...It only takes building 4 Space Solar Power satellites per year to.....

On Dec 16, 8:00*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote in message

...







"William Mook" wrote in message
....

... turning the Earth into a global village of
immense wealth.

Reminds me of an old quote I like...

" Some painters transform the sun into a yellow spot, others
*transform a yellow spot into the sun."

* * * Pablo Picasso

Wealth is relative.*The man with a car, TV, refrigerator, carpet,
warm (or cool in summer) home, computer, a full larder and
a fine wardrobe is far wealthier than the villager who hunts bison
for food and lives in a tepee, yet he complains because he has
no personal jet plane or yacht. I'm quite happy that I have that
much wealth and I no longer have to go out and fill the coal
scuttle when its snowing, as I did as a child.

There is a definite relationship between the cost of energy and raw
materials and the material wealth of a people in an industrial
society. From 1850 to 1950 the cost of energy declined at an average
rate of 5% per year. As a result, industry expanded exponentially.
From 1950 through 1970, after energy companies realized they were
developing a depleting resource, the cost of energy remained
relatively constant. From 1970 through today after the first major
oil peak occurred on schedule in the USA energy prices have risen an
average of 8% per year, with a gradual erosion of living standard,
despite radical advances in automation. All attempts to end our
reliance on depleting resources have been blocked by those who know
the value of their companies will be adversely impacted by a return to
exponential declines in energy and other commodity prices going
forward.

King Hubbert, the man who first computed the logistic production curve
for oil and natural gas for the world was marginalized. Lousi Straus
who in response to concerns about what the USA would do about energy
in the 1970s which were raised by Hubbert in the 1950s said, "That by
1970 energy would be too cheap to meter" Forbes put Nuclear Energy on
the cover of the magazine, and Wall Street discovered nuclear power.
Westinghouse and GE started commercial nuclear businesses. Straus
said that low cost would be assured for nuclear because of the
development of high-temperature nuclear reactors. He was fired that
year. In 1963 JFK ordered Boorkhaven National Labs to develop an
integrated strategy to convert our industry to nuclear power. They
came up with a high-temperature nuclear reactor that would decompose
water by direct thermolysis. This hydrogen would first be used to
replace coal in coal fired power plants and the stranded coal would be
combined directly with more hydrogen to make gasoline. Later as
technology developed hydrogen fueled vehicles and machinery would be
developed. JFK was shot and killed by an assassin in Nov 1963. LBJ a
Texas oil man, ignored the Brookhaven Study. Nixon during the first
energy crisis in 1970 turned energy over to a panel of energy experts,
all from the major oil companies. Their suggested developing oil
reserves in the Middle East and improving relations in that area.
Jimmy Carter a nuclear engineer elected in the throes of an energy
induced stagflation vowed to do something about energy. He dusted off
the Brookhaven study and submitted a comprehensive plan to Congress.
That very week Karen Silkwood heirs obtained a judgement for $50
million in a wrongful death suit (later reduced to $5,000) which
created a concern about nuclear safety. At the same time Three Mile
Island in Hershey Pennsylvania melted down, exacerbating the problem.
Finally at the end of the week Hollywood released THE CHINA SYNDROME
starring Jane Fonda (who had been arrested on a marijuna charge
returning from Canada before agreeing to the film - after agreeing to
it - charges were dropped) Congress spent more than twice what was
spent on going to the moon on energy - NONE of it was to build high-
temperature nuclear reactors. In the end, alternatives to
conventional fuels were considered by most ineffective, proven by the
massive investment made during the Carter Administration. Carter shut
down the ROVER and NERVA nuclear rocket programs - the last remaining
open research on high temperature nuclear reactors - and a mechanism
to transfer technology from weapons programs to commercial nuclear
programs started by JFK. Reagan discovered 'rogue states' and refused
to trade with them. ALL rogue states were oil rich kingdoms. Secret
government documents revealed that this was a means to put half the
proved oil reserves in storage lowering depletion rates. Meanwhile he
reorganized the banking system to export the costs involved and
planned regime change when production peaked in the remaining oil rich
states. The Reagan Doctrine created the Terror threat we now face,
and his banking changes killed George Bailey style S&Ls while
enriching Mr. Potter's commercial bank - turning America into
Potterville, and most of the world into Beruit.

Perhaps you never lived in a period of real fundamental growth?
Perhaps you are too used to living in a culture in decline? In any
event, you fail to understand the natural impulse toward life
exploration and development of our global frontiers represent.

Definitely, if you are like most people alive today, you barely
understand the relationship between energy and power, the relationship
between mass flow rates between worlds, and power, and the cost of
energy. For sure like most people you do not understand at all that
ballistic transport - tossing things - the most energy efficient way
to transport a thing from point A to point B - and that rocket or jet
action is far simpler than wheels rails or wings.

We have the means, and for the past 50 years have had the means, to do
whatever the hell we wanted in the solar system. The riches of many
worlds and the energy of the sun await our developing them. The
technical means have been hidden from us in the mistaken notion that
we are more secure as a species keeping these means secret.
Meanwhile, our society rots as our people stagnate while ignorance
grows greater and greater every day.

This world can support 8 billion millionaires each with a fleet of
automated ballistic aircraft capable of travelling anywhere in minutes
and even travelling into space. This level of wealth is support by a
ring of solar power satellites beaming energy to a smaller ring of
factory satellites operated by remote control. These satellites
process imported asteroidal fragments into all manner of food and
products. These are then deorbited directly to end users anywhere on
Earth or in space

To import 16 billion tons of raw materials from the asteroid belt each
year requires that energy be expended at a rate of 6 trillion watts
continuously. Collected by solar collectors in the asteroid belt
requires a panel totalling 60,000 sq km im area.

Androcles wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"William Mook" wrote in message
...
The satellites have to be launched. This requires a launching
infrastructure. Making a light-weight system on Earth and launching
it is preferred.

A vehicle built around a modified External Tank holding hydrogen and
oxygen is the easiest way to go.

Being scrapped, a return to conventional multi-stage rockets is planned.


Take the Space Shuttle External Tank. It masses 26.5 metric tons
empty and 760.0 metric tons filled. Equipped with a 19.6 foot
diameter propulsive end cap made of a MEMs based propulsive skin that
weighed 1 ton and produced 1,080 tons thrust, the revised tank would
lift off with 1.4 gees.
It blew up Challenger.
Only because someone applied a blow-torch to it in flight.

Sylvia.

**** happens and then you die. The re-entry reusable shuttle
has been scrapped - get used to it. In any case it needed two
solid rocket boosters to lift the tank, whereas three would
have lifted the shuttle without the tank and without using
its own engines - which have to be stripped down and refitted
after each flight, making a joke of reusable versus disposable.
As for re-entry, Spaceship One managed it without tiles and won
the X-prize.
http://www.scaled.com/projects/tiero..._flight_2.html

Which was an entirely different ball game. It didn't go into orbit, and
never had to do a hypersonic reentry.


The whole shuttle farce was a typical American government
over-engineered mess. It's what happens when the funds are
unlimited,

The solid-fuel boosters were used exactly because funds were limited,
and the originally proposed aircraft style reusable first stage had to
be scrapped.

Sylvia.

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"William Mook" wrote in message
...
The satellites have to be launched. This requires a launching
infrastructure. Making a light-weight system on Earth and launching
it is preferred.

A vehicle built around a modified External Tank holding hydrogen and
oxygen is the easiest way to go.

Being scrapped, a return to conventional multi-stage rockets is
planned.


Take the Space Shuttle External Tank. It masses 26.5 metric tons
empty and 760.0 metric tons filled. Equipped with a 19.6 foot
diameter propulsive end cap made of a MEMs based propulsive skin that
weighed 1 ton and produced 1,080 tons thrust, the revised tank would
lift off with 1.4 gees.
It blew up Challenger.
Only because someone applied a blow-torch to it in flight.

Sylvia.

**** happens and then you die. The re-entry reusable shuttle
has been scrapped - get used to it. In any case it needed two
solid rocket boosters to lift the tank, whereas three would
have lifted the shuttle without the tank and without using
its own engines - which have to be stripped down and refitted
after each flight, making a joke of reusable versus disposable.
As for re-entry, Spaceship One managed it without tiles and won
the X-prize.

http://www.scaled.com/projects/tiero..._flight_2.html

Which was an entirely different ball game. It didn't go into orbit, and
never had to do a hypersonic reentry.


The whole shuttle farce was a typical American government
over-engineered mess. It's what happens when the funds are
unlimited,

The solid-fuel boosters were used exactly because funds were limited, and
the originally proposed aircraft style reusable first stage had to be
scrapped.

Sylvia.

You mean they were glued on as an afterthought when it was realised
the tank had weight and the tank was bolted on as an afterthought
when it was realised the shuttle wasn't big enough to carry its own
fuel. It's built like a Harley-Davidson, bits sticking out all over the
place. Call that a design? I call it a farce.
Three SRBs can lift the vehicle to orbit without the tank and a fourth
used to halt forward motion to fall and re-enter. All the vehicle really
needs are tug boat steering thrusters.
How to design a launch vehicle on a limited budget:
http://tinyurl.com/ye5mvub
You can clearly see the steering thrusters differ from the lift thrusters
in this design:
http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/imag...ch_Vehicle.jpg

Androcles wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"William Mook" wrote in message
...
The satellites have to be launched. This requires a launching
infrastructure. Making a light-weight system on Earth and launching
it is preferred.

A vehicle built around a modified External Tank holding hydrogen and
oxygen is the easiest way to go.

Being scrapped, a return to conventional multi-stage rockets is
planned.


Take the Space Shuttle External Tank. It masses 26.5 metric tons
empty and 760.0 metric tons filled. Equipped with a 19.6 foot
diameter propulsive end cap made of a MEMs based propulsive skin that
weighed 1 ton and produced 1,080 tons thrust, the revised tank would
lift off with 1.4 gees.
It blew up Challenger.
Only because someone applied a blow-torch to it in flight.

Sylvia.
**** happens and then you die. The re-entry reusable shuttle
has been scrapped - get used to it. In any case it needed two
solid rocket boosters to lift the tank, whereas three would
have lifted the shuttle without the tank and without using
its own engines - which have to be stripped down and refitted
after each flight, making a joke of reusable versus disposable.
As for re-entry, Spaceship One managed it without tiles and won
the X-prize.

http://www.scaled.com/projects/tiero..._flight_2.html
Which was an entirely different ball game. It didn't go into orbit, and
never had to do a hypersonic reentry.

The whole shuttle farce was a typical American government
over-engineered mess. It's what happens when the funds are
unlimited,
The solid-fuel boosters were used exactly because funds were limited, and
the originally proposed aircraft style reusable first stage had to be
scrapped.

Sylvia.

You mean they were glued on as an afterthought when it was realised
the tank had weight and the tank was bolted on as an afterthought
when it was realised the shuttle wasn't big enough to carry its own
fuel.

Did you read what I wrote about the reusable first stage? It doesn't
appear that you did.

Sylvia.

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"William Mook" wrote in message
...
The satellites have to be launched. This requires a launching
infrastructure. Making a light-weight system on Earth and launching
it is preferred.

A vehicle built around a modified External Tank holding hydrogen and
oxygen is the easiest way to go.

Being scrapped, a return to conventional multi-stage rockets is
planned.


Take the Space Shuttle External Tank. It masses 26.5 metric tons
empty and 760.0 metric tons filled. Equipped with a 19.6 foot
diameter propulsive end cap made of a MEMs based propulsive skin
that
weighed 1 ton and produced 1,080 tons thrust, the revised tank would
lift off with 1.4 gees.
It blew up Challenger.
Only because someone applied a blow-torch to it in flight.

Sylvia.
**** happens and then you die. The re-entry reusable shuttle
has been scrapped - get used to it. In any case it needed two
solid rocket boosters to lift the tank, whereas three would
have lifted the shuttle without the tank and without using
its own engines - which have to be stripped down and refitted
after each flight, making a joke of reusable versus disposable.
As for re-entry, Spaceship One managed it without tiles and won
the X-prize.

http://www.scaled.com/projects/tiero..._flight_2.html
Which was an entirely different ball game. It didn't go into orbit, and
never had to do a hypersonic reentry.

The whole shuttle farce was a typical American government
over-engineered mess. It's what happens when the funds are
unlimited,
The solid-fuel boosters were used exactly because funds were limited,
and the originally proposed aircraft style reusable first stage had to
be scrapped.

Sylvia.

You mean they were glued on as an afterthought when it was realised
the tank had weight and the tank was bolted on as an afterthought
when it was realised the shuttle wasn't big enough to carry its own
fuel.

Did you read

No, I knee-jerk interrupted and snipped it instead, a stupid stunt I
learnt from you.

On Dec 17, 3:06*am, "Androcles" wrote:

Three SRBs can lift the vehicle to orbit without the tank

No, they can't. They would burn out at 2 minutes into the flight with
the orbiter still in the atmosphere and 1000's mph short of orbital
velocity. The SSME's using propellant from the ET provide most of the
velocity.
The SSME and ET provide approx 588M pounds sec of total impulse. One
SRB only provide 336M pounds sec of total impulse, not enough. And
the burn is too short

On Dec 17, 5:09*am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message

...



Androcles wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
. ..
Androcles wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
m...
Androcles wrote:
"William Mook" wrote in message
...
The satellites have to be launched. *This requires a launching
infrastructure. *Making a light-weight system on Earth and launching
it is preferred.

A vehicle built around a modified External Tank holding hydrogen and
oxygen is the easiest way to go.

Being scrapped, a return to conventional multi-stage rockets is
planned.

Take the Space Shuttle External Tank. *It masses 26.5 metric tons
empty and 760.0 metric tons filled. *Equipped with a 19.6 foot
diameter propulsive end cap made of a MEMs based propulsive skin
that
weighed 1 ton and produced 1,080 tons thrust, the revised tank would
lift off with 1.4 gees.
It blew up Challenger.
Only because someone applied a blow-torch to it in flight.

Sylvia.
**** happens and then you die. The re-entry reusable shuttle
has been scrapped - get used to it. In any case it needed two
solid rocket boosters to lift the tank, whereas three would
have lifted the shuttle without the tank and without using
its own engines - which have to be stripped down and refitted
after each flight, making a joke of reusable versus disposable.
As for re-entry, Spaceship One managed it without tiles and won
the X-prize.

http://www.scaled.com/projects/tiero...one_x-prize_fl....
Which was an entirely different ball game. It didn't go into orbit, and
never had to do a hypersonic reentry.

The whole shuttle farce was a typical American government
over-engineered mess. It's what happens when the funds are
unlimited,
The solid-fuel boosters were used exactly because funds were limited,
and the originally proposed aircraft style reusable first stage had to
be scrapped.

Sylvia.

You mean they were glued on as an afterthought when it was realised
the tank had weight and the tank was bolted on as an afterthought
when it was realised the shuttle wasn't big enough to carry its own
fuel.

Did you read

No, I knee-jerk interrupted and snipped it instead, a stupid stunt I
learnt from you.

No, Andy, Sylvia is right. The SRBs should never have been added to
the shuttle system. The original fly back booster would have been
preferred. I calculated for you Andy a 1,400 ton three stage to
orbit rocket around SSME/ET technology - with the ET composing the
first stage - this system will place 180 tons into LEO.

Two SRBs strapped together as a first stage, with SRB style second and
third stage, would mass 1,400 ton at lift off, but put up only 5.8
tons into LEO.

This is a consequene of SRB having an exhaust speed of 2.6 km/sec and
SSME having exhaust speed of 4.5 km/sec - and both must achieve 9.2 km/
sec.

On Dec 17, 10:24*am, Me wrote:
On Dec 17, 3:06*am, "Androcles" wrote:

Three SRBs can lift the vehicle to orbit without the tank

No, they can't. *They would burn out at 2 minutes into the flight with
the orbiter still in the atmosphere and 1000's mph short of orbital
velocity. *The SSME's using propellant from the ET provide most of the
velocity.
The SSME and ET provide approx 588M pounds sec of total impulse. *One
SRB only provide 336M pounds sec of total impulse, not enough. *And
the burn is too short

Exactly right! A pound of SRB propellant will produce a pound of
thrust for 260 seconds. A pound of ET propellant will produce a pound
of thrust for 455 seconds. This is an important point captured in the
rocket equation;

Isp = specific impulse = 260 for SRB, 455 for SSME

Vf = Isp * g0 * LN(1/(1-u))

Where Vf = final velocity (9.2 km/sec)
Isp = specific impulse
g0 = gravity constant = 9.802 m/sec
u = propellant fraction needed achieve Vf given Isp

On Dec 19, 4:58*pm, William Mook wrote:
On Dec 17, 5:09*am, "Androcles" wrote:



"Sylvia Else" wrote in message

. ..

Androcles wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
. ..
Androcles wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
m...
Androcles wrote:
"William Mook" wrote in message
...
The satellites have to be launched. *This requires a launching
infrastructure. *Making a light-weight system on Earth and launching
it is preferred.

A vehicle built around a modified External Tank holding hydrogen and
oxygen is the easiest way to go.

Being scrapped, a return to conventional multi-stage rockets is
planned.

Take the Space Shuttle External Tank. *It masses 26.5 metric tons
empty and 760.0 metric tons filled. *Equipped with a 19.6 foot
diameter propulsive end cap made of a MEMs based propulsive skin
that
weighed 1 ton and produced 1,080 tons thrust, the revised tank would
lift off with 1.4 gees.
It blew up Challenger.
Only because someone applied a blow-torch to it in flight.

Sylvia.
**** happens and then you die. The re-entry reusable shuttle
has been scrapped - get used to it. In any case it needed two
solid rocket boosters to lift the tank, whereas three would
have lifted the shuttle without the tank and without using
its own engines - which have to be stripped down and refitted
after each flight, making a joke of reusable versus disposable.
As for re-entry, Spaceship One managed it without tiles and won
the X-prize.

http://www.scaled.com/projects/tiero...one_x-prize_fl...
Which was an entirely different ball game. It didn't go into orbit, and
never had to do a hypersonic reentry.

The whole shuttle farce was a typical American government
over-engineered mess. It's what happens when the funds are
unlimited,
The solid-fuel boosters were used exactly because funds were limited,
and the originally proposed aircraft style reusable first stage had to
be scrapped.

Sylvia.

You mean they were glued on as an afterthought when it was realised
the tank had weight and the tank was bolted on as an afterthought
when it was realised the shuttle wasn't big enough to carry its own
fuel.

Did you read

No, I knee-jerk interrupted and snipped it instead, a stupid stunt I
learnt from you.

No, Andy, Sylvia is right. *The SRBs should never have been added to
the shuttle system. *The original fly back booster would have been
preferred. * I calculated for you Andy a 1,400 ton three stage to
orbit rocket around SSME/ET technology - with the ET composing the
first stage - this system will place 180 tons into LEO.

Two SRBs strapped together as a first stage, with SRB style second and
third stage, would mass 1,400 ton at lift off, but put up only 5.8
tons into LEO.

This is a consequene of SRB having an exhaust speed of 2.6 km/sec and
SSME having exhaust speed of 4.5 km/sec - and both must achieve 9.2 km/
sec.

The cool thing is the ability of increasing temperatures to increase
exhaust speed. Leik Myrabo's laser lightcraft achieves exhaust speeds
of 20.0 km/sec !!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_9ac-w4DW8

With the first stage using air heated by laser energy reducing
payloads further.

The 9.2 km/sec orbital speed with 3.07 km/sec provided by air leaves
6.13 km/sec provided by propellant - at higher altitudes

u = 1 - 1/exp(6.13/20.0) = 0.26398 ~ 0.264

So, 26.4% of the take off weight is propellant. Allowing 13.6% of the
craft to be structure, this leaves 60.0% payload!

So the 1,400 ton lift off mass - to compare to the SRB and SSME based
systems - puts 840 tons into LEO!!! WOW!

SRB 1,400 ton lift off -- 5.8 tons LEO
ET 1,400 ton lift off -- 180.0 tons LEO
LASER 1,400 ton lift off -- 840.0 tons LEO

Alternatively, a laser light craft would have to be;

9.7 tons at lift off to carry 5.8 tons to LEO
300.0 tons at lift off to carry 180 tons to LEO