You are not logged in.
Learn from Iceland:
Just querying your reference to the "unfinished propellant tank farm". Surely that's neither here nor there in terms of when the first orbital launch happens. The fuelled the Starship without the farm being finished, so I presume they can do the same with the full assembly.
It looked like about 80% of the rocket engines have already undergone individual testing and validation. No reason to think the testing and validation of the remaining 20% will take longer than a couple of weeks. Pressure testing and static fire over three weeks? Indicates a possible mid September date for a launch.
Spacex Boca Chica: sometimes you have to wonder about these reporters, especially when they refer to Starship as a “capsule”. Be that as it may, the fact that the swing arm (presumably for propellant load/unload) is not yet installed on the launch tower, shows just how far from launching they really are. Same goes for the as-yet unfinished propellant tank farm. What you are seeing with the stack and unstack operations is Spacex shaking down equipment and procedures that are otherwise clearly not yet ready. It’ll take a while, months perhaps, to get all this stuff built, checked-out, and ready. It’ll also take months to satisfy the EPA about launching this large vehicle from the shore at Boca Chica, with habitations too close. It is launch noise worse than Saturn 5 (3 mile min zone radius for that one, more needed here) and the risks of an ascent or on-the-pad explosion (including an off-course inflight failure), with more propellant mass than a Saturn 5, that are at issue here.
GW
That article was from November 2020. Back in 2020 there were articles praising countries like Poland, Czech Republic, Israel and so on...they all had huge rises in Covid subsequently. Of all the countries in the world, Iceland with its genetically very homogenous and small population located on an island well away from other population centres must be the easiest in the world to stop Covid...but they haven't. Appeals to "what might have happened if x hadn't been implemented" is special pleading, not fact. I'd like to know what would have happened if we'd had no lockdowns and no vaccination programmes. I think Covid might be a receding episode by now. That's not a fact, that's an opinion about what might have happened.
Lets put some number to the virology
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03284-3
How Iceland hammered COVID with sciencetwo rounds of testing, the researchers found that lockdown and isolation reduced transmission by 98%, and — in line with Iceland’s results — that 43% of the infections across the two tests were asymptomatic
screened more than half of the island’s 368,000 residents for infection.
estimated 3.4% of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 would die
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_ … in_Iceland
The virus was confirmed to have reached Iceland in February 2020. As of 7 August 2021, the total number of cases registered was 8,793, of which 7,383 had recovered and 30 deaths had occurred.[1] With a total population of 368,590 (as of 31 December 2020),[2] the infection rate is 1 case per 61 inhabitants;
https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coro … s/iceland/
https://www.reuters.com/article/factche … SL1N2P918F
“In Iceland, 85.3% of people over 16 years old are now fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and 4.9% are partially vaccinated.
herd immunity happens when you catch the virus but do not die or you are vaccinated and do not die even if you do catch it.
Iceland is a nation that did not see its population catch the virus so being vaccinated is why we see that the second scenario is playing out instead of the first... Where we have the large numbers in the hospitals on ventilators but rather a much small group which will survive.
Nice to hear a doc telling it like it is, rather than how Big Pharma pretends it is.
Louis, we have been over this again and again. In fact, the same discussions on solar power have taken place here for several years, stretching back to long before I joined the group. You don't appear to have learn't a single thing from these discussions.
And you don't seem to understand the technologies or concepts that you are trying to talk about. And you aren't interested in learning about them by your own admission. Hence you offer up the same recycled opinions over and over again. People examine the facts and they get shot down over and over again. You are then frustrated that people won't accept your opinions and beliefs as facts. A few weeks go by and you offer up the same opinions again. And they get shot down once again. Eventually, people get bored and stop engaging with you. I find it more than a little strange. You appear to want people to accept your opinions as a matter of faith. But that is not the way engineering works. It is about facts and analysis, not faith. I honestly don't know what more you think you are going to get from this board.Maybe you should join a bible class? Those people tend to deal with matters of faith. That sort of thinking works best when people refrain from asking difficult questions. You might get a better reception there. They might look a little confused when you start talking about solar panels in the middle of Eziekiel.
Your thinking on vaccines seems to fall into the same pattern. Ultimately, you may be right or wrong in your opinion on vaccines. But that opinion seems to be based on attitude rather than logic. So no amount of contrary evidence will ever convince you. It makes engaging on forums like this fundamentally pointless for you.
I think the dogma is all the other way. If I point out the huge reductions in cost of PV over the last ten years, you claim - without much evidence - this is all down to China, cheap credit and cheap fossil fuels and is therefore unsustainable. It's an article of faith for you that at some point the scam will collapse and the price will rise. You cling to this despite all serious business analysts concluding the opposite - that the real price will continue to fall, and dramatically so.
If I point to the huge falls in battery storage price, you reference the theoretical physical limits of battery storage, irrelevant if the price is right.
If I point to the potential of a green energy plus storage system you suggest there's not enough lithium around on a global scale to make this practical. Now an iron-air long term storage battery system looks credible, using commonly available materials, you move on to a different pitch, arguing that green energy plus storage takes up too much land (even though much of the wind power is generated out at sea and much of future solar power generation could be located on roofs rather than agricultural land).
I don't argue from faith, I do argue from a broadbrush understanding of the science and how markets are moving and I have hunches about what is possible. Early on, back in the days when Space X were launching from Kwajlein in the Pacific, I picked them out as serious contenders. I never believed that the challenges of landing on Mars would be a serious impediment to Mars colonisation (as many here argued), because retro-rocket landings would be perfected (that seems to be the case). I have a hunch that PV power will provide the energy on Mars for all the early Space X missions to Mars. Looks like Space X agree! I have a hunch that, as I have predicted, Mars will prove wildly profitable not a financial burden. We will see.
I think my record has been pretty good.
Re green energy on Earth I have been correct - I said the real price of PV and wind energy will continue to fall and it has (no crystal ball, just reading up on analytical articles on the subject). I said battery and other storage technologies would become commercialisable and that too is happening. I did once think that manufacture of methane was the way forward for a green energy system. I've changed my view on that, thinking utility scale green hydrogen production from water is a better bet, much simpler. Originally I was attracted to methane because in much of northern Europe natural methane provides heating and hot water, absolutely vital in winter, and we have a ready-made methane distribution system. However, it looks increasingly as though the price of electricity can be brought down significantly so conversion to electric-powered heating and hot water. That said, I wouldn't entirely rule out methane manufacture - someone may show it is commercialisable.
One thing I've gleaned from the second Everyday Astronaut interview with Musk - he's not looking to incorporate a launch escape system for humans into Starship. So that's something that won't delay development, assuming the FAA will live with that.
Yep, that's what happens in a pandemic. The virus becomes more infectious and less lethal. Standard virology. Nothing to do with vaccination.
Louis,
This is from the same Twitter user:
On the bright side, a much larger proportion of those infected have minimal or no symptoms, and fewer patients with Covid-19 are being admitted.
Scott Manley's video is very informative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Lsbi-bVfk0
It appears that part of the stacking was a bit of showmanship - a lot of the rocket engines have never been tested yet so have already been taken down for individual testing and validation.
Interesting detail on the heat tiles as well.
Iceland is 93% vaccinated. It is also experiencing its worst ever Covid rise at the moment...
https://twitter.com/eliaseythorsson/sta … 2195023878
If that doesn't give the vaxo-crazies pause for thought, I don't know what will.
I had seen that - didn't think it particularly added much, except to underline the slow charge/discharge function of iron-air batteries makes the technology unsuitable for "smoothing output" from day to day but fine for long term storage.
Perhaps this could be helpful:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ar … &FORM=VIRE
Quote:
Are 100-hour iron air batteries ready for prime time on the power grid?
He is talking mostly about Iron Air batteries in general, but does speculate that
Form Energy may have had some breakthroughs.Done
Yep - I've said before that I am always impressed by how if they fix a problem it seems to stay fixed. That may be because Musk brings a creative rather than bureaucratic approach to design and manufacturing development.
Elon's presentation to Tim Dodd was pretty revealing about the goals for Starship Booster 4 and Starship 20; "Don't blow up and get off the ground; if the second stage doesn't make it to orbit--that's still progress."
The SpaceX dictum of design it--build it--fly it--break it--fix it and repeat the process until "it don't break no more."
The folks at NASA Spaceflight were suggesting that would be happening I believe. I don't know if that was guesswork on their part or something more. But I guess they need a fully fuelled Starship on top for a proper test of how the booster works.
louis wrote:A week to finish off the tiles and check everything out. Three weeks for cryo pressure tests and static firing. A September launch is looking good.
My question is how do the conduct static firing of the upper stage, Starship, while stacked? Do they intend to remove Starship to a suborbital launch platform for that test?
As I understand things. the environmental impact of a methane burn is a lot less than the stuff used on the Apollo mission (or was it the Space Shuttle) that used to coat everything for miles around in solid pollutants. The noise impact is obviously going to be a big one but can't we expect Musk and co. to have an innovative approach to that as well?
As for the stacked Starship/Superheavy intended for the orbital test: the environmental impact issue will have to be satisfied before a license to launch can be granted. If that process is circumvented, it is unlikely in the extreme that they will ever launch again from any US territory. Given the investments made in facilities on US soil, a conscious decision to violate the rules and launch without a license seems unlikely in the extreme.
This looks more like testing the procedures to create the two-stage stack to me. There is no reason at all that a Starship cannot be put on a test platform, partially fueled, and static-tested. It could then be de-fueled and stacked. The fly in that ointment is that the actual ascent engines are vacuum Raptors whose nozzles will not flow full at sea level. Such a test had better be at most a second or two long, lest damage occur.
I don't want to make this thread political so I'll leave it there. The only thing that matters at this stage is whether FAA give the green light. As long as they do, I will be happy. We are so close to an orbital launch. A successful orbital launch means we really on for the Mars project.
Louis,
Re: your post 1367, note that I stand by what I wrote in my post 1366. Here is why:
Agency decisions made politically? That’s not generally the way it works in the US. The top appointed agency-head positions are very political, yes, but they usually don’t make the decisions, except as final approvals in some cases. The rank-and-file bureaucrats that actually do the work and create agency positions on issues, are career civil service, and for the most part, value the agency mission above personal preferences.
It’s not absolute, of course, but that’s the way it usually goes within most of our agencies. The decisions are made in a process that works its way up the multiple levels of the agency. They are not usually made by one person at all. Because multiple people are involved, it is much harder to abuse for political ends, although it can be cumbersome and time-consuming. That tradeoff has mostly worked well for us.
GW
We've been over and over a lot of this ground. I will spell it out again:
1. High energy density while desirable is not decisive. I doubt you can get any higher density than nuclear but new nuclear is very expensive, around 10 cents per KWh for new nuclear. The UK government had to guarantee 9p per KWh or it wouldn't get built.
2. Nuclear power require substantial inputs of human labour time if not steel. It is human labour time that is the key factor in which energy systems are adopted. You never, ever consider how much material is consumed at a nuclear power station every day. Do you have any idea? I wouldn't be surprised if it was several tons.
3. Only a complete fool would claim the UK could operate off wind energy alone.
4. You seem to have a very limited imagination regarding our energy future. Battery costs have been falling at a steep rate and look set to fall even further with the advent of Form Energy and commercialised iron-air batteries. The UK could run a fleet of 500,000 tons battery ships and collect solar power in the sunny South Atlantic or after plugging into solar power stations in places like Morocco. At the same time we see technologies like NovaSolix looking to reach 45% and then 90% efficiency. Likewise there is the prospect of major advance with artificial photosynthesis. We are also moving into an era of printed PV or other solar power film. Manufacturing costs are going to plummet even more. It's price that is key. Once the price is seriously competitive then you can incentivise people to put it on their roofs, in private homes, offices, factories and public buildings.
5. If you want to evaluate a serious green energy plan, then look at green energy in the round (wind, solar, geothermal, heat exchange, hydoelectric, tidal, sea current, wave energy, energy from waste and biofuels) plus storage (lithium batteries, iron-air batteries, pumped storage, and green hydrogen or methane).
6. You are way too dismissive of solar's future role in the UK. Remember, if the price of solar reduces 50%, that is the equivalent of doubling its efficiency or moving the UK south by several hundred miles. It's reduced about 90% in one decade.
Kbd512, I have always been of the opinion that some form of nuclear power was the best option for meeting future human energy needs. The reasons are that nuclear power reactors are power dense, long lived and fuel faces no imminent shortages with high conversion reactors. This makes nuclear power acgood option if you happen to enjoy living in a wealthy society, as most of us do. I just thought it would be fun to play devil's advocate for a while and explore if there are any options that would allow intermittent renewable energy to meet human needs at anything like our present living standards. I am sceptical, but as an honest researcher I was prepared to look into it.
Firstly, wind and solar power have low power density. It is because of this fact that a MWh of wind energy consumes about 10-20 times more steel than a light water reactor powerplant. None the less, wind power is still an order of magnitude more resource efficient than solar PV power. Knowing that fact and given where I live (the wind swept, but dark and cloudy British Isles) any scenario where the bulk of my country's energy is derived from renewable energy, is going to rely heavily on wind power. Solar PV is a waste of time and money in the United Kingdom. We have been over and over that topic again and again on this forum. There is no way around it. A 1GWe average power solar farm, would cover about 1000km2 in the UK. That is an area equivalent to Greater London. And it may even have a negative EROI (A 1GWe PWR nuclear steam supply system, would fit into a modest 3 storey building, some 8m x 8m in footprint. The containment dome takes up a lot more space, but the essential infrastructure of a nuclear power plant is tiny compared to competing systems). So solar power can be written off. Wind power is a lot more power dense than solar power and wind turbines can be built in the North Sea, where output is more continuous and winds are persistently stronger. So the question of whether the UK can run on renewable energy is really a question of whether it can run on wind power. Aside from modest contributions from biomass, wind power is the only renewable that the UK has that is worth pursuing.
Can the UK run on wind power? Below is a link to Grid Watch, showing wind power generation from about 13GWe of installed capacity (last year).
https://gridwatch.co.uk/WindTake a look at last year's power production. The generation of wind electricity clearly varies widely from one day and week to the next and it varies wildly between summer and winter, with far more being produced in the cold months. This happens to be when heat demand is greatest. The capacity factor of wind energy in the UK is about 30%. What that tells me is that if I draw a line at 20% installed capacity (2.5GWe), about one half of all energy generated will be above that line and one half beneath it. In the UK, something like 80% of all energy production minus transport, is used to produce hot and cold in one way or another. The UKs heating energy requirements, exceed its electricity consumption by a sizable margin: about 500TWh per year vs 300TWh per year. UK electricity consumption has declined thanks to decades of having its productive industries asset stripped. But I digress. Assuming that a large chunk of our heating is provided by electric power, then we can probably assume that at least half of all power is used in this way. So draw a line at 2.5GWe on the graph.
Most of the generation above that line will be absorbed by grid controlled storage heaters in people's homes. These will store at least a few hundred kWh each of heat as hot water. Below that line is what we will call baseload electricity for other things. Even drawing a line at only 20% of installed capacity, there are quite a few occasions in a year, where wind power will not provide the ~1TWh per day of electric energy consumed by UK baseload. This is where gas turbines come in. These will run on LNG that can be stored in tanks built close to the GT sets. GTs have low capital and operating costs, but relatively high fuel cost. In this scenario, GTs burning natural gas would provide maybe 10% of electric power, wind would provide 90% of baseload electricity and close to 100% hot water and space heating. We would still need natural gas, but only enough to generate 30TWh of electricity per year. That amounts to only about 1/10th of the UKs current natural gas consumption - A far more sustainable amount. And biogas could reduce the amount of LNG needed even more.
The amount of installed wind capacity needed to achieve this in the UK would be about 230GW. That is a hell of a lot. Most of it would need to be built offshore and it would cover an area of sea at least as large as Wales (20,000km2). How much would it all cost? Next stage is to work that out. Offshore wind is presently bidding in at £40/MWh ($50/MWh). But what we really want to know is capital costs. And we need to know how much steel and concrete it will need to do that, in order to gauge whether we have a sustainable solution. Grid controlled storage heaters won't be dramatically more expensive than ordinary storage heaters. They are a large water tank, say 1-5m3, with a grid controlled resistance heater in it. A bigger problem is that whilst 230GW of wind power generates an average of 70GWe, there will be times where it does generate 230GWe. The grid needs enough transmission capacity to handle that. I don't think it does at present. How much will it cost to strengthen the grid? I haven't got a clue. But pending those details, I think I can say that powering the UK with 95% wind electricity and 5% natural gas, looks semi-plausible. What I cannot say for sure is that the cost and net energy yield are sufficient to allow an affluent way of life.
From what I understand, the genuine infrastructure elements in the bill are there to camouflage the deeply subsversive elements.
We know that the number of jobs has been shrinking since the covid waves keep occurring so those jobs that would be created from huge infrastructure bill The $1.2 trillion bill, designed to fund much-needed upgrades to US roads, highways, bridges and high-speed internet, $550 billion in new federal spending on the nation's aging infrastructure seems to me a means to the end of getting employment.
I seem to recall Musk or someone associated with Space X referencing possibly three flights a day - so a turnaround of something like 7 hours. Sounds phenomenal, but I guess if you think of a rocket more as a glorified Jumbo Jet, then perhaps it's not so crazy. The sort of turbulence jets experiencing on a regular basis is probably the equivalent of the stresses endured by a rocket.
One issue is the reuse of a landed asset for refueled and set back onto the launch pad time frame is an unknown.
The building of new components takes a fair amount of time which seems hard to pin down.
Just the mating of pieces at the launch pad which seems to be in excess of a month time frame with the testing separately for each component before they can be stacked.
Thanks for the link OF. I saw this come up on YT and will try and view it through in the next few days.
Having watched a few mins, he makes the important point that rocket design is relatively easy, given all that has gone before, but developing the process for manufacturing the rockets is what requires much greater effort.
Musk looks like he is on the Trump diet but far more overworked and stressed out. Hope his health holds out.
Tim Dodd, the Everyday Astronaut, scored an exclusive tour of Starbase hosted by Elon Musk. It's a 3 part presentation, but here's the link to the first episode:
A week to finish off the tiles and check everything out. Three weeks for cryo pressure tests and static firing. A September launch is looking good.
There will be many more trials of the super bfr rocket long before any men will be riding even sub-orbit let along to full orbit. Then there is that added difficulty of how fast the next stack and fueling can happen as the waiting starship is only capable of deorbit or getting to the station and that is it. I hope others are tracking the time to assemble testing before, we see that its not short enough due to fuel on orbit boiloff...its that fuel that it must have before it can be useful to the moon or mars. The current versions can not connect to the station so that leaves only the last remaining option to sit there in orbit or go home.
A massive crane picked up Starship Serial Number 20 (SN20) and slowly lowered it on top of booster early Friday morning, after Super Heavy was brought to the launch pad at SpaceX’s site in Boca Chica, Texas on Wednesday.
One needs to remember that the Super Heavy, and starship both go through a series of pressurization and engine tests long before they are blessed for flight.
Geniuses often have pebbles thrown at them by pedants. They bounce off. I'm sure we all know what he meant.
For SpaceNut ... there are many topics that contain the words Elon and Musk ... this one seemed lonely with only one reply...
https://currently.att.yahoo.com/lifesty … 00762.html
Elon Musk Says the Sun Can Power All of Civilization. Of Course He's Right.
Caroline Delbert
Sat, August 7, 2021, 8:45 AMThis is a nice puff piece.
It contains a wildly incorrect figure that a few NewMars members will spot immediately.
Ms. Delbert seems to have caught the flavor of Musk's enthusiasm, although she is clearly adrift in the facts and figures.
(th)
Who said the iron was being burned? I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere. It sounds to me like a chemical process they call reversible rusting, so you add oxygen to the rust to create iron again. How they do that I've no idea but burning has not been mentioned. THis video is helpful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n1qZHni718
Maybe I'm missing something here. Commodity prices have increased somewhat of late, so I will attempt to look at 5 year averages.
1 tonne of steel plate has averaged around 4000CNY (about $570/tonne) according to trading economics.
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/steelAccording to wiki it will burn to liberate 5100MJ. That's $0.1/MJ.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_densityLithium costs around $6000/tonne. It will burn to produce 43,100MJ. That is $0.14/MJ.
https://www.metalary.com/lithium-price/Steel plate is one tenth the cost of Lithium, but burning it will release one-ninth as much energy per unit mass. So exactly where does the enormous enormous capital cost reduction of iron-air batteries come from?
A large part of the cost of refined metals is the energy cost associated with producing them. Aluminium relatively expensive because it is energetically expensive. Iron is energetically cheap, making steel very cheap. Raw materials abundance will have a baring on finished metal cost. But choosing cheap metals may not produce a cheap battery ($/kWh).
I go back to my previous recommendation. 1 tonne of water, heated from 10°C to 100°C, will store 378MJ of energy, 105kWh. Do we really anticipate that we will ever build a battery that will be cheaper than a hot water tank?
The article linked to below included the following nugget that helped me understand the concept:
The company’s first project is a 1 MW / 150 MWh
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/08/05/ … alization/
This implies the elecricity is discharged at 0.66% of capacity per hour. So for the "3MW per acre" quote it looks like there would be 450MWh storage within one acre. So 1GWh storage would require 2.2 acres. 1000 GWh storage would require 2200 acres or 8.9 sq kms (2.98 x 2.98 Kms). For a country the size of the UK, you might need something like 4000 GWhs of storage to cover a 5 day period on current consumption with no contribution from anything else. 100% dependency on battery storage is not a realistic scenario (given wind and solar will never be much below say 30% of average for any length of time and there will be contributions from other storage systems eg green hydrogen or hydroelectricity and other green energy sources). Maybe 70% would be a reasonable figure, so 2800 GWhs of storage required on current usage. But of course if you are going to rely on electricity to power your vehicles and heat your homes, you can probably double that, so the requirement might be 5600 GWhs. That would be 49.8 Sq Kms of storage required - about 7.06 Kms by 7.06 Kms. Make the facilities three storey and the area required becomes 16.6 sq,. kms or 4.07 x 4.07 kms. If you had 100 three storey sites around the country that would be an average of 0.166 sq kms required 166,000 sq metres or about 407 metres by 407 metres. One of the largest warehouses in the UK comes in at 93,000 sq. metres so 166.000 may be too big - perhaps you would be talking about 300 sites around the the UK with more modest footprints of about 235 x 235 metres. Sounds doable to me if this was a 30 year programme and you were building 10 sites a year.
Good video from SpaceXcentric including a nice summary of recent events at Boca Chica.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EpyGUfIc3k
He's going into surgey next week for some reason, so I am sure we all wish Kevin the best.
Of course, but it's a fresh start like the USA was after old Europe-Africa.
Louis,
Interplanetary transport is a technological innovation to expand our reach into the solar system, not an escape mechanism. Humanity's problems are caused primarily by humans, not the Earth itself. All the problems humanity has will be brought with us, wherever we go, and anyone who thinks otherwise is beyond naive.
Of course, that will never be as cheap as a high power density, pressurised water reactor that can generate power on demand from a fuel that is unimaginably energy dense. I know that better than most other people.
I don't accept that at all. Firstly there is no point in looking at the battery element in isolation. You have to look at the whole system. The truth is that new solar in many parts of the globe is already coming in at 2 cents per KwHe or even lower. New nuclear clocks in around 10 cents per KwHe. That's an 8 cent difference - I admit not everywhere on the globe but in substantial parts (including SW USA). That 8 cent difference gives you a lot of room to find a storage solution.
What you're doing is looking at old nuclear, which has paid off its capital investment, and assuming you can achieve their low prices when in fact you have to renew your nuclear power stations (which you do have to do eventually).