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

The First Step in Creating a Space Age - Treat Earth as a Planet



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 8th 10, 08:11 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default The First Step in Creating a Space Age - Treat Earth as a Planet

On Nov 8, 10:38*am, William Mook wrote:
On Nov 7, 10:24*pm, Brad Guth wrote:



On Nov 7, 5:26*pm, William Mook wrote:


Earth as a planet means Earth treated as a single entity of production
and consumption. *Which stands in marked contrast to treating Earth as
a divided and fractious collection of 266 nations each on their own
geopolitical position defined by their access or not to resources and
defined by their ability to trick, cajole or force others to hand over
what they need at the expense of the rest.


It is clear that despite well defined limits and options we have not
made good decisions related to the development of energy resources on
this planet.


It is likely we have not made good decisions related to the
development of other primary resources as well.


So, its worth thinking of a goal and determining if this goal is at
all feasible!


It turns out that it may be!


8 billion millionaires is one place to start. *Its a well defined
target. *We find that to achieve this goal we need vastly more than is
currently being produced in terms of food, energy, wood, metals, and
so on.


When, we look at what the entire planet has to offer we find that we
have enough - surprisingly.


In the end, we look at the Earth as we might look at a space colony -
and we find that we have plenty of everything to go around - if we
trouble ourselves to invest in the most productive infrastructure
possible and apply it as broadly as possible leaving no one out.


When we do this we find that approximately 800,000 sq km of solar
collectors, 800,000 sq km of green houses in the desert, a few large
water works programs, and careful management of 800,000 sq km of Taiga
forest, combined with the development of a yet to be determined number
of deep sea trenches - connected together with space based
communications, space based navigation, space based sensing, and a
network of hydrogen filled hydrogen fueled UAV - creates a system that
achieves the initial target of 8 billion millionaires.


From the productivity of this asset we can see how our economy might
adopt it as a private public partnership - allocating what Ford calls
efficiency bonuses to workers, management, investors, government, and
buyers alike.


This is all well and good, except for the usual part where William
Mook does nothing.


Motivating poor folks to do whatever they can't possibly afford to
accomplish isn't exactly a working plan, and especially dysfunctional
if there's no actual leadership by anyone other than yourself. *Do you
even have a short list of who would be put in charge of what, and have
any of them been contacted by you?


*~ BG


The 10 million millionaires have $40 trillion. *With the collapse of
the US banking system and the imminent unraveling of the US monetary
system they're looking for a place to put their money. *A few billion
to build a 'production cell' that puts all the pieces together is the
first step. *Then, building a factory that makes factories to make the
things we need to live. *Like I said;

* Five Years to Engineer and Develop
* Five Years to build the supply chain
* Five Years to build the products

We start with 1 cell and grow it 100x over three years by building a
production cell per year - of each type needed to support the supply
chain.


They are looking for a relatively failsafe and untaxable place to put
their 40 trillion so that it turns into 80 trillion at the least
possible overhead, and Mook hydrogen balloon cells for accomplishing
global deforestation or those terrific satellite based energy notions
to go along with your terrestrial conversion of solar energy into dirt
cheap LH2 and LOx are probably not on any of their short lists,
perhaps because they is heavily invested in the existing hydrocarbon
and nuclear energy cartels as is.

However, if you can manage to brake any of those trillions lose for
whatever Mook contrived investments, I'm certainly not going to stand
in your way. I totally agree that we need to get our upper most
wealthy loot reinvested into advanced technology, various productions
of products, goods and especially energy that insures better long-term
growth that's affordably clean and isn't restricted by government or
faith-based policies that only get in the way and run up the cost of
just about everything. Any further delay is yet another cost that we
can not afford.

~ BG

  #22  
Old November 8th 10, 08:42 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default The First Step in Creating a Space Age - Treat Earth as a Planet

On Nov 8, 9:05*am, William Mook wrote:
As Jay Leno reported, the Hindenberg ignited not because of hydrogen
but because of the material that coated the surface of the balloon.
The magnesium struts didn't help either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHbaO...?v=hXjVxOGCEpQ


Exactly, and not that anything is ever 100% failsafe. The use of H2
as buoyancy for such commercial usage seems every bit as good as any
considering what else falls out of the sky, blows up on the ground or
sinks at sea.

~ BG
  #23  
Old November 8th 10, 08:48 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default The First Step in Creating a Space Age - Treat Earth as a Planet

On Nov 7, 11:28*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 7, 8:40*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 7, 7:47 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:


We are contemplating 16 million airships carrying 40 tons each


Each one full of hydrogen gas, just like the Hindenberg...


Not that Mook is always right about everything, because he's not
unless you'd care to take his word for most everything, but you really
need to get yourself educated past 4th grade and at least learn the
physics basics before flatulating again.


That's really QUITE funny! *You have no idea how funny that is.


You see, I really AM a 'rocket scientist'.


There's nothing unsafe about using pure hydrogen, because pure (95+%)
hydrogen doesn't burn. *Put it this way, it's also a hell of a lot
safer than gasoline or even methane or worse yet is propane.


Well, except for that slight problem with there being all that
surrounding air full of all that oxygen and stuff. *It doesn't take
much to get an explosive mixture of hydrogen in air. *All you need is
a slight leak into an internal compartment and any sort of spark or
flame.


I guess, given your guidance above with regard to 'pure hydrogen',
that this never happened:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFptg...eature=related


Secondly, don't expect Mook to ever back down, because he never does.


'Back down'? *Who cares? *He makes a Mookery of pretty much everything
he touches.


While you tend to just Guth things up.


Hydrogen vapor always goes vertical and otherwise expands. *In fact,
there's nothing much stopping it from going vertical and expanding as
relatively failsafe.


So I guess the Hindenberg didn't really explode and burn, then?



I favor using nearly frozen or slush HTP (98+%) and a little bit of
something hydrocarbon for accomplishing the most easily stored energy
kick per volume, not that certain conditions of handling HTP are
exactly inert. *Anytime you mess with terrific energy density, such as
HTP plus whatever else, there's a risk of something going terribly
wrong.


You've missed the point. *Mookie was talking about INFLATING BLIMPS
with it.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn


H2 inflated logging blimps is actually a very good application,
especially since there's little if any onboard crew. It's more likely
an H2 cell could rupture and gradually down would come the load of
whatever logs.

You'd think that a Mook logging blimp would have at least 16 cells, so
that losing one cell wouldn't be sufficient cause of an aborted
mission unless another cell ruptured. The logic here is simply, the
more cells the better.

~ BG
  #24  
Old November 8th 10, 09:32 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Alan Anderson[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default The First Step in Creating a Space Age - Treat Earth as a Planet

On Nov 8, 2:28*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
So I guess the Hindenberg didn't really explode and burn, then?


It didn't explode. Really.

It did burn, but blaming the hydrogen is almost certainly wrong.
Burning hydrogen gas produces a pretty blue smokeless flame. The
Hindenberg burned bright yellow, with plenty of smoke. Hydrogen rises.
A lot of the burning material fell. Ignition of the aluminum paint on
the airship's skin, perhaps from a discharge of static electricity, is
a very reasonable explanation for what happened.
  #25  
Old November 8th 10, 09:54 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default The First Step in Creating a Space Age - Treat Earth as a Planet

On Nov 8, 12:32*pm, Alan Anderson wrote:
On Nov 8, 2:28*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:

So I guess the Hindenberg didn't really explode and burn, then?


It didn't explode. Really.

It did burn, but blaming the hydrogen is almost certainly wrong.
Burning hydrogen gas produces a pretty blue smokeless flame. The
Hindenberg burned bright yellow, with plenty of smoke. Hydrogen rises.
A lot of the burning material fell. Ignition of the aluminum paint on
the airship's skin, perhaps from a discharge of static electricity, is
a very reasonable explanation for what happened.


That's 100% correct, whereas the safest part of that Hindenburg was
perhaps the hydrogen, not that it didn't add to the demise which
looked a whole lot worst than it actually was, because lots of folks
managed to survive that horrific fiasco (better than most commercial
or military aircraft crashes).

~ BG
  #26  
Old November 8th 10, 10:10 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default The First Step in Creating a Space Age - Treat Earth as a Planet

In article 7754a276-58f5-4d5f-85d0-b87317e02f08
@r21g2000pri.googlegroups.com, says...

As Jay Leno reported, the Hindenberg ignited not because of hydrogen
but because of the material that coated the surface of the balloon.
The magnesium struts didn't help either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHbaOX2UAs0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXjVxOGCEpQ


It is true that the likely cuase of the fire was a spark which ignighted
the flammable coating on the outside of the Hindenburg. In other words,
H2 wasn't the cause of the Hindenburg going up in flames. But once it
got going, the H2 certainly burned right along with the doped skin.

That said, there are still very real risks of using H2 as a lifting gas.
Great care has to be taken to insure that H2 doesn't escape into
enclosed areas of an air ship which are filled with air, because a
flammable, or even explosive, air/H2 mixture can be created in such a
situation. H2 leaks into the atmosphere are far less of a fire risk.

Note that H2 leaks in the aft section of the space shuttle have been an
issue on several shuttle missions. When such leaks are detected and are
above a certain level, the launch is scrubbed until the leak is fixed.

Jeff
--
42
  #27  
Old November 8th 10, 10:17 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default The First Step in Creating a Space Age - Treat Earth as a Planet

On Nov 8, 1:10*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 7754a276-58f5-4d5f-85d0-b87317e02f08
@r21g2000pri.googlegroups.com, says...



As Jay Leno reported, the Hindenberg ignited not because of hydrogen
but because of the material that coated the surface of the balloon.
The magnesium struts didn't help either.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHbaOX2UAs0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXjVxOGCEpQ


It is true that the likely cuase of the fire was a spark which ignighted
the flammable coating on the outside of the Hindenburg. *In other words,
H2 wasn't the cause of the Hindenburg going up in flames. *But once it
got going, the H2 certainly burned right along with the doped skin.

That said, there are still very real risks of using H2 as a lifting gas. *
Great care has to be taken to insure that H2 doesn't escape into
enclosed areas of an air ship which are filled with air, because a
flammable, or even explosive, air/H2 mixture can be created in such a
situation. *H2 leaks into the atmosphere are far less of a fire risk.

Note that H2 leaks in the aft section of the space shuttle have been an
issue on several shuttle missions. *When such leaks are detected and are
above a certain level, the launch is scrubbed until the leak is fixed. *

Jeff
--
42


In a typical terrestrial blimp application, H2 only leaks upwards.
When's the last time any cabins or equipment was located directly
along side or much less above the H2 cells?

~ BG
  #29  
Old November 8th 10, 10:26 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default The First Step in Creating a Space Age - Treat Earth as a Planet

On Nov 8, 1:19*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 4e9ddae5-cf6a-475b-a4bd-
, says...



On Nov 8, 2:28 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
So I guess the Hindenberg didn't really explode and burn, then?


It didn't explode. Really.


It did burn, but blaming the hydrogen is almost certainly wrong.
Burning hydrogen gas produces a pretty blue smokeless flame. The
Hindenberg burned bright yellow, with plenty of smoke. Hydrogen rises.
A lot of the burning material fell. Ignition of the aluminum paint on
the airship's skin, perhaps from a discharge of static electricity, is
a very reasonable explanation for what happened.


While true, this does not diminish the risk of H2 leaking into an
enclosed area on a blimp, mixing with air, and causing a flammable, or
explosive, fuel/air mixture. *That's a very real hazard.

Jeff
--
42


In a typical terrestrial blimp application, H2 only leaks upwards.

When's the last time any cabins or equipment was located directly
along side or much less above the H2 cells?

I suppose it would also be a reasonably good idea of not hauling pure
oxygen along within the same H2 displaced blimp, but that's just a
guess. Obviously our shuttle has little if any option but to abort if
there's more than any natural background level of H2 detected, because
there's actually quite a bit of pure O2 onboard.

~ BG
  #30  
Old November 8th 10, 10:51 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default The First Step in Creating a Space Age - Treat Earth as a Planet

In article 41b7993d-0921-4844-a040-b30d717782d6
@g20g2000prg.googlegroups.com, says...

On Nov 8, 1:10*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:

That said, there are still very real risks of using H2 as a lifting

gas. *
Great care has to be taken to insure that H2 doesn't escape into
enclosed areas of an air ship which are filled with air, because a
flammable, or even explosive, air/H2 mixture can be created in such a
situation. *H2 leaks into the atmosphere are far less of a fire risk.

Note that H2 leaks in the aft section of the space shuttle have been an
issue on several shuttle missions. *When such leaks are detected and are
above a certain level, the launch is scrubbed until the leak is fixed. *


In a typical terrestrial blimp application, H2 only leaks upwards.
When's the last time any cabins or equipment was located directly
along side or much less above the H2 cells?


Who said anything about cabins or equipment?

Interactive Hindenburg diagram:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/html/e3-diagram.html

In the above, please note the areas which are inside the middle of the
H2 cells. Such areas could become filled with a hydrogen/air mixture if
one of the hydrogen gas cells leaked or ruptured.

It's my feeling that there just weren't enough Hindenburg like air ships
built and flown to find all of the possible failure modes involving
hydrogen. As a thought experiment: In an alternate history where the
shuttle program ended after the Challenger disaster, the failure mode
which led to the loss of Columbia would never have been found.

Jeff
--
42
 




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
mechanism for creating water in space discovered Yousuf Khan[_2_] Astronomy Misc 12 September 17th 10 08:09 PM
NASA Takes Giant Step Toward Finding Earth-Like Planets [email protected] News 0 September 30th 05 04:48 PM
Earth & Space Week 2005: Celebrating our Planet While Reaching for the Stars Jacques van Oene News 0 February 1st 05 03:46 PM
old BBC review: Planet Earth From Space ErstWhile Amateur Astronomy 0 June 23rd 04 06:21 PM
Space Engineering Helps Drill Better Holes In Planet Earth Ron Baalke Technology 0 July 18th 03 07:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:29 PM.


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.