RE: An interesting response

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Original Message:
-
From: Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 19:22:53 -0500
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: RE: An interesting response 


At 05:34 PM Monday 5/5/2008, Dan M wrote:



>The more substantial point involves the maximum speed achieved by piloted
>planes over about the last 60 years.
>
>1947312
>1968925
>19901000
>20081000



There is obviously some additional modifier missing here, since even 
if the X-15 is disqualified since it used a rocket engine rather than 
an air-breathing engine, the SR-71 is still considered a jet aircraft 
(even if it uses exotic fuel) and is piloted 
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldon_W._Joersz>).


Sorry, I was doing meters/second and didn't give units like I meant to. 
1000 comes out to 2236 mph, a bit more than your source which claims 2188. 
Maybe the 2236 wasn't quite official for some reason.  But, we basicaly
agree here. And yes, I didn't consider rocket planes, and didn't consider
the shuttle, etc.  

Dan M.


mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider -
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: An interesting response

[Ronn! Blankenship]

At 05:34 PM Monday 5/5/2008, Dan M wrote:



>The more substantial point involves the maximum speed achieved by piloted
>planes over about the last 60 years.
>
>1947312
>1968925
>19901000
>20081000



There is obviously some additional modifier missing here, since even 
if the X-15 is disqualified since it used a rocket engine rather than 
an air-breathing engine, the SR-71 is still considered a jet aircraft 
(even if it uses exotic fuel) and is piloted 
().


. . . ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: An interesting response

[Dan M]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Charlie Bell
> Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 9:48 AM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Re: An interesting response
> 
> 
> On 04/05/2008, at 12:31 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > The second article shows a _demostrated_ range of 13500 for the
> > 777 , and
> > the nonstop route would be somewhat shorter than a one stop route.
> 
> "When loaded with passengers and baggage, the airline will be able to
> fly 10,900 miles non-stop"
> 
> Yes, it did 13,500. Unloaded. It'll just be able to do London - Sydney
> loaded if the shortest possible aircraft route is available, and in
> the right conditions. Really want to rely on no headwinds to make it
> across Oz...?
> 
> The longest scheduled commercial service offered currently is the over
> 18 hour non-stop from Newark to Singapore.
> 
> Maybe someone will offer a London-Sydney non-stop in the future, and
> maybe it'll be a 777 that does it, but currently no plane can do it
> commercially, as I said. 

First a pedantic point, than a real one.  You actually said

"No current commercial aircraft can do it."

The sources I read indicated (I think I quoted one) said that Boeing was in
negotiations for selling a number of 777s configured to make the
London-Sydney run nonstop, on a regular basis.  The return trip, due to
prevailing head winds, would require a stop.  The change to the plane would
be a seating arrangement change, from 300 seats to 250.

Clearly, this is not commercial now, or someone would be making money doing
it.  But, a commercial plane is capable of the trip, which is what I
honestly thought we were discussing

The more substantial point involves the maximum speed achieved by piloted
planes over about the last 60 years.
 
1947312
1968925
19901000
20081000 

There is physics behind this, not just a lack of will.  _That's_ been my
point all along.

Dan M. 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: An interesting response

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Original Message:
-
From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 11:10:57 -0800
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: An interesting response


Dan wrote:

>
>
> My argument is that we shouldn't think of green energy as merely a test of
> our will.  It is also dependant on the lay of the land.  Past behavior
> doesn't guarantee future behavior, but it's 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.
>

>10 years?  You can get one for $200 now: *http://tinyurl.com/62bmep

>The way prices for hard drives change, I doubt it will be much more than
>one.

I stand corrected. :-)

How about 10 Tbytes in 10 years for $100? I suppose that might seem
expensive in 10 years, unless there is a lot of inflation between now and
then and the minimum wage goes to $100/hour.  

When I first looked at the price of disk space, in 1978, the HEP department
was paying $2.50 per week per Mbyte for its use of disk space.  

So, it's fair to say that I've understated my point. :-)

Dan M. 

Dan M. 


mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: An interesting response

[Doug Pensinger]

Dan wrote:

>
>
> My argument is that we shouldn't think of green energy as merely a test of
> our will.  It is also dependant on the lay of the land.  Past behavior
> doesn't guarantee future behavior, but it's 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.
>

10 years?  You can get one for $200 now: *http://tinyurl.com/62bmep

The way prices for hard drives change, I doubt it will be much more than
one.

Doug
*
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: An interesting response

[Charlie Bell]

On 04/05/2008, at 12:31 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> The second article shows a _demostrated_ range of 13500 for the  
> 777 , and
> the nonstop route would be somewhat shorter than a one stop route.

"When loaded with passengers and baggage, the airline will be able to  
fly 10,900 miles non-stop"

Yes, it did 13,500. Unloaded. It'll just be able to do London - Sydney  
loaded if the shortest possible aircraft route is available, and in  
the right conditions. Really want to rely on no headwinds to make it  
across Oz...?

The longest scheduled commercial service offered currently is the over  
18 hour non-stop from Newark to Singapore.

Maybe someone will offer a London-Sydney non-stop in the future, and  
maybe it'll be a 777 that does it, but currently no plane can do it  
commercially, as I said.

Charlie.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: An interesting response

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Original Message:
-
From: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 15:17:39 +1000
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: An interesting response 



On 03/05/2008, at 1:48 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>> 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.

>London to Sydney? In one hop? No current commercial aircraft can do  
>it. London to Sydney is almost 13.500 miles and the 777 has a range of  
>a bit over 9000. I'll come back to the rest of the post later.

It's true that some of the plans are for 787 flights, not 777 flights, but
if the links given below are trustworthy both the 777 and the 787 have the
capacity to do it as nonstop.

http://www.get-packing.com/news/flights/archives/april-2007/virgin-plans-dir
ect-london-to-sydney-flights.html?fid=1094933108


http://travel.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/travel/business/article59
0535.ece

http://www.get-packing.com/news/flights/archives/february-2007/qantas-consid
ers-non-stop-london-sydney-flights.html?fid=1638842198

It's not commercial yet, but according to the first quote, planes are now
on order for that flight.

The second article shows a _demostrated_ range of 13500 for the 777 , and
the nonstop route would be somewhat shorter than a one stop route. 

Dan M.




mail2web LIVE – Free email based on Microsoft® Exchange technology -
http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: An interesting response

[Charlie Bell]

On 03/05/2008, at 1:48 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> 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

Concorde. With an "e".

> 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.

London to Sydney? In one hop? No current commercial aircraft can do  
it. London to Sydney is almost 13.500 miles and the 777 has a range of  
a bit over 9000. I'll come back to the rest of the post later.

Charlie.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: An interesting response

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

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
US’s concentrating its purchases of military aircraft amounts to a subsidy
of US commercial aircraft.  But, the big US commercial aircraft maker
(Boeing) hasn’t 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.  I’ve 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?  That’s 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. 

That’s 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 won’t 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 Moore’s 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 didn’t
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 shouldn’t think of green energy as merely a test of
our will.  It is also dependant on the lay of the land.  Past behavior
doesn’t guarantee future behavior, but it’s 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...

I’m not sure it’s 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 wouldn’t we be using it for remote
locations now.  Just put a tower up and transmit the energy? 



>> I understand that, but there was a h

RE: An interesting response

[Curtis Burisch]

>Coal power is about 0.04 cents / kWh

Whoops. That was supposed to be 4 cents / kWh.

I also neglected to mention the following stats that may be of interest:

 Power in earth orbit:   1300 W/m^2
 Power at earth surface: 1000 W/m^2

Regards,
Curtis.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: An interesting response

[Julia Thompson]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, Charlie Bell wrote:

>
> On 25/04/2008, at 4:19 AM, Curtis Burisch wrote:
>> Reality check.
>> I'm a proponent of earthbound CPV systems, and am actively seeking
>> investment in my particular design. I know this industry inside and
>> out, and
>> can tell you straight out that orbital power gen systems will simply
>> not
>> fly, for cost-effectiveness reasons.
>
> Well, there we have it. Is there nothing that someone on here isn't an
> expert in?

And if anyone was thinking of saying "child car seats", try again.  :)

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: An interesting response

[Charlie Bell]

On 25/04/2008, at 4:19 AM, Curtis Burisch wrote:
> Reality check.
> I'm a proponent of earthbound CPV systems, and am actively seeking
> investment in my particular design. I know this industry inside and  
> out, and
> can tell you straight out that orbital power gen systems will simply  
> not
> fly, for cost-effectiveness reasons.

Well, there we have it. Is there nothing that someone on here isn't an  
expert in?

Charlie.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: An interesting response

[Curtis Burisch]

Reality check.

Coal power is about 0.04 cents / kWh

I'm in the solar biz. The reality is:

Orbital stations are operational for 100% of the time. Earthbound stations
are operational at most 50% of the time (because of the day/night cycle).
But orbital stations cost a LOT more to get going. This eliminates any
advantage you might get from the 50% power gain, and then some.

I'm a proponent of earthbound CPV systems, and am actively seeking
investment in my particular design. I know this industry inside and out, and
can tell you straight out that orbital power gen systems will simply not
fly, for cost-effectiveness reasons.

Regards,
Curtis.



With very expensive receivers you can get about 40% efficiency.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Charlie Bell
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 1:40 PM
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
Subject: Re: An interesting response 


On 18/04/2008, at 7:16 AM, hkhenson wrote:
> At 12:00 PM 4/17/2008, Dan M wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> If you do it this way, the cost the next year is zero.  That's not
> good accounting.  These things should run for decades.  If you wrote
> it off in 10 years, it would be $3.90 a kWh.

Ah yes. I totally missed that part of Dan's calculation, despite the  
fact I used precisely the correct calculation in my own roof-top solar  
calculation - I blame my flu. Fucking schoolboy error.

So - assuming a yearly running cost at 10% of start-up, that's still  
about 5 bucks a kwh. So comparable to rooftop solar, but with  
massively more startup cost.

Hmmm. So why's it better?

C.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: An interesting response

[Charlie Bell]

On 18/04/2008, at 7:16 AM, hkhenson wrote:
> At 12:00 PM 4/17/2008, Dan M wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> If you do it this way, the cost the next year is zero.  That's not
> good accounting.  These things should run for decades.  If you wrote
> it off in 10 years, it would be $3.90 a kWh.

Ah yes. I totally missed that part of Dan's calculation, despite the  
fact I used precisely the correct calculation in my own roof-top solar  
calculation - I blame my flu. Fucking schoolboy error.

So - assuming a yearly running cost at 10% of start-up, that's still  
about 5 bucks a kwh. So comparable to rooftop solar, but with  
massively more startup cost.

Hmmm. So why's it better?

C.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: An interesting response

[Lance A. Brown]

hkhenson said the following on 4/17/2008 5:16 PM:
> At 12:00 PM 4/17/2008, Dan M wrote:
> 
> And what kind of a deal would the Russians give you if you wanted to 
> launch 110 of these a day?

Perhaps this is naive of me, but who is going to want to build the 
multiple launching facilities 110 launches/day will require?  I would 
expect most of those pads would go idle once the project completed, no? 
  Seems like a sunk cost to me.

--[Lance]

-- 
  GPG Fingerprint: 409B A409 A38D 92BF 15D9 6EEE 9A82 F2AC 69AC 07B9
  CACert.org Assurer
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: An interesting response

[hkhenson]

At 12:00 PM 4/17/2008, Dan M wrote:

>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.

If you do it this way, the cost the next year is zero.  That's not 
good accounting.  These things should run for decades.  If you wrote 
it off in 10 years, it would be $3.90 a kWh.

And what kind of a deal would the Russians give you if you wanted to 
launch 110 of these a day?

Keith 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: An interesting response

[Dan M]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of hkhenson
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 8:10 PM
> To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
> Subject: An interesting response
> 
> At 12:00 PM 4/16/2008, Dan M wrote:
> >(Keith wrote)
> > >
> > > At 12:00 PM 4/11/2008, Dan M wrote:
> > >
> > > (Keith wrote)
> > > > >Takes 10 200 ton payload
> > > > > rockets each flying once a day to do it and with a blank check
> > > > > perhaps under 5 years to work up to this production rate and 6-7
> > > > > years from start to get to a $50 billion a year revenue stream
> > > > > increasing at $25 billion a year.
> > > >
> > > >OK, let's do the math on that.  At the present time, the cost of lift
> to
> > > >geosynchronous orbit is $20,000 per kg or $20M per metric ton. Ten
> 200
> > > ton
> > > >payloads would be about 40 billion per day or 14.6 trillion per year.
> > > >That's roughly the GDP of the US.
> > >
> > > And the analogy would be how impossible it is to build a dam sending
> > > all the contents in Fed Ex envelopes.
> > >
> > > >The trick is, as it always has been, to lower launch costs.
> > > Unfortunately,
> > > >even in inflation adjusted dollars, launch costs haven't dropped much
> > > over
> > > >the past 40 years.
> > >
> > > I agree with you.  The question is why?
> >
> >I wrote a blog on that general topic at  the Scientific American website
> >
> >http://science-community.sciam.com/blog-entry/Dan-Ms-Blog/Unfortunate-
> Promin
> >ent-Misconception-Concerning-Tech/34870
> 
> It was an interesting blog, though *social problems* are in a very
> different class than engineering ones like going to the moon.  At
> least they are now.  Ask and I will point you to a dark story about
> how they might be solved.
> 
> >The essence is that when the engineering community starts working on
> >something, it starts working on the obviously solvable problems first.
> >Then, progress slows as the easy problems are solved and harder problems
> are
> >faced.  The point at which this happens, and the manner in which it
> happens
> >is based on what is found.  The speed of sound barrier is rather
> >significant, and we have not found a way to develop efficient planes that
> go
> >at Mach 1.1 almost 60 years after we first went above Mach 1.
> >
> > >It's not the cost of energy.
> >
> >No, it's the cost of the system.
> >
> > >A nearly hundred percent efficient space
> > >elevator lifts about 2400 mt a day (on less than a GW)
> 
> snip
> 
> >I've invented a few things that are used worldwide and am still engaged
> in
> >practical science/engineering.  I've worked close to guys who's
> inventions
> >have reduce world costs for producing oil by about 250 million/day.
> 
> Since there are around 80 million barrels a day produced, that's a
> reduction of about 3%.
> 
> >So, I
> >think I'm fairly familiar with processes that are economical and that
> work.
> >I have not seen anything in what you have written on this subject that
> gives
> >an indication of an understanding of the nature of practical solutions to
> >problems.
> 
> 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. 

 
> First and second stage mass 619 tons, (third stage is mostly power
> sat parts) so if they cost on a par with a 747, they would cost just
> a hair over a billion each, with one coming off the production line
> every 20 days, or about 31 mt a day.  That might sound like a lot,
> but I have worked in a locomotive factory that made 30 times that
> much a day in product (8-9 locomotives a day at 113 mt each).  At
> peak production 747s were coming off the line at a slightly higher
> tonnage per year.  If you use them for 200 flights the capital cost
> per flight is $5 million /200,000kg or $25/kg.

Here's where you throw in the unspecified assumption.  A simple disposable
rocket, like the ones being used by all launch facilities but the shuttle,
could cost about what you said. But, then you talk about reusable rockets
and assume that the initial capital cost is the critical factor.

The fantasy of the space shuttle was that it could be reused easily.  10
years into the mission, it was supposed to require a very small ground crew,
getting lift costs to near earth orbit down to about $25/kg or some such
number.  But, the maintenance is very high and expensive.  The shuttle costs
a lot of money to fly, even though we are not buying new shuttles, the big
fuel tank is the cheapest part of the assembly, and the solid fuel rockets
are recoverable.

So, I've seen no estimates for this, just the same arm waving I heard about
the shuttle years ago.  I can think of Russia, Japan, the EU, the US, and
China all having si

Re: An interesting response

[Charlie Bell]

On 17/04/2008, at 12:26 PM, Dan M wrote:
>
>>
>> So-called supercruise. The biggest problem with going over Mach 1 is
>> political and legal, not technological - had Concorde not been killed
>> by politics.
>
> 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
>
>
>> 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.

>  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. That's a scale issue. When only a  
handful are ever built, the R&D isn't every going to be repaid. 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.
>
>
 Can you be specific about what you mean here?
>>>
>>> Sure, to be effective, power would have to be transmitted down in a
>>> fairly
>>> dense fashion.  One needs mechanisms that provide feedback to turn
>>> the power
>>> off should the aim stray.
>>
>> Current designs seem to show a wide collection with a diffuse beam,  
>> so
>> that it's relatively safe to be under the beam.
>
> OK, then there would be the cost of a wider array,

It'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...

>
>> Point on this part is that there is huge inertia when there's huge
>> capital expenditure - if you've spent a few tens of millions on a
>> plane in 1970 or 1980 you're going to keep using it as long as you
>> can, 'cause a similar plane costs a few hundred million in 2008.
>
> I understand that, but there was a huge inertia

...?
>
>
>> 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.

Right. So, how do you improve that. OK, say we can get the launch cost  
halved by mass producing rockets and stuff. That's still $20/kwh.

Coal's a few cents a kwh. Even with carbon sequestration doubling or  
tripling that, it's still a big gap.

Roof-mounted solar, I can get a 1kW system (grid connected) for  
AUD5200, with 20 year warranty. So say it's doing that 1kw 6 hours a  
day (paper napkin calculation here), that's 43,800 kw across the life  
of the system, that's about AUD8/kwh ($7.50/kwh). So still a lot  
better than a powersat, and that's not factoring in the launch  
pollution.

So... how to bridge the gap?

Charlie.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: An interesting response

[Dan M]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Charlie Bell
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 6:49 PM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Re: An interesting response
> 
> 
> On 17/04/2008, at 3:14 AM, Dan M wrote:
> >  The speed of sound barrier is rather
> > significant, and we have not found a way to develop efficient planes
> > that go
> > at Mach 1.1 almost 60 years after we first went above Mach 1.
> 
> So-called supercruise. The biggest problem with going over Mach 1 is
> political and legal, not technological - had Concorde not been killed
> by politics.

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.

> 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.  That's not political.  The decision to use tax
money to subsidize the travel of the richest businessmen is, of course,
political.

> >> Can you be specific about what you mean here?
> >
> > Sure, to be effective, power would have to be transmitted down in a
> > fairly
> > dense fashion.  One needs mechanisms that provide feedback to turn
> > the power
> > off should the aim stray.
> 
> Current designs seem to show a wide collection with a diffuse beam, so
> that it's relatively safe to be under the beam.

OK, then there would be the cost of a wider array, earlier designs had
cheaper local receivers with feedback required to keep the beam on.  I'm not
saying that this would be a showstopper, it's just that it's part of the
price that has to be figured in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747


> And 747s, beyond the basic airframe and control systems, are very
> different to what they were in the 70s. (by the way, they were
> "brought online" in 1970..

OK, the first commercial flight was Jan, 22, 1970...my apologies for
rounding. 

But, the 747 is still in competition, sometimes on the same routes as
smaller planes...and there are still a number on order (see site given
above).   

 
> Point on this part is that there is huge inertia when there's huge
> capital expenditure - if you've spent a few tens of millions on a
> plane in 1970 or 1980 you're going to keep using it as long as you
> can, 'cause a similar plane costs a few hundred million in 2008.

I understand that, but there was a huge inertia

> All that said, I'd like to see you, Dan, try to put together a cost-
> analysis on a powersat project. 

Sure, be glad to.  The cheapest commercially available launch to
geosynchronous orbit (GEO) that I know of is the Russian Zenit program.  For
about 90 million, one can get a payload of just over 1800 kg into GEO.
That's just under 50,000 per kg.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenit_rocket


OK, so lets calculate output per kg. of weight.  From a site that is
promoting their solar cells for use in orbit

http://www.mdatechnology.net/techprofile.aspx?id=226

we get an output of 150W/kg.  That gives us a launch cost of about $325 per
watt  (I'm rounding down now instead of up).

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. 

Dan M. 





> tenacious posting to naysay, so I'd like to see you attempt to solve
> the problem so I can see where the problems are.




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: An interesting response

[Charlie Bell]

On 17/04/2008, at 3:14 AM, Dan M wrote:
>  The speed of sound barrier is rather
> significant, and we have not found a way to develop efficient planes  
> that go
> at Mach 1.1 almost 60 years after we first went above Mach 1.

So-called supercruise. The biggest problem with going over Mach 1 is  
political and legal, not technological - had Concorde not been killed  
by politics, its successor would have been an "efficient" supersonic  
plane.

>
>
>
>
>> It's not the cost of energy.
>
> No, it's the cost of the system.

Yep.

>> Can you be specific about what you mean here?
>
> Sure, to be effective, power would have to be transmitted down in a  
> fairly
> dense fashion.  One needs mechanisms that provide feedback to turn  
> the power
> off should the aim stray.

Current designs seem to show a wide collection with a diffuse beam, so  
that it's relatively safe to be under the beam.
>>
>> There doesn't seem to be any reason a really huge throughput
>> transport system should not be able to give you that much
>> reduction.
>
> Then, why hasn't it happened with the scores of airline industries?   
> 747s
> were brought online in the '60salmost 40 years ago.  747s remain
> competitive.  The airline industry is huge, and we've only seen  
> incremental
> improvements over the past 40 years.

And 747s, beyond the basic airframe and control systems, are very  
different to what they were in the 70s. (by the way, they were  
"brought online" in 1970 - maiden flight was '69, but it wasn't  
delivered 'til the following year). There isn't a need for that many  
huge airliners, only around 1400 747s have been built, and it's taken  
'til last year for the 747s size and efficiency to be surpassed by the  
A380 (which is an incredible plane) - improvements in the mid-size  
airliners have been marked, however, mainly because there's a lot more  
competition.

Point on this part is that there is huge inertia when there's huge  
capital expenditure - if you've spent a few tens of millions on a  
plane in 1970 or 1980 you're going to keep using it as long as you  
can, 'cause a similar plane costs a few hundred million in 2008.

All that said, I'd like to see you, Dan, try to put together a cost- 
analysis on a powersat project. You're very good at using your  
tenacious posting to naysay, so I'd like to see you attempt to solve  
the problem so I can see where the problems are.

C.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: An interesting response

[Dan M]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of hkhenson
> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 3:43 PM
> To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
> Subject: RE: An interesting response
> 
> At 12:00 PM 4/11/2008, Dan M wrote:
> 
> (Keith wrote)
> > >Takes 10 200 ton payload
> > > rockets each flying once a day to do it and with a blank check
> > > perhaps under 5 years to work up to this production rate and 6-7
> > > years from start to get to a $50 billion a year revenue stream
> > > increasing at $25 billion a year.
> >
> >OK, let's do the math on that.  At the present time, the cost of lift to
> >geosynchronous orbit is $20,000 per kg or $20M per metric ton. Ten 200
> ton
> >payloads would be about 40 billion per day or 14.6 trillion per year.
> >That's roughly the GDP of the US.
> 
> And the analogy would be how impossible it is to build a dam sending
> all the contents in Fed Ex envelopes.
> 
> >The trick is, as it always has been, to lower launch costs.
> Unfortunately,
> >even in inflation adjusted dollars, launch costs haven't dropped much
> over
> >the past 40 years.
> 
> I agree with you.  The question is why?  

I wrote a blog on that general topic at  the Scientific American website 

http://science-community.sciam.com/blog-entry/Dan-Ms-Blog/Unfortunate-Promin
ent-Misconception-Concerning-Tech/34870

The essence is that when the engineering community starts working on
something, it starts working on the obviously solvable problems first.
Then, progress slows as the easy problems are solved and harder problems are
faced.  The point at which this happens, and the manner in which it happens
is based on what is found.  The speed of sound barrier is rather
significant, and we have not found a way to develop efficient planes that go
at Mach 1.1 almost 60 years after we first went above Mach 1.  



>It's not the cost of energy.  

No, it's the cost of the system. 

A nearly hundred percent efficient space >elevator lifts about 2400 mt a day

> 
> Of course you have the cost of the elevator and cleaning up the space
> junk as capital costs.  It can't be done at all now because we don't
> have the cable, but just for analysis put a $1000 billion price tag
> on it. 

Sure, if the cost were that low, it would work.  But setting a figure like
that reminds me of the story of the engineer, the chemist, and the
accountant who were all stuck on a desert island with cans of food and no
can opener.I'm sure you've all heard the jokebut the punchline is
the accountant, after hearing suggestions from the engineer and the chemist
that don't work gives his solution that starts with "first assume we have a
can opener."

I've invented a few things that are used worldwide and am still engaged in
practical science/engineering.  I've worked close to guys who's inventions
have reduce world costs for producing oil by about 250 million/day.  So, I
think I'm fairly familiar with processes that are economical and that work.
I have not seen anything in what you have written on this subject that gives
an indication of an understanding of the nature of practical solutions to
problems.


> Done with rockets of this sort
> http://www.ilr.tu-berlin.de/koelle/Neptun/NEP2015.pdf the energy
> input is about 15 times that high, or from $15 /kg down to $1.50 as
> you get less and less expensive energy.

I went to this website, and it looked like a speculative conference.
Vaporware is easy to build.  Doing something that works is hard.  Most
things we wish we could do we do not know how to do.

I think that this is the absolutely fundamental difference you have with
folks who argue for nuclear reactors vs. space based solar power.  We've
demonstrated 

> 
>>safety mechanisms,
> 
> Can you be specific about what you mean here?

Sure, to be effective, power would have to be transmitted down in a fairly
dense fashion.  One needs mechanisms that provide feedback to turn the power
off should the aim stray. 


 
> 
> >Plus,
> >it costs money to build the actual arrays.
> 
> That's true, but with just mild concentration you can get at least 10
> times more power out of a solar cell in space.

We have an overwhelmingly fundamental difference here.  I have looked at the
solar arrays for the space station and they are expensive.  If concentration
were trivial in space, don't you think they would have used it?  We know on
earth that techniques that use concentration have practical problems that
have prevented them from being cost effective. 


 
> >If you can find a way to drop
> >launch costs a factor of 100 to 500, then space based solar becomes a
> >player.  There is nothing 

RE: An interesting response

[hkhenson]

At 12:00 PM 4/11/2008, Dan M wrote:

(Keith wrote)
> >Takes 10 200 ton payload
> > rockets each flying once a day to do it and with a blank check
> > perhaps under 5 years to work up to this production rate and 6-7
> > years from start to get to a $50 billion a year revenue stream
> > increasing at $25 billion a year.
>
>OK, let's do the math on that.  At the present time, the cost of lift to
>geosynchronous orbit is $20,000 per kg or $20M per metric ton. Ten 200 ton
>payloads would be about 40 billion per day or 14.6 trillion per year.
>That's roughly the GDP of the US.

And the analogy would be how impossible it is to build a dam sending 
all the contents in Fed Ex envelopes.

>The trick is, as it always has been, to lower launch costs.  Unfortunately,
>even in inflation adjusted dollars, launch costs haven't dropped much over
>the past 40 years.

I agree with you.  The question is why?  It's not the cost of 
energy.  A nearly hundred percent efficient space elevator lifts 
about 2400 mt a day to GEO on an input of about a GW.  That's 2.4 
million kg/24 million kWh.  At ten cents a kWh that's a dollar a 
kg.  At the target sales price of a penny a kWh it's ten cents a kg.

Of course you have the cost of the elevator and cleaning up the space 
junk as capital costs.  It can't be done at all now because we don't 
have the cable, but just for analysis put a $1000 billion price tag 
on it.  Since it is going to be used at least ten years, write it off 
at $100 billion a year.  2.4 million kg x 365 is close enough to a 
billion kg.  So the capital cost would be around $100 a kg.

Done with rockets of this sort 
http://www.ilr.tu-berlin.de/koelle/Neptun/NEP2015.pdf the energy 
input is about 15 times that high, or from $15 /kg down to $1.50 as 
you get less and less expensive energy.

The rockets are only assumed to make 200 trips before being 
junked.  At 200 tons payload, they deliver 40,000 mt or 40 million kg.

The mass of one of them is about 3 times a 747.  If they cost a 
billion dollars each (produced at 20 a year), $1000 million/ 40 
million is $25 a kg.  I.e., there is no reason for large volume space 
travel to cost more than $100 a kg even with rockets.

What we need is a transcontinental railroad.  What we have in NASA is 
the Pony Express.

Incidentally, the energy returned from a kg of power sat is 4000 
kWh.  At a penny a kwh that's $40 a year, at ten cents, $400.

>The income stream (which you estimate at 25 billion/year)

Actually it was rising at $25 billion a year from selling power.  If 
you sold the satellites for ten years power production the income 
stream would be $250 billion a year.

>would also have to
>support ground receivers,

Rectennas are (from a cost standpoint) installed chicken wire over 
farmland and inverters (the diodes are almost free).  Collecting 1/4 
kW from 400 square meters would give you a hundred kW.  At pc power 
supply prices, the inverters are $60 a kW.  Counting the chicken 
wire, poles, diodes and power collecting grid, a 5 GW rectenna would 
cost $500 million or less and deliver $400 million to $2 billion a 
year at the bus bars.  It would take  decades to saturate the market, 
which for oil alone is about $3 trillion a year.

>safety mechanisms,

Can you be specific about what you mean here?

>transmission lines, etc.

At least for a while you could site the rectennas near existing 
transmission lines.

>Plus,
>it costs money to build the actual arrays.

That's true, but with just mild concentration you can get at least 10 
times more power out of a solar cell in space.

>If you can find a way to drop
>launch costs a factor of 100 to 500, then space based solar becomes a
>player.  There is nothing like that on the horizon.

There doesn't seem to be any reason a really huge throughput 
transport system should not be able to give you that much 
reduction.  However, I don't thing NASA is the right organization to do it.

Keith

Keith 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: An interesting response

[Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro]

Dan M wrote:
>
> The trick is, as it always has been, to lower launch costs.  Unfortunately,
> even in inflation adjusted dollars, launch costs haven't dropped much over
> the past 40 years.
>
Maybe even if launch costs were _zero_, orbital power satellites could
still have a negative energy net production. Last time I heard (when I
was working in the Space Industry, and not in the Oil Industry), solar
arrays required more energy to be built than the energy they produced
during their lifetimes.

Alberto 'oil rulez, fsck space!' Monteiro
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: An interesting response

[Dan M]

>Takes 10 200 ton payload
> rockets each flying once a day to do it and with a blank check
> perhaps under 5 years to work up to this production rate and 6-7
> years from start to get to a $50 billion a year revenue stream
> increasing at $25 billion a year.
 
OK, let's do the math on that.  At the present time, the cost of lift to
geosynchronous orbit is $20,000 per kg or $20M per metric ton. Ten 200 ton
payloads would be about 40 billion per day or 14.6 trillion per year.
That's roughly the GDP of the US.

The trick is, as it always has been, to lower launch costs.  Unfortunately,
even in inflation adjusted dollars, launch costs haven't dropped much over
the past 40 years.  

The income stream (which you estimate at 25 billion/year) would also have to
support ground receivers, safety mechanisms, transmission lines, etc.  Plus,
it costs money to build the actual arrays.  If you can find a way to drop
launch costs a factor of 100 to 500, then space based solar becomes a
player.  There is nothing like that on the horizon.

Dan M. 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: An interesting response

[Ronn! Blankenship]

At 12:21 AM Thursday 4/10/2008, hkhenson wrote:
>I have recently been discussing the scope of a space based power
>satellite project with a bunch of high powered space engineers.
>
>They are all accomplished, one of them was the project engineer for
>the first moon lander.
>
>This started when I scaled a moving cable space elevator large enough
>(2000 tons a day) to put a real dent in the carbon/energy problems
>(300 GW/year production rate, displacing all the coal fired plants in
>the US in one year).
>
>So when one of them posted a study of a rocket with about twice the
>payload of a Saturn V, I extrapolated how many of them and what rate
>of launches it would take to ferry 2000 tons per day to GEO using
>rockets instead of a much more questionable space elevator.
>
>To my surprise, the energy payback went from under a day for the
>elevator to 15 days for rockets.  You would have to dedicate the
>first 3 power satellites (15 GW) to making rocket
>propellants.  Hardly a deal breaker.  Takes 10 200 ton payload
>rockets each flying once a day to do it and with a blank check
>perhaps under 5 years to work up to this production rate and 6-7
>years from start to get to a $50 billion a year revenue stream
>increasing at $25 billion a year.
>
>I didn't expect a response other than something like "that's
>interesting" but they reacted almost with horror, saying the best
>they could hope for is an almost useless 1 GW demonstration power sat
>in the next 10 or 15 years and that the only choice we have is to
>build lots of nuclear power plants.
>
>Now countries and companies in the world for the most part realize
>that there is a serious problem with energy, and that it isn't going
>to get better as we slide down the far side of oil production.  It
>seems to me that a project that really could displace all fossil
>sources of energy with renewable solar energy and (using penny a kWh
>electricity) reduce the price of synthetic gasoline to a dollar a
>gallon would get a lot more support than a tiny demonstration project
>no matter how few in billions it cost.
>
>There is no doubt it's a big project, on a par with what we have
>spent on the Iraq war.  But the market for energy is massive, oil
>alone is $3,000 billion a year.  And there is no lack of money to
>fund it, Exxon can't figure out what to do with their profits so they
>are buying back $30 billion of their stock a year.  The Chinese have
>a few thousand billions in US notes they would spend on a secure
>energy source large enough to meet their growing needs.
>
>So my question to you, is which be an easier project to sell, a
>demonstration project for a small number of billions over 10 or 15
>years, or a really huge project in the high hundreds of billions to
>massively displace coal and oil with solar energy from space in under
>ten years?
>
>Keith Henson


Or perhaps the real question is which of the following is the case?

(1)  Your figures and their figures disagree that much, in which case 
it might be worthwhile to have someone else independently check both 
sets of figures (probably a good idea in \\any\\ case), or

(2)  There is more on the agenda than simply finding longer-lasting, 
less-polluting sources of energy to replace oil.


? Maru


. . . ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l