Best energy alternatives to stop global warming

[78stonewobble]

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

That's actually a good point. However... Atleast around here, there is free will, unless you are so "ill" that you absolutely cannot take care of yourself.

Basically, you are free to take any number of mindnumbingly stupid decisions, unless you are completely unable to take decisions.

...

I don't know how important it is to a person trying to fly like that. Maybe it means more to him/her to than continued existence does. It's not my place to tell other people what they should find important in life, but if we're discussing it I'll certainly give my oppinion.

Edited June 29, 2014 by 78stonewobble

[phoenix_ca]

You need to establish first that the person is in a right mind when they choose to jump. Jumping off a bridge expecting the wood strapped to your arms is something very insane to do. Even if they were trying to impede your attempt to stop them, you can reasonably assume that they are suffering from something like schizophrenia or a manic episode, and there would be not ethical concern in impeding them from killing themselves. And then, even if they were in their right mind, if there were risk to others, you can stop someone from endangering others' lives without it being all that complicated either.

These problems have been debated for millennia, and the position of simply not taking part at all and letting people just do whatever they want tends to come-out as the morally objectionable choice every time. It's pretty much just moral subjectivism with a different coat of paint.

And yes, this is relevant to the topic. Muffins for whomever figures out how.

[Aghanim]

I think I know the problem, its there, in the thought experimentation list in Wikipedia, but I forgot the name

[peadar1987]

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.

Because rockets are awesome. WHOOSH! KHRUUUUU! KAPLAAAW!

[AngelLestat]

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

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.

it depends on the context! That is what I try to explain since begining.

You can not compare rockets with cars or a phone service with fishing trips.

If SpaceX reduce too much the cost (if they complete the reusable program) they would not gain too much money (maybe), but with a reusable program they can launch rockets to much often, so they would become in the most used agency, their competence profits would decrease and they will achieve what they desire... establish itself as the most important company on space business.

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

I would not answer you all these questions here. If you like, make another topic about Space Economy, we can follow this discussion there.

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.

All those numbers represent the same satellite? Because I can find many examples where the spacecraft cost is lower and the launch cost is higher.

But it does not matter, the ground systems and spacecraf cost depend on the launch cost. If you reduce this last, you reduce the others in similar proportion.

Here explain:

http://www.spacenews.com/article/opinion/34807reinventing-space-dramatically-reducing-space-mission-cost-%E2%80%94-reducing-launch

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.

Why you mean? You have a parabolic dish of 100 (diam - radius?) with the maser pointing toward the dish (as any antenna) and with this you accomplish what amount of divergence in ground from geo?

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

Well, we need more energy alternatives, additionally it would be great if we can absorb the already existing Co2 in the atmosphere...

Perhaps adding more trees?

yeah, I guess that would never happen :S

[magnemoe]

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

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.

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.

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%.

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.

Main focus in cars has been to add more features, people who want a cheap car buy a used one.

You are right that reduced cost don't automatically increase marked, as you say refrigerators is a saturated marked and its plenty of used one you can buy very cheap.

50 years ago the marked was not saturated and an cheaper refrigerator would sell well.

However if you look at the 500 million budget for the satellite operation, the main reason why its so expensive is that an satellite has to be small so its cheap to launch, this increase price and will also increase the ground station costs, its hard to replace fast in orbit so you have to make sure it don't break down.

Now look at operational cost for irdium or gps satellites who are easier to replace and you have redundancy.

Reduced cost will bring in new players too,

Saying that the launcher marked is saturated is like saying the car marked was saturated 110 years ago or computer marked 40 years ago.

Both markets was pretty saturated at the prices and possible uses both had.

No not saying the launch marked will have an similar explosion as this two marked had but an 10 times increase in marked just for satellites should not be an problem if the price went down to 1/3-1/5 and regularity of launches went up similar.

[shynung]

it depends on the context! That is what I try to explain since begining.

You can not compare rockets with cars or a phone service with fishing trips.

Economically, they're all somewhat similar. Reducing car prices does not necessarily increase the demand for cars, especially if the roads are already crammed with too much cars. With spacecrafts, it's a little different; unlike cars, spacecrafts today doesn't have much use other than what is available already, so the demand is inelastic. Reducing launch costs may reduce the overall costs that a launch client must bear, but it doesn't necessarily attract new clients.

All those numbers represent the same satellite? Because I can find many examples where the spacecraft cost is lower and the launch cost is higher.

Even if you do, chances are you're looking at a case where multiple spacecrafts are being launched on one launcher. It's a common practice; in fact, during SpaceX Dragon's first mission to the ISS, the rocket also carried an Orbcomm satellite as a secondary payload.

[Nibb31]

it depends on the context! That is what I try to explain since begining.

You can not compare rockets with cars or a phone service with fishing trips.

What you were saying was that reducing cost *automatically* increases demand. I'm glad you seem to have realized that this is not *always* true and that it is much more complicated than your *basic* rule.

If SpaceX reduce too much the cost (if they complete the reusable program) they would not gain too much money (maybe), but with a reusable program they can launch rockets to much often, so they would become in the most used agency, their competence profits would decrease and they will achieve what they desire... establish itself as the most important company on space business.

You insist that reusability yields some sort of huge cost savings. Again, let's take an example of the costs of running a launch business.

- Booster R&D

- Booster manufacturing

- Booster testing

- Launch site facilities

- Transportation

- Stacking

- Payload integration

- Propellant

- Launch operation

- Sales and Marketing

- Administration and HR

Now, for each of these steps, you need to pay people. Salaries are the biggest cost factor here, not the material of which the rocket is made. A few tons of aluminium is cheap compared to the salaries of the folks who are needed to operate the company.

Reusability only removes the Booster production step. The only cost savings are: the material needed to build the booster and salaries of the people on the manufacturing floor. With a 10 time reusability as envisioned by SpaceX, you still need to maintain a manufacturing facility with a lower production capability (and therefore a higher unit cost because you lose in terms of economies of scale), so you don't even save that much.

You still need the hundreds of people in all the other departments. In fact, if your launch rates increase, you actually need more people in these departments. That's where most of the cost is.

The actual booster hardware is maybe around 20% of the total launch cost, at best. If you reuse it 10 times, then you can cut your total launch cost by 18% at best. On the other hand, you will have increased the R&D cost and the individual cost of the booster (which now has to be much more robust and is produced in lower numbers). The economy due to reusability is marginal at best.

I would not answer you all these questions here. If you like, make another topic about Space Economy, we can follow this discussion there.

No, my arguments about why Skylon is unrealistic is in those threads. If you want to insist that Skylon is going to happen, you need to address my arguments in those threads. I've provided my numbers and my demonstration. The onus is on you to demonstrate that it is feasible if you want to keep on using Skylon as an example.

All those numbers represent the same satellite? Because I can find many examples where the spacecraft cost is lower and the launch cost is higher.

I'd like to see those examples.

But it does not matter, the ground systems and spacecraf cost depend on the launch cost. If you reduce this last, you reduce the others in similar proportion.

You can reduce some of the cost, yes, but not all of it. And because a 90% reduction in launch cost is not realistic, then hypothesizing about other costs if that happened is pointless. To support any business case for "cheap" launches, you are going to need to demonstrate first that there is demand for 500 launches per year instead of 50. There simply isn't. In fact, it's the opposite. The current market is saturated and the demand for GEO comsats is going to decrease because their latency makes them really only useful for broadcast, which is becoming a niche market. In a few years, the bulk of communication, including TV broadcast, will be through LTE and optical fiber links. Without even talking about launch cost, cell towers require a lot less energy to operate than GEO satellites.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Nibb31

[Aghanim]

So, the short answer is that... we are doomed? No one wants to develop cheap launch techs as there is no need. No one wants to spend holidays in space because its too expensive, but no one will take the risk of developing cheap launch tech as it doesn't necessarily increase demand. Space is hopeless place now?

[Nibb31]

So, the short answer is that... we are doomed? No one wants to develop cheap launch techs as there is no need. No one wants to spend holidays in space because its too expensive, but no one will take the risk of developing cheap launch tech as it doesn't necessarily increase demand. Space is hopeless place now?

Doomed? I dunno, but nothing lasts forever, not our own lives, not humanity, not even stars. I can live with that and just enjoy what life offers while I can. Old stuff gets always replaced with new stuff, so it's no big deal in the grand scale of the Universe.

Space isn't hopeless, but with our current technology, it's not much more than a big expanse of nothingness where we can't do much. It isn't hopeless, but maybe it is a bit pointless in the foreseeable future. And yes, as you have pointed out, it's a chicken and egg cycle. The only way out of that cycle is going to be through decades of slow incremental improvements, until we reach a balance between offer and demand. It's unlikely that we see some magical breakthrough in physics that reduces the energy cost of accelerating stuff to orbital speed.

Space is an extreme environment, like Antarctica, the Gobi desert, the summit of Mount Everest, or the Mariana Trench. These places are interesting to study, inspiring to explore, and might have some niche commercial applications one day, but they are never going to be booming with activity because they will always be difficult to reach and difficult to survive in.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Nibb31

[rtxoff]

Or we eliminate money and greed and everything is going to happen because we can.

[78stonewobble]

You need to establish first that the person is in a right mind when they choose to jump. Jumping off a bridge expecting the wood strapped to your arms is something very insane to do. Even if they were trying to impede your attempt to stop them, you can reasonably assume that they are suffering from something like schizophrenia or a manic episode, and there would be not ethical concern in impeding them from killing themselves. And then, even if they were in their right mind, if there were risk to others, you can stop someone from endangering others' lives without it being all that complicated either.

These problems have been debated for millennia, and the position of simply not taking part at all and letting people just do whatever they want tends to come-out as the morally objectionable choice every time. It's pretty much just moral subjectivism with a different coat of paint.

And yes, this is relevant to the topic. Muffins for whomever figures out how.

I do believe in moral subjectivism and that our society's overall "moral" should be an amalgam of those, not the supposedly "higher" moral of some select few.

I agree we should intervene in the above case, because a person like that probably doesn't think clearly at the moment or as clearly as he/she could, but there are other cases where we shouldn't.

My guess for the muffins... That we have a responsibility, when decisions affect not just an individual, but everyone, to dispell myths, lack of knowledge, faulty logic and what not that can lead bad decisions or atleast needs to be considered for taking a decision.

[Seret]

Or we eliminate money and greed and everything is going to happen because we can.

Lol. Too much Star Trek for you, I think.

[AngelLestat]

Lets follow the Cost/Demand and reusable programs discussion here:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/84583-Space-economies-and-economics?p=1241094#post1241094

So we dont derailed this topic even more.

But I guess we already comment or mention all the possible energy alternatives. Or there is another one with future that we dint mention?

[phoenix_ca]

Or we eliminate money and greed and everything is going to happen because we can.

That wouldn't result in people just doing anything because it can be done. You still need the energy to get it done, and there will be certain endevours that are so ridiculous (like cold fusion) that they have no hope of advancing society forward. Without taking that into consideration, you would quickly have a society that once all of anyone's needs and desires are reasonably met, will stagnate and eventually collapse.

I do believe in moral subjectivism and that our society's overall "moral" should be an amalgam of those, not the supposedly "higher" moral of some select few.

No. In fact that idea is downright terrifying considering where it leads.

That we have a responsibility, when decisions affect not just an individual, but everyone, to dispell myths, lack of knowledge, faulty logic and what not that can lead bad decisions or atleast needs to be considered for taking a decision.

Not what I was thinking, but an interesting take on it. Have an internet muffin.

Although what you said flies in the face of moral subjectivism. I suspect you either don't know what moral subjectivism actually is, or don't actually hold that position.

[Everten P.]

Large orbital solar plants; (assuming you have a space elevator) just a huge mothertruckin' station with solar panels everywhere and heat radiators could be used to generate power by lining ways for water to travel through them then use the water that has been turned to steam can be condensed to water plants and be drunken by astronauts. Then "Space Truckers" ( yes that would be amazing) would gather the energy in graphene supercapacitors that will be sent back to earth by a returning space elevator. "See?" and money would be made by shows about space truckers!

[78stonewobble]

No. In fact that idea is downright terrifying considering where it leads.

Not what I was thinking, but an interesting take on it. Have an internet muffin.

Although what you said flies in the face of moral subjectivism. I suspect you either don't know what moral subjectivism actually is, or don't actually hold that position.

You are right I was thinking of something else, I was thinking of the subjectivity of morality and how we are all entitled to it, and that a society should an amalgam of it's citizens oppinions on a variety of subjects. Laws as an expression of morality should be one of them. Not in the sense, that it gives an individual the right to break the law, but the right to affect the law.

Ie. I think that if a majority of citizens, is quite ok with voluntary assisted suicide or euthanasia (yes killing/murder/whatever you want to call it too)... then it is not ok, for a some select few, claiming a higher/universal moral standard to be able to override this change of laws.

It's probably the case in quite a few western countries and is by far a much worse example than a stabbing by a crazy guy and the apathy of bystanders. Since here we're pretty much talking about torturing hundreds of thousands people globally. Personally I think it's much worse than murder, to be part of keeping other people alive in terrible pain and/or humiliation, just so I can feel good about myself.

[phoenix_ca]

You are right I was thinking of something else, I was thinking of the subjectivity of morality and how we are all entitled to it, and that a society should an amalgam of it's citizens oppinions on a variety of subjects. Laws as an expression of morality should be one of them. Not in the sense, that it gives an individual the right to break the law, but the right to affect the law.

Ie. I think that if a majority of citizens, is quite ok with voluntary assisted suicide or euthanasia (yes killing/murder/whatever you want to call it too)... then it is not ok, for a some select few, claiming a higher/universal moral standard to be able to override this change of laws.

It's probably the case in quite a few western countries and is by far a much worse example than a stabbing by a crazy guy and the apathy of bystanders. Since here we're pretty much talking about torturing hundreds of thousands people globally. Personally I think it's much worse than murder, to be part of keeping other people alive in terrible pain and/or humiliation, just so I can feel good about myself.

That's cultural relativism, and has all the same problems of moral relativism. By your logic, if a society deems through its laws that a person should be stoned to death because they were raped (as some fundamentalist Islamic states do hold, and any fundamentalist Christian state if it existed would likely hold), that is absolutely acceptable. Even morally right. The same would go for if the majority of society deemed global warming to be a myth, and suggested that any legislation designed to reduce the ecological impact of that society were unethical because, oh, say that such legislation would hinder that society's growth.

Moral relativism of any sort is pretty much the same as saying there is no morality at all, that there are no right answers. If a society says that its a good idea to kill every eighty-year-old to reduce the burden of care they cause (in fact it might even be an effective measure to kill retirees to eliminate their carbon emissions, reduce energy demand, and thus our impact on the environment via carbon emissions), then that's okay because that's what that society accepts as normal. These sorts of ideas have been practically eradicated in honest practice of modern philosophy and law, because majority rule is often wrong. Just because the majority thinks it's okay to segregate blacks and whites, or men and women, doesn't actually mean it's right or just.

Just because the majority thinks something is true or just doesn't make it true or just. What you are arguing is that even if the minority hold a position that is absolutely justifiable and correct, and provably so, they should not be able to affect the laws of their society if that society holds the opposite view. If that were true, we wouldn't have had the civil rights movements we did in the 20th century. Martin Luther King wouldn't have been a person; we would've just said he was wrong because the majority is right, and besides that, he was black.

Cultural relativism started with the anthropologist Ruth Benedict. It doesn't take much work to actually pull apart her arguments, and even less to demonstrate how they open the door to every atrocity imaginable. Don't take this the wrong way but, I'd suggest you go find a nearby university and enroll in an introductory ethics class. You're bound to learn a lot, and in much more detail and depth than I can lay-out here, among them just how broken ethical relativism of any kind is.

Edited July 1, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[peadar1987]

It is interesting to think about though.

An example I've considered before is that of a Mayan priest engaged in human sacrifice. He believes that if they don't cut the heart out of a human being, the crops will fail. He feels a bit bad about it, but believes it is for the greater good, as many will die if he doesn't make the sacrifice. Is he a bad person? Is he just misguided?

[AngelLestat]

Yeah I dont really think that the average shaman, ruler, or religious man have done those things thinking in the common good of their society. I guess the reason is a bit more selfish, power and position.

[rkman]

It is interesting to think about though.

An example I've considered before is that of a Mayan priest engaged in human sacrifice. He believes that if they don't cut the heart out of a human being, the crops will fail. He feels a bit bad about it, but believes it is for the greater good, as many will die if he doesn't make the sacrifice. Is he a bad person? Is he just misguided?

I think the issue is not one of judgment of the individual.

Good people can do bad things. The fact that they are good people does not make the bad thing they do any less bad, nor is it reason to just let them do the bad thing.

[theend3r]

I think the issue is not one of judgment of the individual.

Good people can do bad things. The fact that they are good people does not make the bad thing they do any less bad, nor is it reason to just let them do the bad thing.

That is if you assume you can discern good from evil and that there is any absolute good and evil (there isn't).

Btw is this really a topic about energy production?

[Francesco]

The current batch of Delta, Atlas, Ariane, Falcon, are all cheaper to fly than their counterparts of 30 years ago.

Could you provide some numbers/examples of that?

[sal_vager]

Guys, can you please stay off the politics and religion, you know the rules

[peadar1987]

Guys, can you please stay off the politics and religion, you know the rules

I didn't think that Mayan shamanism really counted, but sure alright!