/openair.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuZIpeThdWo

Replacing the 8 element launcher with a SSTO using laser heated exhaust expelling propellant at 9.2 km/sec, with an average density far less than LOX/LH2 (water for example) - to launch the same 652 metric ton payload to orbit on an SSTO rocket that masses 1,988.4 metric tons at lift off and carries 1,256.9 metric tons of propellant. Producing 1.4 gees at lift off the laser heated exhaust must produce 27.47 megaNewtons of force and with a 9.2 km/sec exhaust speed, this requires 2985.4 kg/sec of mass flow in the propellant producing a jet power rating of 126.34 gigawatts. Five to Nine solar power satellites combining their energy to propel this single stage vehicle.

126.34 gigawatts x 30 minutes = 227.412 million megajoules of energy. 652 tonnes of payload x3 people per tonne, is 1956 persons. With 156 crew and 1800 passengers, this is 116.26 gigajoules per passenger. At $0.11 per kWh this translates to $3,860 per person. A single satellite projects 6,785,997 people per year off world into interplanetary space.

Power levels fall as the vehicle empties propellant, so nine dedicated power satellites to the launch center allows a launch every eight minutes! 65,745 launches per year! With one week as the average mission length, this is 1265 vehicles to support this launch rate.

There are 20,000 large airplanes in the world, and Boeing projects demand to reach 35,000 by 2020. The launch rate sustained here with 35,000 ships mean an average mission length of 27.6 weeks! So, this would sustain massive colonisation of Mars and the asteroids using laser powered micro-ion engines.

42.86 million metric tons per year. At three persons per metric ton this is 128.6 million people per year. Three launch centres world wide - one in the Pacific - one in the Atlantic - one in the Indian Ocean - dispatch 385.8 million persons per year. No more than 56 satellites of the type already described are required to sustain this level of emmigration.

Population grows around 89 million per year at present. So, dispatching 385.8 million per year off-world reduces numbers on Earth! Sending people to the Moon, Mars, and colonies built from major asteroids, reduces the density of humanity at any one point.

Population on Earth falls rapidly over the ensuing decades;

Ratio Year Earth Off-World Notes

0.0000 2016 7,440.0 0.0
0.0000 2017 7,524.1 0.0
0.0000 2018 7,609.1 0.0
0.0000 2019 7,695.1 0.0

0.0522 2020 7,396.2 385.8 Project Start
0.1094 2021 7,094.0 776.0
0.1724 2022 6,788.4 1,170.5 Population 2010 AD
0.2422 2023 6,479.3 1,569.6
0.3200 2024 6,166.7 1,973.1 Population 2000 AD

0.4070 2025 5,850.6 2,381.2
0.5051 2026 5,530.9 2,793.9
0.6167 2027 5,207.6 3,211.3 Population 1990
0.7444 2028 4,880.6 3,633.4
0.8924 2029 4,550.0 4,060.2 MORE OFF WORLD

1.0655 2030 4,215.6 4,491.9 Population 1980
1.2711 2031 3,877.4 4,928.4
1.5189 2032 3,535.5 5,369.9 Population 1970
1.8236 2033 3,189.6 5,816.4
2.2071 2034 2,839.8 6,267.9 Population 1960

2.7048 2035 2,486.1 6,724.6 Population 1950
3.3764 2036 2,128.4 7,186.4 Population 1940
4.3321 2037 1,766.7 7,653.4
5.8005 2038 1,400.8 8,125.6 Population 1900
8.3456 2039 1,030.9 8,603.3 Population 1800

13.8358 2040 656.7 9,086.3 Population 1600 AD
34.3991 2041 278.3 9,574.8 Population 500 AD

* * *

When population falls below a sustainable 500 million - 278.3 million permanent inhabitants, and 231.7 million visitors - (4.6 billion per year - with 18 day tourist terms) - we have a stable high income situation for all persons.

* * *

References exist detailing what we already know;

White's law, named after Leslie White and published in 1943, states that, other factors remaining constant, "culture evolves as the amount of energy harnessed per capita per year is increased, or as the efficiency of the instrumental means of putting the energy to work is increased".[1]

The brightest areas of the Earth are the most urbanized, but not necessarily the most populous. Even more than 100 years after the invention of the electric light, some regions remain thinly populated and unlit.

White spoke of culture as a general human phenomenon, and claimed not to speak of ‘cultures’ in the plural. His theory, published in 1959 in The Evolution of Cultu The Development of Civilization to the Fall of Rome, rekindled the interest in social evolutionism and is counted prominently among the neoevolutionists. He believed that culture – meaning the sum total of all human cultural activity on the planet – was evolving. White differentiated between three components of cultu technological, sociological and ideological, and argued that it was the technological component which plays a primary role or is the primary determining factor responsible for the cultural evolution. White's materialist approach is evident in the following quote: "man as an animal species, and consequently culture as a whole, is dependent upon the material, mechanical means of adjustment to the natural environment".[1]

This technological component can be described as material, mechanical, physical and chemical instruments, as well as the way people use these techniques. White’s argument on the importance of technology goes as follows:[2]

Technology is an attempt to solve the problems of survival.

This attempt ultimately means capturing enough energy and diverting it for human needs.
Societies that capture more energy and use it more efficiently have an advantage over other societies.
Therefore, these different societies are more advanced in an evolutionary sense.

For White “the primary function of culture†and the one that determines its level of advancement is its ability to “harness and control energy.†White's law states that the measure by which to judge the relative degree of evolvedness of culture was the amount of energy it could capture (energy consumption). White differentiates between five stages of human development. In the first, people use energy of their own muscles. In the second, they use energy of domesticated animals. In the third, they use the energy of plants (so White refers to agricultural revolution here). In the fourth, they learn to use the energy of natural resources: coal, oil, gas. In the fifth, they harness nuclear energy. White introduced a formula

C - degree of cultural development
E - energy consumed per person
T - technical efficiency (0 to 1)

Where

C=ET,

(note: T exceeded 0.2 in the first part of the twentieth century and exeeded 0.8 in the first part of the 21st century) E is constrained by legacy supplies, but relatively unconstrained off-world.

where E is a measure of energy consumed per capita per year, (converted to power rating when divided by the number of seconds in a year) T is the measure of efficiency of technical factors utilising the energy and C represents the degree of cultural development. In his own words: “the basic law of cultural evolution†was “culture evolves as the amount of energy harnessed per capita per year is increased, or as the efficiency of the instrumental means of putting the energy to work is increased.â€[3]

Therefore "we find that progress and development are affected by the improvement of the mechanical means with which energy is harnessed and put to work as well as by increasing the amounts of energy employed".[4] Although White stops short of promising that technology is the panacea for all the problems that affect mankind, like technological utopians do, his theory treats technological factor as the most important factor in the evolution of society and is similar to the later works of Gerhard Lenski, the theory of Kardashev scale of Russian astronomer, Nikolai Kardashev and to some notions of technological singularity.

* * *

In a post-human society, where machines have no will to power, but exceed humans in overall intelligence, there are two components to economics;

(1) industrial production leveraged off human time and attention;
(2) direct services based on human time and attention;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-Qg-2d50Eo

* * *

What is a dollar? If its a machine dominated product its the energy cost. If its a person dominated product or service, its the useful time and attention of others.

* * *

People consume about 2 tonnes of material called 'demandite' and it costs 32 gigajoules of energy to process that material per person. This takes 1,014 Watts per person. A family of five consumes 5,070 Watts in addition to other consumption.

Transporting people around the solar system once every 18 months - takes 116.26 gigajoules per person - or 2,456 Watts per person.

5 kW - use for lifestyle (including local transport)
5 kW - use for demandite recycling
12 kW - use for interplanetary transport (once every 18 months)

22 kW - total energy use for a family of 5.

About 1 million people are supported per 25 GW power satellite. 9,580 power satellites at 1 AU support the final population described above.

Moving the power satellite to orbit inside the orbit of Mercury, 1600x the power may be collected, increasing total power 40 TW - from a 1.2 km diameter emitter - that beams energy anywhere out to Jupiter.

Only SIX (6) of the larger satellites are required to meet the needs of 9.6 billion people living along the lines described here! At $0.11 per kWh this costs $21,214 per year for a family of five. Assigning $1 value = 100 cents and 1 cent = 1 second of human time and attention. A family of five working 4,000 hours per year generates $144,000 per person per year. $70,000 Robots in an environment that earns 8.5% annual discount rate on capital, and work 8,700 hours per year, and consume 70 Watts and have a 4% maintenance cost - $2,800 per year.

Maintenance $2,800 per year
CAPEX Cost: $7,397 per year
Energy Cost: $ 68 per year

Total: $10,265 per year
Hours: 8,700 hours per year

Value: $1.18 per hour

The best approach is to have humans spend 2/3 of their income on robot labour and 1/3 of their income on human to human transactions. So a family of five earning $144,000 spend $96,000 on robot derived products, which is equivalent to 9.4 robots per family. $48,000 is spent on human labour which 1,330 hour of human time and attention. This generates about $2.93 million in robot derived labour and $48,000 in human derived labour.

Stability and full employment occurs when robots receive $0.59 per hour for their labour, and humans $36.00 per hour for their labour. Each human family consumes the equivalent of $2.93 million per year - this is segmented into human dollars and robot dollars with a 61 to 1 ratio translating one to the other - but accounting for the human equivalent dollar - where a dollar is defined as 100 seconds of useful time and attention of a human level entity - and $0.11 per kWh is the price of energy.

There is a natural connection between the value of currency defined this way and the value (and availability) of energy. Particularly when the production of energy occurs at costs substantially below $0.11 per kWh.

* * *
  #7  
Old September 12th 16, 02:49 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Commercial Moonship

On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 8:22:08 AM UTC+12, jacob navia wrote:
Le 10/09/2016 Ã* 09:12, William Mook a écrit :
Consider eight external tank sized airframes.


Seven are clusted in a hexagonally close packed array,

An hexagon has 6 sides. Hence six tanks. I do not see how you write 7
instead of six.


http://bit.ly/2chtwfz

Look at this picture. There are seven circles. Six around the outside. One in the centre.

and the eighth is stacked upon the central tank.


Correct.


OK. I see now, you have an hexagon with six, and a central cilinder that
makes seven.


Correct.

That is why you write seven above. No, the central cilinder
is not the eighth but the seventh.


There are two stacked in line atop one another. The one on top is the lunar orbiter stage.


The seven tanks are filled with 762 metric tons of propellant

(117.23 tonnes of hydrogen and 644.77 metric tons of liquid oxygen.

It would be interesting that instead the numbers you write how you come
to those numbers.


Well, if you look at the O/F ratio of an optimised LH2 rocket, the the RL-10 or the RS-68 you will find the O/F ratio is 5.5 to 1. That's 5.5 kg of LOX to 1.0 kg of LH2

You need two mol of hydrogen for one mol of oxygen.


Stoichiometric ratio is 8 to 1. 8 kg of LOX and 1 kg of LH2. This is what you get in a fuel cell, or in a stoichiometric reaction. When you do this with a rocket you get more energy certainly, but it doesn't show up as increased exhaust speed. Instead it shows up in increased combustion chamber temperature and increased frozen flow losses (hot exhaust).

Considering the molecular weight of each probably you are right, but it
would be much more interesting to see the formulas than the numbers.


http://www.astronautix.com/l/loxlh2.html

The weight of each tank's structure is 34.29 metric tons.

Probably. There is no way to know since you do not tell the reader what
is the general outlook of what you are describing.


I recommend MITs Open Courseware on astrodynamics and aerospace.

http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

These structure fractions are easily computed and well known using modern data. They can be further confirmed using advanced CAD and CAE software packages on a personal supercomputer.

For comparison, the weight of the Space Shuttle External tank is less than the figure I've developed, however, my weight does include propulsion guidance, thermal protection, and recovery hardware not present on the ET.

However, today's composite materials are far lighter than 1970s era Shuttle Tank, and the addition of other components add up to this estimate with a pretty high level of certainty.

It is probably feasable to figure out the structure from its weight in
metric tons, but since there are MANY (actually infinitely many)
structures that can be built from 34.29 metric tons, the figure you
advance is unquestionable...


I not only know weight, I know price. Here's how;

Evaluation of complex systems seems endless over their life cycle. A large system consisting of 100,000 parts containing highly volatile liquids, describe fully the system described here. Tuleap Open ALM is a project management tool I use. This integrates well with Git, SVN, Jenkins, and more. Tuleap is licensed under a GNU Public License and is avialable on GitHub.

I start with fluid dynamics. I use a software tool called CFD, computational fluid dynamics. CFD is a software modeller. It uses proven applied mathematical equations and algorithms to evaluate the effects of various interacting and noninteracting factors affecting fluids gases and materials. CFD results include thermal gradient mapping, fluid and gas flow, pressure and pressure drop, radiation effects, heat loss, material optimisation, flow optimsation, velocity, radiation heat loss, thermal convection and more.

I use OpenFOAM software. This is a C++ toolbox the development of customised numerical solvers, and pre/post processing utilities for the solution of continuum mechanics problems, including CFD. This code is free and open source available under the GNU license.

To select materials I uses FEA. This is a software solids modeller that evaluates the effects of various interacting forces affecting structures, materials and mechanisms. FEA is used to optimise design, do fatigue analysis, predict structural life times.

Components are tested and assembled in the computer, run through the model, tested again in a continuing cycle. Ultimately schematics for the system are made. Those schematics are reduced to 3D models. Those models are subjected to further analysis. These result in engineering drawings that are submitted to vendors and result in cost quotes.

I use CAELinux to simulate incredibly complex physics with the open-source FE & CFD solvers Code_Aster, Code-Saturne, OpenFOAM & Elmer - in ohter words nearly al physics problems can be addressed with the integrated solvers. Then I reload my results files in post-processing applications like Salom, GMSH or Paraview to visualise my data in 3D.

CAELinux is based on the open-source CAD/CAM software and can run with Freecad, LibreCAD, PyCAM and Cura - and CAE software like Salom, Code_Aster, Code_Saturne, OpenFOAM and Elmer. In this way I design CAD geometry, perform multiphysics simulations and optimise design, generate G-code for 3D printing and milling, and even develop custom PCBs and microcontroller based electronics.

With detailed design secification I then go to vendors to obtain quotations for pricing and delivery.


If you say so. OK. 34.29 metric tons.


After careful consideration of the details - I know this figure can be attained, and even improved upon.

What is interesting in your post is the actual effort of trying to build
a spaceship. Starting with your design, instead of just throwing some
number around in metric tons, it would be much easier for the reader to
see some kind of schematic isn't it?


I start here;

http://www.3dcadbrowser.com/download.aspx?3dmodel=23784
http://www.3dcadbrowser.com/download.aspx?3dmodel=14607

Then go here;

http://caelinux.com/CMS/
http://www.nvidia.com/object/tesla_build_your_own.html

Which end here;

https://vimeo.com/57780024

And result in products here;

https://vimeo.com/37102557


At least I would expect that from a spaceship construction project.


shrug This is a Google Groups post. I'm giving you valid data. I never said I had a construction project underway, though I have given presentations to the DOT space transport group back in the mid 90s along with relevant NASA review at Huntsville at that time as well. I further gave a presentation to the Clinton White House, EOSTP and to the relevant House and Senate subcommittees on aerospace. I've developed further the approved programmes since that time.

http://aviationweek.com/space/advanc...anks-launchers

I have worked with qualified vendors to estimate costs and so forth - not only for launcher technology - but also payloads and processing.

Not as a construction project, but a continuing review and analysis for a prospective or potential aerospace business investment at some point. The best approach was followed by Elon Musk. He hired away the best and brightest from TRW when TRW went on the market. That eventually resulted in a lawsuit, which he dodged. However, whilst Northrup paid $7.3 billion for TRW, Musk hired top flight engineers for $0.1 billion - which included building hardware!

At some point I will acquire an appropriate aerospace company that had the tool set and skills needed - for each component - and have them partner with relevant suppliers from larger firms - to develop the acquired business.

  #8  
Old September 12th 16, 07:05 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Commercial Moonship

Self replicating machine systems that operate on the solar surface and convert sunlight efficiently to positronium which is stored in spares smart crystalline lattice at densities exceeding that of iron, radically transform the paradigm of space-faring humanity.

The sun generates 3.847*10^26 Watts of power. Converted to positronium, this is 4,274,808,252 kg/sec of positrons and electrons. The escape velocity of the Sun is 617.5 km/sec. A kilogram of material moving at this speed has a kinetic energy of 190.65 gigajoules. Thus, an efficient system that selected material from the solar body and ejected it at or near escape velocity, could project no more than 2.018 quadrillion kg/sec from the Sun.

Rockets that operate well below the speed of light follow largely Newtonian and Keplerian mechanics and astrodynamics. Rockets that operate very near light speed have relativistic corrections applied to their motions. Interplanetary rocket performance is determined by the Vis Viva equation and orbital positions and the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation. Interstellar rocket performance is determined by stellar positions and the Rindler rocket equation.
  #9  
Old September 12th 16, 04:32 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Commercial Moonship

On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 11:58:45 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
jacob navia wrote:

Le 10/09/2016 Ã* 09:12, William Mook a écrit :


snip


It would be interesting that instead the numbers you write how you come
to those numbers.


He generally pulls them out of his ass.


That's what you do. I generally use FEA solver on CAE.


The weight of each tank's structure is 34.29 metric tons.


Probably. There is no way to know since you do not tell the reader what
is the general outlook of what you are describing.


And no reason to believe that the structure weight he describes


Yes there is since its based on actual results of engineering analysis.

(which
is no doubt based on Shuttle ET numbers or general 'mass fractions'
for large tanks) could support the several hundred tons he's going to
stack on top of it (his eighth 'tank' which makes up his second stage)
under several g's of acceleration.


You've never fallen on a football you were carrying after being tackled have you? If you had, and given any thought to it, you'd see how a pressurised cryogenic tank in tension can support substantial external loads.



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



  #10  
Old September 12th 16, 11:29 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Commercial Moonship

William Mook wrote:

On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 11:58:45 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
jacob navia wrote:

Le 10/09/2016 à 09:12, William Mook a écrit :


snip


It would be interesting that instead the numbers you write how you come
to those numbers.


He generally pulls them out of his ass.


That's what you do. I generally use FEA solver on CAE.


You generally make **** up and lie.


The weight of each tank's structure is 34.29 metric tons.

Probably. There is no way to know since you do not tell the reader what
is the general outlook of what you are describing.


And no reason to believe that the structure weight he describes


Yes there is since its based on actual results of engineering analysis.


Show your work.


(which
is no doubt based on Shuttle ET numbers or general 'mass fractions'
for large tanks) could support the several hundred tons he's going to
stack on top of it (his eighth 'tank' which makes up his second stage)
under several g's of acceleration.


You've never fallen on a football you were carrying after being tackled have you? If you had, and given any thought to it, you'd see how a pressurised cryogenic tank in tension can support substantial external loads.


And so we see the depth of Mookie's engineering...


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
 




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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Disk Moonship William Mook[_2_] Policy 147 November 27th 10 10:24 PM
Goddard's 1930 Manned Moonship Pat Flannery Policy 32 September 15th 10 09:56 AM
Goddard's 1930 Manned Moonship [email protected] History 5 September 12th 10 05:56 AM
Goddard's 1930 Manned Moonship William Mook[_2_] History 0 September 10th 10 10:14 PM
Goddard's 1930 Manned Moonship [email protected] History 2 September 3rd 10 06:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.