|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
...It only takes building 4 Space Solar Power satellites per yearto.....
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
...It only takes building 4 Space Solar Power satellites peryear to.....
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
...It only takes building 4 Space Solar Power satellites per year to.....
"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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
...It only takes building 4 Space Solar Power satellites peryear to.....
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
...It only takes building 4 Space Solar Power satellites per year to.....
"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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
...It only takes building 4 Space Solar Power satellites per yearto.....
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
...It only takes building 4 Space Solar Power satellites per yearto.....
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
...It only takes building 4 Space Solar Power satellites per yearto.....
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
...It only takes building 4 Space Solar Power satellites per yearto.....
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
China & Solar Power Satellites | [email protected] | Policy | 32 | September 28th 05 06:09 PM |
Solar Power Satellites | Paul Blay | Policy | 1 | November 19th 04 09:47 AM |
Solar Power Satellites | Earl Colby Pottinger | Policy | 0 | November 17th 04 11:30 PM |
Solar Power Satellites | Earl Colby Pottinger | Space Shuttle | 0 | November 17th 04 11:30 PM |