Re: We can meet all our needs through space development

On Jan 31, 12:55 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The laws of physics are the same, and for the most part the best
available science hasn't changed all that much over the past decade,
and yet there's still no Mook H2 as green hydrogen flowing anywhere in
sight.  What gives?

There's no question that humanity is quickly outgrowing the limited
resources of this badly pillaged, raped and polluted planet, although
going off-world has loads of spendy and energy consuming problems that
have not been resolved, especially on behalf of accommodating our
extremely frail DNA that's not exactly gamma and X-ray proof.

Without an affordable and technically doable surplus of Willie PV
energy, along with a healthy cache of all that green and relatively
cheap H2 gas that'll yield those $8/barrel of synfuel from coal, we're
screwed unless we go all out nuclear and having to continually prepare
for surviving WWIII.
. - Brad Guth

On Jan 31, 9:11 am, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:



On Jan 30, 9:25 pm, Einar <eina...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 30, 3:08 pm, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Jan 30, 9:44 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 30 Jan, 12:18, Einar <eina...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 29, 2:13 pm, "Mike Combs"

<mikeco...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Einar" <eina...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:b8db2464-6d7e-47c1-b641-870a89468e4e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This sounds more like one would hope that the world at 2099
might be like.

Write a schy fy book on this, a suggestion.

It will most certainly remain a very-distant science-fiction-y concept for
as long as we choose to view it as such.

--

Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By all that you hold dear on this good Earth
I bid you stand, Men of the West!
                                                     Aragorn

Now, SpaceX is still struggling with theyr rocket, Ares is in
development problems...and yet those are a lot less ambitious than
what is suggested here something with 500 ton LEO capability.

It´s plans like these with everything assumed to go right that aren´t
believable.

I don't understand Ares. How is it that almost 40 years ago Armstrong
and Aldrin went to the Moon on top of a Saturn 5? In what respects is
Ares "better" than Saturn? Certainly not in $/Kg.

  - Ian Parker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Its a function of the amount of money spent and how wisely it is
spent.

I have given you my ideas here.  Einar says they're not believable and
compares what I have proposed with something on a whole different
order - apples and oranges.

Saturn V cost $9 billion and 6 years to develop - using results of DOD
programs on the E1/F1 an J2 engines with 13 vehicles built and flown..

I propose taking an ET sized airframe propelled by an annular
aerospike engine, with an RS-68 pumpset (3) in each engine - to
produce a ET sized booster- stretched 40% - massing 1,000 tons at lift
off, creating 1,400 tons thrust at lift off - operating 7 at a time to
create a three stage operation to loft 500 tons to LEO.  They will
have an advanced thermal protection system and be fully recoverable
with downrange tow planes picking up the pieces.

I estimate that this program will cost $6 billion to complete in 4
years and result in 4 vehicles that put 500 metric tons into orbit
each launch at a cost of $70 million ($10 million per element per
flight)

Why does this seem infeasible?  What specifically is infeasible about
it?

Mind you, you are suggesting a difficult and expensive development
program.

No I am proposing a large number of interrelated programs with a
common vision.  The development of our interplanetary frontier.

You are actually suggesting a good number of expensive and
difficult development programs.

Yes, with each opportunity structured as a separate finance company
using a project financing model.

You may have some money, but you are not a trillionaire.

There are 9.5 million millionaires in the world.  Collectively they
control $40 trillion.  This is largely liquid.  They are contnually
looking for good returns on this money.  Of this approximately 20% is
earmarked for credible high risk investments.

My success with the eight projects I am currently sponsoring, will
allow me to sposor other more risky projects going forward.  I will
also maintain ownership by putting in the early stage capital, which
is always good news to a prospective investor.

I mentioned the other programs to demonstrate that much less ambitious
projects have run into development difficulties, meaning...ought to
have been blatantly obvious...

Projects fail when you run out of money before you run out of
problems.  Oftimes programs are underfunded and get an undeserved bad
reputation.  That is what I find maddening about your responses.  You
say X did thus and so, without any analysis or understanding.  X may
very well done thus and so - but unless you know how X works and the
detailed history of X - you can't really conclude anything about it.

Projects succeed when you run out of problems before you run out of
money.  Someone may say, Conestoga lost its shirt.  Yet the Saturn
program in less time produced a rocket that sent men to the moon.  Of
course Conestoga was limited by the capital a group of angel investors
could throw at it.  Saturn spent $9 billion and in six years did
amazing things.

Financial genius is as important as technical genius in getting things
done here.  Humanity has enough money.  I even have the phone numbers
of all the people who have most of it.  I now have a business model
that lets them risk a portion of it on new technologies.

that you program is likely to encounter
development difficulties scales large as well.

People are willing to take risks.  The larger set of interconnecting
programs is broken down into a series of projects.  Buying a basket of
project positions limits risk and guarantees a low level of return.

Think of an oil company.  Oil companies routinely sell positions in a
wide range of projects in response to their exploration and discovery
operations.  They have an over-riding vision of how they will
operate.  The opportunities presented by their exploration and
discovery activity are organized and financed one at a time.  So, you
don't buy BP - you buy BP Alaska pipeline company, or BP Shenzen
province company and so forth.

Same here.

There is an over-riding vision of developing off-world resources.  I
have an R&D department, and an opportunity development department, and
we crank out projects that on balance make money.  We then tap into
the 9.5 million SEC qualified people on the planet, and ask them for
up to $4 trillion in risk capital.

Maybe you can find trillions to spend when all of what you are
proposing is added together.

Well, there is an order of battle as they say.

Clearly, the mere development of that craft will take a while.

The heavy lift launcher, with its launch facility in New Mexico, will
take 4 years and cost $6 billion.  This will build a fleet of 4 of the
largest launch vehicles, - built around 28 launch elements.

There will have to be experiments,

YEs.  Stennis is available for static tests.  Dryden and White Sands
are available for suborbital tests.

i.e. the aerospike engine is yet to
actually fly.

That is true, but the folks at P&W say that nozzles are not a
problem.  They have worked with innovative nozzle designs and new
airframs (the DCX used a deeply throttable RL10 made specifically for
the program at very low cost) - so, this i smore than just hand-waving
sir.  I have qualified vendors who have given me budgets time frames
and all the rest..

Now, you might pay for this if you would first use the
thing in a singular to launch satellites for some time, till the bugs
have been worked out.

The bugs as you call them will be worked out in numerical simulations
first, then in ground tests, then in suborbital flight tests.

the nice thing about a reusable vehicle, is you can build test
articles and shepherd them all the way through to production.  You can
also build subscale test articles.  Another reason I like P&W - they
have the RL10 -   Reduce the 1,400 metric tons of thrust on each of
the boosters of the  full scale launcher to a 45,000 pounds of thrust
on a subscale model - and you get a dandy little 7.8 metric ton
launcher as part of the deal.  In the various configurations you can
do 2 ton 4 ton and 8 ton to LEO.

At current costs per kg - these will start earning their keep well
before the larger program is done.

Then the development curve could be something similar to what say
Kistler is trying to achieve,

Kistler doesn't have the right financial structure to raise the funds
needed on the scale needed.

first trying to establish a reusable
launch veicle and later they intend to expand on it.

This is a recipie for death - since any failure turns off the money
supply.  It would be like an oil company leasing land and raising
money one exploration well at a time.  No, failure on one well would
kill the program.   You raise ALL the money you are likely to need to
achieve your longer range goal.  It doesn't matter how much that is -
failure to achieve this first step - means the program is verylikely
to fail.  Those who cannot

...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have sponsored eight projects that when completed collectively
produce over 1,000 metric tons of hydrogen per hour from 257 GW of
solar panels covering a total area of 1430 sq km. This as far as I
know is the largest use of solar energy and the largest use of
hydrogen on the planet.

When completed in 2011 these projects net me over $40 bilion in
equity.

I will then use that equity to develop 45,000 sq km of solar panels on
land that I already have optioned, and to increase the number of solar
panel plants to at least 14. I will also acquire oil re-markters in
the USA as well as coal reserves in the USA - and merge them to create
over $350 billion in value and fully populate the land I presently
have options on with solar panels.

When completed in 2020 this will provide 1,000,000 metric tons of
hydrogen per day and, eliminate 2/3 of America's carbon emissions, and
turn the USA from an oil importer to an oil exporter and reverse our
balance of trade, and increae our credit standing in the world and the
strength of our currency - which means lower interest rates and easier
credit for businesses and homes.

By 2020 I hope to be in a position to augment the existing terrestrial
receivers with laser energy from space rather than expand mindlessly
the size of the terrestrial systems. This will allow an expansion of
20x in power output from the then existing 45,000 sq km - and allow
the USA to provide ALL the world's energy needs in the form of
hydrogen gas. The world average income will grwo to current USA per
capita rates by 2033 - and the world will grow to 20x current per
capita income for the USA by 2080.

Increased energy use translates to increased material uses. This
means higher prices for products in short supply. Under these
conditions it makes sense to increase capacity where possible. In
instances where reserves are limited, it makes sense to develop
reserves in non-traditional areaas. Success with my energy program,
leads naturally therefore to an early strategic decision to develop
key technologies to access those non-traditional sources - which I
have described here.

In light of these facts your commentary makes no sense.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Super-heavy lift reusable launcher
    ... Martha's question about energy and water vapor. ... million tons of hydrogen and oxygen burned in the launch of the ... after a launch, if it was going to rain anyway. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: We can meet all our needs through space development
    ... saved by way of Willie PV energy and cheap H2, ... produce a ET sized booster- stretched 40% - massing 1,000 tons at lift ... looking for good returns on this money. ... largest launch vehicles, - built around 28 launch elements. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Join our global team now !!!
    ... of this wonderful recipe of energy, fun and money. ... JAPAN AND TAIWAN LAUNCH TODAY ... , Australia,USA or Taiwan, use the adress of your country but select ...
    (de.soc.recht.misc)
  • space the final frontier
    ... "If we do not develop the resources of our frontier, ... the engine has a maximum thrust at lift off of 1,450 tons. ... carrying 25 tons of useful payload and returns it safely to Earth. ... satellite is 2.4 km in diameter and generates 2.175 GW of laser energy ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: space the final frontier
    ... "If we do not develop the resources of our frontier, ... ourselves facing increasingly high energy prices, ... the engine has a maximum thrust at lift off of 1,450 tons. ... carrying 25 tons of useful payload and returns it safely to Earth. ...
    (sci.space.policy)