|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A Modest Proposal
Here's a guy who wants to solve global warming by filling the upper
atmosphere with SO2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/6369971.stm I think this would be a great market for suborbital space transports. http://www.transterrestrial.com/arch...13.html#008613 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A Modest Proposal
"Joe Strout" wrote in message ... In article , h (Rand Simberg) wrote: I think this would be a great market for suborbital space transports. Maybe, except that if we really needed to a million tons of sulfur into the stratosphere, you'd think we would use the cheapest means possible. I suspect that would be balloons (perhaps filled with hydrogen, since that much helium might be problematic). But then again, maybe not -- each balloon can't lift very much, so you'd need millions of them. But of course, it's much easier to mass-produce balloons by the millions than it is rockets. I guess it'd take some detailed study to figure out which is cheaper (also including other possible options, such as planes, EM launchers, etc.). Build 100 reusable (suborbital) RLV's that each fly 1000 times per year which means your payload would be 10 tons per vehicle (to the stratosphere, which is easier to get to than "space"). What's so unreasonable about that? Jeff -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A Modest Proposal
On Mar 7, 2:06 pm, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
Here's a guy who wants to solve global warming by filling the upper atmosphere with SO2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/6369971.stm I think this would be a great market for suborbital space transports. http://www.transterrestrial.com/arch...13.html#008613 Interesting, Rand. Interesting enough that I have filed it away. However, the first stage of an orbital sytem might be more appropriate than a "suborbital" system--at a least suborbital system that is designed to go to 100 km. Our carrier stage could lift about 200 tonnes to 30-40 km for under $1 million per flight. The volcano equivalent--10 million tonnes-- would require require perhaps 50,000 flights. At that rate, cost per flight should come down quite a bit. $100,000 per flight would cost $5 billion. However, it may, or may not, be more cost-effective than sun-synchronous or other shading/deflection--or, as Joe Strout, suggests, balloons. Emissions controls--carried to extremes--could prove the most costly and least practical. Len |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
A Modest Proposal
"Jeff Findley" wrote:
Build 100 reusable (suborbital) RLV's that each fly 1000 times per year which means your payload would be 10 tons per vehicle (to the stratosphere, which is easier to get to than "space"). What's so unreasonable about that? That the number of vehicles, the number of flights per day, and the payload all well exceed our existing experience base. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
A Modest Proposal
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
... Here's a guy who wants to solve global warming by filling the upper atmosphere with SO2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/6369971.stm I think this would be a great market for suborbital space transports. http://www.transterrestrial.com/arch...13.html#008613 We could put coal fired power plants on blimps and have them beam energy down to the surface. Normal airplanes fly at one altitude, but they can be designed to fly higher. Normal planes are designed to get somewhere. For the purpose at hand, it is possible to sacrifice speed for fuel efficiency. You would end up with coal powered airplanes circling over head, spewing smoke, and beaming energy down to the ground. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
A Modest Proposal
On Mar 7, 9:06 pm, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
Here's a guy who wants to solve global warming by filling the upper atmosphere with SO2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/6369971.stm I think this would be a great market for suborbital space transports. http://www.transterrestrial.com/arch...13.html#008613 Gregory Benford has a similar proposal but he suggests using inert mineral dust instead of sulfur. A STEP TOWARD SAVING OUR ARCTIC http://groups.google.com/group/geoen...2a7501a39fb19b Oren |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
A Modest Proposal
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... "Jeff Findley" wrote: Build 100 reusable (suborbital) RLV's that each fly 1000 times per year which means your payload would be 10 tons per vehicle (to the stratosphere, which is easier to get to than "space"). What's so unreasonable about that? That the number of vehicles, the number of flights per day, and the payload all well exceed our existing experience base. But not beyond existing technology. We're talking about a flight profile that's easier than what SS1 flew on its suborbital flights into space. If you want to stick with that sort of solution, you could stick a pretty big SS1 type vehicle on top of the shuttle carrier aircraft. ;-) Actually, I was thinking more of something similar to DC-X only scaled up a bit. How about something with a few big Russian LOX/kerosene engines in the base with a few smaller engines for landing? Jeff -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
A Modest Proposal
"Jeff Findley" writes:
But not beyond existing technology. We're talking about a flight profile that's easier than what SS1 flew on its suborbital flights into space. If you want to stick with that sort of solution, you could stick a pretty big SS1 type vehicle on top of the shuttle carrier aircraft. ;-) Something like this? "Vehra-SH Suborbital Manned Vehicle": http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/arc...-Vehra-ACE.pdf Jochem -- "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
A Modest Proposal
"Jochem Huhmann" wrote in message ... "Jeff Findley" writes: But not beyond existing technology. We're talking about a flight profile that's easier than what SS1 flew on its suborbital flights into space. If you want to stick with that sort of solution, you could stick a pretty big SS1 type vehicle on top of the shuttle carrier aircraft. ;-) Something like this? "Vehra-SH Suborbital Manned Vehicle": http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/arc...-Vehra-ACE.pdf That would work. I like the engine choice: The Russian RD-0110 motor (KB Khimautomatiki of Voronezh) is considered as baseline to boost into suborbital trajectory. This rocket engine is fuelled by liquid oxygen and kerosene (non toxic propellants). Used for the 3rd stage of the Soyuz launch vehicle, it's a very reliable engine with high degree of safety. For this project, the RD-0110 will be partially reusable (to be confirmed by tests). Specs he http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd0110.htm Need more thrust? Then there is always the venerable RD-108. Jeff -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Antarctic and Lunar property rights. . . a modest proposal | Tom Cuddihy | Policy | 31 | February 8th 06 04:25 AM |
Munros and Messiers: a modest proposal | Robert L | UK Astronomy | 5 | November 6th 05 06:09 PM |
Astronomy in Central Tokyo: a modest blog | Peter [astro.mp] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | December 22nd 04 11:34 PM |
A modest proposal for Stellarvue owners and SAA participants... | Rod Mollise | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | August 15th 03 01:24 AM |