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

A Modest Proposal



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 7th 07, 08:06 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default 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
  #2  
Old March 7th 07, 09:34 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Joe Strout
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 972
Default A Modest Proposal

In article ,
h (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

It's certainly an interesting proposal for a stopgap measure. Far less
ridiculous than sun-synchronous space mirrors or whatnot.

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.).

Best,
- Joe
  #4  
Old March 7th 07, 09:56 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Len[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 427
Default 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  
Old March 8th 07, 07:17 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default 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  
Old March 8th 07, 03:01 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Mike Rhino[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default 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  
Old March 8th 07, 08:06 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Oren
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default 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  
Old March 8th 07, 08:22 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default 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  
Old March 9th 07, 02:21 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jochem Huhmann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 606
Default 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  
Old March 9th 07, 03:37 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default 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

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
Antarctic and Lunar property rights. . . a modest proposal Tom Cuddihy Policy 31 February 8th 06 05:25 AM
Munros and Messiers: a modest proposal Robert L UK Astronomy 5 November 6th 05 07:09 PM
Astronomy in Central Tokyo: a modest blog Peter [astro.mp] Amateur Astronomy 0 December 23rd 04 12:34 AM
A modest proposal for Stellarvue owners and SAA participants... Rod Mollise Amateur Astronomy 1 August 15th 03 01:24 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:06 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.