Zubrin: Obama readies to blast NASA

Where to start?

There are 406 coal fired power plants that have outputs of greater
than 1,000 MW. Their total capacity is 861.2 billion watts. To
replace all of these requires 73 satellites, and avoids 11.4 billion
tons of CO2 per year.

This capacity produces 7.81 trillion kWh per year.


Sold at $0.06 per kWh these plants produce $468.63 billion per year.
Discounted over the 30 year life of the satellites they have a present
value at start-up of $5,275.74 billion. At $2.3 billion per
satellite (including launch costs) and $30 billion start-up, the
infrastructrure costs $197.90 billion.

With a launch rate of 1.2 satellites per day it takes less than 60
days of operation to put all 73 satellites up to realize the revenue
stream.

The tier one income from utility sales can easily be leveraged 20x to
30x its value - that's $9 trillion to $15 trillion. The Fed and
certain European banks are leveraging themselves 50x and more, against
bogus derivative debt with NOTHING in back of it.

Clearly, with the support of a nation, or group of nations, this
program could be fully funded within five years.

Now, applying a parametric equation to the 5 year construction
schedule and ramping up launch rate from 1 per week to 2 per day over
a 90 day period - and allowing a 30 day parts inventory, with 32%
inventory cost, we can get a year by year break down for the $200.70
billion, including finance cost, taxes and hiring costs- discounted at
40% per year prior to first fleet production and operation to account
for execution risk and other undertainties.

BILLIONS $ - Startup
Project Satellites Launchers CAPEX Return

Month 12 $ 0.00 $ 1.50 $ 1.50 $8.78 0.17%
Month 24 $ 0.00 $ 3.00 $ 3.00 $12.54 0.24%
Month 36 $ 0.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 $17.91 0.34%
Month 48 $ 0.00 $12.00 $ 12.00 $25.58 0.48%
Month 60 $ 19.59 $ 7.50 $ 27.09 $41.25 0.78%
Month 63 $151.11 $ 0.00 $151.11 $164.37 3.12%

Totals: $170.70 $30.00 $200.70 $270.43 5.13%

Value $5,275.74 100.00%

Clearly, this is enough if leveraged through a national bank, or a
consortium of national banks, will be sufficient to raise $9 trillion
to $20 trillion.

The world's liquid wealth among the world's 10.1 million millionaires
totals $48 trillion.

So, building the infrastructure called for in this plan, combined with
a relaxed regulatory environment and sound financing of development,
to transition to a world that produces $900 trillion per year in real
wealth

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/economy/maps/maps.html

Including 7,903 power satellites of the type already described - over
a 15 year period.

The present value of $900 trillion per year over 15 years following,
when discounted at 8% per year is $7,703.53 trillion net value.
That's what a peaceful prosperous world is worth to all stake
holders.

To repay the investors at 40% annual interest for all monies placed at
risk for this project - the $33.3 trillion grows to $1,092 trillion.

BILLIONS $ - Build Out
Project Yr Satellites Rail CAPEX Return

1 $1,087.44 932.56 $2,020.00 $314,247.55 4.08%
2 $1,087.44 932.56 $2,020.00 $224,462.54 2.91%
3 $1,087.44 932.56 $2,020.00 $160,330.38 2.08%
4 $1,087.44 932.56 $2,020.00 $114,521.70 1.49%
5 $1,087.44 932.56 $2,020.00 $ 81,801.22 1.06%
6 $1,087.44 932.56 $2,020.00 $ 58,429.44 0.76%
7 $1,087.44 932.56 $2,020.00 $ 41,735.31 0.54%
8 $1,087.44 932.56 $2,020.00 $ 29,810.94 0.39%
9 $1,087.44 932.56 $2,020.00 $ 21,293.53 0.28%
10 $1,087.44 932.56 $2,020.00 $ 15,209.66 0.20%
11 $1,087.44 932.56 $2,020.00 $ 10,864.04 0.14%
12 $1,087.44 932.56 $2,020.00 $ 7,760.03 0.10%
13 $1,087.44 932.56 $2,020.00 $ 5,542.88 0.07%
14 $1,087.44 932.56 $2,020.00 $ 3,959.20 0.05%
15 $1,087.44 932.56 $2,020.00 $ 2,828.00 0.04%

Totals $16,311.60 $13,988.40 $30,300.00 $1,092,796.44 14.19%

Value $7,703,530.00 100.00%

So, the financiers own 14.19% of the wealth, or $1.1 quadrillion -
after investing $30.3 trillion of their $48 trillion in this project.
The average weatlh per millionaire today rises from $4.8 million to
$110 million. The number of milionaires rise from 10.1 million to 1.2
billion. Net worth rises to $800,000 per person as population rises
to 8.41 billion.

On Nov 3, 3:11*am, William Mook wrote:
ET Derived Heavy Lift Reusable Launch Vehiclehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum

ET Derived Heavy Lift Reusable Launch Vehiclehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV

Inflatable concentrator powering Infrared Laserhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/Solar-Power-Satellite-GEO

Ballistic Transporthttp://www.scribd.com/doc/54316434/Ballistic-Transport

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

Sea Dragon Derived Heavy Lift Launcherhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/45631474/Sea-Dragon-Derived-Launcher

The United States consumes 98.74e18 Joules of energy. *This is
equivalent to 2.2 metric tons of hydrogen per person per year.

This is 3.12 trillion Watts - about 10,000 watts per person.

Each of the smaller Solar Power Satellites intercepts 29.6 GW of solar
power and beams 11.8 GW of continuous power to collectors on Earth.
Those collectors make hydrogen gas which are used to power stationary
power plants and drive hydrogen fueled vehicles.

To meet these needs requires 264 power satellites of this type on GEO
covers 26,400 km - a 100 km separation between the 5.25 km diameter
satellites.

A fleet of five of the ET derived launchers put a satellite per week,
and in five years, enough satellites are up to provide 100% of the
energy needs of the USA.

In fact, the 1.14 billion tons of coal is combined with an additional
95 million tons of hydrogen to make 7.75 billion barrels of liquid
fuels. *Since America uses powered roadways and hydrogen for the bulk
of its transportation needs in this scenario, over 7 billion barrels
per year is exported. *At $100 per barrel - this is $700 billion per
year. *This has a present value of about $24 trillion. *This without
charging anything for electricity and hydrogen use at home.

Since the infrastructure costs less than $2 trillion, this has a net
value of $22 trillion even if energy is free in the USA.

This fixes our economy, allows the USA to not spend *anything* on
energy, and sets the stage for a powerful future.

9.9e19 joules is 27.5e12 kwhr. This 10.417 kw of energy demand per
each and every person in America seems a wee bit high even for
representing an all-inclusive amount, although it certainly could be
close enough when everything is truly taken into account.

In other words, our having a thousand 27.5 TW reactors fueled by
thorium would do the job, and since 33% overall efficiency isn't
uncommon means that 82.5e12 kw of heat needs to get continually
generated in one way or another via thermal dynamics if everything was
electrified and derived their deeds from a national power grid that
currently couldn't hardly deal with safely delivering 1% of that
amount.

Obviously our national grid needs a great deal of improvements, as
well as ideally thousands of hydrogen fuel cell power plants doing
their extremely clean and waste-heat recovery so that the average
energy source exceeds 50% efficiency. Therefore your cheap and
essentially renewable hydrogen via solar energy is a very key part of
this solution, including a national piping network hauling your H2
from those Mokenergy solar farms to the various sites of fuel cells
that'll consume it. Transporting LH2 seems equally doable although
somewhat more problematic because of it's cryogenic issues plus
unavoidable losses.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

Le 04/11/11 01:21, William Mook a écrit :
[snip solar power calculations]

I can't see what is that big advantage of installing solar panels
in orbit compared to installing them in the sahara desert or in other
more accessible places in the surface of the earth. The U.S. has a
fair share of solar power in a lot of deserts, installing solar panels
in there would be a no brainer...

Maintenance?

Forget costly astronauts expeditions to replace old solar panels (they
last only 10-15 years in space)... You just take a truck and replace them.

If some meteorite hits them (yes, that *COULD* happen in earth too)
you just replace them very cheaply. But do not worry, they are shielded
from MOST meteorites by a thick gas blanket several kilometers high.

At NO COST... Compare this with space where a micro-meteorite is
quite likely in a few years operation.

Health and security problems?

None. There is no need to beam the energy back to earth since they are
in the surface of the planet already. Forget problems with people
getting anxious that a microwave beam could fry them in the event
of any malfunction. There is NO BEAM, can you imagine? No health hazards.

Installation costs?

Almost nothing, your panels can be transported by a plain truck
to their destination. No satellites, no huge startup costs,
no problems with overcrowded skies where a microwave beam would fry any
satellite using a lower orbit... NO PROBLEMS or installation costs at all.

End of life costs?

Almost none. Just take your panels and recycle them. No need to send
fuel and a transportation engine to make your panels burn in the
atmosphere, polluting the skies. Your panels can be dismantled and
replaced in no time by low qualified workers. No need to train
astronauts, devise a human transport system, etc.

Yes, your panels can be less efficient since they could be covered
by clouds. In the deserts of the U.S. anyway there are enough
days with full power to compensate any oddball cloudy days.

But of course, rationally thinking about solar power is not the
exercise here, as it seems.

jacob

On Nov 12, 8:50*pm, jacob navia wrote:
Le 04/11/11 01:21, William Mook a crit :
[snip solar power calculations]

I can't see what is that big advantage of installing solar panels
in orbit compared to installing them in the sahara desert or in other
more accessible places in the surface of the earth. The U.S. has a
fair share of solar power in a lot of deserts, installing solar panels
in there would be a no brainer...

Maintenance?

Forget costly astronauts expeditions to replace old solar panels (they
last only 10-15 years in space)... You just take a truck and replace them..

If some meteorite hits them (yes, that *COULD* happen in earth too)
you just replace them very cheaply. But do not worry, they are shielded
from MOST meteorites by a thick gas blanket several kilometers high.

At NO COST... Compare this with space where a micro-meteorite is
quite likely in a few years operation.

Health and security problems?

None. There is no need to beam the energy back to earth since they are
in the surface of the planet already. Forget problems with people
getting anxious that a microwave beam could fry them in the event
of any malfunction. There is NO BEAM, can you imagine? No health hazards.

Installation costs?

Almost nothing, your panels can be transported by a plain truck
to their destination. No satellites, no huge startup costs,
no problems with overcrowded skies where a microwave beam would fry any
satellite using a lower orbit... NO PROBLEMS or installation costs at all..

End of life costs?

Almost none. Just take your panels and recycle them. No need to send
fuel and a transportation engine to make your panels burn in the
atmosphere, polluting the skies. Your panels can be dismantled and
replaced in no time by low qualified workers. No need to train
astronauts, devise a human transport system, etc.

Yes, your panels can be less efficient since they could be covered
by clouds. In the deserts of the U.S. anyway there are enough
days with full power to compensate any oddball cloudy days.

But of course, rationally thinking about solar power is not the
exercise here, as it seems.

jacob

space solar panels arent effected by rain snow or darkness, and power
isnt attenuated by clouds and normal air

Le 13/11/11 04:24, bob haller a écrit :

space solar panels arent effected by rain snow or darkness, and power
isnt attenuated by clouds and normal air

Sure, but if you build it in a desert you get almost the same. Snow
or rain in a desert is an extremely rare event.

jacob navia wrote:
Le 13/11/11 04:24, bob haller a écrit :

space solar panels arent effected by rain snow or darkness, and power
isnt attenuated by clouds and normal air

Sure, but if you build it in a desert you get almost the same. Snow
or rain in a desert is an extremely rare event.

While beamed power is acutely sensitive to atmospheric water
and the antenna sizes are large which means such stations would
have to be built in deserts !

Keith

On Nov 3, 3:50*am, bob haller wrote:
On Nov 3, 6:11*am, William Mook wrote:









ET Derived Heavy Lift Reusable Launch Vehiclehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum

ET Derived Heavy Lift Reusable Launch Vehiclehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV

Inflatable concentrator powering Infrared Laserhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/Solar-Power-Satellite-GEO

Ballistic Transporthttp://www.scribd.com/doc/54316434/Ballistic-Transport

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

Sea Dragon Derived Heavy Lift Launcherhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/45631474/Sea-Dragon-Derived-Launcher

The United States consumes 98.74e18 Joules of energy. *This is
equivalent to 2.2 metric tons of hydrogen per person per year.

This is 3.12 trillion Watts - about 10,000 watts per person.

Each of the smaller Solar Power Satellites intercepts 29.6 GW of solar
power and beams 11.8 GW of continuous power to collectors on Earth.
Those collectors make hydrogen gas which are used to power stationary
power plants and drive hydrogen fueled vehicles.

To meet these needs requires 264 power satellites of this type on GEO
covers 26,400 km - a 100 km separation between the 5.25 km diameter
satellites.

A fleet of five of the ET derived launchers put a satellite per week,
and in five years, enough satellites are up to provide 100% of the
energy needs of the USA.

In fact, the 1.14 billion tons of coal is combined with an additional
95 million tons of hydrogen to make 7.75 billion barrels of liquid
fuels. *Since America uses powered roadways and hydrogen for the bulk
of its transportation needs in this scenario, over 7 billion barrels
per year is exported. *At $100 per barrel - this is $700 billion per
year. *This has a present value of about $24 trillion. *This without
charging anything for electricity and hydrogen use at home.

Since the infrastructure costs less than $2 trillion, this has a net
value of $22 trillion even if energy is free in the USA.

This fixes our economy, allows the USA to not spend *anything* on
energy, and sets the stage for a powerful future.

terrorists would attack the solar power sats

They can't seem to make WMD, or at least none detectable by our best
technology or subsequent searching for them.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Nov 12, 5:50*pm, jacob navia wrote:
Le 04/11/11 01:21, William Mook a crit :
[snip solar power calculations]

I can't see what is that big advantage of installing solar panels
in orbit compared to installing them in the sahara desert or in other
more accessible places in the surface of the earth. The U.S. has a
fair share of solar power in a lot of deserts, installing solar panels
in there would be a no brainer...

Maintenance?

Forget costly astronauts expeditions to replace old solar panels (they
last only 10-15 years in space)... You just take a truck and replace them..

If some meteorite hits them (yes, that *COULD* happen in earth too)
you just replace them very cheaply. But do not worry, they are shielded
from MOST meteorites by a thick gas blanket several kilometers high.

At NO COST... Compare this with space where a micro-meteorite is
quite likely in a few years operation.

Health and security problems?

None. There is no need to beam the energy back to earth since they are
in the surface of the planet already. Forget problems with people
getting anxious that a microwave beam could fry them in the event
of any malfunction. There is NO BEAM, can you imagine? No health hazards.

Installation costs?

Almost nothing, your panels can be transported by a plain truck
to their destination. No satellites, no huge startup costs,
no problems with overcrowded skies where a microwave beam would fry any
satellite using a lower orbit... NO PROBLEMS or installation costs at all..

End of life costs?

Almost none. Just take your panels and recycle them. No need to send
fuel and a transportation engine to make your panels burn in the
atmosphere, polluting the skies. Your panels can be dismantled and
replaced in no time by low qualified workers. No need to train
astronauts, devise a human transport system, etc.

Yes, your panels can be less efficient since they could be covered
by clouds. In the deserts of the U.S. anyway there are enough
days with full power to compensate any oddball cloudy days.

But of course, rationally thinking about solar power is not the
exercise here, as it seems.

jacob

Mook was the first to insist upon large terrestrial solar farms, and
got shot down each and every time.

Our government at best is dysfunctional, and at worse it's corrupted
by those in authority above any of those we elect or appoint. Fix
that and terrestrial solar farms will easily do what's needed, and
then some.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”