Ah, yes... I became aware half way that he was nothing more than a pro-green troll. Nothing worthwhile ever comes out of it. He'd rather be inconsistent and annoying - as you point out - than actually ever seriously debate anything using valid arguments.
I've seen that attitude before. He can't look objectively at things, it's always through ideologically coloured goggles he sees things. A more nuanced person would realise that, while LFTR are not a "magical bullet" which will solve everything, there are at least good arguments why the benefits far outweighs the disadvantages.
But its no use debating this with him. He's already in the "ignore everything else and call it shill'-mode. One can't have an open discussion with someone whom doesn't even want to try.
Once again, you did not address my criticism. Nor did the paper, for that matter. Or do you think because something is peer reviewed, it's above any criticism?
I've given you a clear example and argument why the claim that such a thing is economically viable, is highly doubtful. You, nor the paper, have given any retort, accept bland statements and using fallacies.
Feel free to actually give a rebuttal with logical arguments to what I said any time.
You think you rebutted anything by simply claiming something a 'shill site'? I don't have a problem looking at the pro- AND con- sides. I just look at the arguments and their logical validity. It's just that I find the pro- camp has far less of them.
The same goes for you. I gave you a clear example why it isn't economical viable if one claims a smart-super-grid will solve anything. You didn't counter it at all, nor gave some valid reasons for it. You merely say "The plans for each country are independent." and then conclude "Your complaint is flawed from the outset." that's NOT addressing the issue. At all. You didn't refute or give a rebuttal to anything, not even to anything of the links with criticism I gave you.
There you simply say "It's a shill site, so I don't have to look at the arguments."
Yes, good going. There sure is *someone* being fooled, true. But I think it's rather of the self-delusional kind.
You didn't even comprehend it doesn't need to be 'independent' countries. The same goes for any area where one is dependent on other area's. This can be States within a country, for instance: the same economics apply.
It seems the term 'shill' has become mainstream as a response in slashdot. Of course, if everyone starts using that to counter everyone else one does not agree with, one gets nowhere...
Let's try it this way: instead of dishing or ignoring an argument or reasoning for ad hominem reasons (aka, where it comes from), why not look and debate the arguments itself, instead?
Many of those counter-arguments in that slasdot-post you link to, have been brought up before, and equally as much has it been shown to be largely complete nonsense.
One of the key points, for instance, is the economical viability of it. Let me simplify the issue: say, you have country 1 and country 2. both have judged the way to go is 100% for renewable energy, like wind. say, there is no wind in country 1. What the authors now say is: no problem, we'll create a smart grid, and that will transport it from country 2.
HOWEVER... what they then don't realise is, that if country 2 has made more or less enough windmills to get going, it CAN NOT sustain a complete other country, unless they have double the amount needed to sustain their own (assuming both countries use roughly the same amount).
Thus they need far more capacity, if they are going to provide another country. However, this also means that for most of the time, there will be a HUGE overcompensation (namely all the times there is wind). Which means half of those windmills will have nothing to do at that time, while yet having been costly to built.
The same goes for country 2 in regard to country 1. Worse, if there is a large weather-front which is wind-poor, it could be that both countries need to get the electricity from a third or fourth country. Which in turn has to provide enough electricity for BOTH countries, then. so even more over-compensating must happen, to deal with this possibility.
Now, I don't know how things go in the USA, but that sure as hell wouldn't work in Europe, where the countries are much smaller, and much more heavily populated. And it would be quite economically unsound to have a windmill-park that is much larger than needed for ones' own demand, just in case another country would fall without.
Now, I read the rosy look that "storage of heat in soil and water" will deal with that, but I just don't think that's plausible. The current best systems, don't let you recuperate the stored energy for more than a couple of hours at best.
I find such claims, and especially the lack of answers and facts in these sort of papers wholly unsatisfactory. There have been many, many valid counterarguments and criticism on it, yet I see it nowhere addressed let alone refuted by the authors of any of those pro-renewable papers.
A lot of people react like being stung by a wasp by my post.
It's like I said I despised Elon Musk and SpaceX or something, while I'm a fervent supporter of him/it, in fact. I think they have done great things.
I'm just saying there can be made a good, and perhaps even better, (economical) case for other systems like that of Adeline, compared to the whole-1st-stage retrieval. The main problem being the extra fuel. No so much because of the cost of the fuel, as some misinterpret and don't grasp here on slashdot, but because of the *weight* of that fuel, which directly cuts into the usable payload for a given rocket.
But as you said: the more diverse methods and techniques being tried out, the better.
Partially true. But I'm sure Arianespace had quite some people calculating it, so it's not like it sucked out of their thumb or comes out of the blue.
It's like some here compare rocketry 'like airplanes' with that of Adeline: that's just a dream too.
My only point was, that there could be made a good case for other systems, like adeline, that were economically more beneficial. As far as one can read the arguments (http://www.space.com/29620-airbus-adeline-reusable-rocket-space-tug.html), that seems to me to be the case.
Frankly, saying it hasn't proven anything... well, spaceX hasn't proven they could reuse the stage neither, nor proven they are 40% cheaper than ordinary use-once rockets. Thusfar.
Which doesn't mean I don't believe they don't have a good chance of doing exactly what they say, but as far as having actually demonstrated a beneficial economic advantage, they didn't prove anything neither, and it's still 'a dream' too. Just saying one can't use an argument without applying reciprocity.
I think some posters here react a bit too ideologically. I mean, I'm all for Musk and SpaceX too, and I applaud thee efforts. but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look at things objectively. It's quite possible that systems like adeline, for the first stage, compared to a total 1st stage retrieval, could be more cost-effective, and thus, more economically viable. I say there can be made a good case for that, nothing less, nothing more.
No, but using capital letters stresses the importance of what you want to convey.
Anyway, you're missing the point.
The point was and is NOT (stressing this) that SpaceX might or might not make rocketry 'like airplanes' in the mid- or longterm (which, after all, even you can't know for sure they'll succeed), but that the current system of having the FIRST STAGE (stressing this again) of a rocket coming back by using their fuel, compared to a system like adeline, is less economical advantageous.
I'm not sure why you keep negating that. It's just elementary cost-benefit analysis.
Now, YOU can make the contention that SpaceX will make it like airplanes, but that does NOTHING to change the fact that, as long as it doesn't, adeline is economically more beneficial. So the comparison was between the system of SpaceX first stage, and Adeline. Not between Adeline and an unknown future where rockets may or may not be 'like airplanes'. So me pointing this out is not 'meaningless', since it's a comparison not a comparison bewteen adeline and some future where SpaceX manages to reduce the total cost similar to that of airplanes, between those two systems of having a partially recovery of the rocket, nothing more, nothing less.
I hope I made this clear.
Now, as for your further argumentation... may I ask, if you even read the page to which I linked? Because it doesn't seem you bothered. Otherwise, you would already know that the major 'cost' is NOT (stressing this again) the fuel, but the fact that the added weight reduces the capacity of usable payload. I assume you realise that to propel 1 pound of mass would require 9.39 pounds of propellant? This means, that if you need 35000 kg extra to land the thing, you'll need 9 TIMES as much to get it up. That's why, if you didn't realise this, that SpaceX never lands the first stage when it has to deliver a heavy geostationary satellite in orbit: it's because they need all the fuel to get their payload up there. Ergo, the fuel they spend on it, needs more fuel to lift it, and that inveriably reduces the amount of weight of the payload they can send up. There is no way around this.
And that is only for the first stage. The second stage - and if they want to be 'like airplanes', you'll need to recuperate all stages - is going to be much, much more difficult to recuperate. But worse, this, in turn, will need, again, extra fuel, to transport the fuel tht will be needed to land it. WORSE STILL: since now the second stage is much heavier, that weight will need to be lifted by the first stage too, so that will need even MORE fuel, which in turn will need 9 times more fuel to lift this up too. Then we come to the third stage. Rince, repeat. It needs extra fuel to land, thus it gains weight, thus the second stage needs ectra fuel, plus it needs extra fuel to lift that extra fuel, plus the third stage who has to lift all the other stages up needs extra fuel to do so, and it needs extra fuel to lift that extra fuel.
Ergo: it gets exponentially more difficult to launch a rocket where all stages are recuperated. Or let me refrase that: it becomes exponentially more difficult for it to be economically viable, compared to a system where you'll only need a fraction of the mass to put the same payload into orbit.
Thus, as I said, there is definitely an economic point to be made to use other systems, like that of Adeline.
Note that this is an inherent problem, not just a mere technical problem. You'll ALWAYS have an exponentially increasing weight ratio for ever kg that is added as fuel or payload. The only way to starkly reduce the weight, at least of the first stage, is a system like Skylon, where you use the atmosphere, instead of carrying all your oxygen with you.
"You can certainly try, but you've hardly even attempted that thusfar, just repeatedly asserting that returning the engines and avionics is somehow cheaper than getting a whole intact rocket back at the launch pad or on a barge ready to be hoisted back onto the launch pad."
Ok, let me ask: what are you going to do on a wind-still day when it's clouded?
Let me take your own example, then. You loose:
Residential rooftop solar -4.6% Solar PV plant -62.4% Onshore wind -10% Offshore wind -18% rooftop solar -4.8%
Is a total loss of 99,8% of your energy/electricity.
Great going! Let's just say to all homes, factories and companies, they loose there electricity and have to do with 0,2%.
I really get it on my nerves from such naive, ideologically coloured 'arguments'. It's nothing more than a delusion. as long as wind and solar remains stochastic in nature, they can NEVER replace the current traditional plants, if you want to have and remain to have a stable, predictable supply of energy.
What are you talking about? Thus deuterium accounts for approximately 0.0156% (or on a mass basis 0.0312%) of all the naturally occurring hydrogen in the oceans, which means in total amount of staggering proportions. Uranium is still plenty enough of to last us more than 200 years, especially when enrichment is used.
But regardless, it only really needs to breach the gap until we have Thorium plants, especially of the LFTR kind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .
And that will get us going for 10000 years AND can diminish the nuclear waste of earlier, old nuclear plants (you would expect that the greens would be all for it, but no, because it still is 'nuclear', and that word alone makes all rational decisions fruitless).
The green solutions are NOT the answer: http://www.thecrimson.com/arti... . And as long as those systems are stochastic in nature (as wind and solar inherently is), it can NEVER replace stable electricity producing plants.
The constant push and BS-talk about how the alternative energy-sources are the solutions are nothing more than deliberately (at least, by some. others simply don't realise) confabulations and delusions. It is purely ideologically defined, and not rationally or even pragmatically analysed. I always find it pretty vexing whenever I see this kind of biased zealottery promoting these energy-forms, while it simply is NOT possible to provide a large scale, stable electricity with a base load, and load-following. You NEVER see the inherent drawbacks being mentioned, such as the fact that wind and solar ALWAYS need a backup (in the form of gas, oil or coal plants) that run constantly, to fill up the discrepancies between demand and production.
There is no real reason to have alternative ways as being the best solution to having a stable energy-network, but if you really HAVE to have it, because it is PC and gives politicians a good image, I wouldn't recommend going above 10%. It gets increasingly difficult to handle, after that. And if you really want alternatives, than geothermal or water(dam)power is far more stable.
I'm getting a bit fed up with all the nonsense some people tell about it. It's usually a mixture of ignorance and being wilful obtuse, but if one would put off the rosy ideological goggles, one would actually see windmills and solar are a VERY BAD alternative, if you want to be assured a stable and predictable source of electricity for your home, factory or company.
It wouldn't take more time than for any other module or stage to be connected, which is always the case, with rockets who have 2-3 stages (which are the vast majority of rockets).
The extra time and efort needed, compared to everything else, would be minimal. It's hardly a strong rebuttal, just like saying "it will take spaceX more time to check the tanks out too". As long as you can keep refurbishing costs low, the testing and hooking up are trivial costs compared to all the rest.
Yes, but that was not the contention I made. AS LONG AS the economics are not similar to that of airplanes - and frankly, without systems similar to Skylon, where you actually use the air in the atmosphere, you'll never get there - the question remains what is the most economical. And if you compare the first stage of spaceX with something like Adeline - which was what I compared - then you can definitely make an economic (better) case for the latter.
One can argue it's only a short-term or mid-long term better economic solution, but that doesn't change the fact that it IS economical more fruitful as of yet, and it will remain so, until you have a completely different system which is, actually, comparable with airplanes.
The real issue is Belgian politics, where no true statesman exists any longer, and even if there were, wouldn't get anything done because of it's convoluted and absurd political systems anyhow. Fact is, for decades they are in the inability to have a grand or even major energy-policy. They just muddled on and on. And they currently leaning towards an unrealistic 'green revolution" with windmills and solar - which recently saw the energy-bill rise with 80%, because of equally absurd subsidies by the state, of the state - but which, ultimately, now has to be paid mainly by those that couldn't afford those solar-panels in the first place. That, and other things, have led to a total non-policy on energy.
What SHOULD have happened, is that back in the 90'ies, a totally new 3gen nuclear reactor should have been built(and this time, not squandered away to a monopolistic private company which charges us much too much, because they can afford to.
Instead, we now keep open very old 2gen reactors, longer and longer - also because we can't afford anything else, due to the lack of political will and economic reality.
If one had done that, we would now possess far more reliable, efficient and safe reactors who could provide all our energy-needs (Belgium is a small country) for the next 40 years in all comfort. Instead, we choose to keep fairly unreliable reactors open way past there due time. It doesn't make sense. Saying we can close them and replace the 51% share of electricity with our windmills is as equally absurd and unrealistic. the only thing remaining by 2025 will be mass import of electricity from abroad, and classical oil/coal derived plants, with all the pollution and CO2 that come with it.
Our next-to-non-existent energy policy is a disgrace, and it has been for the past 30 years.
Do note it's a comparison between SpaxeX' first stage return and something like Adeline. Nothing more, nothing less. If airplanes would have the same cost-benefit considerations as rockets, then yes, we would do that with planes too.
That would be an Arianspace-shill, if I were a shill, since Adeline is of the EU space-program (by airbus).;-)
I'm not certain why you're being so defensive. I merely pointed out that, if you compare the projects of having the whole first stage come back, and an Adeline-esque approach, the latter seems to have an economic advantage.
It doesn't mean I'm not a proponent of re-usability, but if you're going to invoke that sort of analogy, you'd have to compare it to something like Skylon, with its sabre-engines. As far as it goes now, your analogy is a bit lacking. To make it correct, one would need to change the following: only about half of the 747 is being recuperated anyhow (thus, still making it very expensive). And of that half, about 80% of the costs can be recuperated by just returning the engines and avionics. To recuperate that last 20% of half of the 747 (aka, 10% of the total cost), you'll use up and lose 30 to 50% of your cargo/passenger potential.
Seen, like that, then: yes, it certainly could make economic sense to go for an Adeline approach. It merely depends on a cost-benefit analysis.
Well, it's explained in the wikipedia (link) I posted, no?
It refers to the weight of fuel being spend to return safely to Earth. The best estimates of SpaceX' approach to land the whole first stage by using it's engine, is around 35-40 K kg. In contrast, Adeline uses a winged return, and then some small deployable propellers, and would only use 2000 kg of fuel.
This also makes a fairly huge difference in maximum usable payload, where SpaceX loses between 30 and 50% that way, Adeline would lose less than 10%.
I note some are saying it makes sense to let return the whole booster/first stage, and that the center of gravity is at the bottom anyway, so it makes sense to go for the whole packet.. but I dispute that.
Purely speaking from an economic standpoint, it would also make sense to do things differently. One could also just go for the most expensive part, which are the engines and avionics, and, depending on how you manage to retrieve them, it could actually be better. This isn't really all that far-fetched. Arianespace (EU) is thinking exactly that, for a further development of the Ariane 6, after it gets build. It's partially reusable, and it's called Adeline.
And since it only would use 2000 kg versus 35000kg with SpaceX (and thus, also effects the usable payload one can get in orbit), there is actually a commercial case to be made for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, this is not a rebuttal based on logical arguments.
Ah, yes... I became aware half way that he was nothing more than a pro-green troll. Nothing worthwhile ever comes out of it. He'd rather be inconsistent and annoying - as you point out - than actually ever seriously debate anything using valid arguments.
I've seen that attitude before. He can't look objectively at things, it's always through ideologically coloured goggles he sees things. A more nuanced person would realise that, while LFTR are not a "magical bullet" which will solve everything, there are at least good arguments why the benefits far outweighs the disadvantages.
But its no use debating this with him. He's already in the "ignore everything else and call it shill'-mode. One can't have an open discussion with someone whom doesn't even want to try.
He's just trolling.
Well, thank you for your valuable input. It's refreshing to see nothing changed in the ideological self-delusion of green fanboys.
Once again, you did not address my criticism. Nor did the paper, for that matter. Or do you think because something is peer reviewed, it's above any criticism?
I've given you a clear example and argument why the claim that such a thing is economically viable, is highly doubtful. You, nor the paper, have given any retort, accept bland statements and using fallacies.
Feel free to actually give a rebuttal with logical arguments to what I said any time.
You remain with your ad hominem fallacy, thus.
If you change your mind and actually start giving valid counter-arguments, let me know.
Great rebuttal...
So, again, your logical fallacy is on display. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...
You think you rebutted anything by simply claiming something a 'shill site'? I don't have a problem looking at the pro- AND con- sides. I just look at the arguments and their logical validity. It's just that I find the pro- camp has far less of them.
The same goes for you. I gave you a clear example why it isn't economical viable if one claims a smart-super-grid will solve anything. You didn't counter it at all, nor gave some valid reasons for it. You merely say "The plans for each country are independent." and then conclude "Your complaint is flawed from the outset." that's NOT addressing the issue. At all. You didn't refute or give a rebuttal to anything, not even to anything of the links with criticism I gave you.
There you simply say "It's a shill site, so I don't have to look at the arguments."
Yes, good going. There sure is *someone* being fooled, true. But I think it's rather of the self-delusional kind.
You didn't even comprehend it doesn't need to be 'independent' countries. The same goes for any area where one is dependent on other area's. This can be States within a country, for instance: the same economics apply.
It seems the term 'shill' has become mainstream as a response in slashdot. Of course, if everyone starts using that to counter everyone else one does not agree with, one gets nowhere...
Let's try it this way: instead of dishing or ignoring an argument or reasoning for ad hominem reasons (aka, where it comes from), why not look and debate the arguments itself, instead?
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...
A valid argument remains valid, nomatter WHO said it, after all. One should focus on the arguments, thus.
Some rebuttals are in order, because otherwise people might think it's actually all valid, while, in fact, most is not.
Rebuttals:
http://pche-sts.blogspot.be/20...
http://energyfromthorium.com/2...
Many of those counter-arguments you raise, have been brought up before, and equally as much has it been shown to be largely complete nonsense.
Rebuttals:
http://pche-sts.blogspot.be/20...
http://energyfromthorium.com/2...
Many of those counter-arguments in that slasdot-post you link to, have been brought up before, and equally as much has it been shown to be largely complete nonsense.
No, I get annoyed because one isn't addressing some key points. Which have been raised numerous times by criticis:
http://bravenewclimate.com/200...
http://www.resilience.org/stor...
http://bravenewclimate.com/201...
http://www.windaction.org/post...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
One of the key points, for instance, is the economical viability of it. Let me simplify the issue: say, you have country 1 and country 2. both have judged the way to go is 100% for renewable energy, like wind. say, there is no wind in country 1. What the authors now say is: no problem, we'll create a smart grid, and that will transport it from country 2.
HOWEVER... what they then don't realise is, that if country 2 has made more or less enough windmills to get going, it CAN NOT sustain a complete other country, unless they have double the amount needed to sustain their own (assuming both countries use roughly the same amount).
Thus they need far more capacity, if they are going to provide another country. However, this also means that for most of the time, there will be a HUGE overcompensation (namely all the times there is wind). Which means half of those windmills will have nothing to do at that time, while yet having been costly to built.
The same goes for country 2 in regard to country 1. Worse, if there is a large weather-front which is wind-poor, it could be that both countries need to get the electricity from a third or fourth country. Which in turn has to provide enough electricity for BOTH countries, then. so even more over-compensating must happen, to deal with this possibility.
Now, I don't know how things go in the USA, but that sure as hell wouldn't work in Europe, where the countries are much smaller, and much more heavily populated. And it would be quite economically unsound to have a windmill-park that is much larger than needed for ones' own demand, just in case another country would fall without.
Now, I read the rosy look that "storage of heat in soil and water" will deal with that, but I just don't think that's plausible. The current best systems, don't let you recuperate the stored energy for more than a couple of hours at best.
I find such claims, and especially the lack of answers and facts in these sort of papers wholly unsatisfactory. There have been many, many valid counterarguments and criticism on it, yet I see it nowhere addressed let alone refuted by the authors of any of those pro-renewable papers.
And also look at the critique of such peer-reviewed publications: http://bravenewclimate.com/200...
Otherwise, one could be confused into thinking that being peer reviewed means the conclusions are all correct.
My thoughts exactly.
A lot of people react like being stung by a wasp by my post.
It's like I said I despised Elon Musk and SpaceX or something, while I'm a fervent supporter of him/it, in fact. I think they have done great things.
I'm just saying there can be made a good, and perhaps even better, (economical) case for other systems like that of Adeline, compared to the whole-1st-stage retrieval. The main problem being the extra fuel. No so much because of the cost of the fuel, as some misinterpret and don't grasp here on slashdot, but because of the *weight* of that fuel, which directly cuts into the usable payload for a given rocket.
But as you said: the more diverse methods and techniques being tried out, the better.
Partially true. But I'm sure Arianespace had quite some people calculating it, so it's not like it sucked out of their thumb or comes out of the blue.
It's like some here compare rocketry 'like airplanes' with that of Adeline: that's just a dream too.
My only point was, that there could be made a good case for other systems, like adeline, that were economically more beneficial. As far as one can read the arguments (http://www.space.com/29620-airbus-adeline-reusable-rocket-space-tug.html), that seems to me to be the case.
Frankly, saying it hasn't proven anything... well, spaceX hasn't proven they could reuse the stage neither, nor proven they are 40% cheaper than ordinary use-once rockets. Thusfar.
Which doesn't mean I don't believe they don't have a good chance of doing exactly what they say, but as far as having actually demonstrated a beneficial economic advantage, they didn't prove anything neither, and it's still 'a dream' too. Just saying one can't use an argument without applying reciprocity.
I think some posters here react a bit too ideologically. I mean, I'm all for Musk and SpaceX too, and I applaud thee efforts. but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look at things objectively. It's quite possible that systems like adeline, for the first stage, compared to a total 1st stage retrieval, could be more cost-effective, and thus, more economically viable. I say there can be made a good case for that, nothing less, nothing more.
No, but using capital letters stresses the importance of what you want to convey.
Anyway, you're missing the point.
The point was and is NOT (stressing this) that SpaceX might or might not make rocketry 'like airplanes' in the mid- or longterm (which, after all, even you can't know for sure they'll succeed), but that the current system of having the FIRST STAGE (stressing this again) of a rocket coming back by using their fuel, compared to a system like adeline, is less economical advantageous.
I'm not sure why you keep negating that. It's just elementary cost-benefit analysis.
Now, YOU can make the contention that SpaceX will make it like airplanes, but that does NOTHING to change the fact that, as long as it doesn't, adeline is economically more beneficial. So the comparison was between the system of SpaceX first stage, and Adeline. Not between Adeline and an unknown future where rockets may or may not be 'like airplanes'. So me pointing this out is not 'meaningless', since it's a comparison not a comparison bewteen adeline and some future where SpaceX manages to reduce the total cost similar to that of airplanes, between those two systems of having a partially recovery of the rocket, nothing more, nothing less.
I hope I made this clear.
Now, as for your further argumentation... may I ask, if you even read the page to which I linked? Because it doesn't seem you bothered. Otherwise, you would already know that the major 'cost' is NOT (stressing this again) the fuel, but the fact that the added weight reduces the capacity of usable payload. I assume you realise that to propel 1 pound of mass would require 9.39 pounds of propellant? This means, that if you need 35000 kg extra to land the thing, you'll need 9 TIMES as much to get it up. That's why, if you didn't realise this, that SpaceX never lands the first stage when it has to deliver a heavy geostationary satellite in orbit: it's because they need all the fuel to get their payload up there. Ergo, the fuel they spend on it, needs more fuel to lift it, and that inveriably reduces the amount of weight of the payload they can send up. There is no way around this.
And that is only for the first stage. The second stage - and if they want to be 'like airplanes', you'll need to recuperate all stages - is going to be much, much more difficult to recuperate. But worse, this, in turn, will need, again, extra fuel, to transport the fuel tht will be needed to land it. WORSE STILL: since now the second stage is much heavier, that weight will need to be lifted by the first stage too, so that will need even MORE fuel, which in turn will need 9 times more fuel to lift this up too. Then we come to the third stage. Rince, repeat. It needs extra fuel to land, thus it gains weight, thus the second stage needs ectra fuel, plus it needs extra fuel to lift that extra fuel, plus the third stage who has to lift all the other stages up needs extra fuel to do so, and it needs extra fuel to lift that extra fuel.
Ergo: it gets exponentially more difficult to launch a rocket where all stages are recuperated. Or let me refrase that: it becomes exponentially more difficult for it to be economically viable, compared to a system where you'll only need a fraction of the mass to put the same payload into orbit.
Thus, as I said, there is definitely an economic point to be made to use other systems, like that of Adeline.
Note that this is an inherent problem, not just a mere technical problem. You'll ALWAYS have an exponentially increasing weight ratio for ever kg that is added as fuel or payload. The only way to starkly reduce the weight, at least of the first stage, is a system like Skylon, where you use the atmosphere, instead of carrying all your oxygen with you.
"You can certainly try, but you've hardly even attempted that thusfar, just repeatedly asserting that returning the engines and avionics is somehow cheaper than getting a whole intact rocket back at the launch pad or on a barge ready to be hoisted back onto the launch pad."
Complete hogwash and nonsense.
Ok, let me ask: what are you going to do on a wind-still day when it's clouded?
Let me take your own example, then. You loose:
Residential rooftop solar -4.6%
Solar PV plant -62.4%
Onshore wind -10%
Offshore wind -18%
rooftop solar -4.8%
Is a total loss of 99,8% of your energy/electricity.
Great going! Let's just say to all homes, factories and companies, they loose there electricity and have to do with 0,2%.
I really get it on my nerves from such naive, ideologically coloured 'arguments'. It's nothing more than a delusion. as long as wind and solar remains stochastic in nature, they can NEVER replace the current traditional plants, if you want to have and remain to have a stable, predictable supply of energy.
What are you talking about? Thus deuterium accounts for approximately 0.0156% (or on a mass basis 0.0312%) of all the naturally occurring hydrogen in the oceans, which means in total amount of staggering proportions. Uranium is still plenty enough of to last us more than 200 years, especially when enrichment is used.
But regardless, it only really needs to breach the gap until we have Thorium plants, especially of the LFTR kind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .
And that will get us going for 10000 years AND can diminish the nuclear waste of earlier, old nuclear plants (you would expect that the greens would be all for it, but no, because it still is 'nuclear', and that word alone makes all rational decisions fruitless).
The green solutions are NOT the answer: http://www.thecrimson.com/arti... . And as long as those systems are stochastic in nature (as wind and solar inherently is), it can NEVER replace stable electricity producing plants.
The constant push and BS-talk about how the alternative energy-sources are the solutions are nothing more than deliberately (at least, by some. others simply don't realise) confabulations and delusions. It is purely ideologically defined, and not rationally or even pragmatically analysed. I always find it pretty vexing whenever I see this kind of biased zealottery promoting these energy-forms, while it simply is NOT possible to provide a large scale, stable electricity with a base load, and load-following. You NEVER see the inherent drawbacks being mentioned, such as the fact that wind and solar ALWAYS need a backup (in the form of gas, oil or coal plants) that run constantly, to fill up the discrepancies between demand and production.
There is no real reason to have alternative ways as being the best solution to having a stable energy-network, but if you really HAVE to have it, because it is PC and gives politicians a good image, I wouldn't recommend going above 10%. It gets increasingly difficult to handle, after that. And if you really want alternatives, than geothermal or water(dam)power is far more stable.
I'm getting a bit fed up with all the nonsense some people tell about it. It's usually a mixture of ignorance and being wilful obtuse, but if one would put off the rosy ideological goggles, one would actually see windmills and solar are a VERY BAD alternative, if you want to be assured a stable and predictable source of electricity for your home, factory or company.
It wouldn't take more time than for any other module or stage to be connected, which is always the case, with rockets who have 2-3 stages (which are the vast majority of rockets).
The extra time and efort needed, compared to everything else, would be minimal. It's hardly a strong rebuttal, just like saying "it will take spaceX more time to check the tanks out too". As long as you can keep refurbishing costs low, the testing and hooking up are trivial costs compared to all the rest.
See my answer to a similar remark here: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Yes, but that was not the contention I made. AS LONG AS the economics are not similar to that of airplanes - and frankly, without systems similar to Skylon, where you actually use the air in the atmosphere, you'll never get there - the question remains what is the most economical. And if you compare the first stage of spaceX with something like Adeline - which was what I compared - then you can definitely make an economic (better) case for the latter.
One can argue it's only a short-term or mid-long term better economic solution, but that doesn't change the fact that it IS economical more fruitful as of yet, and it will remain so, until you have a completely different system which is, actually, comparable with airplanes.
The real issue is Belgian politics, where no true statesman exists any longer, and even if there were, wouldn't get anything done because of it's convoluted and absurd political systems anyhow. Fact is, for decades they are in the inability to have a grand or even major energy-policy. They just muddled on and on. And they currently leaning towards an unrealistic 'green revolution" with windmills and solar - which recently saw the energy-bill rise with 80%, because of equally absurd subsidies by the state, of the state - but which, ultimately, now has to be paid mainly by those that couldn't afford those solar-panels in the first place. That, and other things, have led to a total non-policy on energy.
What SHOULD have happened, is that back in the 90'ies, a totally new 3gen nuclear reactor should have been built(and this time, not squandered away to a monopolistic private company which charges us much too much, because they can afford to.
Instead, we now keep open very old 2gen reactors, longer and longer - also because we can't afford anything else, due to the lack of political will and economic reality.
If one had done that, we would now possess far more reliable, efficient and safe reactors who could provide all our energy-needs (Belgium is a small country) for the next 40 years in all comfort. Instead, we choose to keep fairly unreliable reactors open way past there due time. It doesn't make sense. Saying we can close them and replace the 51% share of electricity with our windmills is as equally absurd and unrealistic. the only thing remaining by 2025 will be mass import of electricity from abroad, and classical oil/coal derived plants, with all the pollution and CO2 that come with it.
Our next-to-non-existent energy policy is a disgrace, and it has been for the past 30 years.
See my response to catchblue22.
Do note it's a comparison between SpaxeX' first stage return and something like Adeline. Nothing more, nothing less. If airplanes would have the same cost-benefit considerations as rockets, then yes, we would do that with planes too.
That would be an Arianspace-shill, if I were a shill, since Adeline is of the EU space-program (by airbus). ;-)
I'm not certain why you're being so defensive. I merely pointed out that, if you compare the projects of having the whole first stage come back, and an Adeline-esque approach, the latter seems to have an economic advantage.
It doesn't mean I'm not a proponent of re-usability, but if you're going to invoke that sort of analogy, you'd have to compare it to something like Skylon, with its sabre-engines. As far as it goes now, your analogy is a bit lacking. To make it correct, one would need to change the following: only about half of the 747 is being recuperated anyhow (thus, still making it very expensive). And of that half, about 80% of the costs can be recuperated by just returning the engines and avionics. To recuperate that last 20% of half of the 747 (aka, 10% of the total cost), you'll use up and lose 30 to 50% of your cargo/passenger potential.
Seen, like that, then: yes, it certainly could make economic sense to go for an Adeline approach. It merely depends on a cost-benefit analysis.
Well, it's explained in the wikipedia (link) I posted, no?
It refers to the weight of fuel being spend to return safely to Earth. The best estimates of SpaceX' approach to land the whole first stage by using it's engine, is around 35-40 K kg. In contrast, Adeline uses a winged return, and then some small deployable propellers, and would only use 2000 kg of fuel.
This also makes a fairly huge difference in maximum usable payload, where SpaceX loses between 30 and 50% that way, Adeline would lose less than 10%.
I note some are saying it makes sense to let return the whole booster/first stage, and that the center of gravity is at the bottom anyway, so it makes sense to go for the whole packet.. but I dispute that.
Purely speaking from an economic standpoint, it would also make sense to do things differently.
One could also just go for the most expensive part, which are the engines and avionics, and, depending on how you manage to retrieve them, it could actually be better. This isn't really all that far-fetched. Arianespace (EU) is thinking exactly that, for a further development of the Ariane 6, after it gets build. It's partially reusable, and it's called Adeline.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... for more info.
And since it only would use 2000 kg versus 35000kg with SpaceX (and thus, also effects the usable payload one can get in orbit), there is actually a commercial case to be made for it.