You pump water uphill during the day. Then at night, you let it fall downhill and generate electricity from that. We don't need fancy chemical tricks or storage mechanisms to make sporadic energy sources produce constant outputs.
Sure, and where are you going to build all the tanks for such a distributed system? There is no 'uphill' for my house for almost 700 yards - and that point is smack in the middle of someone else's house. I could put a tank in my attic, but the costs of reinforcing the house and making the whole thing earthquake proof will be steep indeed...
Even for non distributed solutions, water sources aren't always available where you want them (and you don't want to draw from the aquifer daily), nor are there always sufficiently available high and low spots with sufficient head...
Lets say your house needs 5000 W. To get through an 8 h dark period, you need 40 kWhr, or 136,000 BTU. That's roughly the energy in 2 lbs of hydrogen. To store that much hydrogen, you either need a balloon of 11 m^3 size, or you need a compressor that allows you to store the hydrogen as compressed gas
Eleven cubic meters is no big deal -- that's a balloon a meter and a half in diameter.
You dropped a decimal point in there somewhere - 11m^3 requires a sphere with a radius of approximately 1.3 meters, or 2.6 meters in diameter.
I could find that volume in my attic, or in my garage... But someone who doesn't live in a house or have a large garage might find the loss of room difficult to bear.
The kids growing up in this country are hammered with the message that to be rich and successful you need to either be a movie/rock star, sports star, lawyer, or doctor. The engineering field is suffering an uphill battle to continue to attract young people to the field.
Kids have been hammered with such messages for decades (stretching back into the mid 19th century at least), yet until fairly recently we engineers a' plenty.
Whether its correct or not, manned spaceflight, and in fact the entirety of NASA's programs is the largest PR engine to fuel the interest of the next generation in engineering disciplines.
Yet, before the was a NASA, there were engineers a' plenty.
Without it, no matter how much you spend on education, without the vision provided by the great engineering challenges NASA takes on, the engineering field in the US will slowly die.
Given that NASA doesn't seem to have actually played as much as role as you claim - one doubts your conclusions.
The treaty that you speak of was signed by the Soviet Union, NOT Russia.
True. But back in the 90's when the Soviet Union became the Commonwealth of Independent States, the CIS explicitly took over the role and responsibilities of the USSR with regards to various treaties and agreements that the USSR was a party to. Which means the CIS, and by extension Russia as a member state, is still bound by the Outer Space Treaty.
Do a search on Google of "Slashdot Wikipedia" and then do the same search on Cuil. Google acts as expected...the first link posted is the Wikipedia article about Slashdot. On Cuil, it brings you to a Slashdot article referencing the history of Wikipedia.
Actually, to my mind, it's quite the reverse - because Cuil returned a first page that matches the order of your search terms. Keep in mind that Wikipedia can be viewed, in some ways, as the worlds largest link farm.
Cars last 10-15 years. Computers typically last about 2-3. Trying to tie these together is a bad, bad idea.
Why? Theres already tons of parts in your car, especially in the engine compartment, that don't last the lifetime of the car.
Even if a Tom-Tom was built-in to new cars today, in just a few years it would be out-of-date as new units include everything from weather to instant-connect for ordering food locally. It would stick out like tail fins and sorely date your car.
That's only a problem to those who absolutely must have all the fashionable or latest and greatest gadgetry.
with a wire dangling down to the cigarette lighter, which they can no longer use.
I haven't seen a new car come with a cigarette lighter in years now... In fact, every "12v aux" jack I've seen recently specifically states in the manual that is not to be used as a cigarette lighter. (Can't take the current draw or the heat I imagine.)
The same will apply to every convenience technology to come.
The growing trend in cars is to provide multiple 12v jack points.
That's the point most Slashdotters are trying very hard to not think about - screaming about corporate conspiracies is much simpler on the mind.
Hasbro isn't trying to extort money, they are making money. You can still buy Scrabble in the stores, virtual or brick and mortar, and you can damn sure bet it wouldn't be on the shelves if it weren't still selling. This isn't some old movie only seen on obscure cable channels at 2AM or some knockoff band that nobody has ever heard of - this is a product currently in production.
That depends on how much water you want to go through. Submarines routinely receive radio signals in a variety of bands with their antenna submerged anywhere from a few inches to a few fathoms.
I use the word "probably" and "probable" a lot, since we can't know for sure until there has been manned missions to the places that we so far only has sent probes to investigate.
The lunar surface. The ocean bottom. Two cases and the results are clear - and not even close. We already know for sure, as surely as we know that day follows night.
The problem is, with tens of millions of dollars in the budget this project isn't lacking resources by any reasonable interpretation of the words. Further, comparing them with NASA is a bit misleading as the White Knight/SpaceShip Two craft operates in what is a fairly benign environment compared to what would be encountered by an orbital craft.
Whats is being suggested here is no different than what was tried, and proven, in the 1940's and 50's with the original Rockoons. Existing, mass produced, weather balloon technology does just fine at lifting small rockets (as used in the n-prize and upper atmosphere experimentation) above the atmosphere's denser layers.
Did it ever occur to you there's a reason why Rockoon was abandoned? Rockoons were attractive in the 40's and 50's when producing the rockets with the needed performance was difficult, but they failed to pan out in practice and were soon eclipsed by technology.
The whole point of the concept is to launch micro-satellite's into orbit and lower the cost of entry for such projects such that the talented hobbiest/small business can do so.
Except that it doesn't noticeably lower the cost of entry. Your rockets are actually somewhat more expensive (because of the structural penalties imposed by the launch method), and your launches are somewhat more expensive because you add the man hours needed to prepare, handle, and track the balloons on top of that required for the rocket. All you save is a fraction of your fuel - and fuel is cheap.
You pay a fraction of the cost, and you get less than a fraction of the science.
The Spirit and Endeavor probes respectfully disagree with you. They were still doing useful work, what, over a year after they were landed on the surface of Mars? Try getting that kind of long-term performance out of a starving, gasping astronaut.
You won't need that kind of long term performance from an astronaut - as the work of eight years (between the two probes) could be done by a single human geologist in less than a month.
Yes necessarily. Being hundreds of thousands of tons of lifting force, it will require considerable (fairly heavy) structure to distribute that force across the lifting envelope and transfer it to the payload.
It would require a support rail to attach the rocket. That part would be recoverable if desired. It would not require the outer skin (certainly not the iron oxide and aluminum paint!) control surfaces, engines, passenger gondola, etc.
The individual cells or balloonets that contain the lift gas aren't cheap, and will need structure to transfer loads between them and to the booster. It's nowhere near as simple as just providing a 'support rail'. If you propose it to be recoverable, you reduce the already sharply limited payload. On reflection, it will have to be recoverable as few are likely to approve of tens of thousands of pounds of structure falling uncontrolled from the sky.
Also, thanks for reminding me of a weight penalty I forgot - the necessarily increased structure of the booster to account for the fact that it can't simply use structure to carry the loads lengthwise and in the same direction as flight loads.
I'd say that you get more science per dollar if you send probes.
You may say that if you desire. But actual experience indicates that the opposite is the case.
With a probe, if you realize that the probe actually can keep going after the mission is over, you can simply prolong the mission, lowering the cost/science every extra mission day you get out of it, since the biggest cost is getting it there.
Yet, the cost of the science obtained still remains higher than that of a manned mission. Probes aren't cheap and operating them isn't either.
Yeah, that would be true except for the HTV - which uses the CBM hatches on the US end. Then there's the private contractors NASA is working with, which will also use CBM.
Then there's Constellation which will also use CBM.
There's a lot of options that don't use the sharply limited APAS hatch.
You can't get (smart, institutional) investors on board on the promise of likely/possible breakthroughs in technology. However, if you can demonstrate that the price per kilowatt-hour will be competitive with fossil fuels in the reasonable near future then you will get the level of investment required to finally take these technologies mainstream.
The problem is, you are comparing two different things - hypothetical and/or experimental technologies and prototype grade laboratory bench technologies. Investors are more interested in the latter than the former regardless of the price of oil.
I believe we are already at that point. Here in Australia we suddenly have wind farms and novel renewable energy projects appearing IRL all over the place when previously they were often announced but rarely built.
Again, you are getting different things all mixed up - as Australia doesn't use much oil for power generation. I find it much more likely that you haven't noticed all the behind-the-scenes activities in the years it takes between announcement and commissioning of such facilities.
A disposable Hindenburg would cost tens of millions of dollars - while the few thousand gallons of fuel and oxidizer it replaced would cost a few thousand dollars.
Not necessarily. Being disposable, it wouldn't require much structure or external protection.
Yes necessarily. Being hundreds of thousands of tons of lifting force, it will require considerable (fairly heavy) structure to distribute that force across the lifting envelope and transfer it to the payload.
It would mostly resemble weather balloons.
Sure. In the same way my pocket calculator resembles a Cray supercomputer.
It's a bit of a far fetched claim - as the EU hasn't unveiled anything. Nor really have the Russians, just more powerpoints that they hope to talk the EU into funding. Someday.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, and where are you going to build all the tanks for such a distributed system? There is no 'uphill' for my house for almost 700 yards - and that point is smack in the middle of someone else's house. I could put a tank in my attic, but the costs of reinforcing the house and making the whole thing earthquake proof will be steep indeed...
Even for non distributed solutions, water sources aren't always available where you want them (and you don't want to draw from the aquifer daily), nor are there always sufficiently available high and low spots with sufficient head...
You dropped a decimal point in there somewhere - 11m^3 requires a sphere with a radius of approximately 1.3 meters, or 2.6 meters in diameter.
I could find that volume in my attic, or in my garage... But someone who doesn't live in a house or have a large garage might find the loss of room difficult to bear.
Kids have been hammered with such messages for decades (stretching back into the mid 19th century at least), yet until fairly recently we engineers a' plenty.
Yet, before the was a NASA, there were engineers a' plenty.
Given that NASA doesn't seem to have actually played as much as role as you claim - one doubts your conclusions.
True. But back in the 90's when the Soviet Union became the Commonwealth of Independent States, the CIS explicitly took over the role and responsibilities of the USSR with regards to various treaties and agreements that the USSR was a party to. Which means the CIS, and by extension Russia as a member state, is still bound by the Outer Space Treaty.
Actually, to my mind, it's quite the reverse - because Cuil returned a first page that matches the order of your search terms. Keep in mind that Wikipedia can be viewed, in some ways, as the worlds largest link farm.
You can say it, sure. You can also say "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog".
Translation: "I want to make it sound like I'm educated and unbiased without actually being either, especially the latter. Learning is hard."
[Evidence of ignorance, abundant.]
[Contents of post being replied to, valueless.]
Why? Theres already tons of parts in your car, especially in the engine compartment, that don't last the lifetime of the car.
That's only a problem to those who absolutely must have all the fashionable or latest and greatest gadgetry.
I haven't seen a new car come with a cigarette lighter in years now... In fact, every "12v aux" jack I've seen recently specifically states in the manual that is not to be used as a cigarette lighter. (Can't take the current draw or the heat I imagine.)
The growing trend in cars is to provide multiple 12v jack points.
And at the end of the day - not so different than Google or Apple's long term strategy.
That's the point most Slashdotters are trying very hard to not think about - screaming about corporate conspiracies is much simpler on the mind.
Hasbro isn't trying to extort money, they are making money. You can still buy Scrabble in the stores, virtual or brick and mortar, and you can damn sure bet it wouldn't be on the shelves if it weren't still selling. This isn't some old movie only seen on obscure cable channels at 2AM or some knockoff band that nobody has ever heard of - this is a product currently in production.
Already done. Next?
Competitive with what exactly?
That depends on how much water you want to go through. Submarines routinely receive radio signals in a variety of bands with their antenna submerged anywhere from a few inches to a few fathoms.
The lunar surface. The ocean bottom. Two cases and the results are clear - and not even close. We already know for sure, as surely as we know that day follows night.
The problem is, with tens of millions of dollars in the budget this project isn't lacking resources by any reasonable interpretation of the words. Further, comparing them with NASA is a bit misleading as the White Knight/SpaceShip Two craft operates in what is a fairly benign environment compared to what would be encountered by an orbital craft.
Did it ever occur to you there's a reason why Rockoon was abandoned? Rockoons were attractive in the 40's and 50's when producing the rockets with the needed performance was difficult, but they failed to pan out in practice and were soon eclipsed by technology.
Except that it doesn't noticeably lower the cost of entry. Your rockets are actually somewhat more expensive (because of the structural penalties imposed by the launch method), and your launches are somewhat more expensive because you add the man hours needed to prepare, handle, and track the balloons on top of that required for the rocket. All you save is a fraction of your fuel - and fuel is cheap.
You won't need that kind of long term performance from an astronaut - as the work of eight years (between the two probes) could be done by a single human geologist in less than a month.
The individual cells or balloonets that contain the lift gas aren't cheap, and will need structure to transfer loads between them and to the booster. It's nowhere near as simple as just providing a 'support rail'. If you propose it to be recoverable, you reduce the already sharply limited payload. On reflection, it will have to be recoverable as few are likely to approve of tens of thousands of pounds of structure falling uncontrolled from the sky.
Also, thanks for reminding me of a weight penalty I forgot - the necessarily increased structure of the booster to account for the fact that it can't simply use structure to carry the loads lengthwise and in the same direction as flight loads.
You may say that if you desire. But actual experience indicates that the opposite is the case.
Yet, the cost of the science obtained still remains higher than that of a manned mission. Probes aren't cheap and operating them isn't either.
Yeah, that would be true except for the HTV - which uses the CBM hatches on the US end. Then there's the private contractors NASA is working with, which will also use CBM.
Then there's Constellation which will also use CBM.
There's a lot of options that don't use the sharply limited APAS hatch.
Not even remotely.
The problem is, you are comparing two different things - hypothetical and/or experimental technologies and prototype grade laboratory bench technologies. Investors are more interested in the latter than the former regardless of the price of oil.
Again, you are getting different things all mixed up - as Australia doesn't use much oil for power generation. I find it much more likely that you haven't noticed all the behind-the-scenes activities in the years it takes between announcement and commissioning of such facilities.
Yes necessarily. Being hundreds of thousands of tons of lifting force, it will require considerable (fairly heavy) structure to distribute that force across the lifting envelope and transfer it to the payload.
Sure. In the same way my pocket calculator resembles a Cray supercomputer.
It's a bit of a far fetched claim - as the EU hasn't unveiled anything. Nor really have the Russians, just more powerpoints that they hope to talk the EU into funding. Someday.
Progress (and ATV) can only dock to the APAS hatches on the Russian segment - which sharply limits the size of the equipment that can be delivered.