You are not logged in.
If your costs are $250/kg, how is it $100,000 to lift a 90 kg person to orbit?
I think it's closer to the $500 figure that I mentioned as a complete guess earlier. Remember how complex these "disposable" lifters have to be, and the odds of perfectly-smooth running logistics are not very good. Every airport is always running behind and they've got more than 1 runway to work with.
How may will pay $10,000 - $20,000 for a vacation and eat PB&J from a brown paper bag? Not to mention the cargo platforms to accomodate the docking of giant container ships bringing cargo for lift to LEO.
I think you're looking at $100,000 to put a 200-pd person in orbit, not including the cost of lifting all their supplies. This sort of clientele is going to demand 5-star treatment, which is what you are probably getting at.
You keep the resort full, staggering the capacity. Since this IS a remote area, you develop other things for the guests to do- like a casino, etc.
This is probably the idea. Build a las-vegas type hotel at the base of this thing. It's got to be nice, like the Bellagio or something for the type of people we are talking about.
I was thinking of an airport, but how would you build a commercially capable airstrip that far out into the ocean?
You're only talking about 93 tons/week, so a commercial airport wouldn't be viable. A cruise ship docking at the suggested oil platform (what highlift is talking about using) would release about 2,000 people, which is far too much.
Helicopters from land make perfect sense for this level of capacity, and they can land easily on the oil platform.
The more I think about the "disposable" lifters, the more elaborate they have to be. You will need thrusters and a heat shield if you want any sort of safety mechanism. You need all life-support mechanisms as well.
It would be a beautiful ride up to GEO though - I hope they have plenty of large windows.
This gets closer to a key point I am struggling to make. Thanks, Tim. . .
Yeah, this was a good exercise. If my numbers are any good, only well-managed 1-way use of the lifter, fully-saturated with cargo 24x7 can truly bring the costs down into the $250/pound range (remember the cost of each of the disposable lifters, in addition to amortization).
This requires full utilization and great logistics to keep everything moving seamlessly. Coming up with 4,860 tons of material to send up each year, plus building 243 flawless lifters a year is a big task.
Still, at $250-500 I think you have a pretty huge tourism market??
I suspect with breakdowns and ribbon maintenance (they talk in the book about the need to send up runners to "patch" the cable after a meteoroid strike), your costs are going to be more in the range of the $500 area (complete guess).
After reading the book, my greatest fear of the elevator was due to lightning. We don't know yet what happens to fully-stressed carbon ribbons when they are super-heated by a lightning strike.
A single "stalled" lifter a few thousand miles up in orbit is a disaster - you could run out of air before you can retrieve it.
Even scarier - a second rescue lifter would max out the safety margin of the cable, perhaps causing it to snap and fall to earth. The lifters above the snap point, perhaps with people still aboard, would fly out into space. The lifters below would fall and burn up in the atmosphere.
Even if that doesn't come true, you create a log-jam in your logistics chain while you solve the crisis, which could take many days, runining your optimistic cost/pound figures!
In fact I think that if we (the U.S.) lift all sanctions and trade barriers, forgive foreign debts, and increase humanitarian aide then no country will want to attack us or its neighbors.
If we keep the people of the world "well fed" they will not want to hurt us, they will come to like us, and maybe eventually even want to be like us.
This is the most naive thing I've read in quite a while.
In the real world, all politicians are scrambling for a bigger piece of the pie, more money, etc. Merely "feeding" them won't end their quest, in fact it may only increase their appetites, much as a 400-lb fat chick eats more than her 100-pd petit friend.
But okay, soph, lets use the $10 billion to deploy the elevator. You still need $1.2 billion per year to cover the interest or $100 million per month - not $12 million per month.
This is a good thread. I was having the same questions after I just read the "Space Elevator" book that recently came out.
They are saying around $6 bln for the first elevator. This can hoist 20 tons of payload @ 200 mph. Theoretically, you can launch another lifter up into space as the other one reaches 7200 miles (approximation from memory).
So this is 1 lifter every 1 1/2 days, assuming we never stop to allow lifters to come back down.
365/1.5 is 243 lifts per year, assuming perfect timing, no breakdowns, no maintenance to the ribbon, etc.
243*20 tons=4860 tons/year. Assuming a 10-year life of the elevator, you must earn $600 mln/year to simply amortize the initial elevator. So $61/pound is the ribbon amortization cost + cost of the disposable 1-way lifters + energy + staff, etc.
If you want to have the lifters going 2-ways, you must divide that cargo capacity by 4 (I believe), if you figure the amount of time to get a series of lifters up, and then back down. There's probably a good way of optimizing this, such as sending 100 lifters up in a row, then bringing them all back down at once to minimize the "down time".
Depending on the "down time", you could easily jack your costs up to $1000/pound if you include all costs, and all of a sudden you don't have as huge of a market as you thought.
Doing so would make some financiers scream; they want to sell primarily to American customers and forcing an exchange to Canadian dollars would be inconvenient for some of those customers. I feel this shows gross insecurity in the Canadian market place, but changing this means fighting big business.
Uh oh, I think this might derail the space-orientation this thread was moving into.
Anyway, yes, those companies are going to fight anything that would decrease their sales. This isn't "inconvenient" as you put it, it's bad for their bottom lines, as they benefit from the artificially cheap currency and huge trade surplus.
But the bottom line is that noone is going to cut anyone a check for a trade surplus.
Geez relax. I suspect 99% of the stuff discussed on these forums is never going to happen.
First we buy $50 billion worth of timber, or bacon, or hockey sticks, or maple syrup from Canada and then we whine about the trade imbalance and ask for our $50 billion back
You forgot "Canada Dry" in your list, which is surely canada's largest export if my family is any indicator.
It's not 100% trade deficit, it's more like 6-8%. So you have to have about $700+ bln in bilateral trade to get the $50 bln deficit.
Can we agree that we need to pull together to get to Mars
How about this? Canada cuts a check for US$50 billion/year (the amount of the trade surplus with the US) and sends it to NASA to fund mars exploration? The current NASA budget is $15 bln, so the extra $50 bln will be quite an amazing injection of cash.
The so called war is rather amussing to me everyone says its all bout oil but its not if they wanted oil they could go to mexico and take their oil mexico has more oil than anyone!
No, they'd go to Canada. Canada has more tar-sands and shale than you can shake a stick at, plus it would allow you to put nuclear missiles at the north pole where they could hit china, russia and europe without any notice at all.
Is a starry-eyed idealist, who would suggest moving all nukes to the UN, really electable in any of the countries with nukes?
It is possible that if such a person were elected in the US, it could almost be feasible given the powerful conventional forces, however the Russians, pakistanis, indians, israelis, would never part with their nukes, given on-the-ground realities.
Therefore it's reasonable to assume nukes will continue to be held by an ever-increasing number of countries, rather than a decreasing number.
Maybe if America was a bit kinder to Canada there wouldn't be that flag burning.
Did you even read the thread?
Damn, I'm not even sure if your arguement has a point to it, cos I sure as hell can't find one.
Your style of emotional reaction, rather than reasoned responses, was exactly my point.
The fully functional prototype of the Arrow did fly at mach 2 once in 1961.
I was making fun of a little typo you made. I don't think you caught it even in the followup. 1060 vs 1960.
That is what NORAD is all about.
Right, but you said we should be "grateful" about this alleged suicide mission, defending the US, etc. At the same time we are talking about Canada's unilateral disarmament and the US defending both countries to the benefit of both.
ie the root of this entire thread.
Do you not consider a statement like "hiding behind the skirts of the neighbouring superpower" to be a suggestion that Canada should increase military expenditures?
No, but it was flamebait.
Way back in the late 1950s/early 1060s Canada developed the best fighter aircraft in the world. At a time that no fighter aircraft could fly at mach 2, the Avro Arrow could fly at mach 2.7.
Thank you. I had not heard of this and it is good info, although I doubt canada was developing mach 2 fighters all the way back in 1060 !!
As for the best fighter in the world, I'll take your word on that and leave it alone.
But the U.S. government of the day pressured Canada into scrapping the Arrow program. There was also domestic politics involved, but many Canadians are resentful than the U.S. would pressure Canada to scrap the one military thing that it had done the best.
I suspect domestic politics were more important than you are letting on. It doesn't make any sense that the US would have success in scrapping such a canadian program unless there was some benefit to the canucks.
The nuclear missiles would have to be fired so close that the fighter could not get out of the blast zone; it was a suicide mission. This entire squadron of fighter pilots knew their primary mission was a suicide mission to protect America. I would expect some gratitude.
Are you saying that this was not also defending Canada at the same time? Somehow it was only defending the US and not Canada? I find that hard to believe. With the elimination of the US, even if Canada received no nukes on her soil, she would be ruined from fallout and collapsed economy (not to mention all the refugees from down south).
Somehow I suspect that defense of north america is in BOTH our interests.
Then why make such a point to demonstrate that Canada derives benefits from the US military? You say it without directly stating it. Or should we take all of your statements as independant of one another with no overall meaning?
When we go through your posts, and look at them as a whole, this is the message that ends up being taken away. Perhaps the failure is on my part, and I am misunderstanding what your point is, but it seems to me, and others, that you don't entirely respect the actions or words of a few in Canada.
Well, let us be precise here, you feel that most of these people are poorly informed- by a criteria that you deem acceptable. I fail to see how you've managed to establish that most people are poorly informed. I doubt if you could.
Fair enough. I think the only piece of the puzzle you are missing can be filled in with simple deductive reasoning.
By the very act of dancing in the streets and burning flags and calling morons and bastards, et al... they are demonstrating their poor information and/or lack of rationality. Proof of what you said was unprovable.
For instance, if I'm nationality XYZ and I realize that my entire economy is based on trade with the country ZYX, and I am informed that my country has a huge trade surplus, why would I rant and rave about little trade disputes that are normal for any two nations?
In other words, there is nothing going on between the US and Canada to justify such words and actions, making them acts of emotion, not rational thought based on full information.
But humans are NOT rational creatures, and are NOT fully informed, and therefore it is rather pointless to proceed with some attempt to win a "popularity contest". Instead, we should do what we believe is right and what is right for us, ie exactly what I posted in the very beginning.
Yes, Canada enjoys benefits from a relationship with the US. Now, please establsih how their receiving of benefits requires that they agree with everything we do.
Would you have us suppose that if someone receives a benefit from Uncle Sam, they also should waive any right to disagree with the means Uncle Sam uses to ensure those benefits?
I challenged you to come up with any quotes of mine to support these absolutist statements that you are creating, and instead you created more absolutist statements.
It should have been clear in my first post (and perhaps many since then....) that most of these people are poorly informed and irrational, and it's pointless to try to win any sort of "popularity contest" (sound familiar? It was in my first post), as it could never be won until all people have perfect information and perfect logic. You'll notice I never said all canadians are required to agree with anything. Only you have created that.
I'd say this is beaten to death. The Canada thing was a side-track from the get-go.
And Tim, I think we all get where you are coming from, but you are making a blind argument with little room for a middle ground to be established.
Your argument would have us suppose that Canada, and any like her, should just shut up and follow lock step with the US policy becuase we are the ones that provide the security for everyone.
Please don't put such words in my mouth. In fact I think it's perfectly fine that they didn't participate in the Iraq war, which I believe was highly questionable from the get-go.
What I do have a problem with, and have stated it in probably 5+ posts now, is that Canadians, including leading politicians in the ruling party, are defaming the US, burning the flag, etc, all the while enjoying tremendous benefits from the relationship. On this side of the border, few people could care less about canada and therefore no one is burning the maple leaf flag, let alone calling the leaders "morons and bastards".
I'm sure if you look back through my posts, this is all I've said, and I have not endorsed the questionable Iraq war, nor have I personally impugned any canadian, nor have I suggested Canada should increase military expenditures.
If you can find any quotes from me to the contrary, please post them and I'll eat my words.
you try to belittle her value.
Clark, I'm disappointed as you're quite sensible generally. Read my first post, I have not tried to belittle anyone's value.
As for "what has been proved" - Canada has one hell of a sweet deal and yet you hear endless complaints and invectives. I think this has been a pretty common theme through everything I've said. I'm surprised you missed it?
As for the Korean crisis, pardon me if I view the U.S. attitude toward Korea as more of a worry than anything Korea is doing. They aren't threatening to attack anyone, so leave them alone.
Uh oh, you're making more fabulously ill-informed statements again. Please follow the rhetoric coming out of N Korea more closely. They absolutely are threatening the world, and threatening nuclear war if the UN Security Council does anything about it.
Again, the VAST VAST majority of people are woefully and poorly informed about world affairs, and know only the barest basics of things that form their belief systems.
In just a handful of posts, many of your core beliefs have been shattered. Trade with the US (Canada has a huge trade surplus), military (canada's is smaller than even iceland), US military expenditures (smaller, in terms of GDP than 1/2 the world's countries), and now N Korea's benevolent dictator has been revealed as the monster he is.
What's next?
Tim, Canada does have to put up with things like a California senator seriously raising the issue of sending the U.S. marines to invade Canada in order to force B.C.
Seriously raising? I doubt that.
However, not to worry because most Americans cannot find Canada on a map. Before you start harping about American ignorance of world affairs, stop to think what you're saying.
Please, REREAD MY FIRST POST. I said in general the vast majority of all people, US, Canadian, Euro, etc are generally ignorant and easy to manipulate.
Are still harping about military size? Let me put it this way, Canada has put great effort into ensuring other countries of the world do not want to attack Canada.
Exactly, hiding behind the skirts of the neighboring superpower. ie free lunch. Of course canada can hide from major world problems because there is an adult to take care of these things.
I think we are in complete agreement now.
Please enlighten me - what will canada be doing to solve the korean crisis? The Israeli/Palestinian crisis?
The answer: nothing. The US will (at least attempt to) solve these issues and Canada will benefit from the free ride.
If Canada continues to follow the U.S. in every conflict it starts
This is just flamebait. You probably really believe this because you've said it several times. Besides the highly questionable Iraqi adventure, what other conflict was started by the US?
What other were "picked" and "started" by the US and Canada was forced to join?
We have chosen to focus our economy on peaceful endeavours and assisting other countries with non-military issues, our military has been deliberately downsized.
Agreed. Canada has deliberately chosen a free lunch over shared security. I'm glad that we are in sync on this.
Just looking proportionately, the U.S. spends a greater proportion of its GDP on military than any other country not engaged in active war.
Really? Can you tell me what percentage GDP is spent by Pakistan, India and just about every third world nation?
You are confusing the HUGE US economy with "proportion of GDP". In fact, the US spends about 3.5% GDP on military adventures, a tiny amount only because our economy is so huge.
Canada's currency is grossly undervalued on money markets. If you are complaining that the low Canadian dollar is responsible for the trade imbalance
Very good. Now we also agree that there is a large trade imbalance and it's due to the canadian dollar, and not due to some weird and illogical assertion about the "flagging US economy" (logic dictates if that were the case, the US would be buying less from Canada than vice versa)
It was inappropriate for Canadian government officials to call the U.S. president a moron.
Now you have agreed that the behavior from many canadians is inappropriate. I will say that too, especially in light of the free lunch and favorable trade position.
It appears that we have achieved agreement and there's no point in further debate.
I spend the better part of my day reading news from around the world and chatting with people about this sort of stuff.
If there is anything I've found it's that people are simplistic and easily manipulated by their governments, especially on nationalistic matters. That means people everywhere, Canadians, Mexicans, Eurotrash, USA, etc. The main problem in the US is that we are so far ahead of everyone else in terms of power, technology, and dominance, that by our very nature people are going to hate us. It's normal human jealousy and associated psychology.
Look at Canada for just a brief example. Here's a country with a huge trade surplus with the US, a free ride in terms of defense, and the US has never done a single thing to harm them. In exchange, we get endless invectives, hatred, and name-calling. Go figure.
Extend the view to france, europe in general, etc and you get the idea.
Look at the Kosovo conflict. Fully half of the world was condemning the US for doing nothing about the massacres, and then when we did go in, fully half the world was angry because we started a war.
Iraq: Many in Europe and the middle east say we support dictators, that sanctions are bad, etc. So if you try to remove a dictator and end sanctions, they're mad about that.
What's important is not necessarily paying attention to that, but doing what's right for *US*, and letting the cards fall where they may. Trying to win some sort of "popularity contest" is pointless, as it can never be achieved.
And France doesn't need oil anyway since most of the electricity is nuclear producted in France.
Who would burn oil to generate electricity? Most people use oil for cars. Do you run extension cords to your cars from the nuclear power plants?
Burning mosques, frenchs spitting on the tourists.... which channel is that, FOX ?
Try reading some news once in a while, so you're better informed.
http://news-observer.com/24hour....1c.html
"A national study released late last month said that violent hate crimes quadrupled in France in 2002 to the highest level in a decade, with more than half the assaults aimed at Jews."
http://www.factsofisrael.com/load.ph....?p=http
Too easy to answer that. You dare to critic Chirac election ? Do you remember G Bush election, it wasn't a model of efficiency either.
second point, frenchs are racists, bad, whatever, maybe, maybe not, you shouldn't worry about that, Mr Perdue, just care about your country and ask yourself if you are so much better than those bad french
You're not very smart are you, dick? You are making circular references now. I told you to lay off the US until you've solved your own problems, and then with your limited intellect you turn around and say the same thing to me.
Not too bright.
I enjoy the nuclearspace website - I wish more articles were put up there.
As for Orion, it's pointless. Even if it were practical, it will never be acceptable. NTR is a different story - far-fetched in terms of it being launched from earth to LEO, but not impossible as Orion is.
I would appreciate it if you stick to the topic of this thread, or cease posting. If you have a personal bone to pick with someone, PM them, or start a new thread. This thread is not the place for it.
I appreciate everyone's cooperation. Thank you in advance.
Looks to me like 1/2 this thread is unrelated "lemon face" posts and related junk. I assume that's why it was moved to "Free Chat".
By the way, I found completely ridiculous that in america, black people are called "african american" It shows a lot about how deeply implemented is the "politically correct" in america, the mask that everybody has to carry constantly, in short a global brain washing of the american society. You can speak about thousands of dead people in Iraq with a big smile in a public TV, with a music of the far west and the flag in the wing in the backround, but please, try to avoid any painfull episode of the american history.
Duckbill, your franco anti-americanism gets old after a while. Your old ally Saddam Hussein is gone now, and so are the oil contracts and weapons contracts your president signed with saddam.
As for flaws in US society, it pales to the deep problems in France right now. 2002 saw a *quadrupling* of racial attacks in France. Synagogues and mosques are being burned down in racially-motivated hatred. Tourists, as always are attacked and spit on by the violent french who believe they are superior to everyone else.
When France has elected a president who isn't going to go on trial for corruption after he leaves office, or when France has an election where there are no Neo-fascists like LePenn, then you will have room to criticize the USA.
The US probably helped Saddam against the Iranian, you might be less clean than you think.
Here is the link again for who armed Iraq:
http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html
The piece of the puzzle that you are missing is the Realpolitik piece. Geopolitics. For France and Russia, Saddam was "their man". They had influence there, that's why they wanted to keep Saddam at all costs.
Now Saddam will be replaced with a pro-US government and France and Russia will have no influence, making them even weaker and the US even stronger.
That's geopolitics.