"a natural underground reservoir that held liquid hydrocarbons"
Almost all such reservoirs also held gas and in old fields it was flared or simply vented long ago. The point made by another poster is that the issue isn't the reservoir itself, but the fact that much of the pipework feeding in/out of it is not gas-tight.
Argon's not going to help much for testing. Methane has much smaller molecules and will leak in a lot of places that argon won't (not to mention that there isn't that much in the way of noble gasses generally available for such testing.
If regulatory tightening is required, making sure that your feeder network is gas-tight would be a good starting point.
Methane in its natural state is colorless and odorless but what comes out of the ground is a mixture of methane, propane and (usually) a bunch of sulfur-related compounds.
It does tend to smell like rotten eggs, but the hydrogen sulphide is removed long before it hits consumer outlets as that compound is highly toxic (almost as toxic as hydrogen cyanide). What's added to consumer gas is mercaptan - equally pungent but unlikely to kill people.
At the location where the booster would come down (as with bits of space shuttle), you're still on the continental shelf. It's only a few hundred feet deep (continental shelf edge is regarded as the 200 fathom line)
The problem would be lifting from a platform to a barge for shipping back to the mainland. It's probably easier to keep using the barge and delay/postpone launch if the recovery area weather isn't suitable.
"the first stage gets many times as far downrange as it gets in altitude"
Um.... no.
It's more or less the same distance downrange (slightly less) than altitude at separation.
I'd always assumed first stages went a long way but apparently this isn't the case. It's mostly about kicking the second stage high enough and fast enough that it can finish the job.
(As a counterpoint: the UK's skylark class rockets had their booster detach almost as soon as the thing cleared the tower. It really was just a kick engine.)
There are 9 Merlin engines on a Falcon 9 - hence the "9" part
They only used 3 engines for the initial return maneouvers and only 1 was required to land it.
The engines are a low-stressed design intended for multiple reuse and as the single most expensive component, recovering them is a major step to reducing launch costs.
Disclaimer: I work in a research lab producing instruments for (mostly) non-LEO use (some bits are on mars, some at saturn, etc). From my point of view this is a great step forward for reducing launch costs but as I understand it GEO, MEO, lagrange and interplanetary launches aren't going to be recoverable (they need the extra kick the remaining fuel provides).
The thrust of all of them is that _transit_ buses (in particular) _are_ a significant problem with axle loading often in excess of 22,000 pounds and almost always exceeding US federal highway recommendations (ESALs aren't enforced as rigorously in the USA as in the EU)
Several US cities have published engineering reports specifically calling out transit busses as being the single largest contributor to road maintenance costs and making the case that pushing for increased use of public transportation must go hand in hand with development of light rail (streetcars) and/or significant increases in roadbuilding investment. (ie, most of the cost of maintaining roads that are heavily used by high ESAL vehicles is because the roadbeds were never designed for the kinds of loads they now receive)
As for the 20 ton pointer: A modern London Double Decker weighs approximately 12 (conventional) to 14 (hybrid propulsion) tons (unladen) , with single deckers being in the 9-16 ton range. These are all short wheelbase units for operating in much narrower and more crowded streets than the average USA one. Once laden with passengers they all easily top 20 tons
The 2nd report above gives the empty and laden masses of USA/Canadian busses, which in general can carry more passengers than their european equivalents due to greater length. Pay particular attention to the fully laden weights of the buses in that report.
As for 400hp busses and 200hp cars - urban transit vehicles have engines closely matches to their working load. It's uncommon to see transit bus engines larger than 250hp - and whilst there are plenty of 200hp+ cars on sale, the vast majority of vehicles sold in the USA are well under that figure (and in any case their mass seldom goes over 2 tons). Light trucks are another matter and higher fuel prices are proving to be darwinian on those.
The FCC itself has noted that 60%+ of americans are ONLY reachable on mobile phones - which in turn means that a survey which only targetted 35% mobiles is going to get skewed answers, particularly when the documented socioeconomic variations in the kinds of households which are mobile-only vs landlines are taken into account.
Unsurprisingly, MRAs want the restrictions on calling mobiles lifted and calls them "archaic" - but as long as the USA continues to implement a "receiver pays" calling structure for calls to mobiles I can't see the FCC letting them, especially when consumers are making it clear that they want the limits on robodiallers increased to cover ALL classes of caller along with stricter limits on any kind of unsolicited calls to mobiles.
Bear in mind that the TCPA went into force BECAUSE of widespread abuse of a receiver-pays model (faxes - recipients pay for the paper) and whilst there were numerous submissions to congress both for and against the proposed law the documented cases of egrarious abuse made it clear that legislation was 100% necessary (many argue it doesn't go far enough to curb abusive marketers).
Whilst marketers and others hate the TCPA and accompanying FCC restrictions, the law was and remains necessary because (mostly) american business models will happily steal from consumers in order to force unwanted advertising on them unless forced to cease, with considerable coercion applied. The exemptions crafted in for "religious/political/market research" purposes have proven to be heavily abused in themselves _and_ used as ways of circumventing marketing restrictions.
My solution (UK-side) is to give all businesses I deal with a "follow-me" number - these look almost identical to mobiles and whilst this doesn't discourage marketing calls (UK and most civilised countries operate a "caller-pays" model for mobiles with businesses getting bulk discount rates that bring call cost under 1c/min), the fact that they're paying around $2.90/minute to call me (with no discounts being allowed) usually has the desired effect when I mention it - which I don't if the caller is of the type who annoy me.
"Thing is, I could see drones having an application here. Set up a drone operation per so many hundred miles of border"
Border patrol is cheaper, less likely to make mistakes and given the ground is friendly, there's nothing preventing you running sensors along the border to do this. Aircraft are not needed, except to interdict airborne smuggling operations and history has shown that the most extensive of those were actually operated by the CIA (virtually the entire USA crack epidemic was fuelled by CIA carried cocaine, on orders of Ronald Reagan, in order to fund the whole Iran/Contra mess - this is a matter of public record that certain groups would rather not be reminded about)
"the most likely difference is in the number of drones that a single pilot is able to successfully manage versus the projected number"
On an aircraft the size of a MQ9, the wages of the pilot(s) are a minor part of the entire cost, whether that pilot is handling 1 or 4 aircraft is neither here nor there (other than the one-off cost of the piloting station)
The fact is it's a _large_ airframe powered by a turboprop, which automatically means high fuel consumption and high periodic maintenance costs on the gas-turbine, out of all proportion to its job role: ground observation in _friendly_ skies. The fact that it needs a wideband satellite up/downlink is a major part of operational cost which is non-negotiable and its observation equipment payload abilities are actually fairly low ("looking via a drinking straw"), tending to require direction onto what's being observed by other means. It's certainly _not_ good for going out and finding "things that don't look right" - if you want those kind of abilities you use a "Funny Looking King Air" (FLKA), which is a hell of a lot more versatile, much cheaper to operate and can handle a wide range of mission profiles - and MUCH preferred by military whenever possible (hell, they'll use P3 Orions or P9s if they can, over Reapers/Predators and those are neither cheap, quiet or unmanned)
My opinion: Someone in the DHS got a woody for "unmanned aircraft" and didn't crunch the numbers.
The primary reason for using unmanned observation aircraft in a hostile environment is pilot fatigue and the extremely high cost of military pilots. Using unmanned craft and civilian pilots is expensive but not as expensive as training up jet jockeys at $2-3 million a pop - and in any case the USAF/USN are so short of them that they're sending them out into hostile airspace whilst heavily sleep deprived AND pumped up on amphetamines to keep them running. This results in serious errors being routine - and in such airspace there's such a shortage of uplink bandwidth that they're still sending humans out under such conditions.
Some of the most sucessful observation aircraft _ever_ have been small (low observable) slow high wings fitted with mufflers, making them almost silent and the man onboard with binoculers saw far more than any Reaper ever has. (Cessna O1 Bird Dog, O2 Skymaster and the OV10 Bronco have all seen decades of service and the Bronco is set to make a reappearance - but it's entirely unsuited to a non-military observer role). Just my opinion but DHS could do a lot worse than fitting silencer and electronics kits to a few cessna 172 or 302s - and by buying reapers they really have done a lot worse.
The entire US military-industrial machine has become a tail wagging the USA dog and is unsustainable.
"As of now, there's an opposite behavior teacher on the second page, where she power trips and behaves as a tyrant and needed to be warned by the administration."
These are the kind of teacher you end up having to put up with because noone else will work for such shitty pay.
In an environment with better supply, you can fire the power-trippers. If you have a teacher shortage and you're not willing to increase pay rates, then you keep them because you need (qualified) bums in seats at the front of the classroom. It's that ot remove the need for qualification and then you get inundated in such idiots (most of them never manage to qualify in the first place)
The other thing to bear in mind about low pay is that it makes the occupation ripe for capture by religious groups who see it as a perfect opportunity to gain a captive audience for their points of view. The increasing number of constitutionally-related cases about forced prayer in schools is a good example that this is already happening.
"What state allows one to stop and backup on a ramp, effectively driving the wrong direction, and not be ticketed?"
None. The point being he got rear ended before he was able to do so and the cops made him continue down the ramp when he told them what he wanted to do and why (as in "go to the next junction and turn around" when they stopped laughing.)
Had he managed to put his car into reverse the scenario would have been quite different.
See above. Panic stop on onramp because the driver wanted to reverse up and take the other direction and I was too slow to react (3 seconds behind but went into "wtf" mode)
It may be the case where you live, but it's definitely not the case everywhere. The law takes a dim view of that kind of thing but a panic stop is never "causing an accident" unless the following vehicle was too close and it could have easily been because a deer appeared at the side of the roadway (this is a common hazard on european freeways in the wee small hours)
In most of europe there's an automatic presumption of driver fault if there's a collision with pedestrian or cyclist - the driver has to prove he wasn't. This kind of law isn't on any USA books. Don't assume the your local laws apply globally.
"I also think there should be proper consideration given to introducing a blanket defence against any charges of breaking technical road traffic laws where the driver who was breaking the technical law reasonably believed it was necessary to do so in the interests of safety. "
This already is used and has been used to overturn various fines. The thing there is that you have to convince a judge, which isn't that easy when the assumption is that the police officer ticketing is a better judge of what's safe than Joe Schmo. (One example: Montana in the 90s. No posted speed limits but if you got ticketed for dangerous speed, it _stuck_)
Some countries already have mandatory dashcams. Some have them defacto (insurance company requirements) and ALL cars with ABS already have black boxes onboard. I can see that becoming mandatory everywhere even on manual drivers.
Self drivers will be consistent and constantly paying attention, which means that as soon as they're "good enough" they're going to beat 80-90% of drivers on an average day.
"Are you so oblivious that you haven't noticed the batteries in your devices getting more and more powerful for the same weight and size?"
Not in the same way that silicon has been getting smaller and more efficient.
For that matter the battery in my 2015 Note4 is about twice the capacity and 90% of the volume of the one in my 2010 S2, BUT, after 9 months it's down to less than 50% of the quoted charge capacity.
Solar PV only generates usable amounts for 28-30% of the 24-hour cycle on average.
Your $3.40 per watt is even worse than you thought and of no use on a still, cloudless winter night in a future when oil/gas fired home heating is likely to be outlawed.
The current crop of li-ion batteries that Samsung are using have a lifespan of less than 12 months to sub-50% capacity. Switching to something with an even shorter life would be insane.
And yet, they're utterly convinced we want them thinner.
I want one with enough battery to last the day doing the stuff that I want to do, without having to carry a spare, a powerbank or a charger with me.
Battery life of modern smartphones under day to day use is on par with my original Motorola Microtac of 30 years ago - less than a day - when 15 years ago it was out to 5 days.
In standard LI-Ion, it's the electrodes - specifically the anode as they mechanically swell and shrink with charge/discharge and eventually flake away to powder.
Almost all the cutting level research as been about finding ways of allowing the electrodes to hold/release ions without the mechanical changes that eventually destroy them.
Slashdot Mirror
"a natural underground reservoir that held liquid hydrocarbons"
Almost all such reservoirs also held gas and in old fields it was flared or simply vented long ago. The point made by another poster is that the issue isn't the reservoir itself, but the fact that much of the pipework feeding in/out of it is not gas-tight.
Argon's not going to help much for testing. Methane has much smaller molecules and will leak in a lot of places that argon won't (not to mention that there isn't that much in the way of noble gasses generally available for such testing.
If regulatory tightening is required, making sure that your feeder network is gas-tight would be a good starting point.
Methane in its natural state is colorless and odorless but what comes out of the ground is a mixture of methane, propane and (usually) a bunch of sulfur-related compounds.
It does tend to smell like rotten eggs, but the hydrogen sulphide is removed long before it hits consumer outlets as that compound is highly toxic (almost as toxic as hydrogen cyanide). What's added to consumer gas is mercaptan - equally pungent but unlikely to kill people.
In the Leptov sea, substantially more methane is pouring out with no attempts being made to mitigate it.
The full spaceX video had a tour of the factory and showed the engine mounting plate.
You don't need to guess the geometry by looking up the noisy end of a lit one. They explicitly described it.
At the location where the booster would come down (as with bits of space shuttle), you're still on the continental shelf. It's only a few hundred feet deep (continental shelf edge is regarded as the 200 fathom line)
The problem would be lifting from a platform to a barge for shipping back to the mainland. It's probably easier to keep using the barge and delay/postpone launch if the recovery area weather isn't suitable.
"the first stage gets many times as far downrange as it gets in altitude"
Um.... no.
It's more or less the same distance downrange (slightly less) than altitude at separation.
I'd always assumed first stages went a long way but apparently this isn't the case. It's mostly about kicking the second stage high enough and fast enough that it can finish the job.
(As a counterpoint: the UK's skylark class rockets had their booster detach almost as soon as the thing cleared the tower. It really was just a kick engine.)
Plenty of outfits are willing to take uninsured launches. There's a reason that you always build a flight spare.
Companies putting lots of identical birds into orbit don't bother with insurance. It's cheaper to just add a few more items to the production line.
There are 9 Merlin engines on a Falcon 9 - hence the "9" part
They only used 3 engines for the initial return maneouvers and only 1 was required to land it.
The engines are a low-stressed design intended for multiple reuse and as the single most expensive component, recovering them is a major step to reducing launch costs.
Disclaimer: I work in a research lab producing instruments for (mostly) non-LEO use (some bits are on mars, some at saturn, etc). From my point of view this is a great step forward for reducing launch costs but as I understand it GEO, MEO, lagrange and interplanetary launches aren't going to be recoverable (they need the extra kick the remaining fuel provides).
CItations:
http://www.pavementinteractive...
https://www.apta.com/resources...
There are many more.
The thrust of all of them is that _transit_ buses (in particular) _are_ a significant problem with axle loading often in excess of 22,000 pounds and almost always exceeding US federal highway recommendations (ESALs aren't enforced as rigorously in the USA as in the EU)
Several US cities have published engineering reports specifically calling out transit busses as being the single largest contributor to road maintenance costs and making the case that pushing for increased use of public transportation must go hand in hand with development of light rail (streetcars) and/or significant increases in roadbuilding investment. (ie, most of the cost of maintaining roads that are heavily used by high ESAL vehicles is because the roadbeds were never designed for the kinds of loads they now receive)
As for the 20 ton pointer: A modern London Double Decker weighs approximately 12 (conventional) to 14 (hybrid propulsion) tons (unladen) , with single deckers being in the 9-16 ton range. These are all short wheelbase units for operating in much narrower and more crowded streets than the average USA one. Once laden with passengers they all easily top 20 tons
The 2nd report above gives the empty and laden masses of USA/Canadian busses, which in general can carry more passengers than their european equivalents due to greater length. Pay particular attention to the fully laden weights of the buses in that report.
As for 400hp busses and 200hp cars - urban transit vehicles have engines closely matches to their working load. It's uncommon to see transit bus engines larger than 250hp - and whilst there are plenty of 200hp+ cars on sale, the vast majority of vehicles sold in the USA are well under that figure (and in any case their mass seldom goes over 2 tons). Light trucks are another matter and higher fuel prices are proving to be darwinian on those.
It's worth noting that pollsters and market researchers are facing multiple class action suits for calling mobile phones.
That's mentioned in several news articles, even those propagandising the case for removing restrictions:
http://www.marketingresearch.o...
The FCC itself has noted that 60%+ of americans are ONLY reachable on mobile phones - which in turn means that a survey which only targetted 35% mobiles is going to get skewed answers, particularly when the documented socioeconomic variations in the kinds of households which are mobile-only vs landlines are taken into account.
http://www.marketingresearch.o...
Unsurprisingly, MRAs want the restrictions on calling mobiles lifted and calls them "archaic" - but as long as the USA continues to implement a "receiver pays" calling structure for calls to mobiles I can't see the FCC letting them, especially when consumers are making it clear that they want the limits on robodiallers increased to cover ALL classes of caller along with stricter limits on any kind of unsolicited calls to mobiles.
Bear in mind that the TCPA went into force BECAUSE of widespread abuse of a receiver-pays model (faxes - recipients pay for the paper) and whilst there were numerous submissions to congress both for and against the proposed law the documented cases of egrarious abuse made it clear that legislation was 100% necessary (many argue it doesn't go far enough to curb abusive marketers).
Whilst marketers and others hate the TCPA and accompanying FCC restrictions, the law was and remains necessary because (mostly) american business models will happily steal from consumers in order to force unwanted advertising on them unless forced to cease, with considerable coercion applied. The exemptions crafted in for "religious/political/market research" purposes have proven to be heavily abused in themselves _and_ used as ways of circumventing marketing restrictions.
My solution (UK-side) is to give all businesses I deal with a "follow-me" number - these look almost identical to mobiles and whilst this doesn't discourage marketing calls (UK and most civilised countries operate a "caller-pays" model for mobiles with businesses getting bulk discount rates that bring call cost under 1c/min), the fact that they're paying around $2.90/minute to call me (with no discounts being allowed) usually has the desired effect when I mention it - which I don't if the caller is of the type who annoy me.
"Thing is, I could see drones having an application here. Set up a drone operation per so many hundred miles of border"
Border patrol is cheaper, less likely to make mistakes and given the ground is friendly, there's nothing preventing you running sensors along the border to do this. Aircraft are not needed, except to interdict airborne smuggling operations and history has shown that the most extensive of those were actually operated by the CIA (virtually the entire USA crack epidemic was fuelled by CIA carried cocaine, on orders of Ronald Reagan, in order to fund the whole Iran/Contra mess - this is a matter of public record that certain groups would rather not be reminded about)
"the most likely difference is in the number of drones that a single pilot is able to successfully manage versus the projected number"
On an aircraft the size of a MQ9, the wages of the pilot(s) are a minor part of the entire cost, whether that pilot is handling 1 or 4 aircraft is neither here nor there (other than the one-off cost of the piloting station)
The fact is it's a _large_ airframe powered by a turboprop, which automatically means high fuel consumption and high periodic maintenance costs on the gas-turbine, out of all proportion to its job role: ground observation in _friendly_ skies. The fact that it needs a wideband satellite up/downlink is a major part of operational cost which is non-negotiable and its observation equipment payload abilities are actually fairly low ("looking via a drinking straw"), tending to require direction onto what's being observed by other means. It's certainly _not_ good for going out and finding "things that don't look right" - if you want those kind of abilities you use a "Funny Looking King Air" (FLKA), which is a hell of a lot more versatile, much cheaper to operate and can handle a wide range of mission profiles - and MUCH preferred by military whenever possible (hell, they'll use P3 Orions or P9s if they can, over Reapers/Predators and those are neither cheap, quiet or unmanned)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
My opinion: Someone in the DHS got a woody for "unmanned aircraft" and didn't crunch the numbers.
The primary reason for using unmanned observation aircraft in a hostile environment is pilot fatigue and the extremely high cost of military pilots. Using unmanned craft and civilian pilots is expensive but not as expensive as training up jet jockeys at $2-3 million a pop - and in any case the USAF/USN are so short of them that they're sending them out into hostile airspace whilst heavily sleep deprived AND pumped up on amphetamines to keep them running. This results in serious errors being routine - and in such airspace there's such a shortage of uplink bandwidth that they're still sending humans out under such conditions.
Some of the most sucessful observation aircraft _ever_ have been small (low observable) slow high wings fitted with mufflers, making them almost silent and the man onboard with binoculers saw far more than any Reaper ever has. (Cessna O1 Bird Dog, O2 Skymaster and the OV10 Bronco have all seen decades of service and the Bronco is set to make a reappearance - but it's entirely unsuited to a non-military observer role). Just my opinion but DHS could do a lot worse than fitting silencer and electronics kits to a few cessna 172 or 302s - and by buying reapers they really have done a lot worse.
The entire US military-industrial machine has become a tail wagging the USA dog and is unsustainable.
"As of now, there's an opposite behavior teacher on the second page, where she power trips and behaves as a tyrant and needed to be warned by the administration."
These are the kind of teacher you end up having to put up with because noone else will work for such shitty pay.
In an environment with better supply, you can fire the power-trippers. If you have a teacher shortage and you're not willing to increase pay rates, then you keep them because you need (qualified) bums in seats at the front of the classroom. It's that ot remove the need for qualification and then you get inundated in such idiots (most of them never manage to qualify in the first place)
The other thing to bear in mind about low pay is that it makes the occupation ripe for capture by religious groups who see it as a perfect opportunity to gain a captive audience for their points of view. The increasing number of constitutionally-related cases about forced prayer in schools is a good example that this is already happening.
"What state allows one to stop and backup on a ramp, effectively driving the wrong direction, and not be ticketed?"
None. The point being he got rear ended before he was able to do so and the cops made him continue down the ramp when he told them what he wanted to do and why (as in "go to the next junction and turn around" when they stopped laughing.)
Had he managed to put his car into reverse the scenario would have been quite different.
See above. Panic stop on onramp because the driver wanted to reverse up and take the other direction and I was too slow to react (3 seconds behind but went into "wtf" mode)
It may be the case where you live, but it's definitely not the case everywhere. The law takes a dim view of that kind of thing but a panic stop is never "causing an accident" unless the following vehicle was too close and it could have easily been because a deer appeared at the side of the roadway (this is a common hazard on european freeways in the wee small hours)
In most of europe there's an automatic presumption of driver fault if there's a collision with pedestrian or cyclist - the driver has to prove he wasn't. This kind of law isn't on any USA books. Don't assume the your local laws apply globally.
"I also think there should be proper consideration given to introducing a blanket defence against any charges of breaking technical road traffic laws where the driver who was breaking the technical law reasonably believed it was necessary to do so in the interests of safety. "
This already is used and has been used to overturn various fines. The thing there is that you have to convince a judge, which isn't that easy when the assumption is that the police officer ticketing is a better judge of what's safe than Joe Schmo. (One example: Montana in the 90s. No posted speed limits but if you got ticketed for dangerous speed, it _stuck_)
Some countries already have mandatory dashcams. Some have them defacto (insurance company requirements) and ALL cars with ABS already have black boxes onboard. I can see that becoming mandatory everywhere even on manual drivers.
Self drivers will be consistent and constantly paying attention, which means that as soon as they're "good enough" they're going to beat 80-90% of drivers on an average day.
They're already beating the 55% figure.
"but it also prompts a small minority of completely irresponsible fools to overtake aggressively at much higher speeds"
Such fools will rapidly find that noone will insure them in an automated world.
Crackdowns on this kind of driving are already a thing across a lot of the world, helped immeasurably by the proliferation of dashcams.
I have. The average transit bus around here weighs 22 tonnes.
"Are you so oblivious that you haven't noticed the batteries in your devices getting more and more powerful for the same weight and size?"
Not in the same way that silicon has been getting smaller and more efficient.
For that matter the battery in my 2015 Note4 is about twice the capacity and 90% of the volume of the one in my 2010 S2, BUT, after 9 months it's down to less than 50% of the quoted charge capacity.
until the first one gets dinged by a soccer mom in a supermarket carpark.
The FAA is going to have its work cut out keeping these safe in the real world.
Solar PV only generates usable amounts for 28-30% of the 24-hour cycle on average.
Your $3.40 per watt is even worse than you thought and of no use on a still, cloudless winter night in a future when oil/gas fired home heating is likely to be outlawed.
The current crop of li-ion batteries that Samsung are using have a lifespan of less than 12 months to sub-50% capacity. Switching to something with an even shorter life would be insane.
And yet, they're utterly convinced we want them thinner.
I want one with enough battery to last the day doing the stuff that I want to do, without having to carry a spare, a powerbank or a charger with me.
Battery life of modern smartphones under day to day use is on par with my original Motorola Microtac of 30 years ago - less than a day - when 15 years ago it was out to 5 days.
In standard LI-Ion, it's the electrodes - specifically the anode as they mechanically swell and shrink with charge/discharge and eventually flake away to powder.
Almost all the cutting level research as been about finding ways of allowing the electrodes to hold/release ions without the mechanical changes that eventually destroy them.