You know, space is a pretty interesting topic. I think I will stay on that
topic, but not be a totally exclusive topic on this blog. I'm interested in
other topics to be sure, but I think I will always return to this subject
because I think it is important.
Having said that, I will move on a bit and discuss something else that has
caught my attention from time to time. And, yes, it can bear upon the subject
of space. This would be the subject of quantum computers. But even more than
that, the subject of quantum mechanics.
Let me start with the disclaimer that I am not at all well versed in the subject.
Not on quantum mechanics in general, nor in quantum computers in particular.
Another thing about this blog. People may scoff at what I write because I am not
an expert. And that is ok. I'm not an expert, nor do I want to pretend to be.
Just an casual observer with my own twist to a subject. You can take it as
you please.
While I was reading about quantum mechanics this morning, an idea came to me that
just blew my mind. What idea is that? The ability to communicate at great
distances using the concept of entanglement. I know that there are those who
say it can't be done. Just asking the question, "what if it could?".
What I read was this, you can't transmit information that way because it violates
relativity. But I thought, not necessarily. Let's look at how we all communicate
using the internet. In order to send a message from one side of the world to the
other, we use the electromagnetic spectrum. You don't attach a message to an
electron and send it across the world. You merely manipulate the electromagnetic
spectrum in predictable ways. By doing so, you can encode messages this way,
and decode them at the receiving end. Nothing gets sent, only a representation
of it by a preestablished set of rules all established in advance.
Couldn't you do the same with the concept of entanglement? According to what I
read, that answer is no. But being a bit stubborn, I continued thinking about it.
I came across these experiments with teleportation. Supposedly this has been done.
That is, the teleportation of quantum states, if I am not mistaken. Also, if this
is true, then you should be able to construct a communication device. It wouldn't
violate relativity, it would just manipulate the states in predictable ways as
in the example I gave above.
If teleportation of quantum states is real, then you know how to get a quantum
state from one location to another. According to what I read, this can only be
done for short distances. But what if it could be done at great distances? There
is one estimate that this entanglement can take place at 10,000 times the speed
of light. Now, I don't know if I got that right, nor do I know if that is true
or not. I can't evaluate it one way or another. But if it is true, then could
you have the basis for a communication device that can be used to communicate
in interplanetary distances and maybe even interstellar distances?
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Hey, Big Spenders
When it comes to politics these days, I am reminded of a line from Cool Hand Luke:
"What we have here is failure to communicate." Evidently, the political class no
longer thinks they have to listen to the public. Take the recently passed health
Care Law poll which shows that the public doesn't want and hasn't wanted this all
along. But they pass it anyway. Obviously it didn't improve public confidence in
the Direction of Country which shows most of the public still thinks we are on the
wrong track. I am reminded of the aftermath of the 911 attacks. After this debacle
of national security, it came to light that the government knew enough to stop the
attack, but failed to connect the dots. The government failed to listen to itself
then and it seems an awful lot like the politicians aren't connecting the dots
now when they don't listen to the people. Again, from USA Today, the latest
polls say "From right and left, differing views of the government's proper role".
Why aren't the politicians connecting the dots? Could it be that they are getting
bad advice? One influential voice in the left's camp is Paul Krugman. In a most
recent editorial "Hey, Small Spender", Krugman repeats his oft stated opinion that
the government isn't spending enough money. Let's take a look at that with respect
to the Space program, shall we? Do you know what the International Space Station
(ISS) cost to build? Our part of this program cost 100 billion dollars. Yet,
despite all this spending, they could have used parts from the Apollo program
and the Shuttle program to save billions of dollars and accomplished much more
than what has been accomplished to this date. Some of this can be found in the
book "Mining the Sky". That and more from that book. But what they have now is
no manned space program (the shuttle gets shut down very soon) and no heavy lift
capability. This even though the Apollo and Shuttle programs did both. As of
now, Uncle Sam has gotten very little from all that money.
"What we have here is failure to communicate." Evidently, the political class no
longer thinks they have to listen to the public. Take the recently passed health
Care Law poll which shows that the public doesn't want and hasn't wanted this all
along. But they pass it anyway. Obviously it didn't improve public confidence in
the Direction of Country which shows most of the public still thinks we are on the
wrong track. I am reminded of the aftermath of the 911 attacks. After this debacle
of national security, it came to light that the government knew enough to stop the
attack, but failed to connect the dots. The government failed to listen to itself
then and it seems an awful lot like the politicians aren't connecting the dots
now when they don't listen to the people. Again, from USA Today, the latest
polls say "From right and left, differing views of the government's proper role".
Why aren't the politicians connecting the dots? Could it be that they are getting
bad advice? One influential voice in the left's camp is Paul Krugman. In a most
recent editorial "Hey, Small Spender", Krugman repeats his oft stated opinion that
the government isn't spending enough money. Let's take a look at that with respect
to the Space program, shall we? Do you know what the International Space Station
(ISS) cost to build? Our part of this program cost 100 billion dollars. Yet,
despite all this spending, they could have used parts from the Apollo program
and the Shuttle program to save billions of dollars and accomplished much more
than what has been accomplished to this date. Some of this can be found in the
book "Mining the Sky". That and more from that book. But what they have now is
no manned space program (the shuttle gets shut down very soon) and no heavy lift
capability. This even though the Apollo and Shuttle programs did both. As of
now, Uncle Sam has gotten very little from all that money.
As for Krugman, another one of his articles- "Running Out of Planet to Exploit"-
repeats the claim that we are running out of natural resources. But the planet
isn't running out of resources as seen here: Ocean Floor Mining Equipment.
The ocean has hardly been explored. If it was up to the left, it will never be.
The problem isn't a lack of resources. The problem is that the left won't let us
have access to it. But what about space? In Mining the Sky, you can see that space
has virtually unlimited resources. But we can't access space either. Obama
cancelled the Constellation program. Bush cancelled the Shuttle program in favor
of the new Constellation program. Now we don't have either.
Where does Krugman believe all this money will get paid back? You can't get it from the Earth or from space. Or does Krugman believe that it doesn't matter if it ever gets paid back? You have to earn it before you are allowed to spend it. Can the government be put on a paying basis? Why does space exploration have to cost money? Can't it make money instead? Perhaps better questions are in order. Is politics more about ideological battles than getting results? Is the government "by and for the people" being perverted into a government by and for the political class? The US Debt Clock keeps ticking upward and upward while the US Manned Space Program is stranded on the ground. Uncle Sam can spend more to get back into space, but we were already there before and now NASA has to reinvent the wheel.
Sometimes you just feel like you are being scammed. Evidently some scientists think that way. Here's the story of a physicist who resigned over the Global Warming Scam. Who hasn't heard about Climategate? It seems that The Climatic Research Unit email controversy is a mild way of putting it. It seems like a whitewash. The truth is not being allowed to get out there. Debate is being suppressed. But then you just get back into the political wars. Politicians don't want the debate, but it's the debate that's really needed.
Politicians should stop serving themselves and serve the people instead. Allow debate.
You can't fix the problem if you don't know what it is. And you can't know what it
is until you start to communicate better. Throwing money at problems doesn't solve
any problems. An intelligent approach begins with better listening habits. You
just have to stop yelling at each other and start listening. The US is borrowing the Russian
space program to service the ISS. Perhaps they should borrow one of their ideas: glasnost.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Don't reinvent the wheel
Why does the government keep reinventing the wheel for
new spacecraft? Why not use what we already have?
I got this idea to put the Bussard device on a space
shuttle and use the shuttle to travel to trips in the
solar system. Perhaps even to bring back samples and
ores from the asteroids.
How would a working Bussard device help do this? Why
would you want to keep the external tank and reuse
the shuttle? The shuttle would be used for life
support, tranport of certain materials, and getting
a crew back home. The external tank could be used
to store large quantities of useful stuff like ores
and ore processing equipment. The Bussard device can
provide the power you need to get back and forth in
deep space and any other power you need to do useful
tasks.
The shuttle can keep the fuel tank on as opposed to
releasing it. This puts the fuel tank in orbit. This
is feasible. Nothing new needed to do this part. The
part that gives trouble is what to do with it when it
up there. This idea about using the external fuel tank
has already been debated.
The Bussard device might fit into the cargo bay. Attach
it to the external fuel tank, and you may have a craft
that can be sent into deep space and bring stuff back.
The cargo tank has more internal space than the space
station now in orbit. You can put a lot of stuff in
there.
How do you attach the Bussard device to the external
fuel tank? I am sure there is a way. According to
my conception of the thing, I would put it back away
from the crew and the shuttle. This would be on the
bottom of the tank while it is on the launch pad. You
wouldn't do it on the ground, but while it is in orbit.
The device would be attached to the bottom with the
shuttle also still attached.
Just keep the shuttle attached to the tank and use
the shuttle for life support in transit. There is
a lot of cargo space on the shuttle. You might fit
the Bussard device as well as a significant amount
of other stuff. Once you get home, land the
shuttle in the usual way. Keep the tank and Bussard
propulsion device in earth orbit.
Additional shuttle missions may be need to turn it into
a mining ship for the trips to mine asteroids. You can
put a lot of stuff in there to process the ore while at
the asteroid. Then you can store the processed stuff for
the trip home. You can put an awful lot of stuff in
there. The launch weight of the space shuttle is
mostly fuel which is inside the tank. The ore and
finished products can be stored in the massive tank.
Heavy metals would make the thing much heavier (while
in space) but while in space, it would be weightless
of course. Getting off an asteroid wouldn't take a
lot of power and the Bussard device would generate
plenty anyway.
The Bussard propulsion device could get all that material
back home. Then it would be a matter of getting it
on Earth. The shuttle could take some of it, or perhaps
all of the finished products. This would assume processing
of ore on the trip home.
On subsequent trips, just take along the additional
stuff you might need to make this work even better.
new spacecraft? Why not use what we already have?
I got this idea to put the Bussard device on a space
shuttle and use the shuttle to travel to trips in the
solar system. Perhaps even to bring back samples and
ores from the asteroids.
How would a working Bussard device help do this? Why
would you want to keep the external tank and reuse
the shuttle? The shuttle would be used for life
support, tranport of certain materials, and getting
a crew back home. The external tank could be used
to store large quantities of useful stuff like ores
and ore processing equipment. The Bussard device can
provide the power you need to get back and forth in
deep space and any other power you need to do useful
tasks.
The shuttle can keep the fuel tank on as opposed to
releasing it. This puts the fuel tank in orbit. This
is feasible. Nothing new needed to do this part. The
part that gives trouble is what to do with it when it
up there. This idea about using the external fuel tank
has already been debated.
The Bussard device might fit into the cargo bay. Attach
it to the external fuel tank, and you may have a craft
that can be sent into deep space and bring stuff back.
The cargo tank has more internal space than the space
station now in orbit. You can put a lot of stuff in
there.
How do you attach the Bussard device to the external
fuel tank? I am sure there is a way. According to
my conception of the thing, I would put it back away
from the crew and the shuttle. This would be on the
bottom of the tank while it is on the launch pad. You
wouldn't do it on the ground, but while it is in orbit.
The device would be attached to the bottom with the
shuttle also still attached.
Just keep the shuttle attached to the tank and use
the shuttle for life support in transit. There is
a lot of cargo space on the shuttle. You might fit
the Bussard device as well as a significant amount
of other stuff. Once you get home, land the
shuttle in the usual way. Keep the tank and Bussard
propulsion device in earth orbit.
Additional shuttle missions may be need to turn it into
a mining ship for the trips to mine asteroids. You can
put a lot of stuff in there to process the ore while at
the asteroid. Then you can store the processed stuff for
the trip home. You can put an awful lot of stuff in
there. The launch weight of the space shuttle is
mostly fuel which is inside the tank. The ore and
finished products can be stored in the massive tank.
Heavy metals would make the thing much heavier (while
in space) but while in space, it would be weightless
of course. Getting off an asteroid wouldn't take a
lot of power and the Bussard device would generate
plenty anyway.
The Bussard propulsion device could get all that material
back home. Then it would be a matter of getting it
on Earth. The shuttle could take some of it, or perhaps
all of the finished products. This would assume processing
of ore on the trip home.
On subsequent trips, just take along the additional
stuff you might need to make this work even better.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Is funding Bussard's Fusion Device like buying a lottery ticket?
This analogy may bother the community of people who support Dr.
Bussard's work. However, what I read on this subject indicates
that the work is by no means assured of success. Bussard believed
in it. He said that it will work. Yet the evidence is said
to be stronger for the Tokomak design than the evidence for the
polywell design. Looking at it on the basis of evidence, it is
understandable why policy makers want to fund ITER, and may not
be quite as eager to fund the Polywell device. If it came down
to competition for funds, it would seem that ITER wins.
But there's another way of looking at it. The polywell design
is nearer to prototype. The ITER project can't build its prototype for
many years. The choice is to spend a smaller amount of money now for
smaller probability of success vs. a larger sum for a higher
probability of success many years from now. That is the choice.
It's like buying a lottery ticket.
If polywell's prototype gets funded now, it may actually be cheaper
over the long run. If it is successful, then ITER is probably not
necessary. The funds for ITER can be diverted in developing Polywell.
The risk is that this smaller investment may not work out. But the
reward could be a big winner. In terms of funding, the risk is a
couple hundred million compared to billions potentially spent on the
ITER project. If you lose, you lose a couple hundred million. If you
win, you save billions. That's the risk v. reward angle.
The above analysis is only in terms of funding. Once you consider the
benefits of having the technology now as opposed to many years in the
future, the reward could be even greater. It has the value of time in
its favor.
Why the hurry? Why not wait and let the science work out the answer?
Why the "get rich quick" scheme? But one thing you cannot ignore is
the value of time. Everyone gets just so much time and that is it.
And having the benefit now is more gratifying than waiting for who
knows how long. Besides, there is no guarantee of what the future may
bring. Perhaps you will need it sooner rather than later. You just
can't ignore the time value of it. Time is limited just as money is.
If the government raised gasoline taxes by 1 cent a gallon and dedicated
the money to Bussard's lottery ticket, would it be worth it? I think
I would be happy to pay a penny a gallon just to see if the thing could
work. Sometimes you do win the lottery.
Running the numbers a bit. For 10,000 miles and assuming 25 mpg, the cost
would be 4 bucks. Multiply that by a couple hundred million drivers and
you've got a big enough stash to play. If it didn't work, it would still be
fun to try anyway, don't you think? A lottery ticket doesn't break the
bank.
Compare that to paying for cap and trade. The benefits to cap and trade
are hard to quantify. But the costs would be more than a penny a gallon.
If polywell works, it can accomplish everything that cap and trade claims
to do plus a whole lot more. It could reduce the cost of living because
energy would be cheaper. And that would amount to a lot more than the
penny a gallon cost.
Bussard's work. However, what I read on this subject indicates
that the work is by no means assured of success. Bussard believed
in it. He said that it will work. Yet the evidence is said
to be stronger for the Tokomak design than the evidence for the
polywell design. Looking at it on the basis of evidence, it is
understandable why policy makers want to fund ITER, and may not
be quite as eager to fund the Polywell device. If it came down
to competition for funds, it would seem that ITER wins.
But there's another way of looking at it. The polywell design
is nearer to prototype. The ITER project can't build its prototype for
many years. The choice is to spend a smaller amount of money now for
smaller probability of success vs. a larger sum for a higher
probability of success many years from now. That is the choice.
It's like buying a lottery ticket.
If polywell's prototype gets funded now, it may actually be cheaper
over the long run. If it is successful, then ITER is probably not
necessary. The funds for ITER can be diverted in developing Polywell.
The risk is that this smaller investment may not work out. But the
reward could be a big winner. In terms of funding, the risk is a
couple hundred million compared to billions potentially spent on the
ITER project. If you lose, you lose a couple hundred million. If you
win, you save billions. That's the risk v. reward angle.
The above analysis is only in terms of funding. Once you consider the
benefits of having the technology now as opposed to many years in the
future, the reward could be even greater. It has the value of time in
its favor.
Why the hurry? Why not wait and let the science work out the answer?
Why the "get rich quick" scheme? But one thing you cannot ignore is
the value of time. Everyone gets just so much time and that is it.
And having the benefit now is more gratifying than waiting for who
knows how long. Besides, there is no guarantee of what the future may
bring. Perhaps you will need it sooner rather than later. You just
can't ignore the time value of it. Time is limited just as money is.
If the government raised gasoline taxes by 1 cent a gallon and dedicated
the money to Bussard's lottery ticket, would it be worth it? I think
I would be happy to pay a penny a gallon just to see if the thing could
work. Sometimes you do win the lottery.
Running the numbers a bit. For 10,000 miles and assuming 25 mpg, the cost
would be 4 bucks. Multiply that by a couple hundred million drivers and
you've got a big enough stash to play. If it didn't work, it would still be
fun to try anyway, don't you think? A lottery ticket doesn't break the
bank.
Compare that to paying for cap and trade. The benefits to cap and trade
are hard to quantify. But the costs would be more than a penny a gallon.
If polywell works, it can accomplish everything that cap and trade claims
to do plus a whole lot more. It could reduce the cost of living because
energy would be cheaper. And that would amount to a lot more than the
penny a gallon cost.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Louisiana Purchase
From our history books, we learned how the USA effectively doubled its size through
the Louisiana Purchase. From the vantage point of history, the Louisiana Purchase
was a great bargain. Out of it arose a great nation that now leads the world.
Was the Louisiana Purchase a one time type event that can never happen again?
What if you could get a great bargain like this even today? What if you can obtain
a means by which the people could benefit from it in ways that are hard to even
imagine?
Louisiana in those times was the frontier. The new frontier these days is space.
It is being explored today as the Old West was being explored shortly after Columbus.
The Columbus analogy is perhaps not fitting. Columbus didn't know America was here,
he was just looking for a shortcut to China. But we knew that space has been there
all along. Our problem is accessing it.
Perhaps we need the modern day equivalent of the invention of the steam engine.
The steam engine enabled the Old West to be settled and developed. If all they
had was horses, the Old West might not have been settled at all. Or if it did get
settled, it would have taken much longer to do it.
What will be the modern day equivalent of the invention of the steam engine? What
will enable us to settle the new frontier of space? There are many ideas out there
and I have written about a few of them on this blog. The future is a tricky thing
though, hard to tell what might happen.
The future is a topic of great interest to me. Over the years, I have attempted
to predict the future of events- from the outcome of football games, elections, and
the financial markets. Naturally, I would love to get it right for once! If only.
I know a little about computers. Yet I didn't see the potential of investing in
Microsoft when it went public in 1986. Just a small investment in Microsoft then
could have made me a millionaire. Alas, I made no such investment and I am not
a millionaire. The same sad story repeats itself with the invention of the world
wide web.
You get older- maybe if you are lucky- you get a little wiser. Maybe my ability
to see the future is too weak. But if I am right about the Bussard Fusion device,
then it will lead to the next big thing. I'd like to be on the ground floor of
that development, wouldn't you?
It wouldn't take much to get this idea off the ground so to speak. In the era of
trillion dollar deficits, the cost of building a prototype fusion device is trivial.
I don't have the figure available, but it is around 200 million dollars. For an
individual or someone in the private sector, this is a lot of money. But to the
government, it is close to nothing.
So if the government refuses funding for this work, what's next? Will the private
sector step up to the plate? Or will it take a lot of individuals willing to join
together in a common purpose to bring this into reality? Either way, if you willing
to do just a little to help out, it could make the difference.
I guess the old 64k dollar question is this: what will it take?
the Louisiana Purchase. From the vantage point of history, the Louisiana Purchase
was a great bargain. Out of it arose a great nation that now leads the world.
Was the Louisiana Purchase a one time type event that can never happen again?
What if you could get a great bargain like this even today? What if you can obtain
a means by which the people could benefit from it in ways that are hard to even
imagine?
Louisiana in those times was the frontier. The new frontier these days is space.
It is being explored today as the Old West was being explored shortly after Columbus.
The Columbus analogy is perhaps not fitting. Columbus didn't know America was here,
he was just looking for a shortcut to China. But we knew that space has been there
all along. Our problem is accessing it.
Perhaps we need the modern day equivalent of the invention of the steam engine.
The steam engine enabled the Old West to be settled and developed. If all they
had was horses, the Old West might not have been settled at all. Or if it did get
settled, it would have taken much longer to do it.
What will be the modern day equivalent of the invention of the steam engine? What
will enable us to settle the new frontier of space? There are many ideas out there
and I have written about a few of them on this blog. The future is a tricky thing
though, hard to tell what might happen.
The future is a topic of great interest to me. Over the years, I have attempted
to predict the future of events- from the outcome of football games, elections, and
the financial markets. Naturally, I would love to get it right for once! If only.
I know a little about computers. Yet I didn't see the potential of investing in
Microsoft when it went public in 1986. Just a small investment in Microsoft then
could have made me a millionaire. Alas, I made no such investment and I am not
a millionaire. The same sad story repeats itself with the invention of the world
wide web.
You get older- maybe if you are lucky- you get a little wiser. Maybe my ability
to see the future is too weak. But if I am right about the Bussard Fusion device,
then it will lead to the next big thing. I'd like to be on the ground floor of
that development, wouldn't you?
It wouldn't take much to get this idea off the ground so to speak. In the era of
trillion dollar deficits, the cost of building a prototype fusion device is trivial.
I don't have the figure available, but it is around 200 million dollars. For an
individual or someone in the private sector, this is a lot of money. But to the
government, it is close to nothing.
So if the government refuses funding for this work, what's next? Will the private
sector step up to the plate? Or will it take a lot of individuals willing to join
together in a common purpose to bring this into reality? Either way, if you willing
to do just a little to help out, it could make the difference.
I guess the old 64k dollar question is this: what will it take?
Value
Value, an interesting word. According to Webster's it can be a noun: a fair return or equivalent in goods, services, or money for something exchanged. Or, it can be a verb: to rate or scale in usefulness, importance or general worth. I was thinking about the midterm elections coming up. In a couple of weeks America will determine whether or not we have received fair value for our vote for "change" two years ago. A lot of promises were made. A lot of new laws passed. A lot of money spent. If we use the verb variety of value to determine whether or not the "change" was a success, the 10% unemployment rate, the continuing wars in the Middle East, and the ever increasing slide in VALUE of the dollar would tell us caveat emptor was ignored in 2008. The grass roots movement known as The Tea Party is a manifestation of caveat emptor i.e , they think they were screwed by the "change".These people are madder than the people that forced the "change" in 2008. It will be interesting, to a political junkie like me, how long they stay mad and how successful they are in changing the "CHANGE"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)