Andrew, In my most humble opinion, Geoengineering must take the broadest view as possible. What you say about the ram accelerator is true and I have even run across an ocean based concept that looked very interesting. The technology is so simple that Iraq almost got one set up before the 1st war. The broader issue of energy, however, is the keystone of Geoengineering. Moving science and technology forward through the development of space based solar energy is really the holy grail. That does require a new launch system which would be a massive investment. The off shoots of that effort will, without a doubt, provide the greatest benefit to the greatest number.
The stop gap approach of climate intervention, regardless of the technique, is much like applying a tourniquet to a wounded limb. It will work...maybe do extra damage and is temporary at best. By addressing the nature of the means of injury and working to prevent the injury is truly the best spent time and effort. The field of Geoengineering will always be expected to take the longest and broadest perspective due to the significance of the concept. Marshalling global support for any actual operational effort will require showing highly positive benefits to the largest possable number of stake holders. New access to energy and physical frontiers does do that. The development and construction of the Space Fountain would bring economies of scale to fledgling fields such as supper conductive power transmission lines, which is very much needed. Giving regional power storage to electrical grids is very much needed. Providing regional telecommunications at low cost is very much needed. Long term In situ upper atmospheric research platforms are very much needed. By taking this advance concept option, it will inevitably, lead to discoveries and advancements in industry and science which will be important to everyone on this planet. Clearly, sending the message that the "gun" is the answer is not the PR I would hope to see this field send out. That is not what the science and technology folks will be saying, but, that is what will be in the minds of the average Joe on the street. We can and should do much better. So much for the soap box rant! Thanks for your patients. On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:11 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > Date: 5 April 2011 09:11 > Subject: Re: [geo] Another look at gunnery? > To: Veli Albert Kallio <albert_kal...@hotmail.com> > > > I don’t think that mine shafts are necessarily the right answer. The best > approach IMO would be to use either a vertical tower on a high-altitude > plateau, or an inclined gun built up the side of a mountain. Altitude saves > propellant and money. The advantage of using a mountain gun is that easy > access to all parts of the gun would be available. Sections could be easily > refurbished, aligned or replaced. Crucially, for a Ram Accelerator, there > has to be a series of either frangible diaphragms or fast acting valves > along the length of the gun, and easy access for heavy plant, stores, > workers, etc. would be needed. The gun relies propellant supply and pumping > along its length, to maintain the variable pressures along the length. > > > > The advantage of the Ram Accelerator over other techniques is that it’s a > fairly developed technology – far more so than the space fountain concept. > We already have fairly decent ram launchers which can fire small payloads at > high velocity. > > > > A > > On 5 April 2011 08:43, Veli Albert Kallio <albert_kal...@hotmail.com>wrote: > >> A good starter could be a study to identify the worlds disused mine >> shafts to test the concept of long barrels firing shells made of supercooled >> sulphuric acid. The shell casing could be considerably reduced, but >> ultimately these shafts would have to be dug into mountains to make the >> benefit of altitude and thin atmosphere to help them carry payloads higher >> and to right areas of atmosphere. >> >> ------------------------------ >> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 18:08:24 -0700 >> Subject: Re: [geo] Another look at gunnery? >> From: voglerl...@gmail.com >> To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com >> CC: and...@andrewlockley.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com >> >> >> Hi Andrew, the Space Fountain Concept could give us very >> important multiple benefits in one project. Here is the Wiki primer on the >> concept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_fountain >> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_fountain>As you can see, this is an >> advanced concept which can be built with todays technology. By focusing on a >> multi use project, the cost of SRM becomes almost an after thought. If we >> are to use stratospheric injection as the main SRM tool, keeping the >> injection going for many decades will be needed. By backing a multi use >> commercial space delivery system, the SRM cost would simply be absorbed as a >> cost of doing business. >> >> My earliest submission to this group was on the subject of a similar >> concept and it was a clumsy effort. I was too focused on nuts and bolts and >> not on theory. At that time, I had not found the concept of the Space >> Fountain, yet there are some similarities. I did call for a vacuum tube >> extending up into the stratosphere and the use of High Temp. Super >> Conductive Magnetic in a coil gun fashion. The main difference was that I >> proposed a more mechanical lift system than that of the Space Fountain >> concept. >> >> We do need all of the benefits that the Space Fountain has to offer to >> launch us beyond this time of critical energy/pollution problems. Huge >> amounts of capital are going to be spent one way or the other to deal with >> the issues we face. A concept like the Space Fountain can be a focus for >> that investment and it can be a net benefit as opposed to a net loss. >> >> I am not an expert on any aspect of this issue, however, I believe this >> type of multi problem solving approach is something that might be supported >> by most sides in this debate. >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Andrew Lockley >> <and...@andrewlockley.com>wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> I've been going over some reports and notes recently, notably the Aurora >> report http://people.ucalgary.ca/~keith/Misc/AuroraGeoReport.pdf >> >> The report makes it pretty clear that they've not done a huge amount to >> expand on gunnery as a tool. Specifically, the report states that: " In the >> 80-100 kft range, the relative simplicity of >> the gun system begins to look attractive despite the high recuring cost of >> shells, if the payload fraction can be increased" >> >> Back to basics here. Gunnery was developed by the military. Navies need >> portable guns that aren't fired often - the exact opposite design criteria >> that geoengineers need. Sailors therefore have short thick barrels with >> massive overpressures, and robust shells to withstand the high g forces a >> short barrel requires.. This is absolutely nothing like what we need for >> geoengineering. >> >> We need long guns that work at low overpressure. Low overpressure means a >> lightweight shell casing, a less tight barrel seal leading to lower friction >> and hence lower wear and thus lower costs. >> >> I think we need to look at completely different gunnery technologies, as >> well as just looking at gun redesign. My favorite is the ram launcher. >> This works with a loose (sub calibre) shell as it doesn't rely on barrel >> friction, so there's not the wear and cooling problem you get with a gun. >> It doesn't require expensive propellants, as you can run it on a cheap >> fuel/air mix. The acceleration is continuous, not declining like with a gun >> - so it's much gentler. In fact, accelerations as low as 600g with a 1.2km >> barrel are possible - and that still gives you 8kms/s launch speed - well >> over what's needed for accessing the stratosphere. That's 1/10th the >> acceleration in a conventional gun (although you do need to initiate the >> projectile with a primary launcher - a ram accelerator can't self start). >> >> In case people need a reminder, the ram projectile works by firing a >> loose-fitting projectile which relies on aerodynamic effects to ingnite fuel >> behind it by compression ignition, like a ramjet. It travels through the >> propellant, rather than being pushed in front of it. >> >> As a result of the loose fit and low launch stresses, the shells are >> likely to be very much thinner, cheaper and less well-engineered than >> conventional shells, and it may even be possible to make the shells reusable >> or at least recyclable. >> >> What do other people think of this? >> >> For more info on the technology, check the following links: >> >> http://www.tbfg.org/papers/Ram%20Accelerator%20Technical%20Risks%20ISDC07.pdf >> and for an improved version, check >> http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/~jeshep/icders/cd-rom/EXTABS/178_20TH.PDF >> >> A >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Michael Hayes* >> *360-708-4976* >> http://www.wix.com/voglerlake/vogler-lake-web-site >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >> > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > -- *Michael Hayes* *360-708-4976* http://www.wix.com/voglerlake/vogler-lake-web-site -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
