Thunder Horse

This idea of Mining The Sky for its mineral wealth has its counterpart here on the ground, or at sea.  Just to show that big projects funded by private funding is definitely possible, witness the Thunder Horse PDQ drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico.  Construction costs came in at 5 billion dollars.

I think it is worth noting that "tethers" are used in construction all the time.  Most folks just don't see them that way, but the principle is the same.  For example, the cables in a suspension bridge perform the same function as they would in outer space.  They join pieces of the bridge together in order for it to function as a single unit.    As for the Thunder Horse Platform, it is likely that it uses cables to secure it to the floor of the Gulf of Mexico.  It is a lot simpler and cheaper than building a huge structure that would tower above the floor of the ocean.

The trick would be in how to employ these techniques in outer space.

By the way, while reading Zubrin's novel, First Landing, I noted that in the story, there was this part about precious minerals on Mars.  I can't confirm this, but it would be a commercial incentive to go to Mars, provided that they exist there.  It is probably too expensive for private enterprise to launch rockets and such, but if some infrastructure could be put up there, it may become a reality some day.

Methanol synthesized from solar power from space powers hydrogen fuel cells

I came across this pdf file in 2005 or so, when I was looking for information about energy production. This concept uses carbon dioxide from a fossil fuel plant and a nuclear power plant to synthesize methanol. It hydrolyzes sea water and then combines the carbon dioxide with hydrogen to produce the methanol.





The two types of energy production, fossil and nuclear work together in order to produce energy and recycle the by products of combustion, carbon dioxide.





Looks like a simple reaction, as explained below:

What does this have to do with space?  Well, rather than use nuke plants, set up a space station that generates solar energy and beam it down to Earth.  The energy supplied from the solar plant can hydrolyze the water and create steam just as the nuke plant does.


 Then recycle the carbon dioxide from the hydrolyzing of methanol at the distribution point for hydrogen.  The hydrogen can be used in fuel cells.  The hydrolyzing of methanol allows methanol to become a convenient way of transporting hydrogen for use in fuel cells.  The process can be used to collect carbon dixode as well as hydrogen.  The hydrogen gets used in the fuel cell, the carbon dioxide goes back to be recycled back into methanol, as indicated above.  This will close the loop and make the process carbon neutral.

Talking football with the professor

Sometimes it is hard to tell what someone with a thick accent is saying.

Lunar Space Elevator

I will be studying this concept today.  There's a pdf file that I managed to download from this source.  I got the idea from van Pelt's book, which I wrote about previously.  Van Pelt mentioned Jerome Pearson, who is the one who collaborated in the study that I will be reading today.

The thing that got me interested is the Deep Space Station that I've been writing about- which could be used to deploy the cable that would extend from the station down to the lunar surface.  Once the elevator is operational, matter can be gathered from the lunar surface and aggregated to the anchor point in space (through EML-1) where the station can disengage the newly completed elevator, and install another one elsewhere- perhaps on Mars.

I'll check back in when I finish reading the file.

Update:

Mon., Dec. 27th, 10:00 am approx.

Well, I've finished reading the pdf.  Here's a key extract I obtained from the doc.

The DIRECT concept currently in the works would eliminate the need for ion rockets, I would think.  The tanks could fire themselves up to L1 and be joined together to form the counterweight for the lunar space elevator.  So, my idea concurs with this report, if I am not mistaken.

Update 2: Tue., Dec.28, 2010:

Here's a good idea from that pdf:  collect space junk and use it for mass for the lunar space elevator.  The lunar space elevator needs mass and it would be cheaper to get it from space than launching it from Earth or the Moon.  It can serve the dual purpose of cleaning up all the space junk which is a hazard in itself and converting that hazard into a resource.

Another idea for mass is mine.  By surrounding the ET with aluminum covered with shuttle tiles, the ET can become a fuel depot as well as a mass anchor for a lunar space elevator.  A fully loaded ET can weigh over a million pounds.

If you were to keep all six ET's I proposed together at EML-1, that would be plenty of mass.

Another idea occurred to me: after putting the shuttle tiles down, you could put thin film photovoltaic cells on top of it.  That stuff comes in sheets.  Since it is lightweight and comes in sheets, it should be easy to do this.  You could think of the box surrounding the ET as cold box that keeps stuff very cold inside, but also as a scaffold for solar power that can power the entire station and then some.  These ideas combined together can be said to be synergistic.

Update 3: Tue., Dec. 28, 2010, 7 am. approx.

Looks like there needs to be a lot of mass lifted into space for the counterweight.  Here's the key passage for this from the pdf.  Launch costs of 24 billion.  I wonder: could this be merged with the Moonbase expenditures in order to consolidate costs?  There's overlap in the two propositions, that's why I pose the question.

Chris Laird's newsletter

Here's what Chris writes about in his last newsletter.  Go to my product pages and click on his link if you want to subscribe.

Newsletter - Edition 247 - 26 December 2010

By Christopher Laird

China Raises
Time wise on market crash
Savings, investments or what?
Markets for the next two months
Japan and the US Central banks – world CB


Comments:

There may be higher interest rates ahead everywhere.  I agree.  Bonds can't rally much further without going into negative interest rates.  Won't happen.

As for a market crash, I don't know what's holding it up.  You could say QE but several months went by without a major selloff and no QE.

He talks about some people he knows who may ride the market down.  They are depending on investment advisers.  In my opinion, any advice you get depends is subject to the knowledge and ability of the advisor. You may want to double check track records.

He's pretty concerned about a market crash.  He appears to be in the deflation camp.  I'm not.

The reason I am not is, if that happened, the government can't pay its bills and will default.  They would rather inflate than to see that happen.  Just my opinion.   I think a 70's stagflation scenario is more likely.  How long that will go on will depend upon developments.  If a real live wealth creation event occurs, this will save everybody's bacon.  There are many possibilities, but there is also the possibility that nothing may come of anything.  If that happens, I may need to reevaluate.

First Landing

Late yesterday, I downloaded a copy to my Kindle of First Landing by Robert Zubrin.  By the way, one thing about these Kindles, they are instant gratification for books.  If you feel you've got to have a book right now, by golly, you can have it right now with this gizmo.  I bought this one back in 2008 with the tax rebate as stimulus. Those stimulus checks were supposed to prevent a recession, but they failed, didn't they?  But I digress.
I managed to read about a third of this book and may finish it in the next few days.  Initial impressions are positive.  It is the first of his books that I have read and I like his writing.  It is a work of fiction.  Not everything he does is fiction, I understand.  Those familiar with his work don't need to be told that.  I will not try to belabor the obvious.

It got me to thinking a bit about Mars.  The idea occurred to me that with an atmosphere, you may be able to fly from one play to another like we do on Earth.  It would be a bit different, of course.  Flying craft on Mars will need to carry oxygen, which isn't necessary for flying craft on Earth.  But with all the carbon dioxide, there will be plenty of oxygen that can be separated from the carbon, and that can make both the fuel and the oxidizer.

You could move ice from the polar regions to the equatorial regions with aircraft.  You wouldn't have to consume the water, just the carbon dioxide.  The combustion would return it to the Martian atmosphere.  Net zero carbon footprint on Mars.  How 'bout that?

If people went to Mars, wouldn't it be a good idea to set up an airstrip?  That would depend upon the ability to make the aircraft that could fly on Mars.  Something to think about anyway.

For what it is worth, even though I don't believe in man made global warming, I could see something to agree with those who do.  For example, you could do something in space, such as make solar power and beam it back to Earth.  This shouldn't go into the grid, though.  It should go into making methanol.  I will explain this idea in a future post.

You have to have a way to get to Mars, or for that matter, to space.  But what else have I been writing about?


Update:

Sun. 12/26/10

Just finished the book.  Zubrin has a synopsis of Mars Direct, his vision of a manned exploration of Mars.  Evidently a trip to Mars was not as cheap nor easy as was envisioned.

Someone has to get the blame.  I'm no fan of Obama, but I think the Bush administration blew it.  The new Ares launcher system was encountering cost overruns.  This wasn't necessary.  The mission could have been accomplished with essentially the same hardware as the Shuttle program was using.  That approach, which is the one now being pursued, would have had the best chance of staying within budget.

Now Zubrin proposes in this book that "living off the land" and a big new launcher was needed, like the one in the same class as the Saturn rocket that went to the Moon.  Zubrin had it about half right.  Most likely, the new launchers is where it all went wrong, since the Constellation program required two of these.
   
Time has been lost, and yet more time can be lost if the dissatisfaction that exists with the new DIRECT shuttle derived launch system derails the new approach.  Will this indecision and confusion be resolved and a definite course be decided upon that will survive multiple administrations and budget crunches?  The space program seems to suffer with each new change of political control.  If that's where we are headed again, then more trouble may lie ahead.

Everydayadventuring.com

Here's a video from a YouTube friend.  I've posted one of their videos before.  Their videos aren't super popular, but they are interesting.  More popular than this website, though.  But I am working on it.