Best energy alternatives to stop global warming

[peadar1987]

A) That is not a world wide damaging phenomena

30 seconds on google: "Algae blooms in the open ocean are not usually harmful; instead, they provide many benefits, largely deriving from the fact that the open ocean is relatively unproductive (low in nutrients)." Read more: http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/A-Bi/Algal-Blooms-in-the-Ocean.html#ixzz35l0iEZ2x

The problem is keeping them in the open ocean. Coastal ecosystems are vulnerable to eutrophication.

[RuBisCO]

The problem is keeping them in the open ocean. Coastal ecosystems are vulnerable to eutrophication.

Well how do we know we can't without drooping a tanker of iron ore in the middle of the ocean to find out? And if it does not remain there it disproves the whole concept as the goal is for it to drop to the bottom and not come up for centuries. Look this is something we can experiment on, in variable scales, if anything goes wrong we can stop, no further harm.

Edited June 26, 2014 by RuBisCO

[PakledHostage]

Well how do we know we can't without drooping a tanker of iron ore in the middle of the ocean to find out?

Suggested reading:

The Guardian: World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules

Popular Science: Rogue Geoengineer Dumps 100 Tons Of Iron Off Canada's West Coast

The Vancouver Sun: Why was iron dumping a surprise?

Wikipedia: Russ George (for the references)

[AngelLestat]

Heh. nice picture.

I believe that Hydrogen Fuel Cells are missing from this list.

Hydrogen isn't a source of energy. It's a method of storage, in the same league as batteries.

Yeah, that is the answer. And exceeds the carnot efficiency becAuse it takes the extra energy from the chemical reaction.

shynung, Nibb31, ZetaX:neither of you give a look to my links which explain in their own way how a launch cost reduction changes demand and open new markets.

Something so basic in my opinion that is hard to believe that we are discussing about this.

I disagree, because:

Not necessarily. The price of the launch vehicle is independent from the price of the payload(the satellite). Insurance costs may go down, but not as much as you think.

If we compare normal rockets with skylon, we realize that a rocket had more changes of failure just becouse it has more stages. This increase the insurance cost.

If the launch cost is 1/10 than normal rockets, then the payload insurance cost decrease more than 1/10 (see insurance cost graphics), then we need to lower even more becouse it has not stages.

There would not be much difference in the launch vehicle insurance. But we dont need to count this becouse is already included in the launch cost.

Launch vehicle testing costs are independent from the actual cost-per-launch. Generally, more testing means better vehicle reliability, but will raise the total vehicle cost, so absurdly low launch costs are usually a yellow flag for the launch client.

I call launch vehicle to the skylon or falcon9 for example.. No to the payload. All testing cost from falcon9 or skylon or wherever would be included in the launch cost.

But when I said testing cost, I mean the payload. How many test you have to do as a client to reduce your change of payload malfunction. If the launch cost is low, then even if something go wrong, you are not losing so much money, so all the test costs are reduce. Also a vehicle as skylon would had lower G-forces and jolting than a normal rocket.

Manned rockets require the highest standards of safety, therefore high testing costs, and high total vehicle costs. Astronauts also have problems with being launched from a safety-unproven, cheapskate rocket. They're not Jebediah Kerman.

That is true at begining, then will normalize. First they start with no manned missions (spaceX style). But once that step is over, manned insurance would drop fast. This would happen even if is not more safe than previous rockets, because when something becomes more frequently used, insurance manned laws low, just to open the way to the new market in growth.

This concept has been studied (and discussed in KSP forums) once. The fact that the study does not produce a practical launcher implies problems with the concept as it is.

From what I can see that is still a rocket and is not reusable.

Do us a favor, and conduct a cost-benefit comparison analysis of using a fleet of Falcon 9 Reusable rockets vs. Skylon SSTO spaceplanes vs. Aquarius Launch Vehicle rockets.

Lol, I am not your secretary. What this has to do with the "launch cost reduction--> increase demand" discussion?

Also, you are confusing price and cost. If someone reduces the cost of launching stuff by 10%, it doesn't mean that they will reduce the price by 10%. Pricing is an art, and if you go an look at just about any industry (aerospace, automobile, cell phones, game consoles, razor blades, insurance...) you'll see that the retail price is decorrelated from the actual production cost of the product. Sometimes it's higher, sometimes it's lower, sometimes there are huge margins, sometimes there are subisidies. It all depends on your plans for maximizing profit over a given period in a particular market.

I know, ok next time I would use the name "cost" and "price" correctly. But we dont have a launch price list, also is not our problem to imagine what profit margin each company wants for its launcher vehicle.

So lets take what it would happen if the launch price drop to 1/10. According to you, demand does not growth.

And you don't generate new markets by simply slashing prices. If what you said was true, then car manufacturers would simply have to lower the prices of cars by 10% and they would automatically gain a 10% market share. They would just have to hire 10% more people and produce 10% more cars. If it was really that simple, then there would be no crisis in the car industry and the economy would flourish. Well, it doesn't work that way, does it?

This is not the car business, you can not compare. Right now the increase in traffic congestion plus the oil prices makes each day cars less usefull. Also cars are in middle class since 50 years at least, so mostly all middle class families had already a car. Also there was not technology advance in cars. The system remains the same.

Same happens with rockets. But if you had a technology change which put the space business at hands of small companies or organizations, then you had a boom in demand.

The large part of the "launch cost" is hardware, pad handling, integration, and operating the launch. Then there is all the support personnel (HR, cleaners, caterers, facility management, finance, administration, sales...). All of those tasks are performed by different people, often highly qualified. Manpower is the real cost. Hardware is only a small portion of the "launch cost", so you will never get a 50% of launch cost reduction by just using a new launch technology.

Again, we are talking about what would happen with a launch cost reduction of 1/10, now you want to derail the discussion to: "a 1/10 launch cost reduction is not possible".

But in the skylon wiki it said that a 1/23 launch cost reduction is possible. Maybe they are exaggerating, but lets said that is 1/10. Now. lets go back to the discussion.

Let's go crazy and imagine that you actually manage to bring the entire operational cost down by 50%. You can sell launch slots for $50 million instead of $100 million. What are the "huge business opportunities" that suddenly appear here?

First we are not talking about a 50% cost reduction, and you said that even with a 1/10 launch cost reduction it would not be an increase in demand.

So try to not escape from your first stand. Because this discussion start there.

And that part is not easy, either. You oversimplied it a lot.

I know that you wrote that. You just did not explain those numbers at all.

I am tired right now. Maybe later. I already explain some of this numbers in my shynung answer.

a) It is your duty to show it is possible in the first place, not mine to disprove you. Do good science please.

We are not talking of an unproven theory, we are talking about "lower launch cost increase demand", is your job as mine make examples or arguments to prove our points.

I made mines with links, etc. I dint read any counter argument from you.

I will self-quote my last post: "You get defocusing, tons of energy loss, aiming problems, and lots of others.". I and others also mentioned it simply being not worth the cost in comparision to ground (e.g. desert) based PV. I would like to see all those solved. But well, go for the aspect of (energetic/monetary) efficiency if you must focus to one.

My question was so hard? I told you name one! I would not make a whole thessis proven each point with data and corraboration data (which would not help because you are still in negation mode) to nothing.

If I can prove that the biggest issue that you can find may had solution, then is safe to said than real scientist can find the remaning solution in the next 10 years, Time that we need to wait to make this idea economic feasible.

The idea of using climate engineering to solve global warming always makes me think of Goethe's "The Sorcerer's Apprentice". We don't know enough yet to even be considering messing with the climate even more than we already are. We'll likely only make things worse.

Rather than trying to come up with Band-Aid solutions, we should be focusing on solving problems at their root causes.

I am agree with this.

Edited June 26, 2014 by AngelLestat

[DeepOdyssey]

You should count it in. Whole life cycle is extremely important, otherwise we could be fooling ourselves with actually detrimental sources... like most of the PV industry is."

Yes. But the coal/gas power plant have life cycle too. I know that renewable energy sources still have higher investment cost, and life cycle cost. But if we count effect of coal powerplant smoke on health, it will be clear that coal based energy sources are on par with renewable energy, even if its investment and life cycle[repair/mainteance], and energy cost per KWh is higher.

[RuBisCO]

Suggested reading:

The Guardian: World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules

Popular Science: Rogue Geoengineer Dumps 100 Tons Of Iron Off Canada's West Coast

The Vancouver Sun: Why was iron dumping a surprise?

Wikipedia: Russ George (for the references)

None of this disproves the theory of it.

[xcorps]

This is not the car business, you can not compare. Right now the increase in traffic congestion plus the oil prices makes each day cars less usefull. Also cars are in middle class since 50 years at least, so mostly all middle class families had already a car. Also there was not technology advance in cars. The system remains the same.

Cars have the same usefulness that they had yesterday. They have more usefulness than they had 20 years ago, and more than they had 50 years ago. Utility is utility. Increases in traffic congestion PROVE the increased utility of cars because they are a result of infrastructure weakness that impedes the utility of the vehicle. No technology advance in cars? Come on.

That was a rebuttal best left unsaid.

But we dont have a launch price list, also is not our problem to imagine what profit margin each company wants for its launcher vehicle.

That is the problem though, whether you want to address it or not.

"lower launch cost increase demand",

Of the determining factors of price elasticity of demand the ones with the most significant effect are percentage of income and necessity. The criteria are not arguable. You are wrong about this.

[PakledHostage]

None of this disproves the theory of it.

Please show me where I said that it did disprove the "theory of it"?

What those articles show is that it has been tried (albeit unscientifically) and that it is controversial. Your earlier posts implied that you did not know that it had been tried.

[RuBisCO]

Please show me where I said that it did disprove the "theory of it"?

What those articles show is that it has been tried (albeit unscientifically) and that it is controversial. Your earlier posts implied that you did not know that it had been tried.

I can read Wikipedia, thank you. Do you agree or disagree that we should try it, scientifically, repeatably to determine its efficacy?

[ZetaX]

First we are not talking about a 50% cost reduction, and you said that even with a 1/10 launch cost reduction it would not be an increase in demand.

So try to not escape from your first stand. Because this discussion start there.

Everyone here did not say that there would not be am increase in demand, but that it won't increase as astronomically as you claim, and lots of other economic counterarguments.

I am tired right now. Maybe later. I already explain some of this numbers in my shynung answer.

So you are too tired to answer on that but then continue on responding to some other stuff¿...

And no, your answer to shynung only explains that insurance costs decrease somewhat more. That still does not explain how a decrease of launch cost to 1/10th does cause a total cost decrease to 1/300th.

We are not talking of an unproven theory, we are talking about "lower launch cost increase demand", is your job as mine make examples or arguments to prove our points.

I made mines with links, etc. I dint read any counter argument from you.

Learn to read! What you quote from my post was on microwave-based energy beaming to earth. And I also already answered on your links (you even quoted me on that above; seriously¿!). Read my post again, and then answer on it, instead of making those silly claims.

My question was so hard? I told you name one! I would not make a whole thessis proven each point with data and corraboration data (which would not help because you are still in negation mode) to nothing.

If I can prove that the biggest issue that you can find may had solution, then is safe to said than real scientist can find the remaning solution in the next 10 years, Time that we need to wait to make this idea economic feasible.

Another instance of you not readong my post. Here, just for you (who always claims that nobody is reading your posts properly), another self-quote from the very same post you quoted me from: "But well, go for the aspect of (energetic/monetary) efficiency if you must focus to one.". And just to make sure you understand it, I will elaborate it (again!): even if you can solve all those scientific problems, why should your solution be better thn ground-based PV¿

And no, if you can make up a solution to one problem I find, then this does not imply that all others can be solved. I am not an expert and did not pick the severest (I think, but don't know, that defocusing is; you are also invited to answer on that), but instead I chose one that can better be backed up with numbers, and I was also only talking about certain aspects here. From the past experience with your answers, I also fear that your "solution" is another total oversimplification yet again.

[SelectHalfling0]

Let's not forget about all the energy spent to aquire the hydrogen...it doesn't naturally occur on Earth in pure form.

Alternative sources of energy such as wind and solar can separate H2O into H2 and O2. Hydrogen is an efficient way of storing and using said energy.

[PakledHostage]

An interesting article about China's efforts to reduce its reliance on Coal: Bloomberg.com: China Targets 70 Gigawatts of Solar Power to Cut Coal Reliance

Some projected (for 2017) power generating capacity numbers from the article:

Biomass - 11 GW

Nuclear - 50 GW

Solar Power - 70 GW

Wind Power - 150 GW

Hydro-electric - 330 GW

[RuBisCO]

Fun fact: China had 801 GW of coal fired electric power plant capacity in 2013 and still growing, they have manage to plateau it at 78-79% of their electricity production for several years now though.

[shynung]

shynung, Nibb31, ZetaX:neither of you give a look to my links which explain in their own way how a launch cost reduction changes demand and open new markets.

Something so basic in my opinion that is hard to believe that we are discussing about this.

Before you accuse us, or anyone else of not reading your posts properly(which is outright condescending), it's a good idea to actually find out why we responded as we did.

If we compare normal rockets with skylon, we realize that a rocket had more changes of failure just becouse it has more stages. This increase the insurance cost.

The Skylon spaceplane depends on two precoolers within its engines, which themselves are a new, prototype technology that has been barely tested. What's more, the failure of either precoolers will render the spaceplane unable to reach space. Insurance companies will take this into account when insuring a Skylon flight, so their prices might not be as low as you think.

If the launch cost is 1/10 than normal rockets, then the payload insurance cost decrease more than 1/10 (see insurance cost graphics), then we need to lower even more becouse it has not stages.

There would not be much difference in the launch vehicle insurance. But we dont need to count this becouse is already included in the launch cost.

The launcher and the spacecraft are different objects, and lowering the cost of one only reduces the insurance cost attributed to that object alone. If the launcher price dropped by a factor of 10, the total insurance costs would drop by much less, not more.

I call launch vehicle to the skylon or falcon9 for example.. No to the payload. All testing cost from falcon9 or skylon or wherever would be included in the launch cost.

But when I said testing cost, I mean the payload. How many test you have to do as a client to reduce your change of payload malfunction. If the launch cost is low, then even if something go wrong, you are not losing so much money, so all the test costs are reduce. Also a vehicle as skylon would had lower G-forces and jolting than a normal rocket.

Did you actually think that launchers do not undergo testing? If similar safety standards compared to other launchers is observed, testing costs would not change much, even if hardware costs fall to 1/10. If the total launch cost is actually 1/10 of other rockets, it is a sign that proper safety standards might have been skimped on.

That is true at begining, then will normalize. First they start with no manned missions (spaceX style). But once that step is over, manned insurance would drop fast. This would happen even if is not more safe than previous rockets, because when something becomes more frequently used, insurance manned laws low, just to open the way to the new market in growth.

For the reasons stated above, astronauts typically object to being launched on a cheapskate rocket. They will always prefer a reliable rocket with high safety standards and good track records.

From what I can see that is still a rocket and is not reusable.

It is an SSTO rocket, designed purely to reduce launch costs. Reusability does not always reduce costs; see the Space Shuttle for example.

Lol, I am not your secretary. What this has to do with the "launch cost reduction--> increase demand" discussion?

You may not, but I believe you could learn a lot by knowing how expensive these things actually are. After you see the results (at the very least, you should know the minimum cost/kg to GTO), slash it to 1/10, and see for yourself how much it would cost under your price estimations, and what kinds of things would be profitable to do with it. (And don't start blabbering about space tourism; not a lot of people are interested enough to actually spend a vacation in a tin can floating in the void as of today.)

^{And no, I will not do the maths for you; I have a feeling you would skip it off entirely anyway.}

Edited June 27, 2014 by shynung

[xcorps]

(And don't start blabbering about space tourism; not a lot of people are interested enough to actually spend a vacation in a tin can floating in the void as of today.)

Just out of curiosity, I did some rough back of the napkin stuff with Google and I discovered the following in regards to space tourism:

Average Family Size in the US: 2.6 people

Average Weight of an American: 156 lbs (not adjusted for anything)

Average number of vacation days for private sector workers: Bulk is between 5-14 days paid.

Average amount of money spent on an out of home town vaction: 1,650$

Government Sources for those numbers.

If you were able to drop price per pound to 25$ as NASA wants to, it would cost a family $10,140 to take a trip into LEO lasting about 2.5 hours. That's with a price reduction of about 39,900% (from NASA costs), right? This doesn't include transportation the launch, lodging waiting for the launch, transportation from landing, lodging meals blah blah blah.

How much demand increase would there be for about a 2 hour trip (I know it takes about 20 minutes to get there, but you have to account for waiting on the pad, reentry, and a few minutes of sight seeing, reasonable?) into LEO for what amounts to 5 months wages for the average American family with the average American income?

I'm thinking not much. Even the ultra wealthy wouldn't find much value in that, other than a short spike at the beginning because of the coolness factor. But coolness factor doesn't account for much if you are trying to run a business using the price elasticity of demand as your business plan.

All testing cost from falcon9 or skylon or wherever would be included in the launch cost.

Great, so we're back up to 1400$ a pound. Space X is excited about a 25% reduction in costs if their reusable boosters go online. That's a hell of a lot more than 25$ a pound... so AngelLestat, you would agree that at this point in our development that space tourism is not feasible?

Edited June 27, 2014 by xcorps

[AngelLestat]

Cars have the same usefulness that they had yesterday. They have more usefulness than they had 20 years ago, and more than they had 50 years ago. Utility is utility. Increases in traffic congestion PROVE the increased utility of cars because they are a result of infrastructure weakness that impedes the utility of the vehicle. No technology advance in cars? Come on.

Same otto engine, structure and mechanism are all similar with few exceptions. There was no breakthrough in the car industry.

But my point was that the car maket can not be compared with the space market. Both are very different scenarios.

Of the determining factors of price elasticity of demand the ones with the most significant effect are percentage of income and necessity. The criteria are not arguable. You are wrong about this.

No.. I am right. I recommend you to take me more seriously because you're making a big mess with this effect that you dont end to understand.

That would be true in the case you have a close market without any new client. But if the launch cost drop so much, there would appear new business for everywhere.

For example the biopharma research. Even right now they are questioning if it worth to do it with the current cost. Just a reduction of 50% from the current cost would trigger this market. Because the profit is huge, It would complete the understanding of how proteins interact and behave to compare with the super computer simulations. You can even find many cancer cures with this.

A cubesats weight 1 kg. With the skylon estimation cost, even I can make one and launch it. Maybe it would not do much, but I would do it just for fun.

If I had some millions, maybe I would try to send a small ballon prove to venus just to take a picture and said "I am the only one there", its very probably than I would fail.. But maybe the cost/risk worth it.

Or a biologics organization which create a new way to follow whales or measure plankton growth, etc etc etc.

All the new business that can appear are unimaginable. So you would not have the same clients, the price elasticity is all about context. In each different case apply different.

Everyone here did not say that there would not be am increase in demand, but that it won't increase as astronomically as you claim, and lots of other economic counterarguments.

HA, dont try to change the words in the middle of this discussion. That is exactly what they said. They said that even if skylon appear there is no market for it.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/83102-Best-energy-alternatives-to-stop-global-warming?p=1231475&viewfull=1#post1231475

So you are too tired to answer on that but then continue on responding to some other stuff¿...

And no, your answer to shynung only explains that insurance costs decrease somewhat more. That still does not explain how a decrease of launch cost to 1/10th does cause a total cost decrease to 1/300th.

Yeah duuh, that would take me too much time to do properly, and even if I try, I would commit several errors which do not provide a good proff about the point I want to show.

Becouse there is so many values associated to a space hotel construction and how I said almost all scale down. So if I forget many I would end with different values.

Learn to read! What you quote from my post was on microwave-based energy beaming to earth. And I also already answered on your links (you even quoted me on that above; seriously¿!). Read my post again, and then answer on it, instead of making those silly claims.

That happens when you asnwer so many replys in the same time.

why should your solution be better thn ground-based PV¿

That is your question? I already answer it.

PV in space can produce 6 times more energy than at earth surface.

-no dust problems which reduce PV efficiency.

-rectenna cost = normal power lines that you would need for transportation in surface.

-you dont need to rent land, the land cost rise all years.

-you have the whole light spectrum up there. You can use UV and infrared more efficient. (current PV for satellites already use that.)

-the maser is cheap in comparison with the whole project.

-you would had PV rolls of 150mts x 20 mts very light and no more thickness than paper all located in star formation with a spin to deploy and keep them flat pointing to the sun by centrifugal force.

So the only question is: This PV rolls can be real in 10 years? Yes, totally. We already acomplish higher efficiencys with lower thinkness in laboratory.

Using some graphene composite with vapor deposition and different techniques, this is carbon so is cheaper than silicon and more resistent.

Even with today PV (if we remove all the unnecessary structural) can be cost efficient if we would had skylon.

Sell 6 GW instead 1 GW has some extra profits.

And no, if you can make up a solution to one problem I find, then this does not imply that all others can be solved.

So you are tell me that if I (a normal guy) can solve the hardest issue that you imagine, then does not mean that world best scientist would find a solution for the remaning issues?

Thanks.. I feel important now

I am not an expert and did not pick the severest (I think, but don't know, that defocusing is; you are also invited to answer on that)

Ahh, you are breaking the rules.. I said just one. Haha. that is not harder either. From geo at 5,1Ghz or less, the area would be 3 miles I guess. You can even use metamaterials (this can sound Scfy, but is just a plain with holes) at certain distance from the maser to focus the beam to a 500m radius.

The hard ones maybe are "aim" totally solvable depending on your structure PV method (mine with spin had more issues with that), or how to deal with other low orbit satellites when crossing the flow (also solvable).

I dont know, I read many papers of this and I can not find any problem without solution. Of course all are stones in the road.. but you can remove them.

Fun fact: China had 801 GW of coal fired electric power plant capacity in 2013 and still growing, they have manage to plateau it at 78-79% of their electricity production for several years now though.

For that reason almost all their cities are covered by smog.

I have a friend living there, first thing that caught my attention in all their pictures was that gray sky, he was using my photo camera that he bought for me there, first I thought that it was a camera malfunctioned, colors were all grey, then colors fix it when arrive to Buenos Aires (this is not a small city either)

shynung: I will answer you tomorrow

Edited June 27, 2014 by AngelLestat

[TheGatesofLogic]

Fukushima hardly released any significantly dangerous waste at all, there are more deaths total from the solar industry than there are from the nuclear industry due to the incredibly toxic processes involved in making solar panels. The statistics are staggering. Did you know that not a single person has died from radiation poisoning in the US since the first "nuclear reactor" was built by Enrico Fermi at the University of Chicago. Also, the death toll from chernobyl was 50, not the million ridiculous media coverage purports.

[xcorps]

No.. I am right. I recommend you to take me more seriously because you're making a big mess with this effect that you dont end to understand.

That would be true in the case you have a close market without any new client. But if the launch cost drop so much, there would appear new business for everywhere.

For example the biopharma research. Even right now they are questioning if it worth to do it with the current cost. Just a reduction of 50% from the current cost would trigger this market. Because the profit is huge, It would complete the understanding of how proteins interact and behave to compare with the super computer simulations. You can even find many cancer cures with this.

A cubesats weight 1 kg. With the skylon estimation cost, even I can make one and launch it. Maybe it would not do much, but I would do it just for fun.

If I had some millions, maybe I would try to send a small ballon prove to venus just to take a picture and said "I am the only one there", its very probably than I would fail.. But maybe the cost/risk worth it.

Or a biologics organization which create a new way to follow whales or measure plankton growth, etc etc etc.

All the new business that can appear are unimaginable. So you would not have the same clients, the price elasticity is all about context. In each different case apply different

You have not demonstrated a shift of elasticity of a satellite buss, although I will concede a potential change from 0. But that shift will not be affected by the price of a launch, it will be caused by the utility of the buss. If cubesat fulfills it's potential as an approachable solution for needs met outside the current market. If the market does in fact grow and demand goes up, then you will NOT see a decrease in launch prices. You will see an INCREASE in launch prices, and an increase in buss prices.

Because math.

You cannot just handwave the laws of economics.

Edited June 27, 2014 by xcorps

[AngelLestat]

The Skylon spaceplane depends on two precoolers within its engines, which themselves are a new, prototype technology that has been barely tested. What's more, the failure of either precoolers will render the spaceplane unable to reach space. Insurance companies will take this into account when insuring a Skylon flight, so their prices might not be as low as you think.

So?? even if the precooler fail is still an spaceplane.. It can land in any international runaway if it need it as emergency. So you added a point for me.

The launcher and the spacecraft are different objects, and lowering the cost of one only reduces the insurance cost attributed to that object alone. If the launcher price dropped by a factor of 10, the total insurance costs would drop by much less, not more.

Did you actually think that launchers do not undergo testing? If similar safety standards compared to other launchers is observed, testing costs would not change much, even if hardware costs fall to 1/10. If the total launch cost is actually 1/10 of other rockets, it is a sign that proper safety standards might have been skimped on.

I will answer 2 for the price of 1.

Again: The insurance cost and test cost related to the "launcher" (not the payload) is already included in the launch cost!

So if we had a launch cost 1/10, that cost is included in that 1/10. Is clear??

You may not, but I believe you could learn a lot by knowing how expensive these things actually are. After you see the results (at the very least, you should know the minimum cost/kg to GTO), slash it to 1/10, and see for yourself how much it would cost under your price estimations, and what kinds of things would be profitable to do with it. (And don't start blabbering about space tourism; not a lot of people are interested enough to actually spend a vacation in a tin can floating in the void as of today.)

So if I make that analysis would help me to understand the new market which may arise with a launch cost reduction of 1/10?

No??

Then is pointless in this discussion.

Just out of curiosity, I did some rough back of the napkin stuff with Google and I discovered the following in regards to space tourism:

Average Weight of an American: 156 lbs (not adjusted for anything)

It was imperative for your example to choose USA??

If you were able to drop price per pound to 25$ as NASA wants to, it would cost a family of $10,140 to take a trip into LEO lasting about 2.5 hours.

For ten thousand dollars you could take two friends and go to the Superbowl!

Now we have to choose. Lets go to space.. Or lets go to the superbow!! Superbow yeah!!

There is nothing more to said. I made my case.

You have not demonstrated a shift of elasticity of a satellite buss

We are talking of a huge new market with those cost. You still are viewing this as it was the only possible market.

You really understand when you need to apply this effect and how?

although I will concede a potential change from 0. But that shift will not be affected by the price of a launch, it will be caused by the utility of the buss. If cubesat fulfills it's potential as an approachable solution for needs met outside the current market. If the market does in fact grow and demand goes up, then you will NOT see a decrease in launch prices. You will see an INCREASE in launch prices, and an increase in buss prices.

yeah, of course, demand rise, price up, a new fleet of cheap launcher are build to deal with the new demand, and prices start to fall again until reach the 1/30 estimation that you see in the wiki page of skylon.

And?? again.. I remember to all you that you are saying that demand would not growth with this new cost.

I give you many examples that you can not denied, I give you links explaning all this..

So I will continue discussing energy alternatives becouse I dont see what more to add to make this more clear of what already is.

Edited June 27, 2014 by AngelLestat

[xcorps]

It was imperative for your example to choose USA??

Imperative? No. Convienent? Very much, thanks to Labor and Statistics and the Census. I'd be happy to do the same with any particular demographic you like, assuming the needed numbers appear on the first 2 pages of a Google search. I'm not interested in finding the average weight of Inuits.

For ten thousand dollars you could take two friends and go to the Superbowl!

Now we have to choose. Lets go to space.. Or lets go to the superbow!! Superbow yeah!!

Not sure I get this. Average face value for a 2008 Superbowl ticket was 700$. 700$ for 5 hours of the single most popular entertainment venue vs $10,000 for 2 hours in a can that might explode.

There is nothing more to said. I made my case.

You don't like being challenged do you?

We are talking of a huge new market with those cost.

No. We are talking about a possible new market.

yeah, of course

Good. You realize that reducing the price of a mostly inelastic good will not shift demand upward.

So I will continue discussing energy alternatives.

Your ability to follow multiple threads of conversation in and out of topic is admirable. :thumbsup:

Edited June 27, 2014 by xcorps

[PakledHostage]

Same otto engine, structure and mechanism are all similar with few exceptions. There was no breakthrough in the car industry.

I don't know about that... My car has a cool feature called ABS brakes. And it has gyros in it that work together with the stability augmentation system to activate the brakes at each wheel independently. It surprised the heck out of me the first time I went hooning around in a snowy parking lot... The car faught my efforts to spin and gathered itself back up. All this in a cheap entry level car. The kind that they'd call "dreary" or "boring" on Top Gear.

[shynung]

So?? even if the precooler fail is still an spaceplane.. It can land in any international runaway if it need it as emergency.

Minus the Space part. It's just a plane now.

Except that it now has to land awfully overweight. Carrying a mostly-full tank of liquid hydrogen, in addition to a very expensive payload.

The insurance cost and test cost related to the "launcher" (not the payload) is already included in the launch cost!

So if we had a launch cost 1/10, that cost is included in that 1/10.

And as I said earlier, such a launcher would either be lacking in testing, or it is very small. In the earlier case, no insurance company would be willing to insure it in the first place; insurance costs would be zero because there is no insurance.

Not a good idea of business, IMO.

So if I make that analysis would help me to understand the new market which may arise with a launch cost reduction of 1/10?

Yes.

At the very least, you would have known what the potential customers are, now that you dropped one part of the cost. Now you'd have to ask those people if they really want to launch something to space.

Most would say they don't.

Edited June 27, 2014 by shynung

[Nibb31]

Same otto engine, structure and mechanism are all similar with few exceptions. There was no breakthrough in the car industry.

But my point was that the car maket can not be compared with the space market. Both are very different scenarios.

But what you were saying was that "basic cost/demand" economical rules mean that if you reduce cost then demand automatically increases.

The car analogy was to counter that argument by demonstrating that things are much more complicated and that demand does not automatically increase when you lower prices.

The launch market is saturated right now. The only lucrative activities in space are:

- commercial GEO communication satellites

- government and institutional contracts (NASA, DoD, governments...)

There is no other way to make any money in space. If there was, people would be investing, ordering more rockets, and the price would go down mechanically because of economies of scale.

New markets cannot emerge in this environment. Space tourism, orbital manufacturing, or asteroid mining are not viable. Not with a 50% reduction in launch. Not even with a 90% reduction. And those reduction levels are not going to happen in the foreseeable future.

No.. I am right. I recommend you to take me more seriously because you're making a big mess with this effect that you dont end to understand.

That would be true in the case you have a close market without any new client. But if the launch cost drop so much, there would appear new business for everywhere.

For example the biopharma research. Even right now they are questioning if it worth to do it with the current cost. Just a reduction of 50% from the current cost would trigger this market. Because the profit is huge, It would complete the understanding of how proteins interact and behave to compare with the super computer simulations. You can even find many cancer cures with this.

A 50% reduction in launch cost is not going to happen. Microgravity could be useful for producing some molecules, but going from $100 million/launch to $50 million isn't going to change the game. And you are still going to need to build a spacecraft to carry your manufacturing machine to orbit, and that is going to cost much more than $100 million. Launch vehicles are already cheap compared to their payloads.

By reducing launch costs by 50%, you are not going to multiply the number of payloads by 200%. That's not how it works.

A cubesats weight 1 kg. With the skylon estimation cost, even I can make one and launch it. Maybe it would not do much, but I would do it just for fun.

If I had some millions, maybe I would try to send a small ballon prove to venus just to take a picture and said "I am the only one there", its very probably than I would fail.. But maybe the cost/risk worth it.

Or a biologics organization which create a new way to follow whales or measure plankton growth, etc etc etc.

First, please stop using Skylon as an example. Skylon is never going to fly in its current form. They have no money, no industrial capability, no infrastructure. Their cost estimations are bogus and they are not going to get the huge investment they need, because their economical model is unrealistic. Please read the following threads where the Skylon project is debunked, because I really shouldn't need to reiterate the same argument over and over again:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/72850-Skylon-may-fly-this-year-first-SSTO-spaceplane

Skylon is not happening.

Now, with Skylon out of the way, let me explain this: getting to orbit will ALWAYS be an expensive job. It takes huge amounts of energy to accelerate payload mass from 0 to 27000km/h while fighting gravity and drag. Huge amounts of energy like that will NEVER be available to the general public, because they are just too dangerous. Huge amounts of energy will ALWAYS require large organizations and infrastructure to safely produce, handle, and convert that energy into delta-v. Large infrastructures will ALWAYS require highly-qualified people to run them.

And this is where the cost is: highly-qualified people. Hardware and propellant are commodities. When you pay $100 million for a launch, only a small part goes into paying for the propellant and the metal that makes the actual tanks, engines. You are paying for the people who build, test, integrate, fuel, transport, and operate the launcher, as well as the administrative overhead, the facilities, the catering, etc... for all those people.

Also, the industry has been working for decades to reduce the cost of getting to orbit. This has been done through competition, outsourcing, streamlined processing, automation. The current batch of Delta, Atlas, Ariane, Falcon, are all cheaper to fly than their counterparts of 30 years ago. You know about the law of diminishing returns: the first gains in efficiency are cheap, but the more you squeeze the sponge, the less you get out of it proportionally. So yeah, expendable rockets are already cheap.

The people who work in the civilian or military aerospace industry are among the most brilliant on Earth. They are not idiots. They produce innovations and improve the technology incrementally on a daily basis. If there was some easy way to reduce costs or to get to orbit with less energy, or to drastically reduce costs by 10 or 20%, they would have figured it out by now.

For these reasons, unless there is a huge breakthrough in technology, there simply isn't any way to reduce launch costs by 90% as you suggest in the foreseeable future.

All the new business that can appear are unimaginable. So you would not have the same clients, the price elasticity is all about context. In each different case apply different.

SpaceX is going to reuse the first stage of their rocket. Reusing one part of the rocket does not generate huge savings in the total launch cost, so this might optimistically translate into a 10% price reduction for customers, bringing the cost of a launch from $60 million to $55 million, bringing the total cost of a satellite project from $300 million to $295 million. That sort of reduction is not going to create massive new emerging markets.

PV in space can produce 6 times more energy than at earth surface.

-no dust problems which reduce PV efficiency.

-rectenna cost = normal power lines that you would need for transportation in surface.

-you dont need to rent land, the land cost rise all years.

-you have the whole light spectrum up there. You can use UV and infrared more efficient. (current PV for satellites already use that.)

-the maser is cheap in comparison with the whole project.

-you would had PV rolls of 150mts x 20 mts very light and no more thickness than paper all located in star formation with a spin to deploy and keep them flat pointing to the sun by centrifugal force.

PV in space:

-doesn't have dust, but MMOD hits reduce PV efficiency. Dust can be cleaned off with a brush. MMOD hits need panel replacement and expensive EVAs.

-MW transmission is untested. The power losses for beaming power from 36000km away into a focused ground area are going to be high.

-You need land to build your ground receiving antenna. The required area depends on how focused you can make your beam.

-The gains from being in orbit are negated by the losses of beaming the power back down.

Sell 6 GW instead 1 GW has some extra profits.

If you need 6GW, then just make your 1GW solar farm 6 times bigger. Buying more land will always be cheaper than the sheer cost of the 14 km/s of delta-v that you need to put your solar panels into GEO.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Nibb31

[Seret]

MMOD hits need panel replacement and expensive EVAs.

Repairs would be uneconomical. You'd just accept the reduced output.

Bit of a moot point though, because the array would be uneconomical even if it was functioning perfectly.

[shynung]

I don't know about that... My car has a cool feature called ABS brakes. And it has gyros in it that work together with the stability augmentation system to activate the brakes at each wheel independently. It surprised the heck out of me the first time I went hooning around in a snowy parking lot... The car faught my efforts to spin and gathered itself back up. All this in a cheap entry level car. The kind that they'd call "dreary" or "boring" on Top Gear.

Did you just say your car has SAS?

^{How much was it?}

Edited June 27, 2014 by shynung