Re: Global wireless hotspot

On Jan 14, 6:35 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 14 Jan, 06:28, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

My experience is if you hit someone with a clearly worked out system
that does the job, it has far better chance of being understood and
supported than hitting someone with a broad variety of alterantives
none of which is clearly worked out.   That is, what you suggest is an
approach to marginalize the concept (global wireless internet) by
being fuzzy about the technology.

I feel I should put my cards on tghe table and say that the "pebble"
concept is the best and the most feasible.

You can feel that way, but you do not have anything to back it up.
What is the size of your pebble? How do you power it? Why is it
better? What is the logic? You are just mouthing stuff that has no
substance behind it so far. You don't know how to build what you
propose, and can't talk logically about what you're talking about let
alone prove its better than another system.


SSP HAS to depend on
boulders.

Its better to talk in terms of mass and size don't you think? I mean
the average density of satellites is LESS than the density of rocks -
so I don't know if you mean mass of boulders or size of boulders or
both. Then, I don't know why its important because you're not
saying. Finally, you provide no data to back anything up.

This in response to a somewhat detailed technical analysis from me.

Which I think is unfair really. To presume we're even on equal
footing.


It will with you. The real question is what granualarity is
best.

Granularity? Please define your terms and explain why it is
important? Certainly you want coverage over an area without any
dropouts. That is what I am proposing. So, granularity - as the word
is normally used - doesn't enter into it. Sure, there are virtual
hotspots, and the size of those hotspots are mapped onto the Earth's
surface based on average user density of each location. The phased
array antenna on each satellite paints a stationary map onto the
Earth's surface continuously based on GPS data.

Think of the phased array antenna like a digital projector. You have
a digital projector at the back of the room that projects an image of
hexagons onto a screen. Now imagine that there is a gyroscope and GPS
receiver attached to the projector. Its easy to see that the image
may be translated - and refocused - based on changes of position and
orientation of the projector. Now imagine a half dozen projectors
moving around the room. As long as one or more of the projectors has
a 'beam' covering the screen - it is possible to project a statoinary
in focus image onto the screen - even though the projectors are
moving. Same here. Each satellite paints a statoinary pattern of
communicating cells onto the surface of the Earth that doesn't change
no matter which satellite is projecting it, where the satellite is, or
how its moving.

This is very much a finger in the air statement.

Or your finger somewhere else! You aren't making ANY sense - really.
I'm talking about 660 satellites, 30 each in 22 orbital planes - in
sun synch polar orbit. They communicate with nearest neighbors by
open optical laser - basically a laser system that's used in optical
fibers, adapted to be shot through a pair of small apeture telescopes
with 2 axis gimballing. Four telescopes per satellite talking to
nearest neighbors. One ahead and one behind in the same plane, then
one to the east and one to the west in nearest plane orbits. This
makes each satellite with a 20 THz optical backbonw. Each router
talks to millions of ground stations simultaneously through a
microwave ground linke. This is implemented by a phased array
microwave antenna painting stationary cells on to the Earth's surface,
using GPS data to provide phase and doppler corrected frequency data -
so you can uplink downlink with IEE 803 compliant devices. This
network provides a seamless wireless data service across the globe.
From a user on Earth its as if they're communicating with a local
hotspot - with virtual cells - to 50 billion devices throughout the
world.

I say
100-1000Kg.

Why?

A pebble needs to have a beam roughly the size of Earth's
hemisphere,

Why?

viewd from wherever it is, so that beams can be steered to
any point desired.

Why? Could you prove this?

I don't get that you really understand anything I'm talking about. So,
lets go back to basics.

Generally speaking a phased array system the way I'm using it can be
thought of as a lens projecting a digital image on the ground... but
in this case, the image is a pattern of microwave energy - instead of
light energy. By the operation of reciprocity, antenna sensitivity is
directed in the same way..

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

So, a pattern of doppler corrected

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

viritual cells

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

are painted onto the surface of the Earth.

What does this mean? It means that if I went around and erected about
10 million antennaes to create 10 million IEE 802 compliant hotspots

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotspot_%28Wi-Fi%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11

all over the Earth, each capable of communicating with 5,000 users
simultaneously - 50 billion 54 MHz channels -

I would have the same pattern of microwave energy as projected by my
660 satellites moving overhead in their orbits.

That's 15,200 hot spots per satellite, and 76 million channels per
satellite. The beams of each satellite overlap, so that as they move
in their orbits, the stationary pattern of microwave energy on the
ground -stays the same. The laser link between satellites impelements
a hand-off protocol.

I mean, vonBraun didn't talk about a dozen different launcher
systems.  He spoke of a multi-stage chemical rocket that could put
payloads into orbit and assemble fleets of chemical rockets to go to
the moon and mars.  He spoke of this common vision for 35 years from
the 1940s to the 1960s - where he had the opportunity to actually
build elements of his larger vision to achieve incredible things -
like landing men on the moon.

Apollo was also incredibly expensive.

Compared to what?

A manned expedition to Mars
would have been possible but would have been even more expensive.

Compared to what?

Prohibitively expensive.

Compared to what?

Space travel expenditures have been arbitrarily limited to 1% of the
Federal Budget since Nixon. This was suggested by Eisenhower
privately in 1958, since he worried about US enthusiasm for space
undermining our economic stability. Also, Eisenhower did not put the
best people into space since he thought a civilian program proving to
be easy pickings for the Russians who had already stolen the atomic
bomb secrets through the Rosenbergs. This led ultimately to the
failure of Vangaurd in IGY, and to the US NOT orbiting a payload in
1956 using an Atlas rocket developed by vonBraun since it would have
attracted unwanted attention according to Eisenhower.

The 1% limit was actually implemented by Nixon, following the cutbacks
of 1968 when it was clear the US would beat the Russians to the moon.
Prior to that time Kennedy when asked what space would cost the nation
said that to maintain its leadership position the US would spend no
more than what it spends to maintain its Air Force. The US would
spend each year about equal to the airforce budget, to develop a space
force capability. This would be around $110 billion per year today
($12 billion per year in 1960 dollars) NASA's budget today is $14
billion ($1.5 billion 1960 dollars) -which is close to the Eisenhower
limit.

Now, vonBraun in his classified report to the DOD at the end of the
war (and later declassified) said consistently throughout that the
cost of the program could not be known but best evidence suggested
that it would be less than the cost of a small war.

http://www.upf.com/mkt/samples/bilstein2.shtml

The cost of the Apollo Program was $21 billion at that time. In the
same era the cost of the Vietnam war (a small war by World War
standards) was $518 billion. Now, World War 2 by comparison cost
$288 billion 1940s dollars which is $1,417 billion 1960s dollars.

Of course these figures are as nothing when compared to what we REALLY
spend in space and on space hardware. The US spent $8,000 billion on
the Cold War to deploy 18,000 Megatons of explosive force on thousands
of space capable missiles around the world.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/24/epilogue/
http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/oldind.html

And the National Security Agency spends more money launching payloads
into space than NASA.

So, to put these in perspective;

Annual Budgets 1960 dollars
Eisenhower Limit $1.5 billion/year (current level)
Kennedy Limit $15.0 billion per year (Kennedy level)

Relative Costs of Programs (1960 dollars)
Apollo Program: $21 billion - 14 years - 1.4 years
Vietnam: $518 billion
vonBraun Estimate - 'cost of a small war to explore a planet'
World War 2 $1,417 billion
Cold War $8,000 billion

We launch more military and spy satellites than scientific,
communications and weather satellites today.

So, you are proceeding from a misapprehension. You believe our nation
is doing all it reasonably can to promote space development, and that
the only problem is the high costs associated with space launch.
This is not true. The fact is, the US has, and has always, with the
exception of Kennedy's tenure in office, restricted what it has done
in space out of military intelligence and political concerns. When
challenged by the Russians, the US spent more to undermine their
program from within (the failure of the N1 and arrest of key rocket
men in Russia has all the earmarks of such an operation) than
competing head to head against the Russians to develop the vast new
frontier of space as Kennedy wanted.

Even then, LBJ contstrained the program after the moon was assured, so
the $21 billion was DE MINIMUS needed to achieve our goal. Saying
otherwise cedes the argument for space development to those who don't
want space development before the argument even begins.

Here's the data on NASA's budget;


NASA's annual budget (in billions of US Dollars)
Source: U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
YR=Year
Cur$=Current Dollars (in billions)
96$= 1996 Dollars (adjusted for inflation)
CPI = CPI 2001

YR Cur$ 96$ CPI
1958 0.089 0.488 0.1828
1959 0.145 0.781 0.1862
1960 0.401 2.145 0.187
1961 0.744 3.879 0.1919
1962 1.257 6.554 0.1918
1963 2.552 12.767 0.1999
1964 4.171 20.587 0.2026
1965 5.093 24.795 0.2054
1966 5.933 26.820 0.2212
1967 5.426 24.798 0.2188
1968 4.724 20.664 0.2286
1969 4.253 17.537 0.2425
1970 3.755 14.616 0.2569
1971 3.381 12.356 0.2736
1972 3.435 11.787 0.2914
1973 3.324 10.910 0.3047
1974 3.252 9.790 0.3322
1975 3.330 9.111 0.3655
1976 3.670 9.356 0.3922
1977 3.944 9.297 0.4242
1978 3.980 8.798 0.4524
1979 4.187 8.540 0.4903
1980 4.850 8.966 0.5409

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

So, I disagree strongly. The US never commited enough resources,
except for Apollo, to do anything significant in space except go to
the moon. It spent the bulk of its money in space on spy and
military satellites, and the bulk of its money on rockets to support
the deployment of 18,000 megatons of missile launch capacity.

Had the US adopted a policy of matching the Air Force budget, it would
be spending about 10% of the Federal Budget on 'space force' capacity,
and that annual expense over time would have approached the cost of
something larger than World War 2 and smaller than the Cold War.

For this money we would have cities on the moon, a city and outposts
on Mars, manned presence across the solar system, and we would have
through the learning curve effect and economy of scale

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_curve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_scale

REDUCED the cost of rocketry dramatically - and had a far larger
presence than the earlier numbers indicate.

WE NEVER MADE THAT COMMITMENT AND ARE UNWILLING TO MAKE THAT
COMMITMENT TODAY. WE ARE UNWILLING TO MAKE THAT COMMITMENT FOR THE
FOLLOWING REASONS;

(1) Missile proliferation concerns - rockets will be too cheap to
control
(2) National Identity concerns - see the world as one -Apollo 8
photo- not welcome
(3) National Security concerns - cede the high ground to civilian
sector
(4) Loss of Geopolitical Control - global hegemony challenged by off
world development
(5) Unpredictable Development - political economic and social
changes unpredictable

One thing is certain, we are not too poor to afford a strong space
program.

For comparison lets look at health care. I saw the movie SICKO
recently, and I looked up the figures. The US spends $2.1 trillion on
health care each year. $580 billion of this actually pays the
salaries of physicians, nurses, non-medical staff, all the specialized
equipment, all the hospitals and clinics, and all the food, heat,
electricity, services used to deliver medical care. $1.52 trillion
is EXCESS profits - due to mismanagement of our health care system
that make it into the pockets of the pharmaceutical and insurance
companies.

What is excess profit? Its the same profit a thief makes when he
holds a gun to your head and says your money or your life. Patients
are asked to participate in a market. But a rational market cannot
exist for patients in health care. That's because those seeking
medical treatment do not CHOOSE to do so. And because those who seek
medical treatment cannot walk away from care. And because medical
care often involves life threatening situations. So, asking patients
to pay what the market will bear is PRECISELY the same as having a gun
to their head. So, they overpay, more than a rational market would,
and there is EXCESS PROFIT. This is proven by the numbers. Actual
delivery of medical treatment is as small a side issue.

If we were to regulate the health care industry to remove these excess
profits from those who now extract them from the US healthcare system
and cut health care costs to $600 billion per year, the US economy
would save $1,500 billion per year.

That's a sizeable sum. If $400 billion per year were set aside for
every college aged kid, everyone could go to college - and if $100
billion per year were set aside for space exploration - 5 Apollo
programs could be completed each year - so, $60 billion in this
context would not be prohibitively expensive. We'd still have enough
to reduce income taxes to about 1/3 their current level!!!

So, I don't buy your misjudgment that Apollo was prohibitively
expensive. In fact, it was the minimum needed to get the job done.
And when the job was done, the project was KILLED and the legend of
over priced space technology was fabricated.

If you use sunlight and the CO2 on Mars you
can make methane and oxygen. This drops the price tag down to about
$60 billion - still very, very expensive

A single Vietnam War (a small conflict by vonBraun's standards) would
do 10 such programs - so obviously, we're doing better than vonBraun
had projected.

This would not have been achieved if he varied from his core theme
because the idea of space travel would have been marginalized had he
introduced nuclear rockets, ion propulsion, and so forth - which are
viable expansions of space capabilities - but dilutes the impact and
reasonableness of the core message - interplanetary travel is
possible.

Again at a high price.

COMPARED TO WHAT?

We have to think about the most economic way of
doing this.

WHAT MAKES YOU THINK ROCKET ARE NOT THE MOST ECONOMICAL WAY TO DO
SPACE TRAVEL? GOT ANY BETTER IDEAS? Look at the data - we're not
doing much in space because we don't want to do much in space. COMMIT
THE RESOURCES - ITS NOT A TECHNICAL PROBLEM - IT IS A PROBLEM OF THE
WILL TO DO IT!

A lot too has happenned since v Braun.

Yes, but nothing to replace rockets - and we don't have to.
Demanding that we replace rockets DELAYS space development, INCREASES
RISKS of space development, and INCREASES COSTS of space development,
since we must do an impossible thing before we move forward. And
there's no guarantee that the new thing is any cheaper simpler or
better than rockets.

We have 2
directions. A resusable space vehicle

This was proposed at the outset - so its not new. Here is a 1954
photo showing Walt Disney and Werner vonBraun holding a model of a
reusable space plane (with reusable booster)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wernher_von_Braun%282%29.jpg


of a mass produced "Ford Focus"
type of expendible rocket.

This is not new either

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_dumb_booster
http://www.dunnspace.com/leo_on_the_cheap.htm

It was the logic behind the Atlas missile

In either case a large number of small
loads will be cheaper than one big load.

Show me the numbers

The shuttle failed largely
because it was too big.

Nonsense. Larger vehicles are more efficient than smaller vehicles.

The shuttle didn't fail at all. It was sandbagged from the beginning.

It was under-funded and messed with by military folks who sought to
undermine its efficiency, and with NASA contractors that sought to
justify gee whiz technological gimmicks for the sole purpose of
increasing their profits.

The shuttle didn't start out life with the SRBs the Army wanted it to
have and with a high cross range the Air Force wanted it to have. It
started out life with J2 engine sets already proven on the Saturn IIB,
not the super pricey SSMEs. It started out life with a ballistic re-
entry, lifting body shape, made of refractory metals already in
inventory, aided by a very modestly priced ablative thermal protection
system, not the super expensive ceramic foam tiles.

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

But that's not all! The support infrastructure was underfunded and
never sufficient to fly it at a rate that would let it achieve its
price goals. That's the real deal killer. There is a very simple
relationship between flight rate and cost per flight in a reusable
spacecraft.

www.smad.com/analysis/IAFPaper.pdf

The prices quoted in the late 1960s and early 1970s for the Shuttle
were given as a range of costs as a function of launch rate. The
lowest prices possible costs based on the largest launch rates were
reported in the press. When the shuttle was built, it was flown at
FAR LOWER LAUNCH RATES - and the prices were obviously far higher per
launch. Yet, the lower figures were used to show a 'failure' - fact
is, the higher prices projected at the lower launch rates, were not
exceeded by actual practice.

A cheap spacecraft - without SSME, without tiles, without wings, flown
a LOT - from an adequately equipped launch center - takes money AWAY
from contractors who are paid to BUILD spacecraft, and puts it into
the pockets of people who don't exist yet - people who FLY
spacecraft.

This is a huge power shift, and since the US doesn't really want for
geopolitical reasons to expand human presence in space, fear of change
among contractors was exploited, along with every other trick in the
book to kill the shuttle program and make something wonderful into a
national embarassment - and call the nation's attention to that
embarassment until the irrational enthusiasm (Eisenhower's term) of
the US populace for space travel has waned sufficiently so we can end
the Office of Manned Space Exploration and focus on more important
issues, like killing our enemies - whoever the nation says they are.

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

Wing loading (& kinetic heasting) is
proportional to size.

You are not even right. Why have wings at all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifting_body
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_capsule

The need for wings was a requirement for Air Force support because
they wanted high cross range capability and never really said why.
Check it out. The shuttle carries 50,000 lbs of payload into space -
and the orbiter - empty weighs 151,000 lbs - of this 100,000 lbs is
WINGS! There is absolutely NO reason for this - except the
political requirement put in by the airforce.

Had the space shuttle taken a more rational approach - we would have
something like this

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/rombus.htm

Which would not only put more payload into space at less cost than the
Shuttle, but would have supported cities on the moon

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/proelena.htm

and expeditions to Mars

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/proeimos.htm

in the bargain - AT LESS COST than the shuttle program has cost us.


Tapping off-world resources is possible

 and a way to reduce cost of technology and industrial development as
well as its impact on the Earth's biosphere.

Terrestrial solar power is a way to harvest at low cost off-world
resources.  Space solar power is the next step.  Between those two, is
space based information services.  Beyond space solar is advanced or
sun centered solar power, and after that, asteroidal deflection,
capture and mining.  Then finally, universal commercial access to
space - i.e. space homes (Asimov called them spomes)

I envision a rather simple extension of todays multi-stage space
launch system.  Existing engines in a mult-element reusable vehicle.
The system is very similar to Bono's 7 element mars vehicle.  I
envision a Delta Class 7 element launcher, to put up comsats.  Then a
larger Nova Class 7 element launcher to put up powersats.   These pay
the bills, but part of the profits are used to expand markets - that
means space tourism and a minimum manned moon mission with the smaller
launcher and space hotels, lunar hotels, and manned mars mission with
the larger launchers.

Mass production of these things is the "Ford Focus" solution.

A small fleet of appropriately designed spacecraft with an
appropriately sized launch infrastructure is demonstrably better. I
have given you detailed analysis here - you are just putting your
finger in the air.

Even so, the BIG DUMB BOOSTER - you are proposing a SMALL dumb booster
- can reduce costs at high production rates. This can reduce the
current high costs, while not impacting the power of the existing
contractors. This is true. So this is favored.

But the amount of reduction is not as great as a properly designed
reusable, and a low cost expendible can suffer price creep to maintain
costs as high as they are today or higher - especially if flight rates
are decreased.

Reducing the size of a big dumb booster - and increasing its
sophistication - an inevitable development of any program not well
managed - will definitely INCREASE launch costs per kg on orbit - even
while it decreases annual budgets.

No, I'm awaiting OMBs decision to end the NASA office of manned space
operations, and for a private entity to acquire United Space Alliance
(provided it is not opposed by the powers that be) and the other space
travel assets of the major aerospace companies, and from these seeds
build a latter day RHOMBUS - and with it - orbit comsat networks,
powersat networks, and put cities on the moon and mars.

I too
believe this is sounder (at the moment) than a reusable vehicle.

You believe a lot of things but seem incapable of saying Why?

  - Ian Parker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

RHOMBUS and SELENA and DIEMOS - are 1960s technology - and they're
immediately doable with a well run program. They have powerful
commercial upsides if linked with a satellite network of the type I've
described here, and if linked with lightweight powersats which I laid
out as early as 1996. With revenue and profits made from these two
services - communications and power - to Earth - more advanced systems
may be contemplated. These more advanced systems use laser based
powersats to energize advanced laser rockets and laser light sails.

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

Look at figure one in the paper on launch rates. Saturn V was the
least expensive - that's when the budget was cut.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Protesters seize site of Wales first Climate Camp"
    ... technology to work, as it would mean that all the protests were ... turns out it is the lowest figure from one power source and the highest ... coal fired power stations are normally built near sources of ... However, if cost is the only factor, ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: "Protesters seize site of Wales first Climate Camp"
    ... technology to work, as it would mean that all the protests were ... is used as a power source in industry. ... However, if cost is the only factor, ... wind energy would be a non-starter with electricity from onshore wind farms ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Hydrogen the fuel for the 21st century - Ballard CEO
    ... Dennis Campbell chief executive officer of Ballard Power Systems.' ... second that fuel cells cannot be cost competitive with ... take into account the greater efficiency of the fuel cell engine, ... technology that, if produced at volume, would cost $103 US per ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Hydrogen the fuel for the 21st century - Ballard CEO
    ... Dennis Campbell chief executive officer of Ballard Power Systems.' ... second that fuel cells cannot be cost competitive with ... take into account the greater efficiency of the fuel cell engine, ... technology that, if produced at volume, would cost $103 US per ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Andrews Ideal World
    ... This is also causing a massive downward price pressure on commercial ... real estate that is the next big bubble to pop. ... This is an indictment of bad power policies in California in general. ... is expected to come on line in 2013 at a cost of about $2.5 billion. ...
    (soc.men)