 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / January 2007Dave Head's "Space Shield" DEBUNKED
Dave Head, I'd like to present some numbers relating directly to the feasibility of your space shield global warming "cure". These calculations assume impossibly light materials that most likely do not exist. A real shield would require much heavier and stronger materials to withstand all the forces acting on it including micrometeorites. If we were to build a 2.5 million km^2 area space shield (see my previous posts), with a thickness of, say 100 cm (yes, that thin!), and material at a density of 10 kg/m^3 (yes, that light!), we have a volume of (0.1 m) * (2,500,000 km^2 x 1,000,000 m^2/km^2) = 250,000,000,000 m^3. Total mass: 2,500,000,000,000 kg. Launch cost: $22,000/kg [1] giving a total of $55,000,000,000,000,000! Holy crap! Since this is obviously an impossibly light shield, the actual price is much higher. At a more reasonable but still very low 100 kg/m^3 the cost of the panel jumps to 550 quadrillion dollars. At the density of iron, 8000 kg/m^3 the cost becomes a staggering 44 *Quint*illion USD!!! The total gross domestic product of the entire planet is only around $55 *tr*illion [2], a thousandth of the minimal price and 1/800,000th the price with iron. There is simply not enough money in the world to do the job. Not by a long shot. Ie. your idea simply cannot work. Not with present spacelaunch technology and economy, that's for sure, and I don't see the technology being developed any time soon without massive spending and even then I don't know if it would be in time. Those are the hard numbers. Do with it what you want. SOURCES: [1] http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/news/news/releases/2000/00-237.html [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(currency) > Dave Head, > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(currency) You needed wiki to tell you that many zeroes made a quadrillion? Lewzer. Dave > > Dave Head, > > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > You needed wiki to tell you that many zeroes made a quadrillion? Hmm??? That's where I got a figure for the world GDP, actually. > Lewzer. > > Dave Tell it to these guys: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/11/07/sunspot_pla.html?category=technology&gu id=20061107105030 and https://ssl.catalog.com/~ultimax.com/whitepapers/2001_3a.html There's lotsa hits on google for 'global warming solar shield' Dave Head >Dave Head, > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(currency) > Tell it to these guys: > > http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/11/07/sunspot_pla.html?category=technology&gu id=20061107105030 You consider the Discovery Channel to be an authoritative source ? > and > > https://ssl.catalog.com/~ultimax.com/whitepapers/2001_3a.html > > There's lotsa hits on google for 'global warming solar shield' Google hits don't really mean very much. Graham >> Tell it to these guys: >> >> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/11/07/sunspot_pla.html?category=technology&gu id=20061107105030 > >You consider the Discovery Channel to be an authoritative source ? Do you like the Astronomical Society fo Endinburgh any better? http://www.astronomyedinburgh.org/publications/journals/48/page3.shtml >> and >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Graham > >> Tell it to these guys: > >> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/11/07/sunspot_pla.html?category=technology&gu id=20061107105030 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.astronomyedinburgh.org/publications/journals/48/page3.shtml I don't doubt it would work. They don't however address the issues of practicality or cost. Graham >> >> Tell it to these guys: >> >> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/11/07/sunspot_pla.html?category=technology&gu id=20061107105030 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >They don't however address the issues of practicality or cost. No, but if it becomes a consensus that there is a necessity to dim the sun or we are all gonna fry no matter what we do, then a lot of reallly smart people will likely solve that problem too. One interesting approach is to mine the moon for material for the space-based reflector. With 1/6th earth's gravity, getting stuff into orbit from there is not such a huge task. Dave Head >Graham > >> >> Tell it to these guys: > >> >> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/11/07/sunspot_pla.html?category=technology&gu id=20061107105030 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > we are all gonna fry no matter what we do, then a lot of reallly smart people > will likely solve that problem too. We're not going to fry though. > One interesting approach is to mine the moon for material for the space-based > reflector. With 1/6th earth's gravity, getting stuff into orbit from there is > not such a huge task. So who's going to mine the MOON Dave ? Automatic robots ? LMAO ! Graham >> >> >> Tell it to these guys: >> >> >> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/11/07/sunspot_pla.html?category=technology&gu id=20061107105030 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >We're not going to fry though. I don't think so either. I think a tech solution will be found. >> One interesting approach is to mine the moon for material for the space-based >> reflector. With 1/6th earth's gravity, getting stuff into orbit from there is >> not such a huge task. > >So who's going to mine the MOON Dave ? Automatic robots ? LMAO ! In 20 years, do you believe that computer science would _not_ be able to do so? I think in 20 years, computerized robot will probably be doing all the mining on earth. The point of such automation is to get people out of jobs that are dangerous. Mining is one of the most dangerous occupations. Dave Head >Graham > >> One interesting approach is to mine the moon for material for the space-based > >> reflector. With 1/6th earth's gravity, getting stuff into orbit from there is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > In 20 years, do you believe that computer science would _not_ be able to do so? Computer science isn't the immediate problem There's no fuel on the moon so you're going nowhere with this idea. > I think in 20 years, computerized robot will probably be doing all the mining > on earth. No they won't. You have an endearing faith in 'computerisation' for sure. > The point of such automation is to get people out of jobs that are > dangerous. Mining is one of the most dangerous occupations. No, automation is about economically automating repetitive tasks. Robots work fine in car factories for example. It's nothing to do with danger. Robots don't see dangers. You need ppl to do that. Graham >> >> One interesting approach is to mine the moon for material for the space-based >> >> reflector. With 1/6th earth's gravity, getting stuff into orbit from there is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Computer science isn't the immediate problem There's no fuel on the moon so you're going nowhere with this >idea. You must be joking. 1400 megawatts per square meter of solar energy strike the airless surface of the moon. If we can't harvest that by the time we're technologically capable of reaching and living on the moon, there's something wrong. >> I think in 20 years, computerized robot will probably be doing all the mining >> on earth. > >No they won't. You have an endearing faith in 'computerisation' for sure. We'll see... >> The point of such automation is to get people out of jobs that are >> dangerous. Mining is one of the most dangerous occupations. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Robots don't see dangers. You need ppl to do that. People see the danger, and then put the robots in harms way. Dave Head >Graham >>> >> One interesting approach is to mine the moon for material for the space-based >>> >> reflector. With 1/6th earth's gravity, getting stuff into orbit from there is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >You must be joking. 1400 megawatts per square meter Oops square kilometer damnit >of solar energy strike the >airless surface of the moon. If we can't harvest that by the time we're [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >>Graham <SNIP> > >You must be joking. 1400 megawatts per square meter > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > damnit <giggles> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > damnit Still wrong. Try again. Graham Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Still wrong. Try again. Perhaps Dave ought to take some tinfoil and construct his own personal reflector that he can wear on his head?  SignatureI hate speediots - especially Carl Troller. >Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> said in >rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >Perhaps Dave ought to take some tinfoil and construct his own personal >reflector that he can wear on his head? Hey, I'm not the one pushing the global warming hysteria in the 1st place. Odds are, there is _no_ need to do much of _anything_. The media is about 100% biased in favor of the left wing hysteria-mongers, so that credible climate scientists that disagree with the whole concept are never quoted by the mainstream media. Dave Head > >Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> said > >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > scientists that disagree with the whole concept are never quoted by the > mainstream media. Dave, I'm something of a sceptic about the whole global warming melodrama myself but I don't feel the need to resort to totally insane crazy ideas like space based power stations. Take a deep breath and get real man. Graham >> >Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> said >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >Dave, I'm something of a sceptic about the whole global warming melodrama myself but I don't feel the need to resort >to totally insane crazy ideas like space based power stations. I wasn't the one to think of solar power satellites - I've been reading about 'em for decades. Other people thought of 'em. I was thinking they were weird for a while, too, until I started reading the stuff. They're just getting a lot closer to feasible now, that's all. While it may be a stretch to put a shield at L1 and power generation there too (might require too much of the antenna tracking when beaming the power back to earth), but two separate systems might be the key. OTOH, there's some Russian scientists that think the sun is due to go into a period of attenuated activity and we might be wondering about a reflector out in space to direct some more sunlight our way so we don't freeze... >Take a deep breath and get real man. Hey, what fun would that be? Dave Head >Graham Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> said in rec.autos.driving: >>> >Perhaps Dave ought to take some tinfoil and construct his own personal >>> >reflector that he can wear on his head? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >for a while, too, until I started reading the stuff. They're just getting a >lot closer to feasible now, that's all. In that case, perhaps we ought to quit wasting resources on that piddly little International Space Station and get cracking on a Dyson Sphere instead? SignatureI hate speediots - especially Carl Troller. > >> >Perhaps Dave ought to take some tinfoil and construct his own personal > >> >reflector that he can wear on his head? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > for a while, too, until I started reading the stuff. They're just getting a > lot closer to feasible now, that's all. They're not feasible and if you had a decent science / engineering education you'd understand why. Academia is full of monumental posturing fuckwits I'm sorry to say and your deception by them is 100% forgiveable, but having said that you now need to wake up to reality. > While it may be a stretch to put a shield at L1 and power generation there too > (might require too much of the antenna tracking when beaming the power back to > earth), but two separate systems might be the key. There will be NO L 1 ! It is simply never going to happen any more than Thunderbird 2 ( from the animated series ) will ever fly in reality. Joe 90 doesn't exist in the real world either - nor does Dr Who and the Daleks. The Mysterons are simply in a TV series and there is no real Lieutenant Green. ! Even the Klingons aren't real Dave. > OTOH, there's some Russian scientists that think the sun is due to go into a > period of attenuated activity and we might be wondering about a reflector out > in space to direct some more sunlight our way so we don't freeze... Good Lord. Graham <...> >> OTOH, there's some Russian scientists that think the sun is due to go >> into a period of attenuated activity and we might be wondering about >> a reflector out in space to direct some more sunlight our way so we >> don't freeze... > > Good Lord. I guess we better get busy mining the asteroids for all the iron and aluminum it's going to take to build that ringworld (those Dyson spheres are f.cking *expensive*). Back to reality, I did hear of late that there are plans to place solar *observatories* ahead and behind in Earth's orbit to get 3D imaging, but I never did hear whether they were targeting L points. Jim ><...> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >aluminum it's going to take to build that ringworld (those Dyson spheres are >f.cking *expensive*). >Chanting< The ringworld is unstable... The ringworld is unstable... DPH >Back to reality, I did hear of late that there are plans to place solar >*observatories* ahead and behind in Earth's orbit to get 3D imaging, but I >never did hear whether they were targeting L points. > >Jim >> >> >Perhaps Dave ought to take some tinfoil and construct his own personal >> >> >reflector that he can wear on his head? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >They're not feasible and if you had a decent science / engineering education you'd understand why. As usual, you're thinking about what can be done today, and I'm thinking about what can be done tomorrow. Someone will figure out cheap-to-orbit, and then the game will be afoot, with people falling all over themselves to make solar power satellites work. 30 - 40 years away, probably. It'll take the space elevator. Probably. And by that time people will have discovered that global warming is a hoax and we'll be in the middle of Newsweek telling us about the coming ice age again, so we won't _need_ a shield at L1 or LEO or anywhere. And the space elevator wasn't even thinkable until about 10 years ago when some Japanese scientists invented carbon nanotubes. That set the stage for a "strong enough" teather for a counterweight that would keep it vertical over the equator. So, 10 years ago, you'd have been saying "never" about space elevators, displaying a characteristic lack of imagination. Then someone would have invented something, as they invariably do and did, and all of a sudden feasibility is thinkable. If you had any sense of history you'd be much more circumspect about throwing around the "impossible" idea, since those that have done it before have so very often ended up looking stupid. >Academia is full of monumental posturing fuckwits I'm sorry to say and your deception by them is 100% forgiveable, but >having said that you now need to wake up to reality. I really hate reality - always have... >> While it may be a stretch to put a shield at L1 and power generation there too >> (might require too much of the antenna tracking when beaming the power back to >> earth), but two separate systems might be the key. > >There will be NO L 1 ! ? >It is simply never going to happen any more than Thunderbird 2 ( from the animated series ) will ever fly in reality. Never heard of Thunderbird 2. >Joe 90 doesn't exist in the real world either Who? > - nor does Dr Who Saw that back in the 70's, I think... > and the Daleks. Who'r they? >The Mysterons are simply in a TV series Never saw it. >and there is no real Lieutenant Green. ! Who? >Even the Klingons aren't real Dave. The SETI bunch will likely have them down here if they keep broadcasting inviting signals... >> OTOH, there's some Russian scientists that think the sun is due to go into a >> period of attenuated activity and we might be wondering about a reflector out >> in space to direct some more sunlight our way so we don't freeze... > >Good Lord. Yes? Dave Head >Graham > >They're not feasible and if you had a decent science / engineering education you'd >understand why. > > As usual, you're thinking about what can be done today, and I'm thinking about > what can be done tomorrow. I also expect you're sure that everything Hollywood depicts in movies is for real ! Just how much of a gullible sheep are you ???? Graham >> >They're not feasible and if you had a decent science / engineering education you'd >understand why. >> >> As usual, you're thinking about what can be done today, and I'm thinking about >> what can be done tomorrow. > >I also expect you're sure that everything Hollywood depicts in movies is for real ! I'm a real believer that if a human being can reasonably conceptualize how something might be done, it will result in some human being eventually doing it. Leonardo conceptualizes flying in an era where it is laughable, then the Wright Brothers go ahead and do it when the technology permits it. And I'm sure there were lots of (wrong) people standing around and telling Leonardo, "never". >Just how much of a gullible sheep are you ???? Well, I don't believe that every car chase has wet streets just because Hollywood shows it that way now... DPH >Graham >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Still wrong. Try again. Well, that's what Encarta says it is. What do you think it is? DPH >Graham > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Well, that's what Encarta says it is. What do you think it is? The same incident energy as 'your' orbiting power satellites receive. Do I need to explain why ? Let me put it another way. Why do you think the Sun shines 1000 times brighter on the Moon than on Earth ? Graham >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >The same incident energy as 'your' orbiting power satellites receive. Well, Encarta says that the solar constant at the very top of earth's atmosphere is 1400 megawatts per square kilometer. Since the satellites and earth and the moon and the L1 Lagrange point are all approx 92 - 93 million miles from the sun, and since there's no appreciable attenuation of this radiation in free space, the incident power density should, for all these points, be pretty close to 1400 megawatts per square kilometer. >Do I need to explain why ? It'd be interesting to know why you think its different. >Let me put it another way. Why do you think the Sun shines 1000 times brighter on the Moon than on Earth ? It doesn't - at the top of earth's atmosphere. On the earth's surface, it is somewhat attenuated by the intevening atmosphere. But again, according to Encarta, it is only a 50% loss. A corroborating website, also on solar power satellites: http://www.freemars.org/history/sps.html says: "A solar panel facing the sun in near-Earth space receives about 1400 watts of sunlight per square meter" Multiply that out, with 1 million square meters per square kilometer, and you get 1400 megwatts per square kilometer. Dave Head >Graham > >> >> >You must be joking. 1400 megawatts per square meter > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Well, Encarta says that the solar constant at the very top of earth's > atmosphere is 1400 megawatts per square kilometer. In which case Encarta lies. If you had even the tiniest weensiest scientific education you'd understand why. Sadly you are a tribute to the utterly vacuously useless education that the USA provides. And why most Americans can't even do the scientific equivalent of tying their own shoelaces. Graahm > >> >Still wrong. Try again. > >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Well, Encarta says that the solar constant at the very top of earth's > atmosphere is 1400 megawatts per square kilometer. And what is it at ground level on Earth ? Graham >> >> >Still wrong. Try again. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >And what is it at ground level on Earth ? I've posted it twice... if you're too far into your Jim Beam to remember, or failed to read it the 1st time, I guess you'll just have to pull up Encarta yourself. DPH >Graham > >> >> >Still wrong. Try again. > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I've posted it twice... And you've got it consistently wrong too ! > if you're too far into your Jim Beam to remember, or > failed to read it the 1st time, I guess you'll just have to pull up Encarta > yourself. Just tell me why you think the moon has higher insolation that the Earth if you can ? By 1000 times btw according to your numbers. I'd love to hear your explanation for that ! Graham >> >> >> >Still wrong. Try again. >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >By 1000 times btw according to your numbers. WTF are you talking about? I said, several times, that everything in earth vicinity gets the same insolation - 1400 megawatts per square kilometer. >I'd love to hear your explanation for that ! > >Graham Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> said in rec.autos.driving: >>> >> >> >Still wrong. Try again. >>> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >>I'd love to hear your explanation for that ! To tie this thread back to the topic of this newsgroup, is it safe to say that you two are engaged in a bit of interplanetary bench racing? :) SignatureI hate speediots - especially Carl Troller. >Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >To tie this thread back to the topic of this newsgroup, is it safe to >say that you two are engaged in a bit of interplanetary bench racing? Yeah, something like that. But we're having a good time. DPH >:) > >> >> >> >Still wrong. Try again. > >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > WTF are you talking about? I said, several times, that everything in earth > vicinity gets the same insolation - 1400 megawatts per square kilometer. You threw me with your unusual way of quoting the numbers. It's 1.4 kW / sq metre. Not really that much. How does that help youi ? Graham >> >> >> >> >Still wrong. Try again. >> >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >You threw me with your unusual way of quoting the numbers. Details! <G> >It's 1.4 kW / sq metre. OK, that was just how Encarta stated it. Same number stated a different way. A square kilomter is 1000 multiplied by 1000, or 1 million square meters, so 1.4KW X 1000 = 1400 Kw. 1400 Kw X 1000 = 1400 Megawatts... per square kilometer. >Not really that much. Its still 1400 megawatts per square kilometer, which is a lot if you happen to have a square kilometer of energy gathering devices. Interstingly, I saw a design for a light-converting rectenna, which would have been something like 90% efficient had they got it to work. It was dated 2002, tho, and we haven't heard about it, so I suspect they didn't get it to work. >How does that help youi ? Well, the shower in the bathroom still needs rebuilding, I'm still not 100% over being sick, and I still need to design and erect my 10 band fan dipole with the wire I got for christmas. But other than that, everything is just fine. Dave Head >Graham > >Computer science isn't the immediate problem There's no fuel on the moon so you're >going nowhere with this > idea. > > You must be joking. 1400 megawatts per square meter of solar energy strike the > airless surface of the moon. Is that some kind of perverse joke ? Graham >> Tell it to these guys: >> >> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/11/07/sunspot_pla.html?category=technology&gu id=20061107105030 > >You consider the Discovery Channel to be an authoritative source ? And here's some NASA thinkers on the subject: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1849&posts=200&start=1 >> and >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Graham > >> Tell it to these guys: > >> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/11/07/sunspot_pla.html?category=technology&gu id=20061107105030 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1849&posts=200&start=1 No sign of taking the practicalities into consideration again. Apparently one guy says the reflectors will be made in a factory on the *MOON* ! Get real Dave ! It's pure poppycock. Graham >> >> Tell it to these guys: >> >> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/11/07/sunspot_pla.html?category=technology&gu id=20061107105030 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >It's pure poppycock. If there's one constant throughout history, it is that those that say something can't be done turn out to be wrong. That's because someone else goes ahead and does it. Dave Head >Graham > >> >> Tell it to these guys: > >> >> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/11/07/sunspot_pla.html?category=technology&gu id=20061107105030 [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Dave Head So who's going to "go ahead and do it", anyway? PS. If you want to fight global warming I doubt you can build your solar shield, but you can get rid of your SUV... > >Graham > >> >> Tell it to these guys: > >> >> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/11/07/sunspot_pla.html?category=technology&gu id=20061107105030 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > can't be done turn out to be wrong. That's because someone else goes ahead and > does it. It's not true though. It's just a convenient way of avoiding certain truths. In the same way thar 2 + 2 will never equal 4679m No matter how many ppl try to make it so. I recall when I was young 'they' expected ppl to live in underwater communities and 'they' would discover a way we could breathe water. Hasn't happened yet. It's as barking mad now as it was back then. Graham > Tell it to these guys: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Dave Head I don't care what anybody says about it being so great and all. I want you to address the numbers I gave. Unless you can debunk my calculations, then you have to accept what they are saying. PS. Even with an absurdly small density equal to that of AIR, or 1 kil per cubic meter, it's still a horrific $5.5 quadrillion. Sorry, Dave, but I can't see your thing getting off the ground (pun DEFINITELY intended). And that's launch costs ALONE. Never mind all the money needed to fabricate each piece, to deliver and transport it, to test them all, oy oy oy... To make this thing manageable, say the cited figure of $3 trillion it would have to have an absurdly low density of 0.0005 kg/m^3!!! That's like a near-VACUUM! Micrometeorites, solar plasma, etc would disrupt that very, VERY quickly. I'm sorry, but your thing is not going to happen any time soon. Not soon enough to make any difference. > >Dave Head, > > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > > >[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(currency) >> Tell it to these guys: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >I don't care what anybody says about it being so great and all. >I want you to address the numbers I gave. I lost interest the moment you started talking about making it 100 cm thick. Why on earth would you want to do that? You make it out of solar sail material, several thousandths of an inch thick - that will block the sunlight just as well, and doesn't require numbers that make things totally impossible. >Unless you can >debunk my calculations, then you have to accept what they >are saying. No, I can instead accept the writings of those that post to the web and discuss this stuff in white papers, and do so from university websites, and have things like "PHD" behind their names, and say that it can be done. Dave Head >PS. Even with an absurdly small density equal to that of AIR, >or 1 kil per cubic meter, it's still a horrific $5.5 quadrillion. [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >> > >> >[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(currency) > >> Tell it to these guys: > >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > material, several thousandths of an inch thick - that will block the sunlight > just as well, and doesn't require numbers that make things totally impossible. What about micrometeorites? Won't they rip that thing to shreds? And how do you make the thing _opaque_? If it's not opaque then to block a similar level of sunlight it must become a heck of a lot bigger than just 2.5 million km^2. Double the area, double the cost, by the way. At 0.01 cm/100 um ("several thousandths of an inch") with a density equal to AIR, the cost may drop to $550,000,000,000, which seems a lot better, but AIR-like density seems very FLIMSY and will degrade very EASILY. And it will block hardly any sunlight, ie. it's a vain expenditure. If it's a thin sheet of, say, aluminum, which is reflective and thus blocks sunlight (although at this thickness it will acquire some level of transparency), with a density of around 2750 kg/m^3 the price leaps to a horrible $1.5 QUADrillion. Due to the low sunblocking prowess at these sizes we may have to increase the area. I have no idea what your "scientists" propose to make this thing out of, but it must be: 1. very low density, comparable to that of air 2. capable of being extremely strong even in an ultrathin sheet and must not be widdled away by micrometeors 3. even at that thickness must be very good at reflecting light I don't know of any such materials offhand, do you? Are they going to make it out of Roswell UFO debris? :grin: Oooh. It's disputable if such a thing exists, and even if it does I seriously doubt they have enough and even if they managed to secretly figure out how to make the stuff I doubt it would be light enough to produce a large enough shield with minimal costs. Unless they have the antigrav lifters from the UFOs and they're damn cheap. But that's total speculation, and I prefer to stick to hard facts. Hard facts are there's a good chance this thing is damn infeasible. Thanks for the more accurate numbers, BTW. You helped solidify my case :) PS. Even if you drop the thickness to 10 um (less than 1/1000th of an inch!) at a reasonable density it will still cost something like $150 trillion, still more than the world GDP and thus it would take a heck of a lot of time to build. Too long to have the desired effect. Remember, as CO2 levels go up, the more shielding you need. > >Unless you can > >debunk my calculations, then you have to accept what they [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Dave Head I don't care about degrees or whatever. If hard numbers are presented can you actually REFUTE them, ie. show a error in my calculations or assumptions? Don't just go around citing "authority" in the deluded idea that they must be right, they can't be wrong even though for one they are still human and fallible. I'd be curious to know what they propose to make the darn thing out of and how they arrived at that oddly low $3 trillion figure. And how do they propose to develop the technology AND build the thing all within a reasonable amount of time for it to have an effect? > >PS. Even with an absurdly small density equal to that of AIR, > >or 1 kil per cubic meter, it's still a horrific $5.5 quadrillion. [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > >> > > >> >[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(currency) >> >> Tell it to these guys: >> >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >What about micrometeorites? Won't they rip that thing to shreds? Over time there would be some holes. Serveral ways to deal with those would be either to replace the sections that are really badly damaged, or keep building the thing bigger as center sections become more porous to light. I don't know what the current thinkers have in mind to handle that - those are my own speculations. >And >how do you make the thing _opaque_? If it were mylar, it would be so. There are other materials. The stuff I read says about using _mirrors_ so apparently they think that they can aluminize the stuff. Another approach was to loft moon dust into the L1 point to dim the sun, but someone else pointed out that if we started to freeze, removing it in an emergency fashion might be difficult. >If it's not opaque then to block a >similar level of sunlight it must become a heck of a lot bigger than [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >I don't know of any such materials offhand, do you? I was reading about solar sail material last year, when people that were thinking of this solar shield proposal were also thinking of that material. It apparently is even thinner and lighter than mylar film. Don't think I bookmarked that, tho. >Are they going to >make it out of Roswell UFO debris? :grin: Yeah. You finally figured it out!!!! <GGG> > Oooh. It's disputable if such >a thing exists, and even if it does I seriously doubt they have enough [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Remember, >as CO2 levels go up, the more shielding you need. Oooohhh... I _did_ bookmark the solar sail stuff: http://solarsails.jpl.nasa.gov/introduction/design-construction.html "Conventional light sail film has comprised 5 micron thick aluminized mylar or kapton with a thin film aluminum layer (approximately 100 nm thick) deposited on one side to form a mirror surface with 90% reflectivity." and: "The other key contender, kapton, can withstand ultraviolet radiation but isn't available in layers much thinner than 8 µm, with a resulting areal density of 12 grams per square meter." >> >Unless you can >> >debunk my calculations, then you have to accept what they [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >technology AND build the thing all within a reasonable amount >of time for it to have an effect? Well, time isn't much of a pressing factor. The Kyoto treaty scientists were only predicting a 3 - 4 degree rise in temp in a 100 year span. If we started 80 years from now, when we can expect _much_ better ways to launch spacecraft than we have now, we could take 20 years to have a shield at the L1 point that would be capable of restoring the earth to mid-twentieth-century temperatures... if anyone would really want that (it was _cold_, damnit... I went to school then - walked in the snow, up hill both ways, etc. etc. <GGG>) >> >PS. Even with an absurdly small density equal to that of AIR, >> >or 1 kil per cubic meter, it's still a horrific $5.5 quadrillion. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >trillion it would have to have an absurdly low density of >> >0.0005 kg/m^3!!! How about 8 grams per square meter for an 8 micron kapton sheet? And do you doubt that launch costs are going to come waaaaaayyyy down even in the next 20 year, let alone, say, 80 years? This thing doesn't have to go up tomorrow. We have _lots_ of time to do this, because it is capable of returning us to the ice age if we would want to do that. It will, _with certainty_, cool the earth. Dave Head >That's like a near-VACUUM! Micrometeorites, >> >solar plasma, etc would disrupt that very, VERY quickly. I'm [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >> >> > >> >> >[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(currency) > >> >> Tell it to these guys: > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > sun, but someone else pointed out that if we started to freeze, removing it in > an emergency fashion might be difficult. Don't worry. The micrometeors would just rip it to shreds in no time flat. Also, how do you think it'll hold up in the solar wind with the stress being applied to such a thin material over such a big area? > >If it's not opaque then to block a > >similar level of sunlight it must become a heck of a lot bigger than [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > apparently is even thinner and lighter than mylar film. Don't think I > bookmarked that, tho. It's still too expensive. See below. > >Are they going to > >make it out of Roswell UFO debris? :grin: > > Yeah. You finally figured it out!!!! <GGG> <GIGGLING PROFUSELY> I'm talking about the strength of the material. ... > >I don't care about degrees or whatever. If hard numbers are > >presented can you actually REFUTE them, ie. show a error in [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > temperatures... if anyone would really want that (it was _cold_, damnit... I > went to school then - walked in the snow, up hill both ways, etc. etc. <GGG>) Not to mention that the environment would probably be wrecked by then and that Kyoto is only a minimal measure. The damage will have been done at that point. > >> >PS. Even with an absurdly small density equal to that of AIR, > >> >or 1 kil per cubic meter, it's still a horrific $5.5 quadrillion. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > returning us to the ice age if we would want to do that. It will, _with > certainty_, cool the earth. The numbers you give, with an area of 2.5 trillion square meters gives a price tag of around $400 trillion, still greater than the world GDP. Oh, and in 80 years we probably won't have any more pretroleum left... You know what, I think you are getting desperate to keep your SUV! It's SOOO much cheaper to just ditch the SUV. Or do you like catering to the needs of the greedy rich guys running things (not to mention that this sun screen thing would hoover up their money like crazy!)? Furthermore even if you COULD do this thing it would still take a while, whereas ditching the SUV allows you to make an IMMEDIATE, if small, contribution to solving the problem. You seem to admit there is a problem, but you don't want to make any sacrifices to solve it and instead want to just go on business-as-usual and look for "solutions" that try to allow that. > Dave Head <SNIP!> >> >> >> Tell it to these guys: >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >applied to >such a thin material over such a big area? This stuff is being touted as "solar sail" material, so will be made for the purpose of standing up to the solar wind. As for micrometeoroids, there just aren't that many of them, really. Why do you think that our astronauts have not been killed by having tiny high speed rocks tearing thru their bodies? Hasn't happened since the start of the space program. Lots of parts on spacecraft are _very_ thin, just enough to hold a low pressure atmosphere. The micrometeoroids would indeed damage it, but not in "short order." >> >If it's not opaque then to block a >> >similar level of sunlight it must become a heck of a lot bigger than [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >> apparently is even thinner and lighter than mylar film. Don't think I >> bookmarked that, tho. >It's still too expensive. See below. If we try to launch it tomorrow it might be. Probably not in 20 years. >> >Are they going to >> >make it out of Roswell UFO debris? :grin: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >then and that Kyoto is only a minimal measure. The damage will >have been done at that point. 3 - 4 degrees rise in 100 years isn't going to wreck things. And, this shield will likely be deployed far in advance of 100 years, if it is decided that it is the way to go. >> >> >PS. Even with an absurdly small density equal to that of AIR, >> >> >or 1 kil per cubic meter, it's still a horrific $5.5 quadrillion. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >The numbers you give, with an area of 2.5 trillion square meters gives >a price tag of around $400 trillion, still greater than the world GDP. Today. Including some pretty stiff launch costs. Which will most likely be FAR cheaper in the future. >Oh, and in 80 years we probably won't have any more pretroleum left... Oh, gimme a break. We have far more than the middle eastern oil reserves right in this country, locked up in shale. Ditto Canada and their tar sands. With a higher price, those can be tapped. >You know what, I think you are getting desperate to keep your SUV! I'm going to keep it anyway... > It's >SOOO much cheaper to just ditch the SUV. But that will _not_ solve the problem. There's a good chance that completely shutting down the world's entire industrialization would not solve the problem. There is a natural component to GW that nobody knows how big it is. >Or do you like catering to the >needs of the greedy rich guys running things (not to mention that this >sun screen thing would hoover up their money like crazy!)? Furthermore >even if you COULD do this thing it would still take a while, whereas >ditching the SUV allows you to make an IMMEDIATE, if small, >contribution Inadequate contribution. >to solving the problem. You seem to admit there is a problem, but you >don't want to make any sacrifices to solve it That's the key - there's far too many GW proponent's whose sole reason for being into this thing is to be able to get their way, finally, about smaller vehicles and all the other left-wing greenie tripe we've been fighting for decades. That's what its all about with them. > and instead want to just >go on business-as-usual Business is good, in case you hadn't heard... > and look for "solutions" that try to allow >that. Yeah, we'd like business to _stay_ good, too. Dave Head >> Dave Head >> ><SNIP!> > >> Tell it to these guys: > >> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/11/07/sunspot_pla.html?category=technology&gu id=20061107105030 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > material, several thousandths of an inch thick - that will block the sunlight > just as well, and doesn't require numbers that make things totally impossible. Let's say it's 0.1mm thick material ( 4 thou or mil ). Say metallised melinex film. The volume goes down by 10,000 times but the density goes up ( melinex is 1.4 tonnes / m^3 ) by 140 times. Overall weight saving is 71 x. Using the same calculation it's still $775 trillion in launch costs or 65 times the US GDP ! Graham > > >> Tell it to these guys: > > >> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/11/07/sunspot_pla.html?category=technology&gu id=20061107105030 [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Graham Yep, Dave, you're getting it in stereo! Graham here got to the same conclusion... Why can't you admit your thing is woefully infeasible?! >> >> Tell it to these guys: >> >> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/11/07/sunspot_pla.html?category=technology&gu id=20061107105030 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Let's say it's 0.1mm thick material ( 4 thou or mil ). Say metallised melinex film. 8 microns of solar sail material - Kapton: http://solarsails.jpl.nasa.gov/introduction/design-construction.html >The volume goes down by 10,000 times but the density goes up ( melinex is 1.4 tonnes / m^3 ) by 140 >times. Overall weight saving is 71 x. About the same density for Kapton. The launch costs will have to come down, that's all. >Using the same calculation it's still $775 trillion in launch costs or 65 times the US GDP ! What will launch costs be 20 years from now? 40? 60? 80? Once we figure the best way to do this, we can put as much material between us and the sun as we need, and create another ice age if we would want to do that, or if we're not careful. Dave Head >Graham >> >> Tell it to these guys: >> >> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/11/07/sunspot_pla.html?category=technology&gu id=20061107105030 [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Using the same calculation it's still $775 trillion in launch costs or 65 times the US GDP ! If someone were to get the space elevator to work (something even I'm a bit skeptical about), launch costs would plummet big-time, and this would be simple to do. Dave Head >Graham > >> >> Tell it to these guys: > >> >> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/11/07/sunspot_pla.html?category=technology&gu id=20061107105030 [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > skeptical about), launch costs would plummet big-time, and this would be simple > to do. That's a very big if. A fascinating idea though. Graham > > >> >> Tell it to these guys: > > >> >> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/11/07/sunspot_pla.html?category=technology&gu id=20061107105030 [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Graham Yep. Too big an if to bother with the thing. Good specuative fiction, though. <snip> > There's lotsa hits on google for 'global warming solar shield' > > Dave Head <snip> That just means that a lot of people have been speculating on it. It doesn't mean that it is feasible. If that's what you are assuming, then that is a logical fallacy. ><snip> >> There's lotsa hits on google for 'global warming solar shield' [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >It doesn't mean that it is feasible. If that's what you are assuming, >then that is a logical fallacy. I'm assuming that people with PHD behind their names, and posting to university and government web sites, know what they are talking about. > >> There's lotsa hits on google for 'global warming solar shield' > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I'm assuming that people with PHD behind their names, and posting to university > and government web sites, know what they are talking about. I have to tell you that my experience of academics is that they don't have the tiniest clue about real-world engineering and being practical. Graham > ><snip> > >> There's lotsa hits on google for 'global warming solar shield' [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I'm assuming that people with PHD behind their names, and posting to university > and government web sites, know what they are talking about. But that doesn't make it any less speculative. >Dave Head, > >I'd like to present some numbers relating directly to the feasibility >of your space shield global warming "cure". It's idiocy. >These calculations assume >impossibly light materials that most likely do not exist. A real shield [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >m^3. Total mass: 2,500,000,000,000 kg. Launch cost: $22,000/kg [1] >giving a total of $55,000,000,000,000,000! Holy crap! 55 quadrillion? Interesting. I suppose he plans to have the federal reserve just print the money? >Since this is obviously an impossibly light shield, the actual price is >much higher. At a more reasonable but still very low 100 kg/m^3 the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(currency) > >Dave Head, > > > >I'd like to present some numbers relating directly to the feasibility > >of your space shield global warming "cure". > > It's idiocy. It certainly is. > >These calculations assume > >impossibly light materials that most likely do not exist. A real shield [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 55 quadrillion? Interesting. I suppose he plans to have the > federal reserve just print the money? LOL. That's only about 5,000 years worth of the entire US GDP. Those armchair astronauts who popularise this nonsense don't have to worry themselves about such trifles though. Nor the feasibility of 'energy beams' either come to that. Graham > If we were to build a 2.5 million km^2 area space shield > (see my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > m^3. Total mass: 2,500,000,000,000 kg. Launch cost: $22,000/kg [1] > giving a total of $55,000,000,000,000,000! Holy crap! How did you get from 100cm to 0.1m ? Obviously, metrics are too complicated for you Americans.. > The total gross domestic product of the entire planet is only around > $55 *tr*illion [2], a thousandth of the minimal price and 1/800,000th > the price with iron. Where are you planning to put this large piece of iron? (Assuming there is even enough iron on the planet to build this) If you have it in geostationary orbit, or if you have tethered it to the ground (never mind the fact that that is impossible), then I think you will find that it will rapidly escalate the heating of the ground underneath it. Ever sat under a hot tin roof? I nominate your post as stupid post of the year. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.