Best energy alternatives to stop global warming

[ZetaX]

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/...=1#post1231475

They said there is no demand for it. Which does not mean there is no additional market, but not sufficient to cover for the cost. You oversimplify too much, even for that; if I see a post I want to respond to, then I try to find the actual meaning first instead of fixing one that just fits my agenda.

You act like a holy warrior defending his religion, only he himself knowing the absolute truth and all those infidels being just some satanic incarnations. Please consider more often the possibility that not everything you believe is true, that science is not about belief anyway and that the others might have a valid point and are not just there to argue against you, but they have their own reasons founded on evidence. And also please stop simplifying everything until the problems go away...

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.

No you didn't answer it and also did not in the above. You just calculated raw energy production (and relied on a yet non-existent technology). You completely ignored loss due to transition, actual cost (who cares about 6-fold output if building its is more than 10 times as high¿) and all that things.

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 just said that I can not decisively decide which really is the hardest, and that I might miss another essential problem. Stop acting so narzistic please...

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.

You _guess_¿ I did not find any numbers on that, and I will not simply accept guesses from someone who already made up very wrong numbers before. You will need to show calculations or scientific papers first.

Metamaterials do not magically keep a beam focused. They can refocus it, but for that they woul need to be closer to the middle of power plant and earth, i.e. at a totally different orbit; I hope you see why this does not work.

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.

A spinning one indeed has several problems due to conservation of momentum. But lets just assume our power plant is magically oriented towards the sun all the time and this does not interfere with the maser.

Edited June 27, 2014 by ZetaX

[PakledHostage]

Did you just say your car has SAS?

^{How much was it?}

Sorry, it was an off-topic post that was intended to counter the point made by AngelLestat that cars haven't changed in 50 years.

How much their utility has changed and how well related cars are to the current discussion about the viability of space based energy production is debatable, but the cars themselves have changed a lot. I am not well versed on automotive standards and regulations, but my understanding is that all new cars sold in Canada after 2012 must have stability augmentation systems to help drivers maintain control of their vehicles.

Edited June 27, 2014 by PakledHostage

[shynung]

Sorry, it was an off-topic post that was intended to counter the point made by AngelLestat that cars haven't changed in 50 years.

How much their utility has changed and how well related cars are to the current discussion about the viability of space based energy production is debatable, but the cars themselves have changed a lot. I am not well versed on automotive standards and regulations, but my understanding is that all new cars sold in Canada after 2012 must have stability augmentation systems to help drivers maintain control of their vehicles.

Considering that Canada has colder climates than equatorial areas, and a much snowier (more slippery) roads, I'm not surprised a built-in SAS (yes, it does stand for stability augmentation system) in cars is now mandatory.

But let's not get carried away.

[phoenix_ca]

Tesla Motors has the right idea:

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you

[Red Iron Crown]

Tesla Motors has the right idea:

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you

I'm a bit leery of that. If they were serious about never suing anyone, why not just release the patents into the public domain instead of a vague and probably not binding promise not to sue?

[technicalfool]

You act like a holy warrior defending his religion, only he himself knowing the absolute truth and all those infidels being just some satanic incarnations.

Guys. Chill.

[ZetaX]

Before telling me to chill I recommend taking a look at ferocity with which AngleLestat holds his/her position despite lacking any serious evidence, instead oversimplifying economy to "lower prices -> more demand -> much greater revenue" and such things. That sentence you quote was simply a reminder how fruitless such a behaviour is.

[shadowsutekh]

-snip-

We're not here to be fact checkers. We're here to keep the forums friendly. Additionally religious discussion especially used as some sort of insult or analogy is not permitted here. If you have issue with the actions taken by a moderator, you are supposed to take it up with them, or a global mod in PMs. We discuss such things with each other as they come to our attention. If you read the rules, we have one covering this situation:

3.4 Open discussion of staff decisions and general disrespect

We do not allow open discussion of staff decisions. If you disagree with a member of staff contact him or her first and hold all discussions in a civil manner. If the answer isn't satisfactory you can contact a senior member of staff.

Edited June 27, 2014 by shadowsutekh

[AngelLestat]

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.

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/1/27/5349788/2014-super-bowl-ticket-prices

Average prices are 3300 for super bowl tiickets, nonetheless thousands of people go all years.

If you reach leo orbit, you need to go back in the same instant than you arrive?

You don't like being challenged do you?

you call this a challenge?

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

No, I realize that is a waste of time explain this over and over

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.

ABS brakes helped to reduce the car prices by 1/10 and the fuel price in the same range?

No..

almost all middle class families already had cars, the price of oil up all years the same as traffic. Each day cars are less usefull.

How all this is compare with the space industry in case than something similar to skylon arrives to the market droping launch cost to 1/10?

With a final end price of 1/30.

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

But you said that the precooler fail, it does not need the precooler in space.

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

ohh.. I have a brillant idea! Lets use a fuel release valve!

The novel is waiting for me.

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.

Make use of your own advice and make numbers why skylon or a full reusable spacex launcher had the potential to reduce so much the costs.

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 car anology has nothing to do by the already cited arguments.

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.

Not even with a 90%? you really think that? You have an idea of what a 90% represent?

How many business oportunities become profitable with those cost?

And how easy is to achieve that? I guess even spaceX can achieve that in 10 years.

You can keep your way to think. Lets see what happens in ten years..

When you pay $100 million for a launch, only a small part goes into paying for the propellant

That is my point, for that reason you can reduce so much the cost if you have a 100% reusable launcher.

That it only needs to refuel and take off again.

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.

you use all your rules wrong. we are not speaking of ganing 20% of efficiency in the engine thrust.

What we are saying is not throw away each stage that worth millions! To then make them again with their respective test cost over and over.

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.

That breakthrough is called reaction engine.

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.

If you have a panel with a thinkness of paper or less, the damage that mmod may produce is negligible.

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

So you are estimating power loses greater than 50%?

Right now the power loses depend in the total investment for the transmission, not so much in technology.

If launch cost drop and some other smart techniques are include in the transmission, it seems very promissing to achieve +80%.

They said there is no demand for it. Which does not mean there is no additional market, but not sufficient to cover for the cost.

?? So said that there is not demand with 1/10 reduction, is different than said that there is not market for 1/10?

I dont wanna read another twisted word puzzle please. Somebody dies if you said that I am right?

Please consider more often the possibility that not everything you believe is true

I always do, I made some math about the hotel ticket price, you would right.

The problem was than the ticket added cost to recover the first investment in a lapse of 15 years, was very significance but not so much to make a huge difference when we add the normal cost for that ticket.

So instead 1/100, it was more close to 1/15, or maybe I forget to take into account other things.

No you didn't answer it and also did not in the above. You just calculated raw energy production (and relied on a yet non-existent technology).

As I said, that technology is already achieve in laboratory, we just need to scale up, 10 years seems like a safe frame if we take into account how much investment that area is taken.

Metamaterials do not magically keep a beam focused. They can refocus it,

That is what I said It acts as a lens for microwave frequencys.

but for that they woul need to be closer to the middle of power plant and earth, i.e. at a totally different orbit; I hope you see why this does not work.

Not if you attach them with a tether, this help also to keep them always pointing to the earth without waste energy in reaction wheels.

A spinning one indeed has several problems due to conservation of momentum. But lets just assume our power plant is magically oriented towards the sun all the time and this does not interfere with the maser.

Yeah, I mean difficulties to pointing the sun.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok I am bored, this is derailing the topic and it seems that you 3 never would accept that a reduction in launch cost of 1/10 would increase the space demand.

Dont forget to mention this if you are close to serious people. Its a shame that I would not be close to see the reaction.

Tesla Motors has the right idea:

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you

That is a clever idea. He realize that if the whole electric car industry growth, his business would growth too.

ZetaX: I recommend taking a look at ferocity with which AngleLestat holds his/her position

Lol, why you dont quote me so the mod can understand what are you talking about.

haha ferocity? yeah I also eat babys.

Ok lets go back to the topic please. Some new idea of how to slow down the climate change or make clean energy?

[shynung]

Average prices are 3300 for super bowl tiickets, nonetheless thousands of people go all years.

If you reach leo orbit, you need to go back in the same instant than you arrive?

A trip to a sports stadium can be planned and done within hours. A trip to the ISS takes months to plan, and have a much higher safety risk(remember, there's literally tons of liquid explosives sitting right under the astronauts' feet at launch).

you call this a challenge?

In the sense that people disagree with you and posts their own opinions and knowledge, yes.

No, I realize that is a waste of time explain this over and over

No, you haven't realized it. Do some more research.

ABS brakes helped to reduce the car prices by 1/10 and the fuel price in the same range?

No..

almost all middle class families already had cars, the price of oil up all years the same as traffic. Each day cars are less usefull.

How all this is compare with the space industry in case than something similar to skylon arrives to the market droping launch cost to 1/10?

With a final end price of 1/30.

You wrote earlier that cars have no technological advances. This is the evidence refuting it. Whether it reduces the car's cost is irrelevant.

But you said that the precooler fail, it does not need the precooler in space.

If the precooler fails, Skylon won't go to space that day. They'll have to abort it.

ohh.. I have a brillant idea! Lets use a fuel release valve!

The novel is waiting for me.

There's still the satellite payload onboard that can't simply be jettisoned. Skylon is designed to land empty; it'd still be overweight.

Make use of your own advice and make numbers why skylon or a full reusable spacex launcher had the potential to reduce so much the costs.

REL has not published any reliable data about the Skylon's estimated cost-per-kg-to-LEO, and SpaceX's numbers are for their expendable rockets. Instead, I'll quote the estimated launch cost-per-kg-to-LEO of the reusable Space Shuttle vs. the Proton rocket from here.

Space Shuttle costs $10.416 per kg to LEO. Proton was $4.302. Problems?

The car anology has nothing to do by the already cited arguments.

It demonstrates the complexity of the economy system associated with both rockets and cars. To put it simply, one cannot control demand by controlling the price.

Not even with a 90%? you really think that? You have an idea of what a 90% represent?

How many business oportunities become profitable with those cost?

None. Absolutely none whatsoever.

You seem to be under the impression that everyone around the world is eager to launch spacecrafts of their own. I must inform you that they don't. The only significant customers of launch services are communications companies, government agencies, and research institutes.

And how easy is to achieve that? I guess even spaceX can achieve that in 10 years.

You can keep your way to think. Lets see what happens in ten years..

SpaceX needs decades before launching a reusable rocket for a paying customer. The rocket design life cycle is that long.

That is my point, for that reason you can reduce so much the cost if you have a 100% reusable launcher.

That it only needs to refuel and take off again.

Not if the launcher themselves is expensive from the start. See the Space Shuttle.

you use all your rules wrong. we are not speaking of ganing 20% of efficiency in the engine thrust.

What we are saying is not throw away each stage that worth millions! To then make them again with their respective test cost over and over.

The payloads themselves already cost more than the launcher. Plus, the launchers are already optimized for cost-efficiency. Dropping launch costs lower means building another Aquarius rocket.

That breakthrough is called reaction engine.

Which was first flown by Robert H. Goddard in 1926. Not exactly a breakthrough.

If you have a panel with a thinkness of paper or less, the damage that mmod may produce is negligible.

MMOD stands for micrometeoroid debris. Paper-thin panels certainly would not survive such an impact in one piece.

?? So said that there is not demand with 1/10 reduction, is different than said that there is not market for 1/10?

I dont wanna read another twisted word puzzle please. Somebody dies if you said that I am right?

What he was trying to say was, there is no market segment that can utilize that 90% drop in price.

As I said, that technology is already achieve in laboratory, we just need to scale up, 10 years seems like a safe frame if we take into account how much investment that area is taken.

Do clarify from which laboratory are this results taken from.

Ok I am bored, this is derailing the topic and it seems that you 3 never would accept that a reduction in launch cost of 1/10 would increase the space demand.

It's a pipe dream, just like Mars One, and will never happen in the next remaining few years of our lives. If we were to accept it, we'd be nuts.

Lol, why you dont quote me so the mod can understand what are you talking about.

haha ferocity? yeah I also eat babys.

You never seem to properly acknowledge any facts that happen to contradict your position, yet you keep arguing against it anyway. Hence the 'ferocity' mentioned.

Ok lets go back to the topic please. Some new idea of how to slow down the climate change or make clean energy?

^{[EVILGRIN]Nope. This conversation is incredibly amusing.[/EVILGRIN]}

Edited June 27, 2014 by shynung

[rtxoff]

Everyone interested in this topic can verify the facts by himself, there's no need to get mad at each other. I think there where enough links posted to read into this matter.

With some effort everyone can make the great picture about it in his mind.

[ZetaX]

As I said, that technology is already achieve in laboratory, we just need to scale up, 10 years seems like a safe frame if we take into account how much investment that area is taken.

I told you to reason the economic feasability and everything you gave was a claim that your proposed technology will exist. But my whole task, which you still did not tackle, was to show that it is, all considered, better than ground based PV. So you have to find the efficiency of microwave transportation of energy down to earth, the actual additional costs by sending the stuff (including a microwave emitter capable of tens of GW) up to space (even if very light and foldable, it won't be zero sized massless stuff; and somehow it would need to be arranged into a huge array and a microwave station built in orbit).

That is what I said It acts as a lens for microwave frequencys.

Not if you attach them with a tether, this help also to keep them always pointing to the earth without waste energy in reaction wheels.

Now you need another technology, a space elevator-level tether to connect your station to earth. We currently have no such material, and even of there is some graphene breakthrough soon, the cost would be horrendous.

By the way, you would only need reaction wheels for corrections, you can easily make it rotate in a way it always faces earth (always facing the sun is another story, though, but that can't be done with tether, anyway), up to small errors by earth not being a perfect sphere.

Ok I am bored, this is derailing the topic and it seems that you 3 never would accept that a reduction in launch cost of 1/10 would increase the space demand.

Dont forget to mention this if you are close to serious people. Its a shame that I would not be close to see the reaction.

Please stop lying! I doubt you find a quote were I said that it will not rise at all; even more, in my last post I made pretty much clear that I don't think so. I just said that the increase is probably not enough to compensate for the development costs by itself, or at least that you gave no evidence in favor of that.

[rtxoff]

Now you need another technology, a space elevator-level tether to connect your station to earth. We currently have no such material, and even of there is some graphene breakthrough soon, the cost would be horrendous.

By the way, you would only need reaction wheels for corrections, you can easily make it rotate in a way it always faces earth (always facing the sun is another story, though, but that can't be done with tether, anyway), up to small errors by earth not being a perfect sphere.

I do not think he was thinking about a space elevator. I guess he is saying to connect the part that collects energy with the part that transmits energy to earth with an theter. That would allow both of them to rotate freely in independant directions.

[ZetaX]

I do not think he was thinking about a space elevator. I guess he is saying to connect the part that collects energy with the part that transmits energy to earth with an theter. That would allow both of them to rotate freely in independant directions.

That would not make sense as a response to my post. There I was talking about keeping the microwave beam focused, and this cannot be achieved close to the station, nor can it be refocused on earth only; thus it would have to be in between, and that requires a space elevator style construct to stay there.

[AngelLestat]

Do clarify from which laboratory are this results taken from.

15,6% organicic pv cell, flexible, thin, cheap and can be mass produced.

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-scientists-efficient-economical-solar-cell.html

Silicon graphene super thin PV CELL

http://scitechdaily.com/new-possibilities-graphene-thin-film-photovoltaics/

Absorb UV and Infrared without decrease the efficiency of normal PVs

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131219154407.htm

I can search other breakthrough studies that I remember saw over PV and graphene that also seems promissing.

You never seem to properly acknowledge any facts that happen to contradict your position, yet you keep arguing against it anyway. Hence the 'ferocity' mentioned.

psicology: if you find my arguments "threatening", is not for the words that I use, is becouse my arguments break yours.

^{[EVILGRIN]Nope. This conversation is incredibly amusing.[/EVILGRIN]}

Yeah that makes my point.

I told you to reason the economic feasability and everything you gave was a claim that your proposed technology will exist. But my whole task, which you still did not tackle, was to show that it is, all considered, better than ground based PV. So you have to find the efficiency of microwave transportation of energy down to earth, the actual additional costs by sending the stuff (including a microwave emitter capable of tens of GW) up to space (even if very light and foldable, it won't be zero sized massless stuff; and somehow it would need to be arranged into a huge array and a microwave station built in orbit).

The collector is very light, so from that point, it totally worth it.

The cost of an efficient microwave transmission for other hand, is still unknown for certain. So I cant promisse yet with evidence that it would be cost/efficient.

Please stop lying! I doubt you find a quote were I said that it will not rise at all; even more, in my last post I made pretty much clear that I don't think so. I just said that the increase is probably not enough to compensate for the development costs by itself, or at least that you gave no evidence in favor of that.

if that is true, you dint look very support it, you just try it to contradict every thing that I said it.

Now you need another technology, a space elevator-level tether to connect your station to earth. We currently have no such material, and even of there is some graphene breakthrough soon, the cost would be horrendous.

By the way, you would only need reaction wheels for corrections, you can easily make it rotate in a way it always faces earth (always facing the sun is another story, though, but that can't be done with tether, anyway), up to small errors by earth not being a perfect sphere.

I do not think he was thinking about a space elevator. I guess he is saying to connect the part that collects energy with the part that transmits energy to earth with an theter. That would allow both of them to rotate freely in independant directions.

gpisic was more close.

it was not a riddle either.

You said that I can not use a lens to focus the microwaves closer to the earth because it will had faster orbit speed.

And I said... No, becouse we attach the lens with the maser through a tether. This help to keep the 2 objects aligned and pointing earth. The effect is called Gravity-gradient stabilization.

In fact Nasa did an experiment with this, but mostly to prove if we can generate power with the tether (the answer is yes).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tether

http://youtu.be/pQTMliO1JVc?t=2m55s

The benefic of had a lens at certain distance 1km, 10km or 100km from the maser. Is that it acts like a super telescope. Plus you can generate many KWs extra of power in case you use a conductive wire.

The thing is that if you want to focus the energy, you can use a complex maser and a 3 miles or 5 miles radius rectenna, or you can use metamaterials to make the lens, or a fresnel lens plate zone, or this:

http://phys.org/news128350265.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I found something that I dint notice before:

Now we can get higher efficiencies and storage capacities with solar thermal production using super critical steam.

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/06/11/aus-concentrating-solar-power-breakthrough-hit-us-shores/

Using similar approach now is possible to use geothermal energy directing from lava.

Very usefull in hawaii that is still using a 95% fossil fuels.

http://mic.com/articles/81113/in-huge-breakthrough-iceland-has-uncovered-the-ultimate-renewable-energy-source

Edited June 28, 2014 by AngelLestat

[K^2]

That would not make sense as a response to my post. There I was talking about keeping the microwave beam focused, and this cannot be achieved close to the station, nor can it be refocused on earth only; thus it would have to be in between, and that requires a space elevator style construct to stay there.

I don't buy into orbital PV as near-future technology either, but to be fair, you don't need to refocus MW transmission. You just need the initial dish to be large enough to provide a beam that does not diverge. We are dealing with ~1cm waves. So if you want divergence on the order of the size of the dish from, say, ~1,000km, you need a dish ~100m across. Since it can be foil or chicken wire, that's probably not going to be the heaviest part of the equipment. With a bit of improvement on PVs themselves, it's the generator that will end up being heaviest, and consequently, the most expensive part of the setup.

[shynung]

15,6% organicic pv cell, flexible, thin, cheap and can be mass produced.

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-scientists-efficient-economical-solar-cell.html

Silicon graphene super thin PV CELL

http://scitechdaily.com/new-possibilities-graphene-thin-film-photovoltaics/

Absorb UV and Infrared without decrease the efficiency of normal PVs

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131219154407.htm

Interesting. Let's hope we get to buy it before we perish.

psicology: if you find my arguments "threatening", is not for the words that I use, is becouse my arguments break yours.

How so? I haven't seen any argument of yours that completely refuted mine, or anyone else's. Though, you were being notably aggressive on defending it.

Yeah that makes my point.

^{*laughs diabolically}

Edited June 28, 2014 by shynung

[peadar1987]

Oh, and just to mess with you: It's 'because', not 'becouse'. And it's spelled 'psychology', not 'psicology'.

While I think that AngelLestat is overly optimistic, and too dogmatic a lot of the time, it's not cool to mock someone's English skills, especially when they're not a native speaker. Whatever else you might want to say about him, his English is pretty decent in my book.

[shynung]

While I think that AngelLestat is overly optimistic, and too dogmatic a lot of the time, it's not cool to mock someone's English skills, especially when they're not a native speaker. Whatever else you might want to say about him, his English is pretty decent in my book.

Okay, edited. Don't take it too seriously; it's just for LOL.

[Nibb31]

No, I realize that is a waste of time explain this over and over

Maybe you should try to understand instead of trying to explain.

ABS brakes helped to reduce the car prices by 1/10 and the fuel price in the same range?

No..

The technology in cars has increased dramatically over the last decade. Prices not so much. You are getting more technology for the same price, hence they are cheaper.

But that wasn't the point. The was that you claimed that reducing the cost automatically increases the market. I used cars, but I could have used hamburgers or refrigerators. Reducing the price of hamburgers will not automatically create new markets for hamburgers. You claim that reducing the cost automatically increases the market is wrong. Therefore it is not a universal economical rule.

How all this is compare with the space industry in case than something similar to skylon arrives to the market droping launch cost to 1/10?

You didn't even read the link I gave you to the Skylon thread, did you?

You keep on droning on about Skylon. I've already asked you to stop using it as an example because it simply isn't realistic. None of their technology exists and their business model estimates are all wrong.

Not even with a 90%? you really think that? You have an idea of what a 90% represent?

Yes, I do. This is an example of a basic rundown of the costs of an operational satellite.

- Spacecraft $300 million.

- Ground systems: $100 million

- Launch: $100 million.

If you reduce the launch cost to 10$ million, you only reduce the total cost of the project from $500 million to $410 million. That sort of reduction will not open up new markets.

And I've already explained why 90% is not realistic, by any standard. Please stop using that number. SpaceX claims a realistic reduction of around 10 or 20% in the long term.

If you are so certain about your 90% number, then go ahead and show us how you combine development cost, unit cost, infrastructure cost, and flight rates to bring launch costs down by 90%.

That is my point, for that reason you can reduce so much the cost if you have a 100% reusable launcher.

That it only needs to refuel and take off again.

No it doesn't. I already explained why in my previous post, which you ignored.

you use all your rules wrong. we are not speaking of ganing 20% of efficiency in the engine thrust.

What we are saying is not throw away each stage that worth millions! To then make them again with their respective test cost over and over.

I already told you that you the hardware cost is only a small part of the launch cost. But you are ignoring what I explained.

That breakthrough is called reaction engine.

Skylon again? No it isn't, and I already explained why.

I'm done talking with. You keep on ignoring everything we say and stick to your idiotic claims to the point where this discussion isn't going anywhere. Let's meet again in 10 years and look at where Skylon and SpaceX are. Then we can decide who was right.

Edited June 28, 2014 by Nibb31

[rtxoff]

I just don't get it why people go off into the air like rockets. Let the people believe what they want. If i learned anything from this forum then this: It's not going to change anything anyway.

[shynung]

I just don't get it why people go off into the air like rockets. Let the people believe what they want. If i learned anything from this forum then this: It's not going to change anything anyway.

There are people that are open to other's ideas and willing to think about it before agreeing or disagreeing. Then, there are those who think people around them don't know half as much as themselves, and thinks of others who disagree with them as persona non grata (unwanted persons). It's usually the latter group that makes a lot of noise.

That said, let's not talk about it.

Edited June 28, 2014 by shynung

[78stonewobble]

There are people that are open to other's ideas and willing to think about it before agreeing or disagreeing. Then, there are those who think people around them don't know half as much as themselves, and thinks of others who disagree with them as persona non grata (unwanted persons). It's usually the latter group that makes a lot of noise.

That said, let's not talk about it.

Sometimes though, it is a fact, that some people only know half as much as other people and sometimes some ideas are stupid and can be dismissed as such. Ie. I'm gonna jump of this tall building with some wood strapped to my arms and I'm gonna fly like a bird, flapping my wings... Feel free to try it, but I won't be joining you.

[phoenix_ca]

Sometimes though, it is a fact, that some people only know half as much as other people and sometimes some ideas are stupid and can be dismissed as such. Ie. I'm gonna jump of this tall building with some wood strapped to my arms and I'm gonna fly like a bird, flapping my wings... Feel free to try it, but I won't be joining you.

At that point, you'd be an immoral and unethical human if you didn't try to stop them. >.<

[shynung]

At that point, you'd be an immoral and unethical human if you didn't try to stop them. >.<

True, but it does get somewhat complicated if the person resists being stopped, and started doing things to impede your efforts to stop them.

^{Why are we talking about this?}