AngelLestat

Waste heat is not the problem of global warming.. All the heat that human can produce is nothing compared to the sun heat we can trap in our atmosphere due extra Co2 levels. This is easy to see, just take the energy consumed by the world.. Convert all that into heat, and then compare that number with the extra heat trapped due co2 emmisions.

Soviets and USA already sent many probes to venus, some of them were a ballon that float at that same height. Nonetheless, the first step of this mission is to sent a probe airship to test one more time the conditions at that height to be complete sure. You are misunderstanding all the process. Orion is a capsule that can be used in this mission too. Is a capsule designed for interplanetary purposes. This concept studies that NASA makes, there are not only to measure the cost, the returning value, the safety, etc. These concept are also made to present to the public and see if they have public support. Because when the goverment choose if their spent money or not in these things, it depends most than nothing in the public support. So when we (the space geeks) and normal public we show as negatives towards these ideas, thats is when there are not supported. So not blame the govement, blame you in any case. ALso in venus. Now tell me whats worth more, know the key to greenhouse effect that may save the earth, or at least complete all weather math models to improve our predictions (there is a lot of money in wheather prediction) or find some bacteria in mars? (which you may also find in venus atmosphere, but with lower chance)

but .7c is the speed that is mention in the movie.It takes 6 years to reach pandora, a little less for the people traveling. I guess, but is not a cargo ship, is just a exploration ship. But the extra amount of fuel is because this ship reach .92c, which is a lot more than .7c.

I read some theories which mention that light speed may change depending the universe age. That in the past may be different from now. But I guess that understanding why the speed of light it is as it is. May hide the biggest secret of the universe or bulk structure. (from my opinion) It depends of many factors, we can said that the moon does not have a stable orbit, it all depends on the time scale. I guess we can find a stable orbit around a black hole playing with the tidal forces and how big it is. (if we fix a time scale where we can said "that is stable") I know that orbits would not be eliptical, their will be a lot more complex. It depends on the black hole size. A planet can be very close to the event horizon and had weak tidal forces.. It can cross it and had weak tidal forces. It all depends on both sizes. We can not generalize.

robotic missions are always cheaper. But manned mission inspire the world. Those are the kind of missions which kids or teenagers see and then think.. I want to be an astronaunt, enginner, meteorologist, physicist, geologist, etc. They make the world dream with the future. The same as happen with the apollo missions. Also there are always things that robots can not do, due to comunication delay or design limitation. The bigger science value of venus remains in how much can help to our meteorological models and to understand our fate with the greenhouse effect. I will glad to see a human in any other planet besides the moon, but with venus there is something else.. you can see a human in other world without a space suit. (as somebody else said before) And if you set a permanent base there, with the time it will be possible to extract any material from the surface. We are not talking about the sun surface temperature, is just the temperature that we can find inside of an oven.

Thanks kibble, I forget to mention the launch windows and the shorted travel time. (I will addded in the first post) Also venus average distance to earth is half than mars, so comunication delay is not a big problem... A manned mission to mars will take 3 years, but to venus will take only 1 year. You can also use aerocapture to brake when you reach venus. Mars atmosphere is not enoght to make those kinds of maneuvers. The mission is not pointless, venus still hide the holy grail of greenhouse effect, understanding that may save the earth. Or in the worst case, it will complete and fix all the meteorologist math models to improve any wheather prediction (money jackpot) This can also open the possibility to a permanet floating city into the future. You can not burn alive in acid Just take a look at ppm of micro acid dopplets in the atmosphere.. You can take a big breath, then go out without cloth, stay there holding their breath and then go back to your ship, and you will not feel nothing. The problem with the acid is in long term. But you can solve that with just teflon. Or any other material not reactive to sulfure acid. Each factory in earth deal with sulfure acid all days. And not micro dopplets. Mars is not much safer. Dust entering in your engines, pressure, sustainability (right now all sustainability studies to mantain a crew alive in mars failed), even if you think that you can solve those problems, a small change in the gas values or something you did not calculate, all the crew die.

nobody read my post explaning why the laser is not the problem and the real power is 1200 TW. Also the avatar ship is inspired in the project valkyrie design. And it said that its mass is 100 tons without fuel, this design is like ten times longer than the movie design. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Valkyrie

Yeah.. I always said it, many thoght that I was crazy by my claims. The mission is called High Altitude Venus Operational Concept, or HAVOC EDIT: New full pdf from the mission: https://www.dropbox.com/s/y5gu06h0u7n7v66/HAVOC-Final-Outbrief-General-pdf.pdf?dl=0 . It can be easier sent a manned mission to venus than mars. Easy to float in venus than at earth. 240% more sunlight than mars, to feed any energy needs. Thick atmosphere above to protect the astronauts from radiation. Similar temperature and pressure. at 52km height. (A lot cheaper than deal with not pressure) All the technology needed for the mission is already in use. Easier to keep a self sustaint habitat for longer periods, previous studies fail to do the same in mars. Almost same gravity than earth 0.85g at 52km height (not health issues) Shorted mission and travel time. Extra launch windows Lower comunications delays (half than mars) 1- HAVOC would begin by dispatching a robot into the Venutial atmosphere to study the environment and make sure there are no surprises. 2- After that, NASA would send a manned mission to orbit the planet for one month. 3- If all went well, the crew would then enter the planet’s atmosphere and float among the clouds for another month. 4- Later missions would send a crew to stay in the planet’s atmosphere for a year. And if that was successful, then… 5- We could begin to establish permanent floating cities on Venus. ----------------------Previous Post--------------------------------------- http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/68857-Terraforming-Venus?p=960786&viewfull=1#post960786 http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/71519-Cloud-cities/page8 http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/69572-Venus-terraforming-fact-checking-Chemistry-edition

Your math is wrong I guess. WIth your isp I get a wet mass of 5500 tons instead of 100000 tons. Also if you use a AM engine with just 0.3c of isp it will be trash. Here is explain how can you obtain almost 100% of efficiency. http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=22358 http://vixra.org/pdf/1201.0026v1.pdf Also Zhang & Keane with the new particle simulator from the cern find a way to achieve 65% of efficiency with antimatter. And if you concentrate the flux even more, you get pair production, you convert energy into charge particles again and your isp increase even more. You can also absorb the heat and then emit that heat in a collimatted way, which it will increase your isp. The problem with matter and antimatter is not how to achieve high efficiency, the bigger problem is how do you storage and make it. Besides 10 tons for each engine?? Is a magnetic nozzle which use ubnumbtanium to get the tesla needed.. So why it has so much mass?? My estimation of 450 tons the whole ship without the 2 shuttles (70 tons less) its taking into account a composite graphene material that it is 40 times less strong than real graphene. So the ISV mass can be lower than that. talk about the bandwidth is just speculation, who knows what exact bandwidth they really need. We also dont know what advances we can get in comunications from now to 150 years into the future. You just need to sent all electrical pulses that you receive from all your nerves. About the montains it does not depend much on how strong is the field, it depends on how much unobtanium the mountains has. The magnetic flux goes from pandora to the gas giant, pandora is tidal lock to the gas giant, so the flux remains in the same place. Pandora has a very strong magnetic field due unobtanium. Also any gas giants has big magnetic fields too. If you have a fixed laser power, you will have variable acceleration which the avarega will be 1,5g, To accelerate at 0,7c a mass of 1000 tons (fuel included) and brake 350tons back (it does not have fuel) you need 1200 TW laser. The acceleration process takes 8,5 month and the brake 3,5 month. Which it gives you 12 ship in 6 year (6 going 6 returning, fleet of 12 ISV as is mention in the wiki). With our current technology yes, we spent a lot of energy to make just few atoms of antimatter. You can be a lot more close if you have graphene. If you have a solar cell of 70% efficiency (something that right now is know that can be achieve with graphene nano antenna structure) you can achieve the power required (1200 TW) with a collector of similar area than the sail at 0,2 Au of distance from the sun (half the distance than mercury-sun) There is not problem with that, you place the laser behind the sun with respect the earth. So you never can point to earth. Also if you have a way to focus the laser at big distances as it may be beyond neptune orbit, then you can not use it to focus at earth, and if you do, the watt/m2 you achieve it would be negligible. The only problem is antimatter. Because you have a lot of energy, very hard to contain in the same place and time. You can use those 650 tons of matter-antimatter to make a big boom in the earth. (it would not be so destructive as a normal nuclear bomb, the amount of energy relased is absorb in a biger area)

Its like Interstellar, they dont explain nothing in the movie, but they have a strong science background. To understand that you need to read the science books which came with the movies. I dont follow you, if you have a 0,77c of ISP (something possible for an antimatter engine) you just need 1,9kg of matter-antimatter for each kg of payload to get 0,7c of deltaV Also it would be silly if you have a wet mass of 1000000 tons to carry 300 tons. It will be totally nosense go to that planet to get that material no matter how much is cost. Even gathering only 250 tons on antimatter as I said, is hard to believe that something can be more value than antimatter. Unless that something help you to gather antimatter. Also taken into account how much it cost accelerate each kg to 0,7c, then you will do the impossible to reduce all the mass you can. And graphene and carbon nanotubes are the answer. As I explain with my shuttle example, you can have huge saves in mass. Besides the ship is just a thin radiator, with some tensor truss, some thin shields and 2 light engines.. (why they needs to be heavy?) The ISV is big just to avoid radiation. They can carry the unobtanium in any kind of compartment. Shuttles are light, but more light can be just a box from the same composite material. That is important to calculate the laser-sail, but the only clue to know the efficiency (which is important to know how much it will be your wet mass) is the maximun speed. In antimatter engines, the calculation is easy. Because exhaust velocity is equal to the max speed = isp. So as I said before, if we know that the speed is 0.7c, then the ISP needs to be greater than 0,7c. This gives you that if your ISP is 0,77c then you need 1.9 kg of antihydrogen +hydrogen for each kg of payload to reach 0,7c. In the annihilation of hydrogen and anti-hydrogen, there is an amount of particles (I dont remember the %) lets said 60% of charged pions and 40% of gamma rays. Pions after a time they decay into gamma rays. So there are all photons at the end. From this we can think that is not possible to get extra ISP than 60%, because you can only redirect the charged pions with the magnetic nozzle. So the photons which can´t be redirected and had opposite direction it will reduce your efficiency, but in fact you can redirect these photons, is called pair production. When these photons hit a nucleos, then all the energy is coverted to mass again for E=mc2. And these particles can be redirected by the magnetic nozzle. So when I said 88% gama rays, I mean that you are redirecting the 88% of all photons release in the annihilation, but the efficiency is 77% because some of these photons push backward. Seeing this from this perspective helps to understand how much waste heat we have. Then we need to calculate how much the ship absorb. I am not sure about the sail, graphene is a perfect thermal conductor, but we are talking about very thin structure, so heat transfer is also related to section. Maybe if you manage to distribute the heat by some kind of supercritical fluid trying at different sections of the sail at the same time, then it can be done.

Ignore that guy, I was in that discussion long time ago (you can search me in the commnent section), and only one thing was clear.. He has no idea of today technology, he has no idea of estimations, and he has no vision even at 5 years into the future. If someone try to use energy values using atomic bombs, is not serious enoght, is a clown who wants to impress some kids. After I understand he was a loss cause. I keep discussing with another guy with some physsics knowledge. And I prove him it can be possible. The main problem of all is the mass estimation. I saw you came to the conclusion that 1200 tons was a better estimation, but is even lower. I even convince to Adam Crowl about my mass estimation. He also show me some papers that explain how to achieve 100% antimatter efficiency, but we are still far. I give you all my calculations and what I find out: First the knowing facts: From http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Interstellar_Vehicle_Venture_Star http://www.pandorapedia.com/human_operations/vehicles/isv_venture_star Mass: If the cargo is 350 tons, then is mentally absurd to think that its mass is 100000 tons. In the page said that is 350 tons total (all the cargo), this include the 2 shuttles, machinary resources(going)-unobtainium(back), 200 crew, 200 passengers in cryosleep, sail, etc. This exclude the antimatter fuel, craft structure and engine. These last 2 are negligible in comparison And I found that it is pointless to carry 2 shuttles for each of the 12 ISV. Why for? you only need 2 in pandora and 2 at earth. In any case 2 extra for backup. It said that is made with carbon nanotubes.. Right now we know about graphene. We discover the plastic 100 years back, and now we use it in everything, the same may happen with graphene, and the movie is 140 years from now. More if we take into account that some tennis racquets and many other products already had parts with low or high quality graphene. About the shuttle weights is 30tons each because if the space shuttle discovery weights 80 tons. Then using graphene that is aproximate 120 times lighter than aluminum and like 500 times more lighter than other average materials like heat shield used in the discovery, we can assume that is possible to make a space shuttle that only weights 1 Tons, but lets be a little more realistic and said that is 10 tons. Of course the avatar shuttle is bigger. But we need to take into account other things. That estimation it does not take into account how less reinforcing structure do you need to support is own weight. Like a car. If you reduce the weight of the engine from 500kg to 50 kg, you will notice that you can use lighter screws, chassis, wheels, etc. So only reducing one thing, you generate a chain reaction in the other things related. You can have also electric superconductor engines or other propulsion technologies that would reduce a lot more the total weight. More area it also suggest less thermal shield, more sustainability, etc. So said that each shuttle weights 30 Tons (knowing the things we already acomplish using graphene composites) is a moderate estimation.. Almost pessimistic. My estimation in metric tons: shield 5 + crew 50 + habitation section 75 + both shuttles 70 + cargo 300 + structure 20 + engines 20 + radiators 10 + spheres 5, sail 20. Here are some values for a 350 Tons ISV and 0,7ÃŽâ€V (we remove the 2 shuttles) (We can note the lorentz factor in the fuel difference) ISP____Total mass____Fuel Mass_____Gamma ray used_____Heat Release/s___Heat Absorb/s 0,77c_____1000 t_______650 t_____________50%____________742 TW_________74 TW 0,95c______860 t_______510 t_____________88%____________139 TW_________14 TW Engine efficiency: We know that ISV travels at 0,7c, this mean that the antimatter engine has an efficiency greater than 70%=0,7c isp So lets take 0,77c of ISP, in an antimatter engine means: -77% of fue fuel is converted into propulsion in the right direction (77% of E=mc2) -23% of the energy decay into gamaray and is not converted again to charge particles. How this energy spread in all directions we did not get any benefic or braking from this. -the max speed of the craft it would be 0,77c -You need 1,9kg of matter-antimatter for each kg of payload to get 0,7c of deltaV Radiators: -The heat released is 23% of E=mc2, then we need to take into account the amount of energy that it will absorb from all that, I would estimate watching the ship design and how penetrating the gamarays are than only a 10% from thatt 23% is absorb by the ship. In the 0,77c case it would be 74 TW which we need to dissipate. Using P = e.A.ÃÆ’.(T14− T24) We can calculate the max heat it can be dissipated by the radiators. If we estimate 150m x 400m then both can dissipate 24 TW using a working temperature of 4500K (graphene sublimation point is 5500k at vaccum ) We also can use the sail 200 km2 to dissipate heat, lets estimate a working temperature of 1000k (becoz is not easy transfer heat in thin structures), only 1 side and 0,1e. It give us 113 TW. There is still room for improvement: 1) The ship can use a bussard scoop, this will help a lot in the brake by the drag generated and avoid carrying half of the fuel (I mean the hidrogen). The bussard scoop or "magnetic sail" is just a large mesh that works like a superconductor (can be made of carbon nanotubes), first you put a current in the mesh, then this current will remain for always making a magnetic field that will slow down the ship by the drag generated meanwhile you collect hidrogen. Zubrin explain how good can be a magnetic sail, you can push a beamed sail with a laser to 0,9c, and then you deploy the mesh and it will take only 2 years to brake to 0,0057c without any proppelent. This mesh weights less than the sail. If we take a engine ISP of 0,77c, we divide the fuel mass by 2, and we add the drag coefficient we get: Without drag Brake mannuver ISP___Total Mass:_____Fuel Mass___Gamma ray used___Heat Release/s__Heat Absorb/s 0,77c___530 t__________185 t__________50%___________ 211 TW________21 TW With drag Brake estimated ISP___Total Mass:_____Fuel Mass___Gamma ray used___Heat Release/s__Heat Absorb/s 0,77c___450 t__________100 t_________50%__________114 TW_________11 TW So we find a good improvement against the 0,77c case without bussard scoop. This not help much if we want to go back from pandora, when we need to gain speed. 2) To calculate the laser power, I took the power to push 1000 tons in the round trip, But one time you need to push 1000 t, and when it backs is only 350 t(no fuel left). So we need to calculate the difference, 650 t --> 1,2 Pw (if we take the 0,77c case without bussard scoop) This will give us the same amount of time to accelerate and brake 1 ship, but with different time periods, Instead half year for both, it will be 3,5 month for brake and 8,5 month for accelerate. For the last case with scoop and drag will be 350 t ---> 0,6 Pw aprox.

damm, I thought it was tomorrow Now we need to wait 3 weeks more, why all the good stuffs is delayed. it was already a bad notice to hear that sunjammer was canceled, plus other missions, now this.

These is for all dumb people who was saying all kind of crap about this project.. Of course this is only the engine, it saids nothing about skylon. But that study is not over, maybe in the next year we would know if they gives green line for that too. I always could understand the technologic dubts that people may have.. it is perfectly normal and show some real concerns. But the thing I never could understand, was all the economic critics about this project and how useless will be. That is when all the logic is lost, and I have to leave the topic or hit them in the head with the common sense book.

Is not related to cost?? Why they can not do more than 3 by year in case that is what they need? Every time that I read something related to economy in this section has no sense. If you make something reusable you have a lot of saves, no only in materials and men hours, also in testing. Every time you make a capsule, you need to be 100% sure that it will work. For this you need an exhaustive protocol to assemble and then testing each wire, components, chips, etc. And you can not launch it, you need to test all this in a simulation enviroment. On the other hand, if you recover a craft and you can reusable, then it means that you just need to do few checks, remplace the parts that you know you need to, search issues is easy, you just take a look if something is disconnected or seems different from the first time you test it. But you know that it works! Because it was into space, all systems works, and it back. That is the most value thing. So if they find a way to deal with re-entry and sea water, the two main issues of wear, then they can reduce costs by a lot.

It was built, but they dint pass the tests that any spacecraft should make before launch due to inexperienced in systems integration. So the launch provider can not commit itself to carry the spacecraft to orbit without damaging.

You can multibounce the beam, which you extract F(Newtons)=[2P(watts)/c] * bounce times. This work for distances close to 1000km Another way to see this, is that the proppelent you burn, only push the payload without waste too much speed to accelerate the proppelent and engine mass.

I was waiting almost 2 years for this mission. It was scheduled for January 2015 as a second payload in the falcon 9. The spacecraft was a Solar Sail of 1200 m2 to prove with more precision the solar sail technology and it would work as early warning system against solar storms. But L’Garde company which built before an Inflatable Antenna Experiment that flew aboard the Space Shuttle, but has no experience whatsoever with procuring and integrating spacecraft. Fail the security and quality testings before the launch. Nasa notice lack of professionalism which L´Garde drive the project, they also opposed to NASA doing the integrating process. 21 millions were spent in this project. So it was canceled because it would be hard to find another oportunity to be launched as secondary payload in the require orbit. http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/42227nasa-nixes-sunjammer-mission-cites-integration-schedule-risk

why it matters? What you try to prove? Agencies all the time evaluated lot of papers of possible projects, scientifics missions, etc. Is normal that just the most important and most qualify will be receive the budget. Skylon is a 20 years projects which reach their final step. If the second study gives green line (This mean that it can be build and it will work as prevented) then it will get the found without questions. They will share cost with private companies as always is done in these cases.. Because it is a bussiness project with real return. So you you did all the structure calculations with the right software and then with the real tests? What you really know about strength of materials and the stresss they need to take? You may said the physsics adding that you study in collage and university. But? You need to be at least 20 years of experience being always update by edge of news on your speciality to work in this kind of projects. What you know about all the new composite materials based in graphene which some are being manufactured right now or in development.. Lol.. as I said, is funny read about economics in a science forum. 5 million euros just to do an economic study seems not money for you?? If they will spent that money for each paper or report they would be broke in few years. You know how many people working in that means? Or you think that there was only 4 dudes who each one receive 1 millon. Then you said that it has not importance or is not valid.. lol so they spent 5 millons for a report with flaws then?? hahaha But that is not all, then you said: This mean you know more about economic than all the people who work in this study all this time.. why they dint ask you? Time to go, this topic reached a new level of insanity.

Is funny to read economy arguments in a science forum section, these arguments are so true as scientific arguments in a economic forum. ESA already did an study about the economic viability of the project, it was very positive (that without taking into account all new bussiness that will arise due the lower launch costs) http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27591432 Before get funding, a new study is needed, this is to prove the feasibility of skylon, to see if it will work just as reaction engines guess. It will take 1 year or more, if that is ok.. The project will start. US Airlane force and other companies already show interest in the sabre engine, they are making studies right now, reactions engines said they had some bussiness talks about the licenses. I dint read all previous comments, but I already know the opinions of many of you because we had this discussion before.

I am trying to determine what is the cause of your mix-up concepts. Something with your reasoning is not right... The fact that you still think that just quoting the time dilation formule (which you dont understand either) makes you able to disprove Kip Thorne´s math, is a bad sign. Lets see the facts again: The event horizon´s radius is 1 Au, the distance between the sun center and the earth. Now lets see the size difference between 1 person, and 1 Au. 1 au = 149.597.871.000 meters 1 person = 2 meters Now tell me the time dilation and gravity difference between these 2 points: 149.597.871.000 and 149.597.871.002 Back to the spinning black hole case: Spinning black holes are a lot more "soft", because they extend their relative effects much farther. In this case miller´s planet is about 1.5 Au from the event horizon, this mean 2.5 Au from the singularity. So again, what is the gravity difference between one planet face and the other? Lets said that miller´s diameter is close to earth´s (10000 km) Ah.. but you cant use that formule, you need to take into account the keer metrics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_metric This is what happens to a particle falling in different direction than the rotation spin: So you see how strong this effect is, which you totally ignored. It does not bite.. read it.

Lol kerbiloid, you are ignoring many concepts. First, time dilation is related to speed and gravity. Second, Is a spinning black hole, It drags time and space with it. Third, you know who Kim Thorne is? Or you guess that is just a another screenwriter from holywood. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_Thorne In his book it said that he did mostly all math calculations, some using special softwares to avoid any error. Seeing from the endurance, miller´s orbit gargantua in 1,7 hours, now from miller´s planet surface point of view, gargantua seems frozen in time but if we look towards the endurance seems that miller´s is orbiting gargantua 10 times by second. Now back to the endurance point of view, Man´s planet orbits gargantua in 44 days. Periapsis speed 0,5c, Apo speed: 0,2 (without any significative time dilation, the speed en periapsis can be similar to millers, but is not so deep in the gravity well) I guess the movie is great, Is like the 2001 space odyssey of our time. The movie it self does not explain the science at all, but mostly all we see has science and real math as base. Many scientists reviews about the movie was wrong, that is because they only imagine some cases where it would not be possible. That is easy to do, but if someone wants to hear an expert opinion, he/she needs to tell us in what cases that may be possible. I recommend the book. Is great.

@kerbiloid You are not taking into account that is a spinning black hole. See the image (in scale) from the first page of this topic. Black hole mass: 100 millons suns. Similar to andromeda´s black hole. Event Radius: 1 Au. Miller´s orbit: 1.5 Au aprox from the Event. Parking orbit: 5 Au aprox from the Event. The black hole is spinning very close to the max possible. Normal black holes would fine an equilibrium at 0.998 the max possible spin value (this max number and average equilibrium was in fact discovered by kip thorne), at these speeds the black hole finds harder to suck matter falling at the same equatorial plane and spin direction. But can be different circustances where a black hole can increase its spin a lot closers to the max value. In this case was 0,99....98 (1 trillon) Black hole fussions, etc. The only thing that is out of scale is Man´s planet orbit. In the graph seems like its apo is 100Au, but in fact is 600 Au. SOF backward (photons orbit in opposite direction than spin) SOF Forward (photons orbit in the same spin direction) I mistake in the speed of Miller´s planet, is not 0.45c, is 0.55c @Kryten ??? what? I think that health harm with that effect will be only notice at much higher speeds in a higher time frame (years in those conditions.) PD: according to your numbers kerbiloid, the biggest black hole found, its horizon event is about 800 Au. Also if we take all the mass of the universe and we calculate the Schwarzschild radius, it will be 10000 Billions Ly, an amazing similarity with out universe it self. More if we take into account other similarities as entropy, etc. We are in a black hole.

Yeah, I express wrong, I mean to said that "tidal friction" on the planet only happens if is not tidal lock. Also in normal circustances (no BH) we would not see (to naked eye) the tidal effect (as the sea) if is tidal lock. Yeah is due to curvatura of spacetime. In the book is explained with much more detail how the "streching tendex lines and squeezing tendex lines work. my english is bad. WRT?? I dint read the book part which talks about mann´s planet yet. But that orbit explain how they fall after achieve escape velocity from mann´s planet. There is another neutron star orbiting the black hole in ahigher orbit than miller´s planet. This was placed to make more credible the delta V as gravity assist to leave or reach miller´s planet.

You are missing a big point about the distance of miller´s planet to gargantua and the tidal forces. First, the massive black hole is super rotating (as all massive black should in theory), this drag the space time with it. So miller´s planet does not need to be so close to gargantua to have that time dilation. In fact, miller´s planet only orbit to 0,45c due this effect. Another difference that change all your math, if a planet is tidal locking (as the moon to the earth), there is no tidal forces, no matter how strong the gravity is.. In this case miller´s was tidal lock to gargantua but with a slight swing. In case you dont know it, there is 400 pages book (The science of interstellar) explaning every aspect of the movie.. Made by Kip Thorne, the science designer behind the movie which is an eminence in "black holes-wormholes-quamtum gravity-string theory" fields.

If is deployed to "global scale" yes. It can counter global warming until certain point. But I would love to read more details about how this technology really works from somebody with good thermodynamics knowledge, because I have some doubts. There is an improving efficiency in radiate to the space or to the atmosphere from the radiation point of view? From what I understand if we use the formule P (watts)=emmisivity*constant*area(T^4 - Tc^4) Then, if the source temperature is a lot higher than the destination body, then you have a good heat transfer efficiency. In this case is the building temperature to the space temperature (3 kelvins). And if this surface is good to radiate the heat in these frequencys, then is bad to absorb in different frequencies. So it reflects the heat radiated from other black bodies? Yeah, I have the feeling that I am way wrong.