Archive for the ‘science’ Category

Space Inc. and the Unspillable

I’ve been saying it for years – hell, it is an integral part of Space Inc., the spec pilot I wrote for the dramatic television series set in the current civilian space race. Space based solar power could be the thing that takes us to space.

The news obsessing with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico created an opportunity that someone at the National Space Society took advantage of to create a nice graphic to drive home a salient point.

unspillable

I found it on the NSS blog entry Space Solar Power is Unspillable and figured to pass it on… even though the “space solar is five times the power of Earth-based solar” line makes it look like the energy from the sun is five times greater in orbit than it is on Earth. In fact a clear sky at noon attenuates only about 25% of the solar energy.

That “clear” and “at noon” are where the power differential shows up.

There are only so many days without clouds, dust, volcanic ash, smoke, smog and fog… at least down here, up in GEO is is always sunny and cloudless. Well, not always sunny. The availability of the sun in GEO is actually more like 23/7 than 24/7… but that is a lot better than the losses incurred on the surface. Down here, the sun is only visible on average of 12/7 and that “12” varies from a best of about 75% at noon on down to that sunset/sunrise of <1% – as compared to the space based solar panel that gets 100% for all but the hour or so per day that it is in the Earth’s shadow.

It is the overall collectability of the energy that may be considered to be “five times” Earth-based solar- which is good but it still takes a pretty big array of solar panels to replace one of those fossil or fissile burning power plants- and big means heavy.

The cost of getting a kilogram on a GTO (Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit) is about $20,000 depending on what you launch with. Then you have to burn some of that mass to stabilize it into a GEO (Geostationary Earth Orbit) so that it remains properly positioned over the rectenna on the Earth’s surface.

20100604_launch

Space X is on target to cut that significantly with their Falcon 9. They are offering to put a 4,680 kg payload in a GTO for $51 million… or about half what it is with the various Ariane, Delta or Atlas rockets. Their Falcon 9 Heavy is being designed to launch 19,500 kg to a GTO and may well cut the costs in half yet again – maybe $5,000 per kilogram to GTO. The cost would also have an inverse relationship to the number of flights – so more launches would mean a lowering of that cost yet again.

falcon_9h

Even a reasonably optimistic forecast of $2,000 per kilogram would mean tens of billions of dollars when we are talking about launching the infrastructure for a space based solar array able to generate the 4GW that can come from a good sized coal or nuclear power plant.

The estimates for the weight of 4GW capable array of panels and the supporting infrastructure are quite preliminary but they start at about 4 million kilograms on the low end. If that was all launched from Earth, we’re looking at $40 billion which is not competitive with the $8 billion or so to get the same energy from nuclear power.

Now let’s look out five years to the Falcon 9 Heavy and it still takes over 200 launches and costs around $20 billion. I’m sure if I someone called up Elon and said they’d buy 200 launches they would get a discount… although it still wouldn’t be cost competitive.

But what happens when most of the material is already there and we just have to launch a couple dozen Falcon 9 Heavies to get the equipment up there to take advantage of it?

What if someone took that first step and went out to retrieve an asteroid into Earth orbit? An stony asteroid that is about 40 meters in diameter would come in at something like 150 million kilograms. They usually run 18% silicon so we’re looking at roughly 27 million kilograms of solar panel raw material. Fabricating that much silicon into solar panels and you could build six 4GW solar power satellites.

So if a mission like that could be done for $7 billion to go get the asteroid and another $30 billion to build the six powersats then we are talking the tipping point for space based solar power generation. Maybe the tipping point for becoming a space faring civilization because when that asteroid starts running low, there are thousands more NEAs where it came from… and the second one will be a lot cheaper than the first.

If you are willing to go to it and do the processing in situ before shipping the refined materials back, one near Earth asteroid call 1036 Ganymed (not Jupiter’s moon Ganymed) is about 32 kilometres in diameter. That is about 17,000 cubic kilometres of raw material massing 33,000,000,000,000,000 kg.

Since 1036 Ganymed is a S-type asteroid that 18% silicon means about  5,940,000,000,000,000 kg of raw silicon. With that one asteroid, we could build solar power satellites that generate millions of terawatts.

We won’t build million terawatt solar arrays any time soon because, even ignoring the cost of doing it, the entire planet only uses 15 terawatts right now.

Someone could make hundreds of billions of dollars giving the world cheap and abundant energy. This would allowing billions of people to lift themselves out of poverty and hardship to enjoy the standard of living that the developed nations rightfully don’t want to lose.

Or the governments can cap and trade the developed nations back down to join in the suffering of those billions in poverty and hardship – and without cheap energy, none of us will have a way to climb out of it.

 

Caveat lector, this is napkin engineering and is not meant to be a definitive set of calculations that can be taken to the bank to get a loan for $7 billion to go capture 40 metre nickel-iron asteroid – but it is meant to spark interest in those who can spend the millions of dollars it would take to do the definitive calculations that can then be taken to the bank for that $7 billion loan.

Falcon 9 Makes Orbit

spacex_logo_large

YES! As I write this, SpaceX has just made orbit with their first flight test of the Falcon 9 rocket system. After an earlier auto-abort at about T -1 second, they cleared the automatically triggered hold and went on to a flawless second run before today’s launch window closed.

Besides creating a private low cost to orbit rocket system for anyone, Elon Musk plans to be in the front running to replace the retiring Space Shuttle for delivery of cargo, and eventually crew, to the International Space Station.

Me, I want to hire them to launch the components to a crewed asteroid intercept, retrieval to L-5 and mining operation. If they meet their target $/kg then they will cut the mission cost from about $9 billion to only $7 billion to retrieve a few thousand tons of NiFe to earth orbit where it would be worth at least ten time that.

Now all I have to do is raise $7 billion.

I’m thinking of putting a “donate” button on the sidebar for you to click.

David Brin on Business in Space

The speculative TV project I am working on that is closest to my heart and mind is ‘Space Inc.’. It is a one hour dramatic series built around a fictional player in the civilian space race that is actually taking place as I write this.

The show would be an action/drama set in a workplace that is the most dangerous, dramatic, important and history changing environment that humanity will ever deal with. It would be a series built around the most significant action that is is possible for not just humanity but for life itself to undertake- becoming a space faring civilization.

Here is a short series of videos that science fiction writer David Brin recorded and put up on Youtube. He is one of my favourite writers (both his fiction and his blog are must reads) and while there are a few things in here that I disagree with him on – there is a lot in these videos that I wish more people were aware of.

Earth is the cradle of life and, while we can hope and speculate, as far as we know it holds the only life in the universe. If we want to ensure that life flourishes, it has to leave the cradle. Humanity, and the magnificent intellect that sets us apart from all other life forms that we know of, may be the only hope for life to spread beyond this one little spec in the cosmos and the sliver of time allotted to it.

Climate Change VS Climate Consistency

Quelccaya_Ice_Cap

"As the ice cap is retreating, it is exposing almost perfectly preserved plant specimens dating back 5,200 year, indicating that it has been more than 50 centuries since the ice cap was smaller than it is today." – Jason McManus, Daily Galaxy

So about 5,200 years ago the glacier was smaller than it is now and the local conditions are not unprecedented. "Climate Change" is a silly moniker considering that there is no alternate state for the climate to be in.

"Climate Consistency" doesn’t exist. Never has, never will. It is going to get colder and it is going to get warmer. This will happen cyclically over time spans measured in decades, millenniums, ages, epochs, eras and eons. We can create models to predict the short term but I hold that it is hubris to think that we are going to create models that are accurate enough to bet the lives of millions on.

Too many people have their careers, egos, politics, economics and philosophies bound up in the climate models being correct. Rest assured, the climate models are all wrong. Every last one of them, even the ones I agree with. That isn’t a slight on the men and women who created those models, it is just a condition of the universe. Any model of any system suffers the same fate, the model is not the thing.

Or as Korzybski put it, The map is not the territory.”

We make models because they are useful when they are accurate enough. To make them wieldy enough to actually function, we have to create a model that is a gross simplification of both size and time. With climate models we are trying to cram 115,000,000,000,000,000 cubic kilometers and 200 billion watts per second over thousands of years into a few cubic meters and a handful of days.

They then conclude that we’re doomed and that they can save the world if we do exactly what they say right now. I come to a different conclusion and figure that we’ll be a lot better off to actually see what is going to happen and then react to that.

About 200 Billion watts per second… just saying.

The job of modelling is to simplify a system while not letting it become so wrong as to no longer be useful. I think the true believers are downplaying Bonini’s paradox for fear that it undermine their righteous cause.

Should we make an educated guess at what the climate will do over the next hundred years and bankrupt ourselves on mostly symbolic actions that we know will not have a meaningful impact on even our computer models?

Colder is more dangerous for humanity than warmer and I would be more concerned if the majority of the planets glaciers were expanding. As it stands, more are contracting than expanding… yes gentle reader, few are actually going to disappear any time soon and some are expanding.

There is some element of political and market machinations involved, there always is when trillions of dollars and the votes of millions are placed on the table… but it strikes me that it is largely motivated by the the scientists and activists who need to save the world. Their self image is based on the grandiosity of a messiah complex where saving the world is the only activity that is worthy of their time. They will go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to prove to themselves and others that the world needs saving and that they have the one true answer.

If I am honest with myself, my view on the imperative for us to become a spacefaring civilization is uncomfortably close to their emotional attachment to the fight against Climate Change.

But where they are out of touch with reality, I just wanna save the human race.

Athletes As Heroes?

I’m sitting in the city that is hosting the 2010 Winter Olympics, and listening to the media go on and on about the “heroes” that are here to compete.

This irritated me somewhat and got me thinking about why we venerate the men and women who play games as if they have actually done something… rather than just pretended to do something. What, in our evolution, could have brought about this odd psychological behaviour?

Over our history, going back to well before we were even h. sapiens, two of the larger driving evolutionary factors have been food gathering and fighting off other groups of humans and proto-humans. Those who were better at hunting and fighting had better survival rates and the people who were attracted to them produced children that carried these traits.

So where does playing games come in? It make us stronger, faster and more agile. Those who got a pleasant neurological feedback from playing games would play more ∴ become stronger, faster and more agile ∴ would be able to hunt and fight better.

So those who were driven to play would be more likely to attract mates than their more sedentary sibling… even though it was rather more calorie intensive than lounging around the cave. This would then layer in the drive of sexual competition so that even those who don’t get a thrill from playing games will participate so that they to can hunt and fight better… which allows them to attract a mate as well as their more “playful” sibling.

Through most of our history, the play hunting and play fighting would have been overshadowed by prowess in the actual activities that athletes only pretend to do.

It was fine and dandy if you could play a game better than anyone else- but if the other guy could actually do the real task better than you, they got the mammoth, they sacked the city… and they got the girl. So for most of our history, the people that pretended to do things never got the attention that was showered on those who actually did the real things.

I don’t think anyone can name the winners of the 786 BC Olympics but the names of Achilles is remembered from hundreds of years earlier because he actually did… rather than pretended to do (although he was also renown for the pretending as a adjunct to the doing).

As our societies became more technologically advanced, the actual hunting was mostly replaced by farming and combat became the work of large coordinated groups with weapons that killed at greater and greater distances with more and more anonymity.

When the real activity becomes too abstract or it is removed from our view, the evolutionary imperative isn’t smart enough to follow it and fell back to those who pretend to do the activity.

We went from venerating actual accomplishments to the hero worship of those who pretend to do things. This also may explain why actors (and yes writers) are better known and more admired than the people who actually do the real things themselves.

If the ability to provide food for the tribe was rationally held in high esteem, Norman Borlaug would be one of the greatest heroes of all time. He saved anywhere from hundreds of millions, to billions of people from starving to death. He died last year and hardly anyone noticed. I find that to be a sad thing.

The media and fans can load up all the BS they want about the “heroes” of the Olympics, the Superbowl, World Cup or whatever your sport of choice is… they aren’t heroes and it isn’t heroic.

Soldiers actually undertake acts of heroism. Crawling into a dark cave in search of dangerous men who want to kill you takes courage that is completely absent from sliding down a hill very fast, catching a prolate spheroid past an arbitrarily marked line or kicking a spheroid past another person and through an arbitrarily defined surface plane.

The pretend activities of athletes most certainly are difficult and they take a lot of perseverance and great effort – but they aren’t heroic. And just because you can die while competing in a sport, that doesn’t get you there. More people die from slipping in the shower but that doesn’t make me a hero every morning.

That said ranted, it is probably a better world because if this shift in hero worship. Could you imagine the effect it would have on wars today if all the hero worship that has fallen on those who pretend to fight was placed back on those who actually fight?

It could make for smaller more personal wars where the individual action is heralded and the anonymous mass killings of bombs and biologicals where seen to be “unworthy”.

I think it would be more likely that the people who get the most press would be those with the highest body count no matter how they get it.

So while I won’t join the throngs as they lavish praise on grown men and women who play games that fake activities almost nobody does any more… I’ll accept this as a suitable release valve for that particular evolutionary selection trait.

One thing I don’t understand is why Vancouver picked Japanese CHIBI style to create the mascots?

SumiQuatchiMiga

Oh wait… that’s right.

SumiQuatchiMigaPlushies

Never forget that Olympics is all about the gold.

maple-leaf-gold-coin-rev-300x300