Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.space.policy > #57430 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-20 14:37 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-09-24 20:16 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 80 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.space.policy
Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-08-20 14:37 -0400
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 23:21 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 09:38 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> - 2016-08-22 16:03 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-08-24 11:23 -0400
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 09:00 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-22 17:19 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-08-23 06:15 -0400
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-23 16:03 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 10:33 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-24 16:25 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-24 16:45 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-25 16:38 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-25 17:04 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-26 19:02 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-26 19:38 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 13:59 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-27 18:53 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 12:58 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-27 19:55 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 16:34 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 17:32 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 17:50 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-26 18:54 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-26 19:20 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 13:56 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-27 18:31 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-27 19:59 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-08-28 17:32 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 21:00 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-08-25 21:53 -0300
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 22:52 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 13:35 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-24 21:44 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 20:10 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 07:41 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-25 16:37 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-25 17:07 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-26 18:31 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-26 19:28 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-27 16:26 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-27 16:48 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 17:27 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-26 18:44 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 13:39 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-27 18:06 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-27 20:14 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-26 21:29 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-27 18:20 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-27 20:24 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 16:21 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 10:23 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-08-24 11:27 -0400
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-08-24 11:25 -0400
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-24 16:08 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 21:46 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 09:57 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-08-27 08:41 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 19:56 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-09-18 09:48 -0400
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 16:50 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-09-21 06:15 -0400
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 18:44 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-09-21 23:05 -0400
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-09-21 23:17 -0400
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 23:06 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 22:56 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-09-22 07:03 -0400
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 03:13 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 22:58 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-09-22 07:07 -0400
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 03:20 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 11:11 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 23:08 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-09-22 07:13 -0400
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 03:42 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 21:52 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 03:47 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 09:15 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 20:16 -0700
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 16:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <npsf0e$36t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57537 |
For your reference, records indicate that jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > A train is not a car. Consult any dictionary. For your sake, I hope you’re missing the point deliberately. Cars are becoming more like trains. That’s not something you’ll find in a dictionary. > > Again, all Im > > asking for is for the SF world to be fleshed out where it makes sense > > to have *your* kind of flying car. > > The definition of flying car is universal and not mine alone. Hardly. Even the Wikipedia page makes it clear that nobody can agree what to call all the various different types of personal air vehicles. Some of the things listed don’t even have wheels. But if you still think otherwise, please state for us all what this “universal” definition is so we’re all on the same page. > >> Assuming the self-driving car is owned by Uber and not an individual. > > > > Assuming nothing but a realistic universe. Yes, I would agree that > > self-driving cars prompt a whole *slew* of changes that might lead to > > changing norms of car ownership. Same goes for the mythical flying > > car, too, so Im just looking for the proponents to do the leg work > > that shows they make sense in any sort of realistic universe. > > Because, from where Im sitting, theyre just another dumb idea that > > nobody really bothers to think through. > > Since I didn't say anything about self-driving cars I don't know what > you are agreeing with. Uh, I quoted it. When you’re apparently not even paying enough attention to the conversation to know what you’ve said, I have to suspect you’re just here to troll. > Flying cars are not mythical as many have been built. They are as mythical as a personal jetpack or the space elevator that started this thread. Not because of their *impossibility* but because of their *impracticality*. Only a crazy person thinks they live in the SF world you insist is reality. I have *never* found myself next to someone driving a flying car. > What has not happened is they have never been a commercial success. Because they’re a stupid idea, which was my point from the start. > There is a big difference between not existing and not being a commercial > success. From a SF perspective, no. Nobody is writing any fantastic stories about *any* of the “existing” flying cars. Hell, they’re not even writing *terrible* stories about them, because “flying cars” are *so* bad in reality that you’d have to be a nut to think of them as a cool technology. > The reason they have never been a commercial success is economics; too > few people have been historically willing to buy one for anyone to go > into production. If exotic cars have a market, so would a respectable flying car. If planes can be bought that sit in hangers most of the time, a respectable flying car would have a market. What do you think the economics of success need to be? -- "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain." River Tam, Trash, Firefly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 16:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5ss89d-d0k.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #57559 |
In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote: > For your reference, records indicate that > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> A train is not a car. Consult any dictionary. > > For your sake, I hope you’re missing the point deliberately. Cars > are becoming more like trains. That’s not something you’ll find in > a dictionary. > >> > Again, all Im >> > asking for is for the SF world to be fleshed out where it makes sense >> > to have *your* kind of flying car. >> >> The definition of flying car is universal and not mine alone. > > Hardly. Even the Wikipedia page makes it clear that nobody can > agree what to call all the various different types of personal air > vehicles. Some of the things listed don’t even have wheels. But > if you still think otherwise, please state for us all what this A flying car is a vehicle that can both fly and drive on roads. Is that so complicated? >> >> Assuming the self-driving car is owned by Uber and not an individual. >> > >> > Assuming nothing but a realistic universe. Yes, I would agree that >> > self-driving cars prompt a whole *slew* of changes that might lead to >> > changing norms of car ownership. Same goes for the mythical flying >> > car, too, so Im just looking for the proponents to do the leg work >> > that shows they make sense in any sort of realistic universe. >> > Because, from where Im sitting, theyre just another dumb idea that >> > nobody really bothers to think through. >> >> Since I didn't say anything about self-driving cars I don't know what >> you are agreeing with. > > Uh, I quoted it. When you’re apparently not even paying enough > attention to the conversation to know what you’ve said, I have to > suspect you’re just here to troll. > Because you quoted it doesn't mean I said anything about it. >> Flying cars are not mythical as many have been built. > > They are as mythical as a personal jetpack or the space elevator > that started this thread. Not because of their *impossibility* > but because of their *impracticality*. Only a crazy person thinks > they live in the SF world you insist is reality. I have *never* > found myself next to someone driving a flying car. > Get a dictionary. Mythical does not mean the same thing as impractial. Your personal experiences are irrelevant. >> What has not happened is they have never been a commercial success. > > Because they’re a stupid idea, which was my point from the start. In your opinion. Personally I would have had a lot of use for a flying car when I was very actively consulting all over the state. > >> There is a big difference between not existing and not being a commercial >> success. > > From a SF perspective, no. Nobody is writing any fantastic stories > about *any* of the “existing” flying cars. Hell, they’re not even > writing *terrible* stories about them, because “flying cars” are > *so* bad in reality that you’d have to be a nut to think of them as > a cool technology. > In your opinion. And fiction of any kind generally writes about things that might be, not things that are. That is why it is call fiction. >> The reason they have never been a commercial success is economics; too >> few people have been historically willing to buy one for anyone to go >> into production. > > If exotic cars have a market, so would a respectable flying car. > If planes can be bought that sit in hangers most of the time, a > respectable flying car would have a market. What do you think the > economics of success need to be? > A two place machine less than $300,000 with a full fuel payload of more than 600 lbs and a range of at least 400 nm and a cruise speed of around 130 kt would likely make the cut. The Taylor Aerocar came close and got 250 orders but needed 500 to go into production. That was in 1956. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 17:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <s43vrbtlf87a1jkf463q3pl2tnoou6vu2s@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #57505 |
Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>For your reference, records indicate that
>Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Flying cars were and are a good idea unless you think you
>> can just land anywhere you like.
>
>Just the opposite! If I can only fly between airports, why not just call
>it an airplane? What actual problem does a “flying car” otherwise solve
>that make it such a fantastic machine to have? What is the actual use
>case that demonstrates *any* added value?
>
Asked and answered.
>
>> If you fly a GA aircraft, what do
>> you do once you land it?
>
>Depends on the problem you’re looking to solve. If it is to keep a
>vehicle in constant service, I’d say you’d fly it right back out to its
>next destination. Same way it doesn’t make much sense to leave a
>self-driving car sitting in a parking lot doing nothing.
>
Do you know what a GA airplane is? I think you just asserted that
they make no sense, yet lots of people have them.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 18:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <npq2m0$8iq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57514 |
For your reference, records indicate that Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote: > > >Just the opposite! If I can only fly between airports, why not just call > >it an airplane? What actual problem does a flying car otherwise solve > >that make it such a fantastic machine to have? What is the actual use > >case that demonstrates *any* added value? > > Asked and answered. No, it wasn’t. Where’s the use case? I’m a guy sitting in my office and I get a call telling me I need to get to X (home or hospital, Detroit or Paris). I know all the tradeoffs of the current solutions to that problem. What is the *actual* benefit a flying car offers in a world where everyone’s a pilot, but I still have to go to an airport, inspect the machine to verify it is airworthy, take care of necessary FAA paperwork, etc.? > Do you know what a GA airplane is? I think you just asserted that > they make no sense, yet lots of people have them. A lot of people own a lot of things that make very little sense. I’m not asking about that segment of the population. I’m asking about the people who are more thoughtful about their behaviors. Can you make the case to *them* that flying cars are actually a good idea? -- "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain." River Tam, Trash, Firefly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 13:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b3a1sbhsbc2irq1g87nkfqq4mbclclaphn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #57529 |
Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>For your reference, records indicate that
>Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Just the opposite! If I can only fly between airports, why not just call
>> >it an airplane? What actual problem does a ?flying car? otherwise solve
>> >that make it such a fantastic machine to have? What is the actual use
>> >case that demonstrates *any* added value?
>>
>> Asked and answered.
>
>No, it wasn’t. Where’s the use case? I’m a guy sitting in my office
>and I get a call telling me I need to get to X (home or hospital,
>Detroit or Paris). I know all the tradeoffs of the current solutions
>to that problem. What is the *actual* benefit a flying car offers in
>a world where everyone’s a pilot, but I still have to go to an
>airport, inspect the machine to verify it is airworthy, take care of
>necessary FAA paperwork, etc.?
>
Same as the case for GA aircraft. You need a car at both ends of the
flight. So why not a single device? You probably resisted the idea
of putting PDA functionality on cell phones, too.
>
>> Do you know what a GA airplane is? I think you just asserted that
>> they make no sense, yet lots of people have them.
>
>A lot of people own a lot of things that make very little sense. I’m
>not asking about that segment of the population. I’m asking about
>the people who are more thoughtful about their behaviors. Can you
>make the case to *them* that flying cars are actually a good idea?
>
Why do I need to? Make the case for a car, period, to someone who
lives in the Amazon jungle. The fact that there is no such case
doesn't mean cars are useless.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 18:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <npskrv$m85$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57541 |
For your reference, records indicate that Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > Same as the case for GA aircraft. You need a car at both ends of the > flight. Really? If that’s the *only* advantage you can think of, you’re really supporting my point. Cars are easy to rent, or skip all that these days and just use an app to get a ride. You’re going to need to make a *much* better case for it to make sense to put an expensive flying vehicle in the middle of dangerous road traffic. > So why not a single device? Because the gulf between that idea and the reality is too great. Different duties have different engineering requirements. Same reason a vehicle meant to travel the vacuum of space has different functional needs from one that is intended to launch from a planet or one that is intended to re-enter an atmosphere. > You probably resisted the idea > of putting PDA functionality on cell phones, too. Wrong again. I was in the camp that *knew* putting a computer in your pocket meant that “phones” would stop being about phone calls. Just like a “flying car” in any sane universe would quickly make driving pointless, so it’d really just be about a newer kind of aircraft. And that’s why I bring up self-driving cars in the context of trains. Because if flying cars made sense, they’d *first* make sense in the context of a plane or a car. Even if you never took it driving, it seems like there should be an obvious advantage of having a plane you can park at the airport in a facility no different from a regular parking spot. Yet somehow nobody can find a market? > >A lot of people own a lot of things that make very little sense. Im > >not asking about that segment of the population. Im asking about > >the people who are more thoughtful about their behaviors. Can you > >make the case to *them* that flying cars are actually a good idea? > > > > Why do I need to? Make the case for a car, period, to someone who > lives in the Amazon jungle. The fact that there is no such case > doesn't mean cars are useless. They *are* uselesss in the middle of the Amazon jungle. But that’s a straw man; stick to the issue at hand. No, you don’t *have* to make the case for flying cars, but you *did* decide to chime in to do that. You haven’t been successful as of yet, so you can try harder, bail out of the conversation, or just admit that, yeah, flying cars really are just one of science fiction’s dumber ideas. -- "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain." River Tam, Trash, Firefly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 20:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lt899d-7vk.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #57562 |
In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote: > For your reference, records indicate that > Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Same as the case for GA aircraft. You need a car at both ends of the >> flight. > > Really? If that’s the *only* advantage you can think of, you’re > really supporting my point. Cars are easy to rent, or skip all that > these days and just use an app to get a ride. You’re going to need > to make a *much* better case for it to make sense to put an > expensive flying vehicle in the middle of dangerous road traffic. Apparently you do not understand that the entire world is not one big city with Uber at your fingertips. Try getting an Uber ride in Gthenburg, NE. >> So why not a single device? > > Because the gulf between that idea and the reality is too great. > Different duties have different engineering requirements. Same > reason a vehicle meant to travel the vacuum of space has different > functional needs from one that is intended to launch from a planet > or one that is intended to re-enter an atmosphere. Yet many people have been building working machines since the 1930's so the technology can't be that difficult. > >> You probably resisted the idea >> of putting PDA functionality on cell phones, too. > > Wrong again. I was in the camp that *knew* putting a computer in > your pocket meant that “phones” would stop being about phone calls. > Just like a “flying car” in any sane universe would quickly make > driving pointless, so it’d really just be about a newer kind of > aircraft. Correct, it is more about the COST of a "newer" kind of aircraft that has been around for almost a century now. > > And that’s why I bring up self-driving cars in the context of > trains. Because if flying cars made sense, they’d *first* make > sense in the context of a plane or a car. Even if you never took > it driving, it seems like there should be an obvious advantage of > having a plane you can park at the airport in a facility no > different from a regular parking spot. Yet somehow nobody can > find a market? Lots of airplanes are parked in a facility no different from a regular parking spot. You continue to demonstrate you know absolutely nothing about aviation. > >> >A lot of people own a lot of things that make very little sense. I?m >> >not asking about that segment of the population. I?m asking about >> >the people who are more thoughtful about their behaviors. Can you >> >make the case to *them* that flying cars are actually a good idea? >> > >> >> Why do I need to? Make the case for a car, period, to someone who >> lives in the Amazon jungle. The fact that there is no such case >> doesn't mean cars are useless. > > They *are* uselesss in the middle of the Amazon jungle. But that’s > a straw man; stick to the issue at hand. No, you don’t *have* to > make the case for flying cars, but you *did* decide to chime in to > do that. You haven’t been successful as of yet, so you can try > harder, bail out of the conversation, or just admit that, yeah, > flying cars really are just one of science fiction’s dumber ideas. Actually there is one flying car, a dune buggy actually, that is on the market and a portion of the target market is access to remote parts of the world such as jungle areas by people such as missionaries. http://www.flyskyrunner.com/ -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 21:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <guo69d-coc.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #57529 |
In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote: > For your reference, records indicate that > Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote: >> >> >Just the opposite! If I can only fly between airports, why not just call >> >it an airplane? What actual problem does a ?flying car? otherwise solve >> >that make it such a fantastic machine to have? What is the actual use >> >case that demonstrates *any* added value? >> >> Asked and answered. > > No, it wasn’t. Where’s the use case? I’m a guy sitting in my office > and I get a call telling me I need to get to X (home or hospital, > Detroit or Paris). I know all the tradeoffs of the current solutions > to that problem. What is the *actual* benefit a flying car offers in > a world where everyone’s a pilot, but I still have to go to an > airport, inspect the machine to verify it is airworthy, take care of > necessary FAA paperwork, etc.? Preflighting my airplane takes about 5 minutes. There is no FAA paperwork unless you file a flight plan, and then that is automated. >> Do you know what a GA airplane is? I think you just asserted that >> they make no sense, yet lots of people have them. > > A lot of people own a lot of things that make very little sense. I’m > not asking about that segment of the population. I’m asking about > the people who are more thoughtful about their behaviors. Can you > make the case to *them* that flying cars are actually a good idea? There are a lot of people who do not own a car; so what? There are lots of people who do not own a motorcycle; so what? There are lots of people who do not own an airplane; so what? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 18:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <npsll5$p29$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57545 |
For your reference, records indicate that jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Preflighting my airplane takes about 5 minutes. You didn’t drive your airplane around town for days/weeks/months, though. And what do you do if you find your car has taken some damage that made it unable/dangerous to fly? A realistic world building exercise isn’t going to yield useful results if you can’t think past how you do things currently. > There is no FAA paperwork unless you file a flight plan, and then that > is automated. Sure, sure. The busywork is all ideally computerized. But the point is that such a setup isn’t some sort of imagined “I just drive right to the airport runway and off I go.” We’re a long way from anything *near* even that kind of SF fantasy. > There are a lot of people who do not own a car; so what? > > There are lots of people who do not own a motorcycle; so what? > > There are lots of people who do not own an airplane; so what? Those are all the opposite of the ownership issue being discussed. Your motives are now clear. I’m done with you. -- "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain." River Tam, Trash, Firefly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 20:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gh999d-7vk.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #57563 |
In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote: > For your reference, records indicate that > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> Preflighting my airplane takes about 5 minutes. > > You didn’t drive your airplane around town for days/weeks/months, > though. And what do you do if you find your car has taken some > damage that made it unable/dangerous to fly? A realistic world > building exercise isn’t going to yield useful results if you can’t > think past how you do things currently. A preflight is a preflight. If the machine is damaged you call your insurance agent. > >> There is no FAA paperwork unless you file a flight plan, and then that >> is automated. > > Sure, sure. The busywork is all ideally computerized. But the point > is that such a setup isn’t some sort of imagined “I just drive right > to the airport runway and off I go.” We’re a long way from anything > *near* even that kind of SF fantasy. Only in your blindered view of the world. The ability to drive to the airport runway and off you go has been around for nearly a century now, whether you want to accept the reality or not. FYI, most personal flights do not require paperwork of any kind. > >> There are a lot of people who do not own a car; so what? >> >> There are lots of people who do not own a motorcycle; so what? >> >> There are lots of people who do not own an airplane; so what? > > Those are all the opposite of the ownership issue being discussed. > Your motives are now clear. I’m done with you. Only in you narrow world view. Just because something exists it does not mean everyone, or even a significant fraction of everyone, will want it. Your comment about motives is meaningless to me; I have no motives in regard to flying cars, airplanes, cars, sailboats, bicycles,or any other vehicle. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 16:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <71c4b413-ff75-42f9-a34f-afc60124cd21@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57529 |
An electric drone based on a cross between ehang 184 and Airbus Efan 1) consumes far less energy than automobiles 2) moves people far more quickly than automobiles 3)is vastly safer than automobiles 4) requires about one tenth the number of vehicles and 5) none of the roadways 6) while providing greater range and 7) speed 8) requiring no training to use. Calling a flying cab and having it arrive in seconds then having it take you directly to your destination for pennies and leaving without any further attention is so obviously superior to what we have now there's no argument. People generally view areas they reach in 20 minutes as local. Moving at 30 mph gives you a range of 10 miles and immediate access to 314 square miles and allows you to interact and coordinate with 157,000 people in most places. Moving at 300 mph increases range by 10x and area by 100x. Allowing 15.7 million to interact as locals. Frank Lloyd Wright wrote about this in the 1940s and led to many articles about helicopters in every garage. Technology has caught up with that vision.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 10:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5c8dbf91-93d3-4cb9-b80d-d0cbbad668b0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57442 |
On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 10:15:57 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
> In article <5qor8d-mk5.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
> says...
> >
> > In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote:
> > > American Journal of Nanomaterials
> > > Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016, pp 39-43. doi: 10.12691/ajn-4-2-2 | Research Article
> > > From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to Production
> > > of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials.
> > > Robert Clark
> > > Department of Mathematics, Widener University, Chester, United States
> > > http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajn/4/2/2/index.html
> > >
> > > Next stop: the space elevator.
> >
> > Nope, the next stop would be ANYTHING practical.
> >
> > > Bob Clark
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
> > > 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
> > > launchers, to 'flying cars'.
> >
> > The lack of flying cars has never been a materials problem. There have
> > been lots of flying cars built.
>
> For one, they're super expensive. But, ignoring the expense for now...
>
> The huge problem with flying cars in my mind is building one that's
> simple for a "driver" to operate. The masses aren't going to all get a
> pilot's license. Heck, most people on the road shouldn't even have a
> driver's license based on how awful they drive and on how many wrecks
> they cause. Imagine them all flying cars right into each other!
>
> To make this work, you'd need self-flying cars!
>
> Jeff
> --
> All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
> These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
> employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
Average gas mileage according to the US DOT is 24.5 miles per gallon. At 131.76 megajoules per gallon this is 5.38 megajoules per mile.
Now Tesla is proposing an electric jet, similar to Airbus' e-fan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJKYekL7JsY
This plane is powered by two 30 kW ducted eight bladed electric fans and travels at 220 km/hr (137 mph). Cruise speed is maintained at 40 kW after climbing to altitude - and flight time is on the order of an hour at present, but advances in battery technology over what was used on this product will triple this. Giving this a 300 km to 900 km range - providing the aircraft is not recharged in flight.
Another innovator, Lasermotive, has already powered a drone in flight. With a lightweight laser receiver, an accurate beam steering mechanism, and an efficient solid state laser, it is possible to power an aircraft indefinitely as long as it is in sight of a beam source. In this instance, battery power is used only for take off and landing.
http://lasermotive.com
At 137 mph and 40 kW we have 144 megajoules per hour or 1.05 megajoules per mile. This is about 1/6th the energy cost of an automobile.
Now E-HANG 184 is a single passenger quad-rotor
http://www.ehang.com/ehang184/specs/
This uses 107 kW to travel 100 kph (62 mph) and has a 23 minute range. It is intended for point to point travel within a city - distances less than 10 miles-, however, it does show the flexibility of electric fan propulsion. Clearly a wing-fan system using this technology is the next logical step, giving one the ability to take off and land vertically, navigate automatically - operation is as simple as using GPS app in your smartphone - and speed silently any distance you like - consuming 1/6th the power of a modern motor car (excepting for take off and landing which uses 2/3rd the power of a modern motorcar.
NASA has developed the Puffin aircraft - which is a tail sitter electric airplane that takes off and lands vertically and flies like a normal aircraft.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSdwNl-9mPU
Now Textron Aviation sells the Cessna Skyhawk commercially for $307,500 - and built about 43,000 of them since it was first introduced in the 1950s. Its about 4x more expensive than a typical Land Rover or Mercedes motorcar. It travels 226 kph (140 mph) a little slower than the e-fan, and it has a 1289 km (801 mile) range on 56 gallons of av-gas. That's 9.21 megajoules per mile!
Automobile: 5.38 megajoules per mile $84,950
Skyhawk: 9.21 megajoules per mile $307,500
Now NASA, EHANG, and Airbus, report that electric aircraft cost about half as much to build and only 1/20th the cost to maintain as conventional aircraft! This puts the maintenance cost of an e-fan type aircraft well below the range of conventional autos. It also gives us the following
Electric VTOL/Jet: 1.05 megajoules per mile $153,750
About 2x the typical Land Rover acquisition cost.
The E-HANG 184 has an interesting business model, as do companies like Matternet
https://mttr.net
They use drone technology exclusively, and excepting emergency situations, dispense altogether with pilots.
So, putting this altogether we can see the emergence of FLIGHT ON DEMAND! Here, you have an Uber style app, in your smartphone, that calls an aircraft after you've negotiated a price and selected a server. The aircraft drops down out of the sky to a convenient location and you board it. The aircraft takes off and flies you directly to your destination - letting you off - and then taking off to its next appointment - which has already been scheduled by cloud based software.
What's the cost likely to be?
Well, given the cost of capital is 8.5% per year and the life span of the equipment is 7 years, and the maintenance cost is 2% of the purchase price per year, and the utilitsation rate is 85% and the cost of power is $0.18 per kWh, (5.25 cents per mile) - and the average flight duration is 18 minutes whilst the repositioning time is 12 minutes - we have the following;
CAPEX: PMT(0.085,7,$153750) = $30,038.02 per year
OPEX: 0.02 * $153750 = $3,075.00 per year
2 calls per hour
8,766 hours per year * 85% = 7,451.1
14,902.2 calls per year
Cost per call: 33,113.02 / 14,902.2 = $2.22
Cost per mile: 1.05 megajoules/mile * $0.18/kWh / 3.6 megajoules/kWh = $0.0525/mile
Now, what's a good rate of return for a home based business? Well, if a loan is organised for half the capex, and the other half is provided by the operator, and they charge $5 per trip, and charge $0.30 per minute after the first five minutes, or fraction (12.2 cents per mile) this provides a 36% IRR and 69% ROI after seven years - even with zero resell value! Used Skyhawks 7 years old, sell for about 1/3 their purchase price. So, this puts a used e-flyer at $51,000 after 7 years, and adds to the return for the operator. People can buy these for less than a motorcar, and fly them in the same system, for $0.0525 cents per mile!
We're already lower than the price of a car.
Looking at actual travel data - this may be an over-estimate! The times outlined above is based on the amount of time people spend in their vehicle. Assuming they will travel farther if they travel faster. However, if we look at distances not times, things change.
NHTS data shows that daily travel in the United States totalled about 4 trillion miles, an average of 14,500 miles per person per year. On a daily basis, the average person traveled 40 miles, most of it (35 miles) in a personal vehicle.
Because more than one person can travel in a personal vehicle, these 35 person miles amounted to about 23 vehicle miles traveled. Annually, the total number of vehicle miles traveled in 2001 was nearly 2.3 trillion. In terms of number of trips, people took 411 billion daily trips or about 1,500 trips per person per year.
Now, 23 vehicle miles at 147 mph is 9.42 minutes in a vehicle each day. Divided by 4.1 trips per day, this is 2.3 minutes per trip. Add another 1.7 minutes to reposition the vehicle for the next pick up and you have 15 trips per hour - which is 7.5x more productive. This reduces your pickup charge from $2.22 to $0.30 on the cost side and from $5.00 to $0.67 on the charge side (maintaining the same IRR (internal rate of return)). Most would charge a dollar to travel anywhere in five minutes - and only charge for time for longer distance flight. Actual demand numbers would determine the best approach.
The number of trips rises to 111,766.5 per year from 14,902.2 per year per vehicle. With 306 flight cycle per day (assuming a shorter distance travelled) and a demand of 4.1 trips per person - 74.6 people are served every day on average. 318.9 million people are served with 4.3 million vehicles in this way. The energy demand of the USA is dropped by a factor of 6 - and if supplied with solar panels - ends our reliance on foreign oil! Where would we put solar panels? On the roads of course!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQba3ENhlKA
Which provides energy to recharge electric vehicles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkMN8CN9OBY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1tfOeChenQ
and that includes electric aircraft.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNo377rGrew
of unlimited range.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAic2NC7Qp0
A world of 7.44 billion people having the same mobility of an average American requires about 100 million aircraft. 1/10th the 1.015 billion automobiles in use today, and each using 1/6th the energy of a comparable car - or 1/60th the total energy USED TODAY to drive motorcars - delivered at a cost about half that (if providing tremendous returns for owner/operators of delivery services).
So, this changes the world BECAUSE FLYING VEHICLES OF THIS TYPE ARE SO MUCH LESS EXPENSIVE THAN MOTORCARS.
Long distance routes may be supplied by lasers from space using holographic techniques to beam power to multiple moving vehicles on Earth's surface.
More advanced systems use laser propulsion directly from space, to provide BALLISTIC TRANSPORT ON DEMAND. Here the vehicle transitions from normal flight to ballistic flight using laser propulsion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33_-teBjZ4w
So, instead of waiting 84 hours to get from one side of the world to the other, we move around the world in 42 minutes! We only use non-ballistic flight to climb to altitude to boost ballistically - and then fly directly to our destination. With drones and no pilots (except via remote access in an emergency) we can dispense with airfields and the attendant costs and logistical problems of them.
This capacity combines well with tele-presence technology that lets you operate a robot remotely. You can live anywhere, work anywhere, and travel anywhere - in less time than an American spends in their car.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCM2h7xIBb89XHdCBRH6WSwA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTSakUtxXYY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvN9Ri1GmuY
Stand alone homes that exist anywhere, and connect via satellite to anywhere through wireless internet as well as laser powered ballistic transport.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 11:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <npkec7$gpf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57442 |
I agree there. There has a recent announcement of a quad-copter style flying transport that is intended to be self-flying. Bob Clark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Jeff Findley" wrote in message news:MPG.3225ec6625cb825f9897db@news.eternal-september.org... In article <5qor8d-mk5.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com says... > > In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > > American Journal of Nanomaterials > > Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016, pp 39-43. doi: 10.12691/ajn-4-2-2 | Research > > Article > > From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to > > Production > > of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials. > > Robert Clark > > Department of Mathematics, Widener University, Chester, United States > > http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajn/4/2/2/index.html > > > > Next stop: the space elevator. > > Nope, the next stop would be ANYTHING practical. > > > Bob Clark > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize > > 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital > > launchers, to 'flying cars'. > > The lack of flying cars has never been a materials problem. There have > been lots of flying cars built. For one, they're super expensive. But, ignoring the expense for now... The huge problem with flying cars in my mind is building one that's simple for a "driver" to operate. The masses aren't going to all get a pilot's license. Heck, most people on the road shouldn't even have a driver's license based on how awful they drive and on how many wrecks they cause. Imagine them all flying cars right into each other! To make this work, you'd need self-flying cars! Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 11:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <npke95$gep$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57439 |
Ok, I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole there. But even if these methods could produce arbitrarily long nanotubes at 1/10th the maximum measured nanotube strength, this would be a major change in materials science. Bob Clark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- wrote in message news:5qor8d-mk5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > American Journal of Nanomaterials > Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016, pp 39-43. doi: 10.12691/ajn-4-2-2 | Research Article > From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to Production > of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials. > Robert Clark > Department of Mathematics, Widener University, Chester, United States > http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajn/4/2/2/index.html > > Next stop: the space elevator. Nope, the next stop would be ANYTHING practical. > Bob Clark > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize > 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital > launchers, to 'flying cars'. The lack of flying cars has never been a materials problem. There have been lots of flying cars built. -- Jim Pennino --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 16:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ect09d-0bm.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #57471 |
In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > Ok, I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole there. But even if these methods > could produce arbitrarily long nanotubes at 1/10th the maximum measured > nanotube strength, this would be a major change in materials science. > > Bob Clark Only in a few niche applications where weight and strength are competing parameters. For the vast majority of things there is no incentive to build them from nanotubes. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize > 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital > launchers, to 'flying cars'. > This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: > > Nanotech: from air to space. > https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > wrote in message news:5qor8d-mk5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > > In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >> American Journal of Nanomaterials >> Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016, pp 39-43. doi: 10.12691/ajn-4-2-2 | Research Article >> From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to Production >> of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials. >> Robert Clark >> Department of Mathematics, Widener University, Chester, United States >> http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajn/4/2/2/index.html >> >> Next stop: the space elevator. > > Nope, the next stop would be ANYTHING practical. > >> Bob Clark >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize >> 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital >> launchers, to 'flying cars'. > > The lack of flying cars has never been a materials problem. There have > been lots of flying cars built. > > -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 21:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <82737230-cfeb-4abd-a78f-48d66dae77d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57480 |
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 4:16:04 AM UTC+12, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > > Ok, I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole there. But even if these methods > > could produce arbitrarily long nanotubes at 1/10th the maximum measured > > nanotube strength, this would be a major change in materials science. > > > > Bob Clark > > Only in a few niche applications where weight and strength are competing > parameters. > > For the vast majority of things there is no incentive to build them from > nanotubes. > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize > > 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital > > launchers, to 'flying cars'. > > This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: > > > > Nanotech: from air to space. > > https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > wrote in message news:5qor8d-mk5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > > > > In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > >> American Journal of Nanomaterials > >> Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016, pp 39-43. doi: 10.12691/ajn-4-2-2 | Research Article > >> From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to Production > >> of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials. > >> Robert Clark > >> Department of Mathematics, Widener University, Chester, United States > >> http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajn/4/2/2/index.html > >> > >> Next stop: the space elevator. > > > > Nope, the next stop would be ANYTHING practical. > > > >> Bob Clark > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize > >> 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital > >> launchers, to 'flying cars'. > > > > The lack of flying cars has never been a materials problem. There have > > been lots of flying cars built. > > > > > > -- > Jim Pennino http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9781455778638 Nanotube Superfiber Materials Changing Engineering Design Edited by:Mark J. Schulz, Vesselin N. Shanov and Zhangzhang Yin ISBN: 978-1-4557-7863-8 Here's a 2013 book on the subject. Please review Chapter 14 – Direct Dry Spinning of Millimeter-long Carbon Nanotube Arrays for Aligned Sheet and Yarn Yoku Inoue Ultralong multiwalled carbon nanotube arrays (forests) were grown by chloride-mediated chemical vapor deposition, in which iron chloride was used as a catalyst precursor. Highly spinnable millimeter-long arrays were grown with a very rapid growth rate of 100 μm/min. By stacking long-lasting carbon nanotube (CNT) webs, unidirectionally aligned CNT sheets were fabricated. The sheet was highly anisotropic in electrical and thermal properties and due to high alignment of the CNTs in the sheets. CNT yarns were fabricated using the millimeter-long CNTs and a detailed analysis of various postspin processes, including postspin twisting and multiply twisting, and their effect on CNT yarns were studied. Mechanical properties clearly depended on the dimensions of CNTs, where thinner and longer CNTs led to strong and stiff yarns. Large contacting surface areas in the yarns, brought by closer packing with high-aspect-ratio CNTs, were effective for higher van der Waals interaction leading to higher tensile properties. Growth of millimeter-long highly spinnable CNT arrays and the material properties of tailored large-scale CNT structures, including unidirectionally aligned sheets and spun yarns, are described. http://www.mie.uth.gr/ekp_yliko/2_materials-charts-2009.pdf Basically, materials that exceed anything known today are already in the lab, and are merely seeking the money to build the tools necessary to make them on a larger scale. The most obvious use is aerospace. Lightweight blow down micro-engines, lightweight high pressure ZBO cryogenic tanks, lightweight airframes, lifting surfaces, thermal surfaces - all can be reinvented using what is known today. Those that bring these research results to fruition first, and do so reliably and cost effectively, will own the aerospace industry going forward - and challenge many other industries as well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 09:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8651622e-c69c-458f-b277-9a08a6938108@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57495 |
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 4:46:49 PM UTC+12, William Mook wrote: > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 4:16:04 AM UTC+12, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > > > Ok, I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole there. But even if these methods > > > could produce arbitrarily long nanotubes at 1/10th the maximum measured > > > nanotube strength, this would be a major change in materials science. > > > > > > Bob Clark > > > > Only in a few niche applications where weight and strength are competing > > parameters. > > > > For the vast majority of things there is no incentive to build them from > > nanotubes. > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize > > > 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital > > > launchers, to 'flying cars'. > > > This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: > > > > > > Nanotech: from air to space. > > > https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > wrote in message news:5qor8d-mk5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > > > > > > In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > > >> American Journal of Nanomaterials > > >> Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016, pp 39-43. doi: 10.12691/ajn-4-2-2 | Research Article > > >> From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to Production > > >> of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials. > > >> Robert Clark > > >> Department of Mathematics, Widener University, Chester, United States > > >> http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajn/4/2/2/index.html > > >> > > >> Next stop: the space elevator. > > > > > > Nope, the next stop would be ANYTHING practical. > > > > > >> Bob Clark > > >> > > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize > > >> 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital > > >> launchers, to 'flying cars'. > > > > > > The lack of flying cars has never been a materials problem. There have > > > been lots of flying cars built. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Jim Pennino > > http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9781455778638 > > Nanotube Superfiber Materials > Changing Engineering Design > Edited by:Mark J. Schulz, Vesselin N. Shanov and Zhangzhang Yin > ISBN: 978-1-4557-7863-8 > > Here's a 2013 book on the subject. Please review > > Chapter 14 – Direct Dry Spinning of Millimeter-long Carbon Nanotube Arrays for Aligned Sheet and Yarn > > Yoku Inoue > > Ultralong multiwalled carbon nanotube arrays (forests) were grown by chloride-mediated chemical vapor deposition, in which iron chloride was used as a catalyst precursor. Highly spinnable millimeter-long arrays were grown with a very rapid growth rate of 100 μm/min. By stacking long-lasting carbon nanotube (CNT) webs, unidirectionally aligned CNT sheets were fabricated. The sheet was highly anisotropic in electrical and thermal properties and due to high alignment of the CNTs in the sheets. CNT yarns were fabricated using the millimeter-long CNTs and a detailed analysis of various postspin processes, including postspin twisting and multiply twisting, and their effect on CNT yarns were studied. Mechanical properties clearly depended on the dimensions of CNTs, where thinner and longer CNTs led to strong and stiff yarns. Large contacting surface areas in the yarns, brought by closer packing with high-aspect-ratio CNTs, were effective for higher van der Waals interaction leading to higher tensile properties. Growth of millimeter-long highly spinnable CNT arrays and the material properties of tailored large-scale CNT structures, including unidirectionally aligned sheets and spun yarns, are described. > > http://www.mie.uth.gr/ekp_yliko/2_materials-charts-2009.pdf > > Basically, materials that exceed anything known today are already in the lab, and are merely seeking the money to build the tools necessary to make them on a larger scale. The most obvious use is aerospace. Lightweight blow down micro-engines, lightweight high pressure ZBO cryogenic tanks, lightweight airframes, lifting surfaces, thermal surfaces - all can be reinvented using what is known today. > > Those that bring these research results to fruition first, and do so reliably and cost effectively, will own the aerospace industry going forward - and challenge many other industries as well. If you notice the authors, they are Russian, Chinese and Japanese. This suggests where the innovations will be coming from in the years ahead. China is already pulling ahead in creating significant off-world infrastructure, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/china-pioneers-secure-wireless-worldwide-broadband-william-mook And I had an opportunity to give a talk in Beijing a few years back; https://vimeo.com/52213948 China's interest in such projects shows they're looking seriously at a replacement for the US dominated petro-dollar in a post-oil world (whether they use my approach or others, or many together) Here's another post-oil solution - largely ignored in the West; nuclear energy; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNA-j4klKJo Their approach has garnered a lot of orders - which gives strength to the BRICS nations monetary system. http://russia-insider.com/en/business/russia-has-orders-construct-300-bn-worth-nuclear-power-plants/ri10029 Chernobyl has had one beneficial effect, it has made the Russian power industry very flexible and customer oriented. As a result, they have come to do something the US power industry never could, they're selling tremendous amounts of power throughout the world at very affordable prices. They also are very approachable. Anyone with a few dollars can do high quality research on low energy fusion and a host of other topics that are FORBIDDEN to do in the USA by a wide range of atomic secrets acts that are still in force, but not in force in post-Soviet Russia. I mean, for $100,000 I can fund a significant study into the Jetter Cycle in Russia involving real experiments, while in the USA a physics professor won't even publish a private paper for that amount because it violates the prohibition to publish REAL (instead of fake estimated) cross section data for Lithium-6 and Deuterium - WHICH ARE STILL SECRET IN THE USA (and were secret in USSR before its collapse). What goes for nuclear power goes for rocketry as well. Anyone can come along and sign a deal with the Russians for rocket and space technology; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h2HbczuBbw and the two agencies together, working to develop nuclear rockets - COMMERCIALLY http://www.techinsider.io/russia-developing-nuclear-power-engine-2016-1 Again, this relates to the fusion research I'm funding. Cockcraft-Walton generators were first invented in 1932 and are used today in the petroleum industry as neutron generators for sample characterisation. MEMS technologies that put powerful accelerators on a chip improve the efficiency of these things. An improved version would be a steady market! But, in a UCLA team headed by chemistry professor James K. Gimzewski and physics professor Seth Putterman used a tungsten probe attached to a pyroelectric crystal to increase the electric field strength in a pyroelectric fusion generator of the Cockcraft-Walton type and produced massive increases in fusion rate. They demonstrated a pyroelectric power source that produced fusion on a laboratory bench top device. The device used a lithium tantalate (LiTaO3) pyroelectric crystal to ionize deuterium atoms and to accelerate the deuterons towards a stationary erbium dideuteride (ErD2) target. D+D fusion reactions took place, each resulting in the production of an 820 keV helium-3 nucleus and a 2.45 MeV neutron. The team anticipates applications of the device as a neutron generator and microthrusters for space propulsion. Obviously the next step is to build arrays of the device across a wafer surface using Jetter cycle fusion which should be vastly more efficient! If done properly, these can become more than microthrusters! These could do major thrust - without the need of a heavy gamma shield. The neutron flux is absorbed by Lithium-6 or another fissile material, and produces significant heat. High temperature lithium-ceramic materials are being looked at as electrolytes for improved batteries that are 3.3x the power density of todays Li-Polymer batteries; http://electronics360.globalspec.com/article/5748/rugged-ceramic-batteries-deliver-3x-leap-in-capacity-operate-at-120-c-and-beyond Variations of this ceramic material made from Li-6 isotope or other sub-critical fissile materials make dandy heating elements for a nuclear thermal rocket that produces no net neutrons only alpha particles and heat! More advanced versions produce alpha particles exclusively, directed by the externally applied electric fields that created them, in a large array across the propulsive surface of a vehicle! Even more sophisticated, is using the alpha particle stream to ionise and direct massive quantities of air surrounding a vehicle multiplying thrust for the given power. A more direct version of this; http://news.mit.edu/2013/ionic-thrusters-0403 At 110 Newtons per watt - Now, NHTSA says the average car weighs about 1,500 kg. Which means it would take 133 kW to maintain the average car in hover (not counting ground effect). Now the alpha particles come off the surface at at 5.47% light speed. Each gram of material releases 135 gigajoules of energy. So, 1 microgram per second - or 31.6 grams per YEAR is sufficient to maintain an automobile sized vehicle in constant hover! http://bit.ly/2bRLwNO http://bit.ly/2bCSnu3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns6MizLHyRk Spread over the thrust surface, this is only a few mm thick. Every year or two you'd have to replace the covering, like your grand-dad had to buy new tires for his ancient velocipede. Your home consists of a self leveling floor equipped with air curtain walls, and furnishings made with utility fog with fold-away appliances all powered by a compact fusion plant, and capable of travelling to any living site on demand. Pack all your things away in this 2 foot thick, 56 ft diameter platform, and get in your fusion powered flying car, and off you go, to any location you desire. All waste is processed on board with a range of algae grown under controlled conditions within the home that are automatically processed into nutrients to feed automated cell cultures that are continuously harvested and assembled with 3D food printers in any food clothing or furniture item you desire. By mid 21st century there will be 9 billion people. What sort of geopolitical power would China or Russia have if they could build two billion homes and four billion flying cars in a relatively short period of time? What sort of economic power would they have if they could offer credit to buy these things? Parts to service them? Communications to connect them? Train them? Telerobotics to collect their labour? With an exhaust velocity of 1647 km/sec a ship containing 0.55% inert propellant, easily attains orbit. Once in space, the ship then boosts at 1/10th gee using 16,470 km/sec exhaust - to any point in the solar system, and use very little propellant, maintaining the same power level. The ship transitions freely from ionic air drive, to inert propellant drive, to direct alpha particle drive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 08:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nprjom$5dm$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de> |
| In reply to | #57430 |
Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> schrieb: > From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to Production > of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials. I've been involved in CNT application development a little bit myself. Let's just say it is _very_ difficult to get from theoretical properties to practical performance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 19:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3730bb33-21ab-4289-baa2-3bf203aa4b64@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57557 |
On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 8:42:00 PM UTC+12, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> schrieb:
>
> > From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to Production
> > of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials.
>
> I've been involved in CNT application development a little bit myself.
>
> Let's just say it is _very_ difficult to get from theoretical properties
> to practical performance.
That's not what's reported here;
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review12/st105_mao_2012_p.pdf
And with the techniques reported here;
http://www.aerospaceamerica.org/Documents/AerospaceAmerica-PDFs-2013/November-2013/EngineeringNotebook_AANov2013.pdf
It seems near-term development to consider that a 2.5% to 3.5% structure fraction is possible of Zero Boil Off LH2 and LOX tanks (and even lower fractions for LOX/LNG tanks!) that operate at 3,000 psi (204 bar) and above! This means that very low mass high performance systems are possible.
High pressure lightweight tanks, when combined with arrays of microscopic bipropellant pressure fed rockets, with a 2,000 psi combustion chamber pressure and a 150 psi nozzle exit pressure produced at less than $15 per square inch (10 pounds force (4.5 kgf) per dollar!) with a 1,000 to 1 thrust to weight!
http://cap.ee.ic.ac.uk/~pdm97/powermems/2005/pdfs/153_Epstein.pdf
http://www.las.inpe.br/~jrsenna/AerospaceMEMS/Propulsao/S&Aav2997p1-7.pdf
http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/ARI/ARI%20Study%20Report/ACT-RPT-PRO-ARI-06-3101-Advanced-Injectors-for-Chemical-Rockets-Southampton.pdf
http://thirdworld.nl/a-high-pressure-bipropellant-micro-rocket-engine
Vendors for tanks;
http://smad.com
And engines (made of refractory metals);
http://www.microfabrica.com
have quoted quite reasonable performance costs going forward.
Other vendors, have quoted industrial scale hydrogen and oxygen production for producing fuel on demand;
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/46676.pdf
500 kg per astronaut, and 8 astronauts (with 4 crew members) twelve in all, total 6,000 kg of payload to the surface of the moon, with sufficient propellant to return directly to Earth after four days.
To project this payload to the moon directly requires a delta vee from Earth's surface of 12 km/sec. With eight elements - of 13,500 kg each we have;
Structure: 472.5 kg
Propellant: 13,027.5 kg
Hydrogen: 2,004.2
Oxygen: 11,023.3
In more detail;
Each of the eight elements are;
13,500.0 kg - element total
472.5 kg - structure
13,027.5 kg - propellant
2,004.2 kg - LH2
11,023.3 kg - LOX
Payload is;
6,000.0 kg - payload
Carrying a dozen people (8 passengers and 4 crew)
At take off;
114,000.0 kg take off weight
52,110.0 kg propellant S1
0.45711 u - S1
2.57 km/sec dV - S1
2.57 km/sec total dV - S1
This burns through four of the eight tanks, and drops them off downrange. They re-enter the atmosphere and slow to subsonic speed. They deploy inflatable wings and control surfaces, and are recovered by aircraft loitering downrange. A tow line is dropped from the nose of each element, and a tow plane snags it, and drags the element, now glider, back to the launch center. The engine re-ignites, and each element executes a nose up maneuver and lands on its tail, similar to the way tail sitter operated in the 1950s.
Meanwhile four other elements continue skyward, burning propellant from two outboard tanks pushing two inline tanks and the payload to higher speeds
60,000.0 kg - total S2
26,055.0 kg - propellant S2
0.43425 u - S2
2.56 km/sec dV - S2
5.13 km/sec total dV - S2
Those two elements drop off when empty, and the two inline tanks and payload continue to accelerate, burning the propellant in the seventh element at the base of the eighth element. The two spent elements are recovered even further down-range from the first four - using aircraft loitering at that location.
33,000.0 kg - total S3
13,027.5 kg - propellant S3
0.39477 u - S3
2.26 km/sec dV - S3
7.39 km/sec total dV - S3
The seventh element, separates from the eight element atop it, and skips around the world, gliding back to the launch center for recovery by vertical landing. The eighth element pushes itself and the payload to the moon, along a Free Return trajectory and is recovered 7 days after launch. The payload lands directly on the lunar surface, and returns to Earth, landing at the launch centre 11 days after launch.
19,500.0 kg total S4
13,027.5 kg - propellant S4
0.66808 u - S4
4.96 km/sec dV - S4
12.35 km/sec total dV - S4
The 6,000 kg payload consists of a single stage that slows to zero speed at the lunar surface by imparting 2.3 km/sec to the direct ascent stage. It then fires again imparting another 2.3 km/sec to the stage, returning it to Earth along a minimum energy trajectory in 3.5 days, after spending 4 days on the lunar surface.
3,841.3 kg - propellant
3,250.3 kg - LOX
591.0 kg - LH2
134.4 kg - structure
2,024.3 kg - payload
(168.7 kg (371.1 lbs) per astronaut)
There are nine systems, that cost $5 million each. A total of $45 million. The launch and support infrastructure costs another $55 million. Spares and test articles, along with the development programme, $25 million. This permits the conversion of 149,621.4 litres of water into 16,624.6 kg of LH2 and 132,997.8 kg of LOX. Of this total 91,435.3 kg is placed in zero boil off high pressure containers, and 41,561.5 kg is sold for $0.15 per kg. The cost of the hydrogen is $16,624.60 and the earnings from the LOX sales is $6,234.22 so the net propellant cost is $10,390.38 to fill up the ship. With a six year life span, and 300 uses the $125 million capital cost for the entire system is $523,938.94 per flight when discounted at 8.5% per annum over six years- with 52 flights per year. A total cost of $534,329.32 per launch. This is $66,791.16 per passenger per launch. Adding $10,000 per flight for the crew per passenger, this is $20,000 per crew member per flight, payday. Far more than NASA paid Neil to go to the moon.
NASA suits currently cost $12 million each and $2 million each time they're flown. The Orlan MK suit costs $3 million new, and only $400,000 each time they're flown. MIT's biosuit approach promises to reduce costs to $100,000 and cost per use to $10,000.
http://news.mit.edu/2014/second-skin-spacesuits-0918
It seems reasonable that $25 million can be earned as profits for each lunar traveller. That's $200 million per launch. Since the launcher described above can place 12,500 kg (27,500 lbs) into GTO, and since United Launch Alliance Atlas V 541 costs US$ 27,063 per kg to GTO - this is a reasonable alternative use of the vehicle. At $200 million per launch, and with 12,500 kg into GTO - this is a considerable savings over the Atlas V 541.
92 space launches per year currently;
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/01/04/2014s-launch-tally-highest-in-two-decades/
Capturing 52 commercial launches at $200 million profit, and 52 lunar launches (using the safety reliability, and high profile nature of manned lunar flight to sell launch services) - provides 104 launches times $0.2 billion - $20.8 billion per year. Which is more than NASA's 2016 budget of $19.3 billion per year.
Not a bad return for a $125 million investment!
The first thing we do with the revenue is we place 722 satellites of 900 kg each using 61 launches, over the course of a year to create a global wireless hotspot! Each satellite has an inflatable phased array radio telescope antenna pointed to earth, and an inflatable solar concentrator providing 50 kW of power, in combination with half a dozen open optical laser communicators, that provide 250 Terabit/sec communications backbone, and a petabyte of data storage - along with an 8k image of Earth life - all while providing a world wide unregulated V-band discoverable as NFC device on every handset, laptop, tablet computer on the planet - providing 70 MBit/sec uplink/downlink - and instant global connectivity of everyone everywhere.
This system that costs less than $1.4 billion allows capture of $1.4 trillion per year from 6 billion wireless users world wide.
The next thing we do with this revenue is create a solar power satellite. 275 MW system is appropriate for this launcher. This is a 605 meter diameter thin film electrostatically stabilised concentrator that intercepts 393 MW of solar energy at GEO.
Humanity uses 22,668 TWh of electricity world wide per year and pays $2,493.48 billion per year for it. Each 275 MW satellite generates 2.41 TWh per year. That's 9,406 launches.
At $10,000 per kg each satellite costs $125 million. With a 30 year life span at 8.5% discount rate it costs $11.63 million per year to produce 2.41 billion kWh. The cost is 48/100th cent per kWh. At $0.11 per kWh, the earnings are $265.17 million per year! A quarter billion per satellite.
Well worth the launch!
One launch every 8 hours means that 9 years is required to make all the launches. Populating GEO with 9,406 satellites means that each 605 meter diameter satellite is separated from its neighbours by 28.17 km centre to centre. The laser emitter is 10 meters in diameter and operating at 1,100 nm can focus on to a 4.4 m diameter spot on the Earth's surface using active holographic techniques using conjugate optics.
Telecom income: $1.4 trillion/year
Electricity sales: $2.5 trillion/year
Total sales: $3.6 trillion/year
This is 180x the expenditure of NASA - nearly the entire expenditure of the USG! It is sufficient to support a sovereign style debt in a collateralised central style bank!
At current discount rates for sovereign debt, $3.6 trillion per year supports $100 trillion in sustainable debt. Used as 'hot money' in a fractional reserve system - at the same leverage as the US Federal Reserve - this supports $8 quadrillion in additional borrowings.
In short, we can match the US dollar leveraged against OPEC sales. So, this is of special interest, if we wish to invest in off-world infrastructure, for example, the production of photonic thrusters, interplanetary power networks, and hyperloops.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-18 09:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.32486513e980683a989811@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #57963 |
In article <3730bb33-21ab-4289-baa2-3bf203aa4b64@googlegroups.com>, mokmedical@gmail.com says... > > On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 8:42:00 PM UTC+12, Thomas Koenig wrote: > > Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> schrieb: > > > > > From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to Production > > > of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials. > > > > I've been involved in CNT application development a little bit myself. > > > > Let's just say it is _very_ difficult to get from theoretical properties > > to practical performance. > > That's not what's reported here; > > https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review12/st105_mao_2012_p.pdf > > And with the techniques reported here; > > http://www.aerospaceamerica.org/Documents/AerospaceAmerica-PDFs-2013/November-2013/EngineeringNotebook_AANov2013.pdf It's just like you Mook to dismiss someone with actual experience in the field in favor of glowing research papers and reports in the media which contain clear bias. Of course the researchers have nothing but positive things to say in order to maintain their funding. A skeptical *engineer* takes research results with a huge grain of salt. Scaling up lab experiments to something operational in the real world is quite often difficult, expensive, and time consuming. Yet you seem to think everything is possible today with a sweeping wave of generalities. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.space.policy
csiph-web