Charlie Bell wrote on April 16th: Re: An interesting response >On 17/04/2008, at 12:26 PM, Dan M wrote: > >> Well, Concord was a political animal from the very beginning wasn't >> it? It was a tax subsidized showcase for Britain and France from the >> start. IIRC, it never really was a profit center.
>All aircraft mfrs are subsidised. Yes, it was supposed to be a >technology It sounds as though this is a reflection of the common EU argument that the USs concentrating its purchases of military aircraft amounts to a subsidy of US commercial aircraft. But, the big US commercial aircraft maker (Boeing) hasnt had much luck in the military marker in the last 15 years. Boeing has received tax breaks, like every company, but the governments are not involved the way the EU is involved with AirBus. >> its successor would have been an "efficient" supersonic plane. > >> I don't doubt that a successor would have been better, but you putting >> "efficient" in quotes seems to indicate that you aren't arguing >> against the fundamental increase in cost per passenger mile when a plane goes at >>Mach 1.05 compared to Mach 0.95. >"Fundamental"? No. Substantial, yes. Well, we may be arguing semantic again. Ive seen fundamental costs being about a factor of 5 or so per passenger. I guess that would allow for >> That's not political. The decision to use tax money to subsidize the travel of the richest >>businessmen is, of course, political. >The politics came in when a swathe of countries banned the Concorde >from overflying. That's what killed it. Didn't take long before the >only route for Concorde was the transatlantic shuttle, and even then, >only the very rich could afford it. After looking into this, there is some truth in this. But, you do know it was environmental politics, right? Thats what killed the US SST program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707 I know how loud sonic booms sounded when I was a kid. I can see how easy it was to get people opposed to them happening all the time. >That's a scale issue. When only a handful are ever built, the R&D isn't >every going to be repaid. Thats OK, and I understand it. But, at the same time, I recall the tremendous pride of Britain and France on stealing a march on the US at the time. >You seem to think the subsidies were aimed towards Concorde's final fate. >They weren't, they were aimed at getting the time of long-haul flights >down. Even today, it takes a day to get from London to Sydney. >Concorde was supposed to halve that. But, supersonic flight is a fuel hog. Look at the range of the 747 vs. the Concord and their fuel loads per passenger. One would have to stop for fueling several times to make that distance. I realize that most planes have to stop once, including the 747, but the 777 can make it in one. The Concord would still be faster, and the point is moot due to environmental concerns that wont go away. But, I think without those, it is reasonable to assume that some businessmen would be willing to pay 5x the fare for a thin seat to save half of the time. But, granting that, my point is that natural barriers do exist. Some lines of inquiry and technology are easier than others. Right now, computer chips remain under Moores law and it appears that gene manipulation is doing even better. Let me try an analogy to illustrate my point. We scientists and R&D engineers are like 16th century explorers. Part of where they went was determined by their will, our abilities, their technology, etc. But, part of it was determined by the lay of the land. The Northwest passage didnt exist until last year (the Northeast passage existed for a few years before that). There was no easy way around the Americas. Valley that were explored seemed promising as passages over the Continental divide, but few good ones exist. My argument is that we shouldnt think of green energy as merely a test of our will. It is also dependant on the lay of the land. Past behavior doesnt guarantee future behavior, but its much more likely that, in 10 years, we will have a 1 terabyte drive for $100 than have a plane that can carry 1500 passengers that flies for the same price (not price per passenger but total price) as a plane that carries 100. >t's chicken wire on poles, Dan. Strung over land that can still be >used for other stuff. The rectennas are by far the smallest costs in >the whole thing... Im not sure its quite that simple. I agree it will probably be a lot cheaper than the transmitter. But, I don't think the process is trivial. If the transmission is that simple, why wouldnt we be using it for remote locations now. Just put a tower up and transmit the energy? >> I understand that, but there was a huge inertia >...? I understand that, but there was a huge inertia with mainframe computers in the 70s and they soon became dinosaurs. Yet, the capital invested in the Z-density I helped design was small, yet it was 20 years before it was worth the bother to design a new tool. And thats with all the efficiencies of new electronics in between. Some technology is mature, and not much happens for decades; other technology seems to change when you turn around. > > >> All that said, I'd like to see you, Dan, try to put together a cost- >> analysis on a powersat project. > Nothing works 100% of the time, but lets assume a 95% efficiency, or > running > 8322 hours/year. The cost is, then, about $39 per kWh. As pointed out by someone else, that $39 per kWh per year. If we assume 10 years, and no other costs, then wed be talking about $4.00 kWh, about 100 x the commercial rate. >So... how to bridge the gap? You bridge the gap with and only with technology we dont see yet. We dont know where that will come from. Let me give one more example from what I know: high energy physics. It took over 3 decades for the new CERN accelerator to go 10x the power of Fermilab because a wall had been reached. The superconding supercollider (which was close to the new CERN facilities) was going to cost more than 10x than Fermilab and when the price kept on rising beyond that it was cancelled. Now, there is a new technique thats being proposed that shortens the acceleration length http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/20373 This might or might not work. If it does, then we can have a 100 Tev colliding beam accelerator for less than CERNs. If you look at whats been proposed for new rockets, its, well, fiddling with established technology. If we can get a propellant with 10x the energy density per kg, 10x the thrust velocity, a cheap durable heat shield material, etc. then wed have something. Thats why I proposed spending money on basic research. Im not sure whats going to benefit from this research, but for the last 200 years at least, its paid off. Dan M. -------------------------------------------------------------------- myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
