Sorry you are correct. It doesn't change the fact though that there is no engineering factor that prevents the use of air cooling. Not that air cooling is particularly important unless you have no access to water. In which case then yeah use a gas system.
Thermal efficiency is lower on a nuclear reactor than other types of generation. But that is a totally biased way of measuring their efficiency because they naturally suck at it, but it is NOT relevant to the cost of the electricity produced.
Cost per MWh is a much fairer measure. And is a measure that can be applied to all types of power generation equally and easily. If I really wanted to pick a measure which favours nuclear I would say how much fuel per year does your plant use.
Yes I do. However as I said there is nothing unique to gas generation that allows you to air cooling it. All it is is steam is taken from the generator and put into a large water / air condenser system, then the water is fed back into the reservoir before going through the heater again. It is just a sealed water system and could be applied to any thermal generation system.
For example the Guangdong Zhongshan power station is an air cooled coal plant.
All it would take for that system to be applied to a nuclear plant is for the cooling system to be able to handle the thermal load generated. The Loviisa plant in Finland is air cooled, though it has redundant water cooling towers as part of its emergency systems. That plant was built in the 70s.
I could be very wrong, but I thought polar launches had a potential land landing site. As for the multiple landing points, I wouldn't initially try to recover something like the most recent launch. Not enough fuel left for control and it is at the maximum end of the range spectrum. Also who knows about the center stage, I was only thinking about the first stage.
As for the differences between ISS launch and LEO etc, how much difference is there between them at the point of stage 1 separation? (I genuinely don't know). But my guess was it wasn't that huge. Not relative to the available altitude and speed.
As I said I could be completely wrong though.
Also, why are you permanently manning them, or even having that much maintenance? There isn't any moving bits. The 650m is for a working oil platform, I was just thinking a concrete slab on legs.
There is nothing unique to gas systems being air cooled. Pebble bed reactors are also gas cooled. However because of nuclear fears they have not been developed to the degree she could have been. HTR-10, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., is an air cooled research reactor in China for example.
As for efficiency, how are you measuring it? Sure the % of heat produced converted to steam is higher in a gas plant but that isn't really a relevant way to compare the two designs. I would have gone with cost per Mwh which seems a reasonable comparison, in which case some gas systems and cheaper than nuclear and some are more expensive.
It will also have an effect on the water quality of the lagoon. Depending on the size of the lagoon I expect most water movement comes from the tidal movement of the sea. Remove that and you will have problems of it just getting nasty.
The reservoir is tidal as a result of being connected by the pipe to the ocean. In this case the tide must have been coming in for the moron to be pushed through the pipe. This reservoir could have been connected by an open channel, but for what ever reasons it was obviously decided a pipe was better.
And I know it's pedantic but he wasn't sucked into the pipe, he was pushed. The force was coming from behind him as the tide came in.
Rubbish. For a start there was no powerful intake. This was a pipe leading to a pond that as a result of being connected to the ocean was tidal. Exactly the same setup would exist for any other heat based power station.
I'm not talking about boosting back to the starting point. Also SES-9 had less fuel than the original mission spec because Space X punted the satellite out a lot further than the original plan, it would be a prime candidate to remain a barge landing or just a rocket you don't even try to catch. Ideally it would be the xth launch for that particular first stage where the rocket cost was already well and truly covered.
Also one has to assume that rockets will get more powerful as they develop meaning a wider scope of landing locations given fuel is the cheap part. Google tells me that a deepwater oil platform costs about $650m for one on 3000m legs. SpaceX claims $57m per launch. If it halved that you need 20 launches to recover the cost.
As for compensating for it, the rocket is a big narrow tube. Any kind of swell will make it likely to tip over post landing. It would be really really annoying to have landed the rocket, shut everything down and then have it top over because of the sea swell.
2) You will never be able to manufacture while moving at the same efficiency as you can in a large factory with established infrastructure lines. In fact if you are trying to manufacture while moving you would have been better off dedicating the spare and weight capacity to just carrying the finished product. You are infinitely better off with a huge stock pile and an efficient damage resistant logistics system
3) A piloted plane does not have the communication system point of failure that a remote controlled drone has. If all your aircraft can be either taken offline or severely degraded through targeting communication facilities they will be. For example, if a war happens between major powers and one side is using manned craft and one is using remote controlled craft how long before the long range cruise missiles hit every sat dish and tower they can find and how long before the anti sat missiles take out that communication network? Once that happens how will your drones perform against the manned craft?
Also I think you need to think about the F35 or any other plane in a different way. They are not combat vehicles, they are weapon platforms that operate in combat environments. Their role is to bring weapons into range of a target, & deliver those weapons. At one end of the demand spectrum something like the B52 is brilliant because it can carry a truly stupid amount of weapons. But you may as well be flying a giant neon sign saying shoot here. At the other end of the spectrum is the F22. It can get in get close and get out. What it can't do is carry lots and lots of weapons.
So "The existence of the F-35 was worth it and the militaries which have it are now clearly better off than they were because of.... low radar signature, interoperability with allies, large install base reducing part cost, high commonality between variants, relatively cheap even at early production levels (1/3rd cost of f22)
This isn't quite true. The EU regulations require the phones to be able to charge off a universal charger, in this case a USB slot. The wire that runs from the USB slot to the phone can be what ever you want. Otherwise Apple would have issues.
You know the stage does course corrections after separation right? The barge doesn't just happen to be sitting where the stage will land by default. I suspect that at the speed and altitude that separation occurs there is a significant arc the rocket can land in with marginal difference in fuel use. The fins alone will give significant steering capabilities.
Yes for some launches, such as this one, the amount of available fuel will be extremely limited and you may decide to use a barge in that instance because of the high likely hood of kabooming. But for the majority of launches there will be more than enough fuel to land on a platform if the platform is in the right general vicinity. Of could if it is a polar orbit then you aren't going to use that platform.
I still think, that the future holds a permanent landing pad structure built in the ocean. There are parts of the sea floor in the right area that a significantly shallower than some of the depths oil platforms operate at.
Whether this happens or not will be down to how re-usable the rockets are of course. But if they, for example, allow a 75% cost reduction, then the economics of building a platform for recovery are probably there.
I agree that the centre of Seoul is probably safe. But have a look at a place called Daehwa. It's a lot closed to the DMZ and is is still high density. Most artillery would hit it easily.
I'm sure that ammo would be a limiting factor, however I think it would be likely that a gun emplacement has 34 shells sitting next to it. That is all we are talking to achieve that 150,000 rounds fired due to the number of guns they have.
I really really really hope you are wrong. NK isn't free to nuke someone. if they nuke someone the rules are going to die along with a lot of other people. But it will be using conventional weapons.
If the US starts using long range or sub deployed nukes the risk of China panicking are too high. One missile wrongly identified as headed towards a Chinese population centre and we are all dead.
If thousands and thousands of US troops land in NK and Kim et all are executed no other country is going to think it's ok to nuke the US. There is no need to risk Armageddon to make that point.
But the corner that they are in is the corner the rulers want to be in. They can point at the big bad americans and live it up. Yeah the general population lives in hell but those in the ruling party live a very very comfortable life.
These people are not driven by a crazy religion or ideology. They are just leveraging the western threat to live the high life at the price of the peasants.
My figures were based on them having lost 75% of their capabilities due to a pre-emptive strike by the US or other forces. You can pretty much cross out any desertion / non-firing because of not wanting to attack people if they were subject to a first strike. You would of course have to add in runners but I felt that 75% out of action probably covered those.
It was in response to the previous posters comment of can't the US just bomb them. I also assumed a 100% silence rate at 30 minutes which is probably optimistic.
If it was a pre-emptive strike by NK, and they only use the 4500 currently in place you are looking at 153,000 shells in the first 30 minutes. Less if you assume some batteries are taken out but it would be more in the long term as there is no way all 4500 would be silenced in 30 minutes.
I wasn't claiming there was any reason NK would take this path. There isn't. I was referring to the conventional setup as a bigger threat than the nuclear.
No they wouldn't. Because even though there are plenty of gun toting crazies in the US you do not fire ICBMs anywhere near a nuclear power. NK shares a border with China. China would not sit still with missiles coming in or stand off bombers in bound.
Well the estimate is 4500 artillery aimed at seoul. Lets assume you manage to knock out 75% in a pre-emptive strike. That leaves 1125. If we make the assumption that they are the D-20 which are the predominate NK equipment they can fire 4-6 rounds in the first minute and then sustain 1 rpm. Assuming we identify them and destroy all of them in 30 minutes (not fucking likely) that means close to 40,000 shells have landed on Seoul in the first 30 minutes.
There are 10 million people living in Seoul. How many people would die if 40,000 bombs went off in a city of that population in 30 minutes?
Sorry I don't give NK military the level of credit you do. I doubt that they are particularly well trained or well equipped. They are also not combat tested to any degree.
Given it is a felony offence where people can be imprisoned they would raid the company for documents to show who would have the knowledge. There is no way there wouldn't be a paper trail.
They don't have the capability to invade South Korea. They haven't in a very very long time. If they tried to march south they would be massacred.
What they do have is an absolutely stupid number of artillery pieces pointed south and we know at least some of them work because they keep firing them. The US estimates that NK has 8600 artillery pieces of which 4500 are currently aimed at SK. Even if you assumed 50% were inoperable the amount of explosive that would rain on Seoul is insane.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry you are correct. It doesn't change the fact though that there is no engineering factor that prevents the use of air cooling. Not that air cooling is particularly important unless you have no access to water. In which case then yeah use a gas system.
Thermal efficiency is lower on a nuclear reactor than other types of generation. But that is a totally biased way of measuring their efficiency because they naturally suck at it, but it is NOT relevant to the cost of the electricity produced.
Cost per MWh is a much fairer measure. And is a measure that can be applied to all types of power generation equally and easily. If I really wanted to pick a measure which favours nuclear I would say how much fuel per year does your plant use.
Yes I do. However as I said there is nothing unique to gas generation that allows you to air cooling it. All it is is steam is taken from the generator and put into a large water / air condenser system, then the water is fed back into the reservoir before going through the heater again. It is just a sealed water system and could be applied to any thermal generation system.
For example the Guangdong Zhongshan power station is an air cooled coal plant.
All it would take for that system to be applied to a nuclear plant is for the cooling system to be able to handle the thermal load generated. The Loviisa plant in Finland is air cooled, though it has redundant water cooling towers as part of its emergency systems. That plant was built in the 70s.
I could be very wrong, but I thought polar launches had a potential land landing site. As for the multiple landing points, I wouldn't initially try to recover something like the most recent launch. Not enough fuel left for control and it is at the maximum end of the range spectrum. Also who knows about the center stage, I was only thinking about the first stage.
As for the differences between ISS launch and LEO etc, how much difference is there between them at the point of stage 1 separation? (I genuinely don't know). But my guess was it wasn't that huge. Not relative to the available altitude and speed.
As I said I could be completely wrong though.
Also, why are you permanently manning them, or even having that much maintenance? There isn't any moving bits. The 650m is for a working oil platform, I was just thinking a concrete slab on legs.
There is nothing unique to gas systems being air cooled. Pebble bed reactors are also gas cooled. However because of nuclear fears they have not been developed to the degree she could have been. HTR-10, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., is an air cooled research reactor in China for example.
As for efficiency, how are you measuring it? Sure the % of heat produced converted to steam is higher in a gas plant but that isn't really a relevant way to compare the two designs. I would have gone with cost per Mwh which seems a reasonable comparison, in which case some gas systems and cheaper than nuclear and some are more expensive.
It will also have an effect on the water quality of the lagoon. Depending on the size of the lagoon I expect most water movement comes from the tidal movement of the sea. Remove that and you will have problems of it just getting nasty.
The reservoir is tidal as a result of being connected by the pipe to the ocean. In this case the tide must have been coming in for the moron to be pushed through the pipe. This reservoir could have been connected by an open channel, but for what ever reasons it was obviously decided a pipe was better.
And I know it's pedantic but he wasn't sucked into the pipe, he was pushed. The force was coming from behind him as the tide came in.
Rubbish. For a start there was no powerful intake. This was a pipe leading to a pond that as a result of being connected to the ocean was tidal. Exactly the same setup would exist for any other heat based power station.
I'm not talking about boosting back to the starting point. Also SES-9 had less fuel than the original mission spec because Space X punted the satellite out a lot further than the original plan, it would be a prime candidate to remain a barge landing or just a rocket you don't even try to catch. Ideally it would be the xth launch for that particular first stage where the rocket cost was already well and truly covered.
Also one has to assume that rockets will get more powerful as they develop meaning a wider scope of landing locations given fuel is the cheap part. Google tells me that a deepwater oil platform costs about $650m for one on 3000m legs. SpaceX claims $57m per launch. If it halved that you need 20 launches to recover the cost.
As for compensating for it, the rocket is a big narrow tube. Any kind of swell will make it likely to tip over post landing. It would be really really annoying to have landed the rocket, shut everything down and then have it top over because of the sea swell.
2) You will never be able to manufacture while moving at the same efficiency as you can in a large factory with established infrastructure lines. In fact if you are trying to manufacture while moving you would have been better off dedicating the spare and weight capacity to just carrying the finished product. You are infinitely better off with a huge stock pile and an efficient damage resistant logistics system
3) A piloted plane does not have the communication system point of failure that a remote controlled drone has. If all your aircraft can be either taken offline or severely degraded through targeting communication facilities they will be. For example, if a war happens between major powers and one side is using manned craft and one is using remote controlled craft how long before the long range cruise missiles hit every sat dish and tower they can find and how long before the anti sat missiles take out that communication network? Once that happens how will your drones perform against the manned craft?
Also I think you need to think about the F35 or any other plane in a different way. They are not combat vehicles, they are weapon platforms that operate in combat environments. Their role is to bring weapons into range of a target, & deliver those weapons. At one end of the demand spectrum something like the B52 is brilliant because it can carry a truly stupid amount of weapons. But you may as well be flying a giant neon sign saying shoot here. At the other end of the spectrum is the F22. It can get in get close and get out. What it can't do is carry lots and lots of weapons.
So "The existence of the F-35 was worth it and the militaries which have it are now clearly better off than they were because of.... low radar signature, interoperability with allies, large install base reducing part cost, high commonality between variants, relatively cheap even at early production levels (1/3rd cost of f22)
This isn't quite true. The EU regulations require the phones to be able to charge off a universal charger, in this case a USB slot. The wire that runs from the USB slot to the phone can be what ever you want. Otherwise Apple would have issues.
You know the stage does course corrections after separation right? The barge doesn't just happen to be sitting where the stage will land by default. I suspect that at the speed and altitude that separation occurs there is a significant arc the rocket can land in with marginal difference in fuel use. The fins alone will give significant steering capabilities.
Yes for some launches, such as this one, the amount of available fuel will be extremely limited and you may decide to use a barge in that instance because of the high likely hood of kabooming. But for the majority of launches there will be more than enough fuel to land on a platform if the platform is in the right general vicinity. Of could if it is a polar orbit then you aren't going to use that platform.
I still think, that the future holds a permanent landing pad structure built in the ocean. There are parts of the sea floor in the right area that a significantly shallower than some of the depths oil platforms operate at.
Whether this happens or not will be down to how re-usable the rockets are of course. But if they, for example, allow a 75% cost reduction, then the economics of building a platform for recovery are probably there.
What's the definition of a workstation? Is there something special about them that I'm not aware of?
A workstation is a machine you do work on. In the case of the rift it needs to have decent graphics and no apple has decent graphics.
Ummm - http://www.dell.com/us/p/alien...
Don't think there is too much that wont play.....
I agree that the centre of Seoul is probably safe. But have a look at a place called Daehwa. It's a lot closed to the DMZ and is is still high density. Most artillery would hit it easily.
I'm sure that ammo would be a limiting factor, however I think it would be likely that a gun emplacement has 34 shells sitting next to it. That is all we are talking to achieve that 150,000 rounds fired due to the number of guns they have.
I really really really hope you are wrong. NK isn't free to nuke someone. if they nuke someone the rules are going to die along with a lot of other people. But it will be using conventional weapons.
If the US starts using long range or sub deployed nukes the risk of China panicking are too high. One missile wrongly identified as headed towards a Chinese population centre and we are all dead.
If thousands and thousands of US troops land in NK and Kim et all are executed no other country is going to think it's ok to nuke the US. There is no need to risk Armageddon to make that point.
But the corner that they are in is the corner the rulers want to be in. They can point at the big bad americans and live it up. Yeah the general population lives in hell but those in the ruling party live a very very comfortable life.
These people are not driven by a crazy religion or ideology. They are just leveraging the western threat to live the high life at the price of the peasants.
My figures were based on them having lost 75% of their capabilities due to a pre-emptive strike by the US or other forces. You can pretty much cross out any desertion / non-firing because of not wanting to attack people if they were subject to a first strike. You would of course have to add in runners but I felt that 75% out of action probably covered those.
It was in response to the previous posters comment of can't the US just bomb them. I also assumed a 100% silence rate at 30 minutes which is probably optimistic.
If it was a pre-emptive strike by NK, and they only use the 4500 currently in place you are looking at 153,000 shells in the first 30 minutes. Less if you assume some batteries are taken out but it would be more in the long term as there is no way all 4500 would be silenced in 30 minutes.
I wasn't claiming there was any reason NK would take this path. There isn't. I was referring to the conventional setup as a bigger threat than the nuclear.
No they wouldn't. Because even though there are plenty of gun toting crazies in the US you do not fire ICBMs anywhere near a nuclear power. NK shares a border with China. China would not sit still with missiles coming in or stand off bombers in bound.
Well the estimate is 4500 artillery aimed at seoul. Lets assume you manage to knock out 75% in a pre-emptive strike. That leaves 1125. If we make the assumption that they are the D-20 which are the predominate NK equipment they can fire 4-6 rounds in the first minute and then sustain 1 rpm. Assuming we identify them and destroy all of them in 30 minutes (not fucking likely) that means close to 40,000 shells have landed on Seoul in the first 30 minutes.
There are 10 million people living in Seoul. How many people would die if 40,000 bombs went off in a city of that population in 30 minutes?
Sorry I don't give NK military the level of credit you do. I doubt that they are particularly well trained or well equipped. They are also not combat tested to any degree.
Given it is a felony offence where people can be imprisoned they would raid the company for documents to show who would have the knowledge. There is no way there wouldn't be a paper trail.
They don't have the capability to invade South Korea. They haven't in a very very long time. If they tried to march south they would be massacred.
What they do have is an absolutely stupid number of artillery pieces pointed south and we know at least some of them work because they keep firing them. The US estimates that NK has 8600 artillery pieces of which 4500 are currently aimed at SK. Even if you assumed 50% were inoperable the amount of explosive that would rain on Seoul is insane.