You are not logged in.
Goebbels might like a closed network in Germany. He might even give it the appearance that it was accessing the outside world.
I believe that turbine power is limited to 33% efficiency by the laws of thermodynamics, but I need to find the source I remember that from. I can't give you an exact figure, though.
RTGs are not reactors. You are right, they are used for very low power needs, and would not suffice for an interplanetary mission.
But if the U.S. controls the breeders, what's the panic?
Actually, there are a number of US plants, there are just no breeders. I believe Bush actually approved the construction of new reactors.
India has breeders, France has breeders, and that North Korean reactor that we've heard so much about is a breeder.
People have been lobbying for them in the US and abroad, but the anti-nuclear and fossil fuel lobbies are either too strong, politically connected, or fear-inspiring to be broken.
And in addition, a smaller nuclear plant could provide more energy to a greater area than fossil fuel plants, so the vastly smaller amount of fuel needed, as well as the increased customer base would probably allow competitive rates.
The calculations are quite clear. If it wasn't so restrictive to build a plant, and breeder reactors were used, we would have the boundless energy. 3.2 kg a day of uranium for a 1,000 MW reactor. And, with breeder reactors, you don't have to mine as much, because they create fuel. There's a French reactor that creates enough fuel after 10 years to fuel itself and another reactor for another 10 years (without using an additional plutonium supply)!
Disposal is a huge, and wasteful cost. We could be using breeders to recycle fuel, instead of spending exorbitant amounts to dispose of it.
Well, first of all, the entire nuclear industry was forced to change its entire approach to energy production when Jimmy Carter outlawed breeder reactors. So a lot of money had to go into developing new energy production systems and retrofitting the reactors.
Another issue is where that R&D money is going. Nuclear research could be going to fusion, which has greater potential than any form of energy production, if it succeeds (which it appears it will by 2015-2020). A lot of money is also being spent on new ideas, such as thorium reactors.
A limiting factor is the vehement anti-nuclear laws. Nuclear research isn't really a black hole. If anti-nuclear laws were relaxed, our fossil fuel industry would be hit hard, which is probably part of the reason these laws exist to begin with.
For example: if you had two bases a couple hundred miles apart you could lay some rail between them and use a silane powered steam locomotive. Silane burns in CO2. Old technology isn't cool but it works.
Combustion may be more useful on Mars for cars, but I would without question use maglev for rail systems. It is far too hard to lay down new, improved rail lines later, whereas replacing car engines isn't as hard.
Movies like Titanic are a big hit because they are based on true stories with as much factual data added as possible. If you build an anti-matter warp engine star trek vehicle it will be nothing more than a shell. A fraud, and the public will know it. Give them a real starship and they will be fascinated.
There's a reason people like movies like Star Wars more than Titanic. Titanic and Pearl Harbor-these are shells of fact, with crap thrown in, not vice versa. There is very little fact. The fluff is what sells movies that are supposedely historical fiction.
I think Jon Stewart said it best last night, people are willing to spend up to, and including $0 to see reality television, but beyond that, they won't pay.
An authentic Orion starship would be unique. Guided tours quite an experience I imagine. You could get totally lost in the engine rooms alone. Peoples eyes would be popping out of their heads as the scale of it overwhelmed their senses. Unlike the flimsy gossamer things made by NASA this could house hundreds of people.
There's nothing wrong with adding a sleek look. It wouldn't have to damage the integrity or quality of the ship in the least. People don't want to see a cold, dead ship.
You need money to build anything. I personally wouldn't invest in a space theme park. Sounds like a money pit. Any bank you approached would tell you to try something along the lines of Disney World instead
I don't know about that. The Smithsonian succeeds, the Intrepid Museum succeeds, and many other non-Disney parks succeed. This is simply inaccurate.
If a quantum communicator were indeed instantaneous - and I confess I have reservations whether physics allows this - couldn't you also build a computer with infinite processing speed based on that device?
Which is exactly what physicists are trying to do in researching quantum computers. In fact, these devices would help verify the multiverse theory-they could not work unless there were other quantum universes from which to draw the calculations.
The next major change is already happening, so the prediction is hardly dramatic. Television, telephone and home computing will integrate to a greater extent, but there will always be some separation. Flat screen monitors are already available, as are flat screen digital TVs; integration of these is obvious, but computer monitors require much higher resolution and TVs must have a larger viewable area. Convergence will move desktop monitors to have the same aspect ratio as digital TV (wide screen). Telephone companies already offer ADSL, and are starting to offer digital cable over the telephone line. Cable companies offer cable modems, and some are starting to offer digital telephone over the cable.
One peeve: flat screen and flat panel are different. I know what you mean (I think): flat screen monitors are CRTs, while flat panels are LCDs.
My flat panel is 15"->fine for watching TV if I wanted to. And the price is not all that much greater than a quality TV of the size. Friends of mine already watch TV on their computers (they don't have TVs in their rooms, so I recommended TV tuners, which allow tv viewing on PCs), and I might, if I didn't have a large TV already.
Monitors today are already big enough to function as TVs. I think integration of TVs and monitors will be really visible within the next 5 to 10 years, especially as bulky CRTs hit the dumpsters, and LCDs drop in price.
100,000 km of CNT is not very much, at all. In fact, I believe you're looking at it the wrong way.
CNT is 7.5 kg/km. So 100,000 km is only 7.5 million kg of CNT, 7.5 kilotonnes. The Shuttle system has a launch mass of 2.1 kilotonnes. CNT is not all that hard to produce, either, from what I gather-it almost makes itself! And the commercial viability of CNT will make mass production inevitable.
But I don't see an elevator as a monopolistic entity in space access. People will want to get to space fast (in minutes, not hours or days), so the private launch sector (the Burt Rutans of space) will grow to meet the human demand created by the cargo capabilities of the elevator(s). Spacecraft will also have manuverability that the elevator would not provide.
So there is plenty of potential for the continued development of spacecraft in the appearance of an elevator.
With the efficiency of experimental solar technology skyrocketing into the 50-70 percent range it might be possible to go this route if we use solar concentrators.
I doubt even Earth-based solar power is that efficient. However, we aren't even dealing with Mars-based power, we are dealing with beamed orbital power-which brings the efficiency way down.
Our best bet is to use fission reactors until fusion is developed, which has the potential to produce vast, clean power. Both fission and fusion produce a lot of very useful heat, as well.
The nuclear threat is overplayed, too. IAEA estimates put Chernobyl death tolls at ~1000. While tragic, the event was wholly avoidable, and caused by incompetence, rather than the process of fission itself. And this number of deaths is quite a bit below the death rates of many other common activities.
Three Mile Island resulted in no physical harm to anybody. Not a single casualty. A nuclear accident, rare as they are (2 major accidents in 50+ years), is manageable, and can be contained.
Don't forget the giant statues made by either the Inca or the Aztecs that have decidedly Oriental features. I can see a Chinese anchor remaining after the ship is long rotted and eaten by worms.
The temples and ziggurats closely resemble Babylonian and Egyptian temples, pyramids, and ziggurats, half the world away.
Bill: as I see it, Tablets are the notebooks of the future. On my graduation, I'm going to see to it that I get a tablet for college. No books for me (except, of course, textbooks). And miniturization has made this possible!
LCDs are great, but LEDs are going to be better. CNT is going to expand our microengineering capabilities by huge amounts. And the next generation of processors are going to be amazing.
You know, I think those Star Trek badges might even be possible today: we have voice dialing, we have ounce-heavy cell phones, just combine the two. I think people are just attached to the idea of phones, now.
Wireless networks are already beyond the limits of cable and dsl broadband connections. Wired networks, except on T1 or T3, waste about 60 to 80 mbps of bandwith->cable and dsl get around 28 mbps of data flow. The only benefit of wired networks, except on the most advanced connections, is direct PC to PC data transfer.
There is a curve for demand-the supply and demand curve. Too much supply, too little demand.
However, technology is its own curve.
I do agree that a particular vehicle will follow a bell curve - horses aren't in great demand anymore - but demand for transportation in general should increase exponentially. I may be an idiot but that's what I see from history.
Perhaps over a century, the demand will taper off, because the elevator (at least the initial ones) will be obsolete. Freight trains, for example, have been replaced by airplanes, which may one day be replaced by high speed, transoceanic/continental spaceplanes. Sure, trains are good for a 50 mile commute, and planes may be great for a 100-500 mile commute. But the curve is sharper than you make it out to be.
Transportation-yes, the demand is increasing. But that's focusing way too much on macroeconomics. What we are discussing here is microeconomics-specific industries. And transportation modes face the bell curve.
"Transportation is in great demand!" Fantastic! But are horses (substitute elevators in 50-150 years from now) in great demand?
I don't think elevators will be obsolete for a long time-perhaps not ever. But they will have to innovate and improve, and the elevators of 2200 will not be the same elevators as 2050.
You all seem to forget that costs will come down. It's a natural part of the production process-things get cheaper as you figure out better ways to make them, understand their processes, modify your designs, etc.
The first elevator will be a golden goose compared to what will come after it. Highlift's predictions are $10 billion to $20 billion for the first elevator, and $1 billion to $2 billion for the immediately subsequent, higher capacity elevators. Five, ten years after that, I wouldn't be surprised if it were $500 million to $1 billion per elevator.
Now, if it were contracted only to one agency-no, I don't see this happening. However, Highlift, who seem to have good business sense, will probably try to cut their own costs, and their prices too, to attract more customers. So our initial estimates for the economics of an elevator are irrelevant for the second and third elevators, and really irrelevant after that.
If the first one is government owned, won't the rest be too?
No. It's contracting. You can make a computer, and just because you sell the first one to the government, doesn't mean you can't contract to other parties as well.
clark, I think he's advocating the SE.
As far as sheets, it's no different than any other composite. Fiberglass is millions of fibers oriented in an expoxy. Graphite composites, again fibers in an expoxy.
I should've thought of that, but I didn't know that CNT's properties (it's irregularities in clumping and adhesion) lent themselves to epoxy treatment.
I believe the Soviet (now Russian) Space Agency had developed much more comfortable, flexible, and even customizable suits while Mir was aloft.
I haven't seen anything that shows that CNT can be built in sheets, that is, you may have wires of CNT, but could you ever have blocks or walls of it? Thick cables could be made by stringing many CNT strands together, but how could a solid layer be made?
Power reactors could benefit from high-conducting, extremely small, and very strong CNT cables. Does CNT have any radiation absorption properties?
Bill: in 5 years, we'll start to see widespread application of CNT in everything from advanced computers to high end conductors, perhaps even to fuel cells.