Re: Bio fuels
On 01/05/2008, at 7:34 AM, Dave Land wrote: On Apr 30, 2008, at 1:35 PM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 01/05/2008, at 6:06 AM, jon louis mann wrote: which is better for ethanol; sugar cane, corn, switch grass, soy or hemp?~) Malt and hops... Drink it, don't burn it. Right. And then, because you're all liquored up, you ought not to drive, so you save fuel. Brilliant. Better than that, you don't feel the cold when drunk so you save on heating! My genius knows no bounds! C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Brin-l Digest, Vol 377, Issue 3
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of hkhenson Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 4:03 PM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 377, Issue 3 At 12:00 PM 4/17/2008, Dan M wrote: (Keith wrote) What do you want? The current 747 cost about $300 million and dry masses out to about 185 mt or $1.6 million a ton. Produced in similar tonnage, do you see any reason these rockets would cost more than per ton than a 747? If so, why? For the rocket itself, not counting all the other expenses associated with launches, that's not an unreasonable cost. Agreement! Right, but that's for the rocket itself. Not a shuttle, a rocket. The .pdf was recommended as a good reference by Hu Davis of Eagle Engineering. Look him up. What has he built? The Eagle as in the Eagle has landed. OK, I asked because I've seen so many experts who never had to do things. He does have great experience leading successful space design teams. So, I looked up the website of the space company he and Buzz Aldrin are leading http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/rlvs/starbooster_sum.shtml From my perspective, this shows the difficulties inherent in reusable craft. He is not discussing a rocket that can hit near orbit, launch a system to geocentric orbit, and then re-enter the atmosphere. Rather, he is presenting a far more modest goal: salvaging the first stage of a present system. The cost of doing this is 32 tons extra weight that is carried throughout the first stage. If you want, I think I can calculate the decrease in payload that results from this, but I know it's not insignificant (what I'd do is cut the weight of the upper stages by this amount and cut the payload proportionally.) I'm not faulting him for this. I think it reflects the modest goals that are realistic. I looked at the links from this website and noted that the X-33 was the furthest along of all the reusable near orbit systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33 I Googled for reusable orbital vehicles and found SpaceX's Falcon one as the one that's furthest along. The Falcon 1 has a first stage that is designed to parachute down to earth and be reusable. Later versions are suppose to have stages that can reach orbit and re-enter the atmosphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX As of two years ago, the owner has spent 100M of his own money, and has had two failed launches. The first one was fairly spectacular, but the second one was a guidance failure at the end of the mission. He hopes for Air Force contracts if the third one (with a small Air Force payload) succeeds. But, he was also quoted as saying If we have three consecutive failures [.] it's not clear to me that we know what we're doing and maybe we should go out of business. So, I consider him at the razors edge. As you know, I can cite a number of programs that have failed in developing reusable orbital vehicles. I think a recoverable, reworkable first stage, with a parachute drop and an ocean retrieval, might be workableand save some money in the long run. But, re-entry is an extremely harsh environment. Right now, besides NASA and the US Air Force, there are five groups that can provide launch capacity (Russia, the EU, Japan, China, and India). None of them, as far as I can see, are going towards reusable orbital vehicles. Given the problems NASA has had, given the failure of the X-33, a prudent person would consider such a task difficult and expensive in the present environment. So, the step which I strongly disagree with is assuming that such a vehicle can be built for the cost of a disposable rocket. No, that *is* the capital cost. I just have not discussed operating and maintenance costs which I have not estimated. This design uses 49 SSME in it and they are only expected to last 40 flights. How much labor is it going to take to pull 40 engines out of the first stage and 9 out of the second stage every 40 flights? On average they would be changing out 12 a day so they should get good at it. What's the closest model we have for airline operations? Or for that matter, railroad operations? A SSME has got to weigh less than a locomotive engine! That's not where the biggest problems have been for NASA. Maintaining the heat shield has been a nightmare for NASA. If you were flying them every day instead of ever 100 days could you do it with the same number of people? They were suppose to fly once a week...with far fewer people than are needed to fly them once every 100 days. Part of the cost is the very low production rate for spare parts. Another big chunk is paper pushing. NASA is inefficient, I won't argue with that. But, the fundamental problems remain. If it were easy, don't you think one of 7 non-NASA groups would have done something by now? Some years ago I read that the effort to recover and refurbish
RE: Brin-l Digest, Vol 377, Issue 3
On 1 May 2008 at 13:21, Dan M wrote: Why do you think mainstream science is wrong on global warming? Why do you think people will willingly die before using nuclear power? Because certain politicans of the cold war played up the links between nuclear warheads and nuclear power. There's a vast resevoir of fear there in the older generation. Or how Chenoybl was so atypical... (and caused in itself by an inefficient, dangerous cold war design of reactor). AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 377, Issue 3
Dan M wrote: I'd guess $75, because of the fall of the dollar, but with the big Brazil findand the fact that two countries with tremendous reserves (Venezuela and Iraq) are marginal producers for political reasons. Only Venezuela and Iraq? What about Nigeria, Iran, Russia, Alaska... As for the brazilian big oil fields, there's something I must say: these F $s��^�SVW3ۋt$ U NO CARRIER ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Global Warming
At 08:29 AM Tuesday 4/29/2008, Kevin B. O'Brien wrote: I think that it is clear that nature will restore a balance if necessary. If we are indeed over-populated (and I suspect that is the case), the balance will be restored through the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse, in some kind of combination. Whether Ronn will find that less offensive I cannot say. There's a vast difference between people dying despite everything possible at the time being done to save them and some people channeling E. Scrooge and saying that it would be A Good Thing for other folks to die and reduce the surplus population. Or does IAAMOAC mean that civilized behavior includes throwing other people under the wheels in order to save themselves? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: culling the species
At 08:34 AM Tuesday 4/29/2008, Kevin B. O'Brien wrote: Man is the best computer we can put aboard a spacecraft... and the only one that can be mass produced with unskilled labor. -- Wernher von Braun I wonder if he said that before or after Asimov? . . . ronn! :) Basic research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing. -- Wernher Von Braun ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Brin-l Digest, Vol 377, Issue 3
At 01:29 PM Thursday 5/1/2008, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 1 May 2008 at 13:21, Dan M wrote: Why do you think mainstream science is wrong on global warming? Why do you think people will willingly die before using nuclear power? Because certain politicans of the cold war played up the links between nuclear warheads and nuclear power. Elected or vocal complainers who wanted to be elected? (IOW, as is typically found on forms next to the choice Other, please specify __ . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Global Warming
I think that it is clear that nature will restore a balance if necessary. If we are indeed over-populated (and I suspect that is the case), the balance will be restored through the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse, in some kind of combination. Whether Ronn will find that less offensive I cannot say. Kevin B. O'Brien There's a vast difference between people dying despite everything possible at the time being done to save them and some people channeling E. Scrooge and saying that it would be A Good Thing for other folks to die and reduce the surplus population. Or does IAAMOAC mean that civilized behavior includes throwing other people under the wheels in order to save themselves? . . . ronn! :) ronn, i said it would be A Good Thing FOR THE PLANET... i was not advocating genocide, not was i suggesting other people should die so i could live. i will say that if humans are the cause of their own extinction, there is a sort of poetic justice. to quote larry niven, think of it as evolution in action... jon - Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Global Warming
Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 08:29 AM Tuesday 4/29/2008, Kevin B. O'Brien wrote: I think that it is clear that nature will restore a balance if necessary. If we are indeed over-populated (and I suspect that is the case), the balance will be restored through the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse, in some kind of combination. Whether Ronn will find that less offensive I cannot say. There's a vast difference between people dying despite everything possible at the time being done to save them and some people channeling E. Scrooge and saying that it would be A Good Thing for other folks to die and reduce the surplus population. Or does IAAMOAC mean that civilized behavior includes throwing other people under the wheels in order to save themselves? I don't recognize the acronym you used, but in any case I was talking in terms of restricting reproduction, not practicing euthanasia. If we leave it to the Four Horsemen, I am certain the worst of it will fall on those populations that are poor, and that will hardly look any better. It will take more than just population control, I suspect, but ignoring root causes is no way to solve the problem. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 A woman who takes her husband about with her everywhere is like a cat that goes on playing with a mouse long after she's killed it. -- Saki ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: culling the species
Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 08:34 AM Tuesday 4/29/2008, Kevin B. O'Brien wrote: Man is the best computer we can put aboard a spacecraft... and the only one that can be mass produced with unskilled labor. -- Wernher von Braun I wonder if he said that before or after Asimov? Got me with that one. I have no idea. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 It does not matter how slowly you go so long as you do not stop. -- Confucius ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: culling the species
At 11:05 AM Wednesday 4/30/2008, Julia Thompson wrote: On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, jon louis mann wrote: empowering women is definitely a pragmatic solution. protecting children, ending polygamy and legalizing same sex marriage, also... How do you feel about polyandry? Julia I dunno. Is there any man other than your husband who you would like to be married to in addition to him? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: culling the species
At 11:05 AM Wednesday 4/30/2008, Julia Thompson wrote: On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, jon louis mann wrote: empowering women is definitely a pragmatic solution. protecting children, ending polygamy and legalizing same sex marriage, also... How do you feel about polyandry? Julia Oops. Was that a private proposal for jon? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Global Warming
Kevin B. O'Brien blasphemed: Or does IAAMOAC mean that civilized behavior includes throwing other people under the wheels in order to save themselves? I don't recognize the acronym you used, WHAT??? You herectic scum! Alberto Monteiro PS: I am a member of a Civilization - Brin's motto ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re:2000 ton per day space transport
At 12:00 PM 5/1/2008, Dan wrote wrote: (Keith wrote) At 12:00 PM 4/17/2008, Dan M wrote: (Keith wrote) What do you want? The current 747 cost about $300 million and dry masses out to about 185 mt or $1.6 million a ton. Produced in similar tonnage, do you see any reason these rockets would cost more than per ton than a 747? If so, why? For the rocket itself, not counting all the other expenses associated with launches, that's not an unreasonable cost. Agreement! Right, but that's for the rocket itself. Not a shuttle, a rocket. A rocket in the shape of a space capsule using a water cooled heat shield. 39 tons of water. The .pdf was recommended as a good reference by Hu Davis of Eagle Engineering. Look him up. What has he built? The Eagle as in the Eagle has landed. OK, I asked because I've seen so many experts who never had to do things. He does have great experience leading successful space design teams. So, I looked up the website of the space company he and Buzz Aldrin are leading http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/rlvs/starbooster_sum.shtml From my perspective, this shows the difficulties inherent in reusable craft. He is not discussing a rocket that can hit near orbit, launch a system to geocentric orbit, and then re-enter the atmosphere. Rather, he is presenting a far more modest goal: salvaging the first stage of a present system. The cost of doing this His company has nothing to do with the Neptune rocket he pointed me to. snip As of two years ago, the owner has spent 100M of his own money, and has had two failed launches. RDTE for this monster, go look it up, was $24 billion. More than two orders of magnitude more. snip I think a recoverable, reworkable first stage, with a parachute drop and an ocean retrieval, might be workableand save some money in the long run. Out of the question. Water landing, yes, but *fresh* water. But, re-entry is an extremely harsh environment. Dry yes, wet, no. snip So, the step which I strongly disagree with is assuming that such a vehicle can be built for the cost of a disposable rocket. It's not my opinion, take it up with the folks who designed it. I was just taking Hu Davis' stamp of approval. snip If you were flying them every day instead of ever 100 days could you do it with the same number of people? They were suppose to fly once a week...with far fewer people than are needed to fly them once every 100 days. And yet airlines fly planes several times a day with small crews. How do they do it? Can it be translated to space operations? If not, why not? Part of the cost is the very low production rate for spare parts. Another big chunk is paper pushing. NASA is inefficient, I won't argue with that. But, the fundamental problems remain. If it were easy, don't you think one of 7 non-NASA groups would have done something by now? Some years ago I read that the effort to recover and refurbish the segments cost more than just letting them sink. 2000 tons per day is an entirely different model. You can't apply much of what we know about government space programs to it. But, in areas where costs have dropped like a rock (e.g. computers, big screen flat panel TVs, etc., we've seen a pattern of price drops funded by the early implementers. Right now, launching commercial satellites is a multi-billion dollar industry. A simple 30% price drop for the same reliability would be a big deal. They are all talking about less than 2 tons to GEO every few months. This is 100 times larger and 10 times per day. Different situation entirely. snip What gives you the idea space is harsh? Now a wind generator standing in salt water, that's harsh. I was referring to my own work. Oil platforms have stood in salt water for generations. Sea water is not very corrosive. I've had to design for far worse environments. I beg to differ. Turn off the cathodic protection and how long does it take to fall apart? My own experience has been with MWD (Measurement While Drilling). Our standard qualification test is temperature to 175C, 20 g RMS random vibration for 2 hours in each of the three axis, and 1500 g shock. With that random vibration one does get the 3 sigma 60 g vibration from time to time. I am not impressed. Back when I was bonding chips we subjected all of them to 10,000 g in -Z to see if we had any marginal bonds. I don't remember a single time we did. snip When power sats are not considered (and they usually are not) then you get statements like this: No combination of renewable energy systems have the potential to generate more than a fraction of the power now being generated by fossil fuels. -- Jay Hanson Nuclear power is a green alternative that's already price competitive (unless PC demands raise the price artificially). Nuclear power is not a renewable. Without heavy breeding we don't have a lot more uranium than we do
