Will this work?

[birdguy 3,994]

Could we have civilization without combustion?  It all started with early man learning how to start and maintain fire.

We need combustion to produce electricity.  We need combustion to cook our food.  We need combustion to heat and cool out homes.  We need combustion to produce useable material (steel, aluminum, lumber, plastic, etc).  The only forms of power that do not need combustion are wind and solar (both of which originate from combustion on the sun) and nuclear (a different type of combustion).  But will wind and solar ever be enough to power our homes and factories?  Will we ever accept nuclear?

Electric automobiles need to recharge from electricity produced for the most part from combustion.  

I will not live to see a time when wind and solar supply all the needs of industry and living. Neither, do I believe, will my grandkids (already in their 30s) or my great grandkids.

Noel

[Luke 788]

2 hours ago, martin-w said:

Err...Luke, where have you been. Virgin have already launched a satalite into orbit for NASA, from beneath a 747 😁 Have you not heard of Virgin Orbit and Launcher One? It's already in operation with a multitude of customers.

It's launched exactly one rocket. I won't characterize them in such glowing terms.

But let's assume that they actually get a launch cadence going. It's likely, because before Virgin did it Stargazer has been launching rockets from an L-1011 for over 20 years. But there's a reason it hasn't taken over the launch business, and it's the same reason why Virgin won't either. The economics are miserable.

2 hours ago, martin-w said:

But there's plenty of room for operators like Virgin Orbit to launch smaller satalites into orbit, cheaper than SpaceX can on Falcon 9. SN20/Spaceship is desighned to carry large payloads into orbit and indeed the Moon and Mars. And Falcon 9 launches reasonable sized payloads. Meanwhile there are quite a few companies competing for the smaller payload market.

Unless you have a very specific orbital inclination or launch window (unlikely for LEO) then there's absolutely no reason why you don't piggyback on an F9 launch.

Virgin can launch a few hundred kilos to LEO for a "target" price of $12m. SpaceX can do 22,800kg to LEO for around $50m for a reused booster. Do the math. Why on earth would I pay Virgin when I could piggyback on an F9 launch for a fraction of the price? You seem to think that F9's large capacity is a challenge - it's actually an advantage. It's demonstrating that multiple payloads can all piggyback on the same booster, reducing the price even further beyond what a reusable booster can do.

Launcher One will go just as far without Richard Branson as Stratolaunch went without Paul Allen.

Cheers!

[dmwalker 614]

50 minutes ago, Luke said:

SpaceX can do 22,800kg to LEO for around $50m for a reused booster.

With all the emphasis on getting large payloads into orbit, will any of the present technologies be practical for bringing large payloads, such as mined metals from asteroids, down from orbit?

[dave2013 1,177]

2 hours ago, birdguy said:

Could we have civilization without combustion?  It all started with early man learning how to start and maintain fire.

We need combustion to produce electricity.  We need combustion to cook our food.  We need combustion to heat and cool out homes.  We need combustion to produce useable material (steel, aluminum, lumber, plastic, etc).  The only forms of power that do not need combustion are wind and solar (both of which originate from combustion on the sun) and nuclear (a different type of combustion).  But will wind and solar ever be enough to power our homes and factories?  Will we ever accept nuclear?

Electric automobiles need to recharge from electricity produced for the most part from combustion.  

I will not live to see a time when wind and solar supply all the needs of industry and living. Neither, do I believe, will my grandkids (already in their 30s) or my great grandkids.

Noel

I don't believe that we can because energy must come from somewhere.  I suppose we could learn to harness the inertial energy of the planets like in Dr. Who, but wouldn't that affect their orbits?

Personally, I don't condone wind power, except in very few particular locations ideal for it, IE places with lots of wind, most of the time.  The turbines are expensive, not very cleanly produced, not very efficient, expensive to maintain, and create a lot of waste at the end of their short 15 year lives.

Solar is a good energy source, albeit better in areas with lots of sunlight.  They can be installed on house roofs as well.  The panels, like wind turbines, are not cleanly produced(what is really?) or disposed of, but like has been reported in this forum can last more than 25 years and are becoming more efficient all the time.  Unfortunately, the batteries needed to store the electricity are not produced cleanly and only last 10-15 years.  We need better batteries, and we need to spend more money to fund research in this area.

I don't believe it is practical to try to power our entire country with just wind and solar.  Maybe it's viable, but I believe the negative aspects outweigh the positive ones.

Like I've said before, nuclear energy is the way to go for most of our energy needs.  Nuclear fusion would be the best, but it's not available yet, so we're stuck with fission.  Nuclear energy is very clean, efficient, long-lasting, and actually quite safe, especially with newer reactor designs.  The amount of waste produced is actually quite small and can be safely stored.  Hydroelectric power is also good of course, but not viable everywhere. 

If we all want cleaner energy and electric cars, trucks, and airplanes, then the electricity is going to have to be produced by something other than coal or natural gas plants.

Dave

[birdguy 3,994]

I agree on nuclear Dave as far as large power plants go for producing electricity.  I don't believe electricity is as efficient for heating homes in colder climates is as efficient as natural gas.  

I drive a bybrid, a Toyota Prius with about a 500-600 mile range.  That will get me to our nearest large city and back on a single tank.  I see 373 miles  for the best Tesla so that will get me to Albuquerque but I have to recharge before I start back.  How long does it take to recharge?

Noel

[martin-w 3,315]

20 hours ago, Luke said:

But let's assume that they actually get a launch cadence going. It's likely,

 

Its more than likely. Virgin Orbit already have several customers that have signed contracts for launches. NASA, US military, UK's Royal Airforce, Swarm Technologies, SITAEL and GomSpace to name a few.

 

Quote

But there's a reason it hasn't taken over the launch business

 

They aren't trying to take over the launch business. That not the objective. Its small satellites, CubeSats etc only. 

 

Quote

Why on earth would I pay Virgin when I could piggyback on an F9 launch

 

Well there's a number of reasons. They can fly on short notice and from a wide variety of locations to access orbit. That agility is a selling point. Customers can get to orbit on their own schedule rather than having to wait for a piggyback ride on Falcon or some other rocket. Historically small sat operators have had little to no control over their launch schedule. Ridesharing on rockets, piggy backing a ride, doesn't really provide the level of service they desire. 

[martin-w 3,315]

21 hours ago, birdguy said:

Could we have civilization without combustion?  It all started with early man learning how to start and maintain fire.

We need combustion to produce electricity.  We need combustion to cook our food.  We need combustion to heat and cool out homes.  We need combustion to produce useable material (steel, aluminum, lumber, plastic, etc).  The only forms of power that do not need combustion are wind and solar (both of which originate from combustion on the sun) and nuclear (a different type of combustion).  But will wind and solar ever be enough to power our homes and factories?  Will we ever accept nuclear?

Electric automobiles need to recharge from electricity produced for the most part from combustion.  

I will not live to see a time when wind and solar supply all the needs of industry and living. Neither, do I believe, will my grandkids (already in their 30s) or my great grandkids.

Noel

 

We can generate electricity without combustion.

Most of our energy comes from combustion, its true, even if we are talking about the nuclear combustion in the sun itself. However, radioactivity, geothermal and tidal are not derived from combustion. So yes, in theory we could generate all the electricity we need from geothermal heat from beneath the Erath's surface, or tidal energy as a result of the influence the Moon's gravity has on our seas. It would take some doing though, and we don't currently have the technology to achieve such a thing.

 

Quote

But will wind and solar ever be enough to power our homes and factories?

 

I guess its feasible if there are very significant breakthroughs in photovoltaic technology and other technologies, but that's not what anybody is saying we need to do. Nobody is saying we should power the world with just solar energy and wind power. The full range of renewables energy technologies is required. 

 

Quote

Will we ever accept nuclear?

 

Unlike Dave and yourself I am not  fan of nuclear fission. Ive posted why I think that a number of times before. There is a very long lag time between planning a nuclear reactor and operation. The levelized cost of new nuclear is much higher than on shore wind or solar. There is a weapons proliferation risk. Meltdown risk, not high but a possibility. Mining cancer risk. There is no such thing as zero or close to zero CO2 emmisions with nuclear, even existing plants continue to emit CO2 due to the constant operation of the plant and mining and refining of uranium. Nuclear waste risk also. 

Molten Salt reactors I'm not so much against but the technology is in the early stages and I'm pretty sure wont be here as quick as we need it.

 

https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/04/26/7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-not-answer-solve-climate-change

 

Quote

 

Summary

To recap, new nuclear power costs about 5 times more than onshore wind power per kWh (between 2.3 to 7.4 times depending upon location and integration issues). Nuclear takes 5 to 17 years longer between planning and operation and produces on average 23 times the emissions per unit electricity generated (between 9 to 37 times depending upon plant size and construction schedule). In addition, it creates risk and cost associated with weapons proliferation, meltdown, mining lung cancer, and waste risks. Clean, renewables avoid all such risks. 

Nuclear advocates claim nuclear is still needed because renewables are intermittent and need natural gas for backup. However, nuclear itself never matches power demand so it needs backup. Even in France with one of the most advanced nuclear energy programs, the maximum ramp rate is 1 to 5 % per minute, which means they need natural gas, hydropower, or batteries, which ramp up 5 to 100 times faster, to meet peaks in demand. Today, in fact, batteries are beating natural gas for wind and solar backup needs throughout the world. A dozen independent scientific groups have further found that it is possible to match intermittent power demand with clean, renewable energy supply and storage, without nuclear, at low cost.

Finally, many existing nuclear plants are so costly that their owners are demanding subsidies to stay open. For example, in 2016, three existing upstate New York nuclear plants requested and received subsidies to stay open using the argument that the plants were needed to keep emissions low. However, subsidizing such plants may increase carbon emissions and costs relative to replacing the plants with wind or solar as soon as possible. Thus, subsidizing nuclear would result in higher emissions and costs over the long term than replacing nuclear with renewables. 

 

 

[Luke 788]

36 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Its more than likely. Virgin Orbit already have several customers that have signed contracts for launches. NASA, US military, UK's Royal Airforce, Swarm Technologies, SITAEL and GomSpace to name a few.

They've had contracts since 2012, so almost a decade now. Let's not kid ourselves as to what those really are - a deposit and an option to launch if other plans don't work out or in the case of the military to fund another launch option. No one in their right mind would consider VO their sole launch option, especially since it's been so long.

39 minutes ago, martin-w said:

They aren't trying to take over the launch business. That not the objective. Its small satellites, CubeSats etc only. 

Sure. But their cost to orbit is around $40,000/kilo, and they're competing against a company that can do so for $2,200/kilo. You don't need advanced maths to figure out that they have a huge competitive problem, and that's even before the fact that they're competing against someone with a proven and reliable launch cadence.

42 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Well there's a number of reasons. They can fly on short notice and from a wide variety of locations to access orbit. That agility is a selling point. Customers can get to orbit on their own schedule rather than having to wait for a piggyback ride on Falcon or some other rocket. Historically small sat operators have had little to no control over their launch schedule. Ridesharing on rockets, piggy backing a ride, doesn't really provide the level of service they desire. 

Does that have value? Sure. Does it have sufficient value that people will pay over an order of magnitude more?

Don't forget that with VO you're still piggybacking, just instead of waiting for an F9 launch you're waiting for a VO launch with a bunch of other cubesats. Unless you want that dedicated launch to yourself, in which case you're paying $1m + per kilo to get to orbit. No one's going to pay that if they have the option to merely wait a few weeks.

It's like me wanting to buy a Corvette, but the dealer is out of stock and I need to wait six months for a $75k car. Would I pay $1.1m to get it in a week? I'm sure there are folks who would do that, and one day I'll meet both of them. 😄 It's not a sustainable market.

The other thing to remember is that getting to orbit is as much a bureaucratic exercise as well as technical. It's not like you can fire up the 747 on a moment's notice and launch wherever - given that VO is regulated by the FAA it practically limits them to US launches unless you want to wait for two sets of paperwork. This being able to launch "whenever, wherever" is more theoretical than practical, and unless it's a dire emergency people would rather wait than pay an order or two of magnitude more costs.

Cheers!

[martin-w 3,315]

19 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Personally, I don't condone wind power, except in very few particular locations ideal for it, IE places with lots of wind, most of the time.  The turbines are expensive, not very cleanly produced, not very efficient, expensive to maintain, and create a lot of waste at the end of their short 15 year lives.

 

Well that's where they are located, in locations that are optimal for wind power generation, you wouldn't put them where there's little wind. Onshore  farms are cheaper than new nuclear. Modern wind turbines last 20 to 25 years, not 15 years. Wind turbine blades are now recyclable. It depends on the location, but offshore wind farms  are cheaper than nuclear or gas.

https://theenergyst.com/uk-offshore-wind-becomes-cheaper-than-nuclear-and-gas/

 

Quote

Unfortunately, the batteries needed to store the electricity are not produced cleanly and only last 10-15 years.  We need better batteries, and we need to spend more money to fund research in this area.

 

Yep, there is certainly more than needs to be done to lower the CO2 footprint of battery manufacture, but strides have been made.

As for lifespan, the Tesla Power Wall warranty is 10 years, but that doesn't mean it will fail in 10 years, its lifespan is much longer than that, its just that it probably wont be storing as much electricity after 10 years. The warranty is that it will still be up to 80% of its original capacity in 10 years. Many customers of course will still be happy with that, or less. A lot of home storage batteries now of course are "second life" batteries that have had a useful life as car batteries, they then go on to home or grid storage lives. And of course we are doing a better job re advancements in battery recycling.

Certainly agree that even more funding would be beneficial in this respect. There's lots already, but its such a critically important thing that yes, I agree, even more please. Solid state batteries are actually already here, with prototype production lines in action. Offering safer, longer lasting, higher energy density and fast recycling. But yes, as much funding as possible for research gets my approval too. 

[martin-w 3,315]

23 minutes ago, Luke said:

$40,000/kilo

 

I saw...

Launcher                 Price  Capacity   Price/kg
SpaceX F9 rideshare        $1M     200kg        $5k
Rocket Lab Electron        $6M     300kg       $20k
Virgin Orbit LauncherOne  $12M     500kg       $24k

https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/50631/how-much-does-smallsat-launch-to-leo-cost

Early 2021 prices. More expensive for sure. We will have to wait and see if the factors Virgin say they have on their side do the trick. 

 

Edited November 14, 2021 by martin-w

[martin-w 3,315]

23 hours ago, dave2013 said:

In a vacuum.  That's the difference.

When the payload hits the dense air, the shock will be tremendous.

Dave

 

Yes, that was mentioned in the video. Scott Manley mentioned how the casing would have to handle the huge forces. It would hit the atmosphere at Mach 6 or 7. If they can achieve it they are claiming a 4 times reduction ion fuel, ten times reduction in cost, multiple launches per day.

They say they will be ready to launch for customers in late 2024.

It would be a ten ton launch vehicle experiencing 10,000 G. 😀

We shall see. 🙂 

Edited November 14, 2021 by martin-w

[Luke 788]

2 hours ago, martin-w said:

I saw...

Looks like they upgraded the capacity from 300 to 500kg. Thanks!

[Mike A 357]

On 11/13/2021 at 11:34 AM, dave2013 said:

Unfortunately, the batteries needed to store the electricity are not produced cleanly and only last 10-15 years.  We need better batteries, and we need to spend more money to fund research in this area.

https://ajot.com/news/iron-battery-breakthrough-could-eat-lithiumas-lunch