Main Page | Report Page

 

  Science Forum Index » Space Forum » Disk Moonship...

Author Message
William Mook...
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:01 am
 
I agree with Jeff that government spending on space exploration was an
anomaly and is unlikely to be repeated by any government. Yet, this
does not preclude private spending on space exploration if there is an
economic benefit to doing so. This entails reducing the cost of
access to space. This is most easily achieved by recovering all
flight elements from multi-stage systems using conventional chemical
propellants and reducing the cost of making those flight elements
flight ready again.

What can businesses do to earn money in space?

Here's a short list;

(1) Tourism - There are 10 million millionaires in the world and to
over the past 9 years 7 of them spent a total of a quarter billion
dollars for a trip to orbit aboard a Soyuz spacecraft. Looking at the
sales and prices of other high end experiential tours the 'sweet spot'
for this would be 200 trips at $5,000,000 each - to earn $1 billion
per year. About 1/19th NASA's budget. To achieve this would be
challenging. Another 20 trips per year at $25,000,000 to the moon
would earn another $0.5 billion per year. This too would be
challenging given today's technology levels.

(2) Communications Network - With a half billion laptops in the world
and another five billion cell phones in the world the demand for a
global wireless network on orbit would be tremendous. The US News and
World Report estimated that a global wireless network in space would
earn at least $85 billion per year in basic services and another $100
billion in advanced services. Teledesic, Iridium and others deployed
networks but they were not economically successful. While not as
challenging as manned travel to orbit and the moon, the deployment and
maintenance of a global wireless hotspot from space exceeds our
present capabilities. The revenue earned by such an off-world asset
would exceed NASA revenue by 10x. So, this is a real game changer if
it can be pulled off.

(3) Energy Network - The world consumes 30 billion barrels of crude
oil, 5.5 billion tons of coal and 1.2 billion tons of natural gas, to
generate 12 trillion watts of thermal energy and support its
industry. The world spends $3.3 trillion per year on energy which
maintains a sizeable margin. Beaming energy from space, and
converting that energy to electricity for direct use, and for hydrogen
for use in making synthetic fuels, would require 17 trillion watts of
primary energy to take into account the losses involved in converting
beamed energy to fuels. Satellites would be large. A 5.2 km diameter
satellite is unlikely to produce more than 10,000 MW at Earth orbit.
Even with light weight construction masses in excess of 500 tons per
satellite are likely, and 2,500 satellites would be needed to meet
demand of all the world if it took 10 years to deploy the system.
This means heavy lift launchers larger than any considered previously
and launch rates of once daily. This is vastly in excess of what we
can do today despite the fact that the money on the table so to speak
totals $3.3 trillion per year and demand has potential to grow 7% and
more per year. Despite the steep technological risks involved here,
energy can be a real game changer if it can be pulled off. Trillions
of dollars would flow into the construction of space assets and
powerful incentives would exist to reduce costs to gather more of that
flow as profits. Spending would be 150x that spent by NASA today.

(4) Raw Materials - The world consumes 28 billion tons of raw
materials. 10 billion tons of this is fossil fuels - which is
addressed above in (3). The remaining 18 billion tons consist of
building materials and gravel (12 billion tons including 2 billion
tons concrete) and metal ores (6 billion tons, including 2 billion
tons recycled metals). The value of all these materials - absent
energy - totals $1.1 trillion per year - including rubber. To
retrieve ores from the asteroid belt is technologically possible. It
is beyond our current methods of transport and requires radical
improvements in the capabilities of propulsion methods combined with
radical reductions in costs of space operations. These are all stiff
challenges and require significant expenditures to even contemplate.
Yet the growth in demand for raw materials world wide is growing
exponentially

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aluminium_-_world_production_trend.svg

and supplies are being depleted at an alarming rate while expanding
production disrupts the environment. Off-world development of raw
material supply combined with off-world development of agriculture,
sylviculture, aquaculture aboard large pressure vessels has a
potential to address these issues, but this too faces significant
challenges in being carried out successfully at a price point that is
competitive.

THE MYTH OF HIGH PRICES

There is a myth among environmentalists and others who hope to see
radical transformation of our infrastructure. The myth is that high
prices for energy, raw materials, or just through excessive taxation
of polluting industries, will magically make fundamentally high priced
alternatives to conventional methods competitive. This will not be
the case. In many respects the deployment of high priced and often
subsidized alternatives to conventional energy and raw materials are
really a way of allocating profits in a productive society. Those
profits disappear as costs rise, and the cost of the alternative made
with low cost energy and raw materials, rise as well.

THE SOLUTION

To have a class of executives and policy makers that really understand
the situation and the science and are competent to make rational
decisions that enhance our long-term growth. We can tap into the
resources off world using assets off world. It won't be simple or
easy or cheap. I could be quick and effective however if done
rightly.
 
Brad Guth...
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 10:29 am
 
On Nov 4, 12:45†pm, Jeff Findley <jeff.find... at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
[quote]In article <397815c9-1ee5-4946-a7c6-a7a554dbe793
at (no spam) p20g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, bradg... at (no spam) gmail.com says...


The US can not afford half of what we're currently doing, because for
more than a decade we've borrowed every dime and otherwise cheated
ourselves so that we could keep the lights on. †China and India as
well as Russia get to do nifty off-world stuff without their having to
barrow a cent, and they each still have spare change after that.

Our cost of government and its many rogue agencies are simply too
spendy and too afraid of their own shadow to boot. †In other words,
we're not under control nor much less within budget. †If you don't
believe me, check out the national debt clock.

As a percentage of GDP, the US is NOT at a record debt level (but we're
getting somewhat close):

† †http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/

On the above page, look at the "Gross Federal Debt in the 20th Century"
graph.

Jeff
--
42
[/quote]
I like those graphs, because it makes it a little easier to see where
we've been and where we're going.

The problem is, back in them good old WW2 days and even somewhat into
the mutually perpetrated cold-war and space race era, a much higher
percentage of American homes were bought and paid for, as well as
folks were a whole lot more self-sufficient, and they were good at
making due (aka repairing their own stuff). Nowadays most everything
has gotten spendy proprietary and throwaway, so we're a rather
pathetic lot of losers and dysfunctionals that can't hardly survive
without a nearby mall, supermarket and fast food providers, not to
mention the average personal debt that far exceeds the value of their
body organs.

You take away the loot necessary for one Starbucks coffee/day and
folks are going to get seriously cranky if not upset and even rage
worthy, and that's just about where we're at.

~ BG
 
Brad Guth...
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 10:50 am
 
On Nov 4, 10:01†am, William Mook <mokmedi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]I agree with Jeff that government spending on space exploration was an
anomaly and is unlikely to be repeated by any government. †Yet, this
does not preclude private spending on space exploration if there is an
economic benefit to doing so. †This entails reducing the cost of
access to space. †This is most easily achieved by recovering all
flight elements from multi-stage systems using conventional chemical
propellants and reducing the cost of making those flight elements
flight ready again.

What can businesses do to earn money in space?

Here's a short list;

†(1) Tourism - †There are 10 million millionaires in the world and to
over the past 9 years 7 of them spent a total of a quarter billion
dollars for a trip to orbit aboard a Soyuz spacecraft. †Looking at the
sales and prices of other high end experiential tours the 'sweet spot'
for this would be 200 trips at $5,000,000 each - to earn $1 billion
per year. †About 1/19th NASA's budget. †To achieve this would be
challenging. †Another 20 trips per year at $25,000,000 to the moon
would earn another $0.5 billion per year. †This too would be
challenging given today's technology levels.

(2) Communications Network - With a half billion laptops in the world
and another five billion cell phones in the world the demand for a
global wireless network on orbit would be tremendous. †The US News and
World Report estimated that a global wireless network in space would
earn at least $85 billion per year in basic services and another $100
billion in advanced services. †Teledesic, Iridium and others deployed
networks but they were not economically successful. While not as
challenging as manned travel to orbit and the moon, the deployment and
maintenance of a global wireless hotspot from space exceeds our
present capabilities. †The revenue earned by such an off-world asset
would exceed NASA revenue by 10x. †So, this is a real game changer if
it can be pulled off.

(3) Energy Network - The world consumes 30 billion barrels of crude
oil, 5.5 billion tons of coal and 1.2 billion tons of natural gas, to
generate 12 trillion watts of thermal energy and support its
industry. †The world spends $3.3 trillion per year on energy which
maintains a sizeable margin. †Beaming energy from space, and
converting that energy to electricity for direct use, and for hydrogen
for use in making synthetic fuels, would require 17 trillion watts of
primary energy to take into account the losses involved in converting
beamed energy to fuels. †Satellites would be large. †A 5.2 km diameter
satellite is unlikely to produce more than 10,000 MW at Earth orbit.
Even with light weight construction masses in excess of 500 tons per
satellite are likely, and 2,500 satellites would be needed to meet
demand of all the world if it took 10 years to deploy the system.
This means heavy lift launchers larger than any considered previously
and launch rates of once daily. †This is vastly in excess of what we
can do today despite the fact that the money on the table so to speak
totals $3.3 trillion per year and demand has potential to grow 7% and
more per year. †Despite the steep technological risks involved here,
energy can be a real game changer if it can be pulled off. †Trillions
of dollars would flow into the construction of space assets and
powerful incentives would exist to reduce costs to gather more of that
flow as profits. †Spending would be 150x that spent by NASA today.

(4) Raw Materials - The world consumes 28 billion tons of raw
materials. †10 billion tons of this is fossil fuels - which is
addressed above in (3). †The remaining 18 billion tons consist of
building materials and gravel (12 billion tons including 2 billion
tons concrete) and metal ores (6 billion tons, including 2 billion
tons recycled metals). †The value of all these materials - absent
energy - totals $1.1 trillion per year - including rubber. †To
retrieve ores from the asteroid belt is technologically possible. †It
is beyond our current methods of transport and requires radical
improvements in the capabilities of propulsion methods combined with
radical reductions in costs of space operations. †These are all stiff
challenges and require significant expenditures to even contemplate.
Yet the growth in demand for raw materials world wide is growing
exponentially

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aluminium_-_world_production_trend.svg

and supplies are being depleted at an alarming rate while expanding
production disrupts the environment. †Off-world development of raw
material supply combined with off-world development of agriculture,
sylviculture, aquaculture aboard large pressure vessels has a
potential to address these issues, but this too faces significant
challenges in being carried out successfully at a price point that is
competitive.

THE MYTH OF HIGH PRICES

There is a myth among environmentalists and others who hope to see
radical transformation of our infrastructure. †The myth is that high
prices for energy, raw materials, or just through excessive taxation
of polluting industries, will magically make fundamentally high priced
alternatives to conventional methods competitive. †This will not be
the case. †In many respects the deployment of high priced and often
subsidized alternatives to conventional energy and raw materials are
really a way of allocating profits in a productive society. †Those
profits disappear as costs rise, and the cost of the alternative made
with low cost energy and raw materials, rise as well.

THE SOLUTION

To have a class of executives and policy makers that really understand
the situation and the science and are competent to make rational
decisions that enhance our long-term growth. †We can tap into the
resources off world using assets off world. †It won't be simple or
easy or cheap. †I could be quick and effective however if done
rightly.
[/quote]
We could also save Earth by simply relocating our moon out to Earth
L1, and interactively keeping it there for as long as we like. (I
wonder how many trillion per year for saving Earth from our sun and
ourselves is actually worth to us, not to mention extracting and
developing the interior of that moon for all it's worth)

The LSE-CM/ISS can also be the ultimate zero delta-V gateway/depot/
oasis outpost that everyone needs (including Mook), because the tether
dipole element reaching to within 6r of Earth (closer >3.2r if you
like) is still perfectly doable.

My 50/50 plan of action means that qualified private missions or
whatever off-world research and development are eligible for <50%
public matching funds, at extremely little or zero interest. For some
odd reason you don't like that idea, even though your ideas clearly
are not working because they need lots of private investor loot with
no strings attached, and otherwise your having to manage with no
inside connections to what's already public bought and paid for. Go
figure.

~ BG
 
Jeff Findley...
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 1:45 pm
 
In article <397815c9-1ee5-4946-a7c6-a7a554dbe793
at (no spam) p20g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, bradguth at (no spam) gmail.com says...
[quote]
The US can not afford half of what we're currently doing, because for
more than a decade we've borrowed every dime and otherwise cheated
ourselves so that we could keep the lights on. China and India as
well as Russia get to do nifty off-world stuff without their having to
barrow a cent, and they each still have spare change after that.

Our cost of government and its many rogue agencies are simply too
spendy and too afraid of their own shadow to boot. In other words,
we're not under control nor much less within budget. If you don't
believe me, check out the national debt clock.
[/quote]
As a percentage of GDP, the US is NOT at a record debt level (but we're
getting somewhat close):

http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/

On the above page, look at the "Gross Federal Debt in the 20th Century"
graph.

Jeff
--
42
 
David Spain...
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 6:19 pm
 
Pat Flannery wrote:
[quote]On 10/31/2010 1:16 PM, Jim Davis wrote:

From where will this vehicle be launched?

The flying island of Laputa.

[/quote]
:-)

Laputa (YGT360) as opposed to Barshaw (NBX108) or Kodlosk (384)?

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0055.html

Dave
 
Pat Flannery...
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 10:28 pm
 
On 11/4/2010 4:19 PM, David Spain wrote:
[quote]Pat Flannery wrote:
On 10/31/2010 1:16 PM, Jim Davis wrote:

From where will this vehicle be launched?

The flying island of Laputa.


:-)

Laputa (YGT360) as opposed to Barshaw (NBX108) or Kodlosk (384)?

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0055.html
[/quote]
Jonathan Swift based the experiments the Laputans were doing on actual
ones that had been reported to The Royal Society, like say extracting
sunlight from green vegetables by crushing them. :-D

Pat
 
Pat Flannery...
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 10:32 pm
 
On 11/4/2010 4:19 PM, David Spain wrote:

[quote]
Laputa (YGT360) as opposed to Barshaw (NBX108) or Kodlosk (384)?

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0055.html
[/quote]

Neat model BTW:
http://www.squadron.com/ItemDetails.asp?item=GOV9001

Pat
 
William Mook...
Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:31 am
 
On Nov 4, 4:50†pm, Brad Guth <bradg... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 10:01†am, William Mook <mokmedi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:



I agree with Jeff that government spending on space exploration was an
anomaly and is unlikely to be repeated by any government. †Yet, this
does not preclude private spending on space exploration if there is an
economic benefit to doing so. †This entails reducing the cost of
access to space. †This is most easily achieved by recovering all
flight elements from multi-stage systems using conventional chemical
propellants and reducing the cost of making those flight elements
flight ready again.

What can businesses do to earn money in space?

Here's a short list;

†(1) Tourism - †There are 10 million millionaires in the world and to
over the past 9 years 7 of them spent a total of a quarter billion
dollars for a trip to orbit aboard a Soyuz spacecraft. †Looking at the
sales and prices of other high end experiential tours the 'sweet spot'
for this would be 200 trips at $5,000,000 each - to earn $1 billion
per year. †About 1/19th NASA's budget. †To achieve this would be
challenging. †Another 20 trips per year at $25,000,000 to the moon
would earn another $0.5 billion per year. †This too would be
challenging given today's technology levels.

(2) Communications Network - With a half billion laptops in the world
and another five billion cell phones in the world the demand for a
global wireless network on orbit would be tremendous. †The US News and
World Report estimated that a global wireless network in space would
earn at least $85 billion per year in basic services and another $100
billion in advanced services. †Teledesic, Iridium and others deployed
networks but they were not economically successful. While not as
challenging as manned travel to orbit and the moon, the deployment and
maintenance of a global wireless hotspot from space exceeds our
present capabilities. †The revenue earned by such an off-world asset
would exceed NASA revenue by 10x. †So, this is a real game changer if
it can be pulled off.

(3) Energy Network - The world consumes 30 billion barrels of crude
oil, 5.5 billion tons of coal and 1.2 billion tons of natural gas, to
generate 12 trillion watts of thermal energy and support its
industry. †The world spends $3.3 trillion per year on energy which
maintains a sizeable margin. †Beaming energy from space, and
converting that energy to electricity for direct use, and for hydrogen
for use in making synthetic fuels, would require 17 trillion watts of
primary energy to take into account the losses involved in converting
beamed energy to fuels. †Satellites would be large. †A 5.2 km diameter
satellite is unlikely to produce more than 10,000 MW at Earth orbit.
Even with light weight construction masses in excess of 500 tons per
satellite are likely, and 2,500 satellites would be needed to meet
demand of all the world if it took 10 years to deploy the system.
This means heavy lift launchers larger than any considered previously
and launch rates of once daily. †This is vastly in excess of what we
can do today despite the fact that the money on the table so to speak
totals $3.3 trillion per year and demand has potential to grow 7% and
more per year. †Despite the steep technological risks involved here,
energy can be a real game changer if it can be pulled off. †Trillions
of dollars would flow into the construction of space assets and
powerful incentives would exist to reduce costs to gather more of that
flow as profits. †Spending would be 150x that spent by NASA today.

(4) Raw Materials - The world consumes 28 billion tons of raw
materials. †10 billion tons of this is fossil fuels - which is
addressed above in (3). †The remaining 18 billion tons consist of
building materials and gravel (12 billion tons including 2 billion
tons concrete) and metal ores (6 billion tons, including 2 billion
tons recycled metals). †The value of all these materials - absent
energy - totals $1.1 trillion per year - including rubber. †To
retrieve ores from the asteroid belt is technologically possible. †It
is beyond our current methods of transport and requires radical
improvements in the capabilities of propulsion methods combined with
radical reductions in costs of space operations. †These are all stiff
challenges and require significant expenditures to even contemplate.
Yet the growth in demand for raw materials world wide is growing
exponentially

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aluminium_-_world_production_trend.svg

and supplies are being depleted at an alarming rate while expanding
production disrupts the environment. †Off-world development of raw
material supply combined with off-world development of agriculture,
sylviculture, aquaculture aboard large pressure vessels has a
potential to address these issues, but this too faces significant
challenges in being carried out successfully at a price point that is
competitive.

THE MYTH OF HIGH PRICES

There is a myth among environmentalists and others who hope to see
radical transformation of our infrastructure. †The myth is that high
prices for energy, raw materials, or just through excessive taxation
of polluting industries, will magically make fundamentally high priced
alternatives to conventional methods competitive. †This will not be
the case. †In many respects the deployment of high priced and often
subsidized alternatives to conventional energy and raw materials are
really a way of allocating profits in a productive society. †Those
profits disappear as costs rise, and the cost of the alternative made
with low cost energy and raw materials, rise as well.

THE SOLUTION

To have a class of executives and policy makers that really understand
the situation and the science and are competent to make rational
decisions that enhance our long-term growth. †We can tap into the
resources off world using assets off world. †It won't be simple or
easy or cheap. †I could be quick and effective however if done
rightly.

We could also save Earth by simply relocating our moon out to Earth
L1, and interactively keeping it there for as long as we like.
[/quote]
Simply relocating the moon? to L1? hahaha

The moon is 1/80th the mass of Earth 7.3477e+22 kg.
Earth Sun L1 point is 1,500,000 km from Earth.
The Moon presently orbits at 384,400 km from Earth.

Applying the Vis-Viva Equation to this problem

dv = SQRT( G * (2/r - 1/a) ) - v0

Where r = 384,400 km
a = 942,200 km
v0=1.022 km/sec
G= 401,499.7

obtains dv=0.26751 km/sec to kick it up to 1.28951 km/sec transfer
velocity.

And then when the moon reaches 1,500,000 km distance at L1 if all is
done properly another impulse to circularize the orbit is needed,
which is

dV = SQRT( G / R(L1) ) - SQRT ( G * (( 2 / R(L1) ) - (1/a))
= 0.51736 km/sec - 0.33046 km/sec
= 0.18690 km/sec

A total delta vee of 0.45441 km/sec.

Exploding an atomic bomb above the moon and causing a shock wave to
form expanding from the moon is one way to create pressure. The
effect is like taking the energy of the atomic bomb and ejecting a
plasma at 20 km/sec - with about 1/3 of the energy in the bomb showing
up as effective jet energy. So for each kg of material ejected in
this way there is

E/ kg = 40 MJ/kg in the jet and 120 MJ/kg needed in the bomb to
form the jet.


The rocket equation tells us how much of the moon we must vaporize to
take it through this delta vee.

Vf = Ve * LN(1/(1-u) ---> u = 1 - 1/EXP(Vf/Ve)

Where Vf=0.45441 km/sec
Ve=20.0 km/sec

telling us u = 1 - 1/EXP(0.45441/20.0) = 0.022465 ~ 2.25% of the moon
must be vaporized to carry out this program.

That's just a small matter of 1.65064E+21 kg of plasma energized by a
mere 1.98076E+29 Joules of energy requiring only

1.11 billion tons of anti-matter
344.88 billion tons of fusion bombs
2,244.49 billion tons of fission bombs

hahaha - does anything strike you about these numbers? Let met
give you a hint;

The world today produces 30 nanograms of antimatter.
The world today has 2,000 tons of highly enriched fission materials
and can produce 100 tons per year.
The world reserve of Lithium 6 is 1.5 million tons and we produce
1,605 tons per year at present.

I've proposed moving asteroids around using laser energy. What would
that take?

Well, 1.35e+29 Joules of energy applied over a 20 minute period by
solar pumped lasers orbiting within 3.5 million km to get the ball
rolling dwarf the power requirements of 0.65e+29 Joules of energy
applied over a 30 minute period to bring the Moon to rest at Sun-Earth
L1.

The first requires 1.125e+26 Watts of laser energy the second requires
only 3.6e+25 Watts of laser energy. This is produced by 47 trillion
square kilometers in the first instance and 15 trillion km in the
second instance. This is 30% and 10% of the sun's entire output.
With 1,600 years of double digit growth in our energy production
capabilities we'd be able to do this.

We can use energetic photons from solar pumped lasers to efficiently
produce anti-matter. This would let us accumulate anti-matter over a
longer period of time to detonate it. Accumulating anti-matter over
10 years with 50% efficiency - which is really an achievement - would
allow a reduction of something like a factor of 100 million - 1e-8 -
reducing satellite areas from 10s of trillions of square kilometers to
10,000s of square kilometers.

So this is what it would take - 80 years of exponential growth in
technological capabilities combined with 80 years of exponential
growth in the double digits of energy production technology - and then
turning off all the industry attached to that energy source for a
decade to accumulate a billion tons of anti-matter.

Sheez.

With great effort we might arrange to move asteroids into energetic
orbits, clever orbits between Earth and Jupiter to repeatedly give
the moon a slight tug to a higher orbit. Over 100,000,000 years we
could get the moon to L1. But that won't help us today will it?

In everyday parlance - we don't have the capacity to move the moon to
L1 - are unlikely to do so in 100 or even 1,000 years of continuous
technological advance - in 10,000 years - yeah, but so what?

So, its not something we can rely on today to solve anything.

Even if we could develop the means - what's the point of this?

To provide shade?

What about doing something simpler. Switching to hydrogen produced
with solar panels and ending our production of CO2 at rates the
environment can't sustain? How about that? lol. !!!

Or build a shade there with about a billionth billionths of the
material and effort? lol.





[quote]†(I
wonder how many trillion per year for saving Earth from our sun and
ourselves is actually worth to us, not to mention extracting and
developing the interior of that moon for all it's worth)
[/quote]
The interior of the moon and Earth is energetically more difficult to
access than the asteroid belt. That's the issue right there. We
can recover stuff from Ceres more easily than we can recover stuff
from the Moon and do so with greater efficiency.

We can use the same Vis Viva Equation to see that to bring stuff from
Ceres 413.8 million km from the Sun to Earth 149.6 million km from the
Sun, requires a delta vee of 4.851 km/sec be applied at Ceres. We
can also see that when the stuff arrives at Earth it passes by heading
on out to the asteroid belt unless slowed again to circularize the
orbit. The stuff passing through needs to be slowed an added 6.314 km/
sec.

But look, Earth's escape velocity is 11.186 km/sec, and the Moon's
escape velocity is 2.380 km/sec - which means that we can engineer
gravity boosts of the fast moving material as it flies through the
Earth-Moon system so that the material comes into Earth orbit or to
Earth surface or even Moon orbit and Moon surface without a lot of
excess speed.

Stuff falling from the moon arrives near Earth at 10.82 km/sec after
being tossed off at 2.38 km/sec.

So, the total delta vee applied to stuff landing on Earth or entering
Earth orbit is over 12 km/sec whereas the total delta vee applied to
stuff arriving from Ceres is less than half that.

Now, some will say that to project something off the moon requires
only 2.38 km/sec delta vee. Half the speed required at Ceres. So,
why do I say mining stuff on Ceres is easier? We can let stuff slam
into Earth or Earth's atmosphere. This is true, up to a point.
Retrieving significant amounts of material this way poses a pollution
threat more significant than our present problem with CO2. So, we
should really arrange to do things a little more cleverly using
gravity boosts.

The other point too is that the moon is really big. The asteroids,
even Ceres is not. That not only impacts their surface gravity, but
the pressures deep within the bodies. That's why its harder to mine 5
miles deep inside Earth or Moon and a cinch to mine 5 miles deep
inside Ceres. That's why we can get at more stuff in the asteroid
belt. Also, since the material in the asteroid belt is scattered
among millions of small objects, its easier to survey and find where
the good stuff is than it is to find the same materials deep in Earth
or Moon. Finally, since there's no biosphere to get in the way, we
have very little biological impact mining the asteroids or the moon as
we do on Earth.

The moon will be mined, and the Earth will continued to be mined.
But, its the asteroid belt where the real growth will occur over the
next 30 to 50 years as production on Earth wanes, and production on
the moon climbs more slowly than production from the asteroid belt for
the reasons cited.

[quote]The LSE-CM/ISS can also be the ultimate zero delta-V gateway/depot/
oasis outpost that everyone needs (including Mook), because the tether
dipole element reaching to within 6r of Earth (closer >3.2r if you
like) is still perfectly doable.
[/quote]
No its not. We cannot move the moon we cannot build tethers between
worlds. We can orbit communication satellites, and power satellites.
We can use terrestrial solar power here on Earth. We can retrieve
materials from the asteroid belt.



[quote]
My 50/50 plan of action means that qualified private missions or
whatever off-world research and development are eligible for <50%
public matching funds, at extremely little or zero interest. †For some
odd reason you don't like that idea, even though your ideas clearly
are not working because they need lots of private investor loot with
no strings attached, and otherwise your having to manage with no
inside connections to what's already public bought and paid for. †Go
figure.

†~ BG
[/quote]
We can't move the moon, its too big at present or with foreseeable
technology. If the world decided to stop spending money on warfare
and military expansion, if terrorists would lay down their arms, if
governments would end corruption, if people stopped engaging in
activities that supported organized crime - drugs, prostitution, etc.,
- and if all the money saved in these nonproductive activities were
invested in expanding our industry and agriculture to give everyone
jobs and feed everyone and clothe everyone and house everyone and we
invested this money saved on energy infrastructure to rely on
limitless solar energy, to expand our resource base to mine the oceans
and the asteroids, if we did all that today, the world would be a
better place.

We can do all these things.

We can't move the moon.

We don't need to.

To say that we do is to marginalize the real possibilities that
science opens up to us.

And maybe that's the point of your diatribes Brad.
 
William Mook...
Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:32 am
 
On Nov 4, 12:17†am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]
You're nuts.

[/quote]
No I'm not Fred, you are.
 
William Mook...
Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:23 am
 
Moving the Moon to L1 with asteroid impacts?

If we take Ceres and slow it so that it slams into the Moon, we would
have imparted just enough speed to the combined object to fly up to
L1. Then, if we slow Vesta and Pallas to slam into the moon to speed
it up to STAY at L1 after it gets there, we can take advantage of a
force multiplier effect of Ceres, Vesta and Pallas potential energy to
reduce the amount of atomic bombs, or anti-matter bombs or laser
energy - to about 1/3 that needed for direct application.

Which isn't enough of a reduction to make a damn bit of difference to
make moving the moon realistically feasible any time soon.
 
Brad Guth...
Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 2:17 pm
 
On Nov 5, 11:31†am, William Mook <mokmedi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 4:50†pm, Brad Guth <bradg... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 4, 10:01†am, William Mook <mokmedi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with Jeff that government spending on space exploration was an
anomaly and is unlikely to be repeated by any government. †Yet, this
does not preclude private spending on space exploration if there is an
economic benefit to doing so. †This entails reducing the cost of
access to space. †This is most easily achieved by recovering all
flight elements from multi-stage systems using conventional chemical
propellants and reducing the cost of making those flight elements
flight ready again.

What can businesses do to earn money in space?

Here's a short list;

†(1) Tourism - †There are 10 million millionaires in the world and to
over the past 9 years 7 of them spent a total of a quarter billion
dollars for a trip to orbit aboard a Soyuz spacecraft. †Looking at the
sales and prices of other high end experiential tours the 'sweet spot'
for this would be 200 trips at $5,000,000 each - to earn $1 billion
per year. †About 1/19th NASA's budget. †To achieve this would be
challenging. †Another 20 trips per year at $25,000,000 to the moon
would earn another $0.5 billion per year. †This too would be
challenging given today's technology levels.

(2) Communications Network - With a half billion laptops in the world
and another five billion cell phones in the world the demand for a
global wireless network on orbit would be tremendous. †The US News and
World Report estimated that a global wireless network in space would
earn at least $85 billion per year in basic services and another $100
billion in advanced services. †Teledesic, Iridium and others deployed
networks but they were not economically successful. While not as
challenging as manned travel to orbit and the moon, the deployment and
maintenance of a global wireless hotspot from space exceeds our
present capabilities. †The revenue earned by such an off-world asset
would exceed NASA revenue by 10x. †So, this is a real game changer if
it can be pulled off.

(3) Energy Network - The world consumes 30 billion barrels of crude
oil, 5.5 billion tons of coal and 1.2 billion tons of natural gas, to
generate 12 trillion watts of thermal energy and support its
industry. †The world spends $3.3 trillion per year on energy which
maintains a sizeable margin. †Beaming energy from space, and
converting that energy to electricity for direct use, and for hydrogen
for use in making synthetic fuels, would require 17 trillion watts of
primary energy to take into account the losses involved in converting
beamed energy to fuels. †Satellites would be large. †A 5.2 km diameter
satellite is unlikely to produce more than 10,000 MW at Earth orbit.
Even with light weight construction masses in excess of 500 tons per
satellite are likely, and 2,500 satellites would be needed to meet
demand of all the world if it took 10 years to deploy the system.
This means heavy lift launchers larger than any considered previously
and launch rates of once daily. †This is vastly in excess of what we
can do today despite the fact that the money on the table so to speak
totals $3.3 trillion per year and demand has potential to grow 7% and
more per year. †Despite the steep technological risks involved here,
energy can be a real game changer if it can be pulled off. †Trillions
of dollars would flow into the construction of space assets and
powerful incentives would exist to reduce costs to gather more of that
flow as profits. †Spending would be 150x that spent by NASA today.

(4) Raw Materials - The world consumes 28 billion tons of raw
materials. †10 billion tons of this is fossil fuels - which is
addressed above in (3). †The remaining 18 billion tons consist of
building materials and gravel (12 billion tons including 2 billion
tons concrete) and metal ores (6 billion tons, including 2 billion
tons recycled metals). †The value of all these materials - absent
energy - totals $1.1 trillion per year - including rubber. †To
retrieve ores from the asteroid belt is technologically possible. †It
is beyond our current methods of transport and requires radical
improvements in the capabilities of propulsion methods combined with
radical reductions in costs of space operations. †These are all stiff
challenges and require significant expenditures to even contemplate.
Yet the growth in demand for raw materials world wide is growing
exponentially

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aluminium_-_world_production_trend.svg

and supplies are being depleted at an alarming rate while expanding
production disrupts the environment. †Off-world development of raw
material supply combined with off-world development of agriculture,
sylviculture, aquaculture aboard large pressure vessels has a
potential to address these issues, but this too faces significant
challenges in being carried out successfully at a price point that is
competitive.

THE MYTH OF HIGH PRICES

There is a myth among environmentalists and others who hope to see
radical transformation of our infrastructure. †The myth is that high
prices for energy, raw materials, or just through excessive taxation
of polluting industries, will magically make fundamentally high priced
alternatives to conventional methods competitive. †This will not be
the case. †In many respects the deployment of high priced and often
subsidized alternatives to conventional energy and raw materials are
really a way of allocating profits in a productive society. †Those
profits disappear as costs rise, and the cost of the alternative made
with low cost energy and raw materials, rise as well.

THE SOLUTION

To have a class of executives and policy makers that really understand
the situation and the science and are competent to make rational
decisions that enhance our long-term growth. †We can tap into the
resources off world using assets off world. †It won't be simple or
easy or cheap. †I could be quick and effective however if done
rightly.

We could also save Earth by simply relocating our moon out to Earth
L1, and interactively keeping it there for as long as we like.

Simply relocating the moon? †to L1? †hahaha

The moon is 1/80th the mass of Earth †7.3477e+22 kg.
Earth Sun L1 point is 1,500,000 km from Earth.
The Moon presently orbits at 384,400 km from Earth.

Applying the Vis-Viva Equation to this problem

† †dv = SQRT( G * (2/r - 1/a) ) - v0

Where r = 384,400 km
† † † † † †a = 942,200 km
† † † † † v0=1.022 km/sec
† † † † † †G= 401,499.7

obtains dv=0.26751 km/sec to kick it up to 1.28951 km/sec transfer
velocity.

And then when the moon reaches 1,500,000 km distance at L1 if all is
done properly another impulse to circularize the orbit is needed,
which is

† † dV = SQRT( G / R(L1) ) - SQRT ( G * (( 2 / R(L1) ) - (1/a))
† † † † † = 0.51736 km/sec - 0.33046 km/sec
† † † † † = 0.18690 km/sec

A total delta vee of †0.45441 km/sec.

Exploding an atomic bomb above the moon and causing a shock wave to
form expanding from the moon is one way to create pressure. †The
effect is like taking the energy of the atomic bomb and ejecting a
plasma at 20 km/sec - with about 1/3 of the energy in the bomb showing
up as effective jet energy. †So for each kg of material ejected in
this way there is

† †E/ kg = 40 MJ/kg in the jet and 120 MJ/kg needed in the bomb to
form the jet.

The rocket equation tells us how much of the moon we must vaporize to
take it through this delta vee.

† † Vf = Ve * LN(1/(1-u) † ---> † u = 1 - 1/EXP(Vf/Ve)

Where Vf=0.45441 km/sec
† † † † † † Ve=20.0 km/sec

telling us †u = 1 - 1/EXP(0.45441/20.0) = 0.022465 ~ 2.25% of the moon
must be vaporized to carry out this program.

That's just a small matter of 1.65064E+21 kg of plasma energized by †a
mere 1.98076E+29 Joules of energy requiring only

† † † †1.11 billion tons of anti-matter
† †344.88 billion tons of fusion bombs
2,244.49 billion tons of fission bombs

hahaha - does anything strike you about these numbers? † † Let met
give you a hint;

The world today produces 30 nanograms of antimatter.
The world today has 2,000 tons of highly enriched fission materials
and can produce 100 tons per year.
The world reserve of Lithium 6 is 1.5 million tons and we produce
1,605 tons per year at present.

I've proposed moving asteroids around using laser energy. †What would
that take?

Well, 1.35e+29 Joules of energy applied over a 20 minute period by
solar pumped lasers orbiting within 3.5 million km to get the ball
rolling dwarf the power requirements of 0.65e+29 Joules of energy
applied over a 30 minute period to bring the Moon to rest at Sun-Earth
L1.

The first requires 1.125e+26 Watts of laser energy the second requires
only 3.6e+25 Watts of laser energy. †This is produced by 47 trillion
square kilometers in the first instance and 15 trillion km in the
second instance. †This is 30% and 10% of the sun's entire output.
With 1,600 years of double digit growth in our energy production
capabilities we'd be able to do this.

We can use energetic photons from solar pumped lasers to efficiently
produce anti-matter. †This would let us accumulate anti-matter over a
longer period of time to detonate it. †Accumulating anti-matter over
10 years with 50% efficiency - which is really an achievement - would
allow a reduction of something like a factor of 100 million - 1e-8 -
reducing satellite areas from 10s of trillions of square kilometers to
10,000s of square kilometers.

So this is what it would take - 80 years of exponential growth in
technological capabilities combined with 80 years of exponential
growth in the double digits of energy production technology - and then
turning off all the industry attached to that energy source for a
decade to accumulate a billion tons of anti-matter.

Sheez.

With great effort we might arrange to move asteroids into energetic
orbits, †clever orbits between Earth and Jupiter to repeatedly give
the moon a slight tug to a higher orbit. †Over 100,000,000 years we
could get the moon to L1. †But that won't help us today will it?

In everyday parlance - we don't have the capacity to move the moon to
L1 - are unlikely to do so in 100 or even 1,000 years of continuous
technological advance - in 10,000 years - yeah, but so what?

So, its not something we can rely on today to solve anything.

Even if we could develop the means - what's the point of this?

To provide shade?

What about doing something simpler. †Switching to hydrogen produced
with solar panels and ending our production of CO2 at rates the
environment can't sustain? † How about that? †lol. !!!

Or build a shade there with about a billionth billionths of the
material and effort? †lol.

†(I
wonder how many trillion per year for saving Earth from our sun and
ourselves is actually worth to us, not to mention extracting and
developing the interior of that moon for all it's worth)

The interior of the moon and Earth is energetically more difficult to
access than the asteroid belt. † † That's the issue right there. †We
can recover stuff from Ceres more easily than we can recover stuff
from the Moon and do so with greater efficiency.

We can use the same Vis Viva Equation to see that to bring stuff from
Ceres 413.8 million km from the Sun to Earth 149.6 million km from the
Sun, requires a delta vee of 4.851 km/sec be applied at Ceres. † We
can also see that when the stuff arrives at Earth it passes by heading
on out to the asteroid belt unless slowed again to circularize the
orbit. †The stuff passing through needs to be slowed an added 6.314 km/
sec.

But look, Earth's escape velocity is 11.186 km/sec, and the Moon's
escape velocity is 2.380 km/sec - which means that we can engineer
gravity boosts of the fast moving material as it flies through the
Earth-Moon system so that the material comes into Earth orbit or to
Earth surface or even Moon orbit and Moon surface without a lot of
excess speed.

Stuff falling from the moon arrives near Earth at 10.82 km/sec after
being tossed off at 2.38 km/sec.

So, the total delta vee applied to stuff landing on Earth or entering
Earth orbit is over 12 km/sec whereas the total delta vee applied to
stuff arriving from Ceres is less than half that.

Now, some will say that to project something off the moon requires
only 2.38 km/sec delta vee. †Half the speed required at Ceres. †So,
why do I say mining stuff on Ceres is easier? †We can let stuff slam
into Earth or Earth's atmosphere. †This is true, up to a point.
Retrieving significant amounts of material this way poses a pollution
threat more significant than our present problem with CO2. †So, we
should really arrange to do things a little more cleverly using
gravity boosts.

The other point too is that the moon is really big. †The asteroids,
even Ceres is not. †That not only impacts their surface gravity, but
the pressures deep within the bodies. †That's why its harder to mine 5
miles deep inside Earth or Moon and a cinch to mine 5 miles deep
inside Ceres. †That's why we can get at more stuff in the asteroid
belt. †Also, since the material in the asteroid belt is scattered
among millions of small objects, its easier to survey and find where
the good stuff is than it is to find the same materials deep in Earth
or Moon. †Finally, since there's no biosphere to get in the way, we
have very little biological impact mining the asteroids or the moon as
we do on Earth.

The moon will be mined, and the Earth will continued to be mined.
But, its the asteroid belt where the real growth will occur over the
next 30 to 50 years as production on Earth wanes, and production on
the moon climbs more slowly than production from the asteroid belt for
the reasons cited.

The LSE-CM/ISS can also be the ultimate zero delta-V gateway/depot/
oasis outpost that everyone needs (including Mook), because the tether
dipole element reaching to within 6r of Earth (closer >3.2r if you
like) is still perfectly doable.

No its not. †We cannot move the moon we cannot build tethers between
worlds. †We can orbit communication satellites, and power satellites.
We can use terrestrial solar power here on Earth. †We can retrieve
materials from the asteroid belt.



My 50/50 plan of action means that qualified private missions or
whatever off-world research and development are eligible for <50%
public matching funds, at extremely little or zero interest. †For some
odd reason you don't like that idea, even though your ideas clearly
are not working because they need lots of private investor loot with
no strings attached, and otherwise your having to manage with no
inside connections to what's already public bought and paid for. †Go
figure.

†~ BG

We can't move the moon, its too big at present or with foreseeable
technology. †If the world decided to stop spending money on warfare
and military expansion, if terrorists would lay down their arms, if
governments would end corruption, if people stopped engaging in
activities that supported organized crime - drugs, prostitution, etc.,
- and if all the money saved in these nonproductive activities were
invested in expanding our industry and agriculture to give everyone
jobs and feed everyone and clothe everyone and house everyone and we
invested this money saved on energy infrastructure to rely on
limitless solar energy, to expand our resource base to mine the oceans
and the asteroids, if we did all that today, the world would be a
better place.

We can do all these things.

We can't move the moon.

We don't need to.

To say that we do is to marginalize the real possibilities that
science opens up to us.

And maybe that's the point of your diatribes Brad.
[/quote]
Apparently Mook is not half as smart as you suggest, certainly not
very good at reading comprehension or at really solving global
problems, because youíve had decades plus all the necessary loot, and
yet weíre still stuck in policies of the past that you refuse to
revise for the greater good, and even though itís nothing but a
systematic pack of lies upon lies that got us into this mess to begin
with, youíre good with that.

So, as long as the recorded past canít ever be revised in order to
reflect the best available truths, thereby we get to make the same old
mistakes over and over, and those in charge having no intentions of
their ever giving an inch; whatís your next great plan of Mookís non-
leadership thatís going nowhere?

Since weíre running ourselves out of affordable hydrocarbons and by no
means keeping up other energy demands (much less improving our energy
infrastructure), and otherwise toxic polluting most every cubic meter
of our global land, ocean and atmospheric environments as well as
losing dozens of complex biodiversity every year (goes along with
wasting away global ice that obviously you donít care about), what is
there of anything Mook thatís going to affordably save us from
ourselves?

Btw; relocating our moon is technically doable, though obviously itís
beyond anything Mook can muster, so we just will not go there as a
team, especially since no matters what weíd only be able to do it your
way, or not at all. On the other hand, we canít afford half of what
weíre currently doing, much less fixing problems and inflation that
weíve created for everyone that isnít as set for life as yourself.
Thatís <99.9% of humanity that isnít up to half of your minimum wealth
standards, so how exactly are you going to fix that if housing, higher
education, health care, food, energy, insurance and transportation
options are all off the hook (so to speak)?

Mook comprehension-101?
Where did I ever say anything about tether connecting worlds, or even
connecting any moon to a world? (I think your bipolar medications
needs another adjustment)

~ BG
 
Brad Guth...
Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:03 am
 
On Nov 5, 12:23†pm, William Mook <mokmedi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Moving the Moon to L1 with asteroid impacts?

If we take Ceres and slow it so that it slams into the Moon, we would
have imparted just enough speed to the combined object to fly up to
L1. †Then, if we slow Vesta and Pallas to slam into the moon to speed
it up to STAY at L1 after it gets there, we can take advantage of a
force multiplier effect of Ceres, Vesta and Pallas potential energy to
reduce the amount of atomic bombs, or anti-matter bombs or laser
energy - to about 1/3 that needed for direct application.

Which isn't enough of a reduction to make a damn bit of difference to
make moving the moon realistically feasible any time soon.
[/quote]
Impacting the moon is certainly one bold and potentially lethal way of
causing it to move. However, as I've stipulated many, many times,
using a tethered tug of sufficient mass and some reaction thrusting in
order to maneuver that tug is all that's really necessary, as well as
given a century to accomplish and it's a done deal.

The amount of tethered mass and the tethered distance further out (way
past it's L2) is just a physics math issue, because better than 99.9%
of whatever's necessary is already with the moon as is (we just have
to properly process and reutilize it before it's too late).

~ BG
 
William Mook...
Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:16 am
 
Brad, 'solutions' that don't work are not solutions at all.
 
Brad Guth...
Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:19 am
 
On Nov 7, 10:16†am, William Mook <mokmedi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Brad, †'solutions' that don't work are not solutions at all.
[/quote]
And how many of your solution have come to past?

You should try being a little nicer and considerate of others, and
allow the best available science plus whatever physics to play out.

The moon is already in orbit, and moving it is really no big deal as
long as we got time to burn, so to speak. You do want to save Earth,
don't you?

~ BG
 
William Mook...
Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 1:40 pm
 
Telling someone in as kind a way as possible that an idea won't work,
taking great pains to demonstrate the fallacy behind the idea *is*
being nice. Telling someone that the wrong path is the right one, or
that an unworkable idea is worth the effort is being naughty. I'm
being nice to you Brad. You don't see it or don't want to see it, or
worse have ulterior motives in promulgating clearly unworkable ideas
as workable one.
 
 
Page 3 of 6    Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Aug 31, 2014 3:38 am