Burt Rutan interview

Popular Mechanics H/T Transterrestrial Musings

quote:

To allow public access to orbit, we would need breakthroughs that would lower the cost by a lot more than an order of magnitude and increase safety by a factor of 100 as compared to every launch system used since the first manned space flight. I think airborne launch will be a significant part of the safety solution. Breakthroughs to do the rest of the job are unknown.

Comment:

Just my opinion, and two cents here, but the problem may be that too much is expected from a single launch system.  If the Stratolaunch, or Birdzilla as some call it, can solve the safety problem, then some other technology can solve the other problems.

Spacex will most likely attempt to make Birdzilla launch platform fully reusable, which will help with the cost problem.

As for the rest of a comprehensive solution,  you can look at other systems to help with costs from LEO on outward.  For example, Quicklaunch can get materials into space cheaply.  If feasible, a LOXLEO system can skim atmospheric gases from LEO and use it to power spacecraft after achieving orbit, while reducing costs still further.  By combining these two systems, you could leverage a small payload of hydrogen from Quicklaunch into much more by using a LOXLEO system.  Once you have the water in orbit, you can then split it into hydrogen and oxygen.  This could support missions to cis Lunar space where the moon can be further exploited into a base for interplanetary exploration and development.  Thus, not all of the requirements needed will come from one system, but a series of systems.

LOXLEO, Part V

As usual, this will be a speculative post.

The last post explored the possibility of using the nitrogen to make nitric acid.  But what if this is not practical?

If such be the case, what could be done with the nitrogen besides just dumping it?

It so happens that there are themalization issues with the VASIMR design, which is to be used as propulsion in this design.  Lets say that the nitrogen could be used to cool down the engine and then expelled under pressure for additional thrust.  This would be the simplest solution, and it may not be impractical to boot.

Assuming that is successful, what next?

Perhaps this is getting ahead of the game too much.  Let's go back to how we get the nitrogen separated from the oxygen in the first place.  

The truth is, the use of the atmospheric gases at sea level, which include nearly 20% oxygen, would be sufficient to run the hydrogen fuel cells.  This will make the electricity for the VASIMR while giving water as a product.

The resultant gases remaining should be significantly higher in nitrogen.  It is already nearly 80% nitrogen to begin with.  After using the oxygen for the fuel cells, it should be even higher than that in concentration.

Couldn't you just burn some hydrogen directly in this atmosphere and thereby remove the rest of the oxygen?  If so, the remainder should be close to zero percent oxygen, which then could be routed toward VASIMR and used to cool it down, and then expelled as exhaust.

As stated before, the basic idea here is to avoid using so much energy in order to collect oxygen.  The edge of space will still have some oxygen that can be collected as well as the other atmospheric gases.  The thought occurs though, is this: was the original design for collecting the oxygen energy intensive by necessity?  Or was the assumption that nuclear power would be available and that would be able to supply the energy required for the collection of atmospheric oxygen?

If nuclear power isn't available, there has to be a different approach.  Is there an approach to collect the gases which doesn't require a great deal of energy expenditure?  To answer that question could take you all of the way back to the drawing board.

Here's a brief thought on that.  In order to initially collect the gases, could it not be funneled into a smaller space, which will have the effect of creating higher pressures?  After all, this should be our goal- to build up from a near vacuum to a usable atmospheric pressure.  This proposition would entail a funnel type device that narrows down to the size that is, let say 1 millionth the size of the opening.  The ratio as such could be enough to pressurize the gas so that we can use it for our purposes.

The downside of this approach could be amount of drag induced upon the spacecraft.  If the drag is not too much, and could be handled by the VASIMR, we are in business.  Another possibility is heat.  At orbital speeds, the velocity of the gas will be considerable.  As it compresses, it will have to slow down.  As it does that, it is likely to get hot.  Cooling systems will have to be devised to handle that outcome.

That may not be an insurmountable problem.  Just route the liquid hydrogen around the funnel and it will cool it down, as is done in modern rocket engines.  This will have to be done anyway, as hydrogen needs to be brought out of cryogenic storage for use in fuel cells.

LOXLEO, Part IV

Speculation alert, as usual on this topic.

Part of the concept involves the collection of nitrogen, which is a vital element for life support in space. The atmosphere is nearly 80% nitrogen, and it is there, so you may as well use it. The trick is to get around the energy problem. In order to collect the gas, you need to compress it and cool it down considerably. This takes a lot of energy.

Rather than use a lot of energy to cool down gases, perhaps it would be better to minimize that. By using a hydrogen fuel cell, you can still collect oxygen from the atmosphere, and then use it to make electricity and water. That means you have to crack it later, but you still have the oxygen in a form that is easily stored while making energy- as opposed to consuming it.

Can you not apply that principle to using the nitrogen, which is also present in the atmosphere? If you can't use it, you have to dump it, which is a waste. Why not find a way to make this useful as a propellant as well while not having to put it into a form which consumes so much energy?

The nuclear powered version of this concept uses the nitrogen, but nuclear power in space is a problem.

Making energy from the oxygen in the atmosphere is definitely not a new concept. Airplanes do it. The only question here is if there's enough oxygen that can be collected -so as to generate enough thrust for overcoming drag- which is the same principle that applies to airplanes.

Is nitrogen worthwhile as a propellant? Yes it is. But how to make nitrogen based propellants in LEO? Let look at the proposition, shall we? Let see if there's a way to use nitrogen- by collecting the nitrogen and the oxygen in LEO, and then combining them somehow for power, or for thrust.

If a nitrogen fuel cell were possible, you could make the electricity as a hydrogen fuel cell does, and keep the oxidized nitrogen on board for processing later. If it could be converted to something more easily stored to liquid form than pure nitrogen, that would be helpful with the energy problem. (It would be easier to store it as a liquid than as a gas.) Nitrogen fuel cells may not be possible, so far as I know.

But there are a couple processes that could lead you to a form of nitrogen that could work, at least theoretically. The hard part may be in making these processes fit on-board a spacecraft. Provided that you could do that, then store the nitrogen via nitric acid solution in water. The Ostwald and Haber processes are what I had in mind.

The biggest trick of all is to do all of this in real time as the spacecraft is skimming the gases at the edge of the atmosphere. You have to be able to get more gases into storage than what you are using them for in making energy, while at the same time not having to dump much matter overboard. That means the conversion to nitrates are sufficiently exothermic to help support the conversion.

The hydrogen fuel cell accomplishes this by producing electricity as well as water. The two processes mentioned in the previous paragraph will utilize the nitrogen from the atmosphere in order to make the water into an nitric acid solution. Those processes are exothermic, but are they sufficiently so? Another problem is the hardware- is it too complex and is it too massive?

Assuming those questions can be answered, you're in business. Once the tank is full, the acid can be offloaded in higher orbit, where it can be processed further into rocket fuels.

The entire system could do this over and over again so as to create a steady stream of product. It would need to have two components launched from the ground-- the machines that do the processing and the hydrogen. The machines could be launched once. The hydrogen will have to be launched at a rate sufficient to support the entire operation. Given that hydrogen is the lightest element, it will be advantageous in offsetting the mass penalty in spaceflight.

The mass penalty is a major stumbling block in making space more accessible. Given the mass savings, the cost of getting fuel into orbit could be reduced by perhaps as much as 1 order of magnitude from the oxygen alone.

Update:

Earlier versions of the LOXLEO thread included the use of a VASIMR as the propulsion engine.  If additional energy is needed for the above mentioned chemical reactions, perhaps the thermal management issue of the VASIMR can be turned into a resource.  A heat exchanger can move the heat from the VASIMR- where it may be a problem- to the reaction chambers, where it may come in handy.

20120114 Live interview with Andrea Rossi

h/t Next Big Future

Highlights

• The Smart Scarecrow Show  hosts the interview
• Sterling Allan of pesn.com does the honors
• Introduction of Andrea Rossi
• History of the E-cat
• Short intro to the E-cat 
• Mentions gamma rays-- is turned into heat.  First time I heard of this, but not that I was looking for it.
• Safe operation-- automatic shutoff feature
• Track record of long term operation
• Just heating with E-cat, not electricity yet
• Insignificant amount of material necessary for "fuel" due to it being a nuclear process
• Make tests every day, he says.  Certification process with UL.  Production will be in Florida USA
• Wants to push prices down to $500 ( for small E-cat?)
• Concerns about reverse engineering-- low prices will defend against this
• Size of device, 10 kw unit, 5% of price for comparable system
• Catalysts-- essential to operation  Comment: this may be why the ash is inconsistent with expectations
• Frequency used?  Rossi declines to comment on this.  Oriental martial arts comparison? maybe jiu jitsu principle use the energy of the opponent to your advantage
• operating temperature, higher temperatures can cause problems
• don't give fish, but teach how to fish
• UL stamp is final stamp before distributing to customer
• No time to lose, he says
• 1 million home ecat plans--- details, looks like a pc in dimensions, compatible with any heater in world
• refuel every 6 months, turning on and off and being controlled by thermostat.  Will heat water, but not like a central heating system--- language problem not clear
• E-cat used to preheat the water for electricity production-- Ecat not hot enough, but can do this much
• Refueling paradigm.  180 operational days as opposed, fuel charge is proportional to actual use, turn ecat off and no fuel is consumed
• indicator shows when it needs to be recharged, fuel cartridges exchanged, and used ones recycled
• cartridge only $10, plus installation charges if necessary
• logistical issues are being worked on
• says big surprise that need no hydrogen canisters-- picograms of hydrogen, 10 gms last 6 months

I will interrupt after 1 hour.  The rest may be of little interest to me.  The key point is the production of gamma rays and the claim that gamma rays are the cause of the production of heat.  Is this plausible?

Joe Bonometti - LFTR Development Lessons Learned @ TEAC3

Dr. Joe Bonometti at TEAC3

quote:

Joe also did one of the very first “Tech-Talks” at Google on the subject of LFTR technology.

Comment:

I put in both videos on this post, as well as screenshots to the first one, which is a video that lasts nearly an hour.



Screenshots from the above video:

Easy to find thorium on the moon and Mars.

You could manufacture your fuel for a return to Earth using energy from Thorium.  A transportation system could run on something like this.

The advantages of nuclear vs. solar and/or wind

Even if you have only terrestrial applications in mind, keep in mind that thorium has advantages here as well.

History of this research: it was originally intended for airplanes!

When the airplane idea gave way to missiles, they kept researching it in a small reactor and came up with the LFTR.

What is LFTR?  Just this:  It is better than uranium, and almost as good as fusion could ever be, but it is available NOW.

What's not to like?

Uranium Fuel Cycle versus Thorium Fuel Cycle

The video below is only about 10 minutes in case you are pressed for time:

Pesn: E-Cat Weekly January 12 : Edmund Storms

TheSpaceShow (mp3 link): January 8, 2011


Comment:


As is usually the case, whenever there is a bit of controversy, there'll be some challenging calls.  Such was the case for this show as well.

The one that stuck out for me was when Charles called and mentioned the gamma ray issue.  There is one thing that's very clear now.  There aren't any gamma rays being produced by Rossi's device.  The reason that you know this is because of the demonstrations shown on video.  If there were any gamma rays, there'd be a lot more caution about being in the room with this device.  The amount of gamma rays expected should be enough to make everyone sick, or worse.

 Dr. Storms mentioned that there would be a Nobel Prize waiting for anyone who could figure out how the energy gets out of the system.  How then energy gets out indeed!

The question encourages me to think about E-cat again, which I haven't been doing recently.

The idea that sticks with me is that the phenomenon could be about waves.  A gamma ray is just a wave.  All matter and energy in the universe is particles and waves.  And there is this phenomenon known as as  wave  particle duality:

Wave–particle duality postulates that all particles exhibit both wave and particle properties.

Particles can act as waves, waves can act as particles.

So, as a bit of speculation, I wonder if the explanation could be related to that.  Both of the explanations necessary- one for overcoming the coulomb barrier and the other for the lack of gamma rays- could be explained by wave particle duality.  For the former, I favor the BECNF Theory of Y. Kim of Purdue.  But Kim doesn't provide any theory for the lack of gamma rays, only for overcoming the coulomb barrier. Bose-Einstein condensates overcome the coulomb barrier by the quantum effects of waves.  Could the wave particle duality explain the lack of gamma rays?

Gamma rays are a problem because of the need for shielding.  Neutrons and alpha particles can be shielded more easily.  Gamma rays- not so easy.  In the case of Rossi's device, the main problem is the lack of gamma rays.  There should be some if fusion is taking place.  This is the crux of the problem, or controversy.

It isn't just a matter of shielding in the case of the E-cat.  It is the most probable situation that there are no gamma rays being produced at all.  But how can there be any fusion if there are no gamma rays?

Let me repeat here that BECNF explains the coulomb barrier and some other type of wave explains the lack of gamma rays.  The latter speculation may be preposterous, but who knows?  I haven't gotten any further ideas on the matter.  Perhaps someone else could.

Update:

Not much to add because I don't know anything about the subject. I've been educating myself as much as is feasible by reading Wikipedia articles on the subject. Below is the list:

1. Wave–particle duality
2. Black-body radiation
3. Photon
4. Interference (wave_propagation)
5. Diffraction grating  Comment:  I got this brainstorm that it may be possible to attenuate harmful radiation through this means.  But it now seems like a long shot.   Also, an idea occurred to me that waves may be interfering with each other and therefore maybe attenuating the gamma rays.  But that is also a long shot.

Update:

Still reading about waves.  It is an education, as I mentioned above.  Here's what I'm reading now in Wikipedia:  (Starting from #4 above)

1. Polarization
2. Polarization_(waves)
3. Wavefront
4. Oscillation
5. Electric field
6. Maxwell's equations

By the way, none of this may tell anything about the E-cat, but it may be useful to know.

Update:

A question has arisen. In the video below, two light bulbs are said not to have interference because they are out of phase. But what would happen if they were?

In a BEC, could they be considered from the same source, and therefore in phase?

not in phase if two separate sources

but will interfere if it is in phase ( one source or two identical sources)

Why make rockets reusable?

Spacex is joining in on the Birdzilla project, which will attach a Falcon rocket to the underside of a very large plane. I think that could help get the first stage back to the launch site with the minimum amount of hardware and fuel. ( my 2 cents here)

Articles: Red Flag on the Red Planet

American Thinker: China's Great Leap Marsward?

 Meanwhile, President Obama has scuttled his predecessor's project to establish a manned scientific outpost on the Moon; as America's space program withers, China's thrives.

Comment:

In order to get my point of view on the topic of a moonbase, click on the category label below.

Rossi Get E-cat Patent Approval This Year?

ecatpatent.com

Rossi’s e-cat patent would be very helpful especially when the technology is already out in the marketplace. It would strengthen its marketing strategy to produce 1 millions devices at a very low price.

Comment:

I've written computer software for the market under my own brand.   Now, I may not be a legal expert, but my impression is that if you want protection for your intellectual property, it's better to have a patent.  If it isn't protected, somebody can reproduce it and claim it as their own.

Furthermore, putting a million e-cats on the market could backfire if the product doesn't meet expectations.  The odds are that there are going to be a lot of people who won't be satisfied.  This will not be good PR, especially if you don't have a patent.  Bad in any case, but even worse if you have no patent.

Machines

Yesterday I had but one short post. I spent Sunday doing what I usually do on Sundays, which was to watch football games on TV. Besides that, I watched Terminator 3 on YouTube. Yes, it is there, the entire movie.

I suppose I could critique the movie, but let's just say that it wasn't as good as the first two. By the way, I saw the movie not too long after its release, back in 2003. This was just a refresher. My opinion was just as I have given here, so the opinion of the movie didn't change. However, it did get me to thinking about the subject of machines, and how dependent we are on them.

The Terminator series is supposed to be something of a cautionary tale about this. But there is no reserve about what this increasing reliance upon machines could mean for humanity. To the contrary, it would seem that a large portion of the sentient class want this development. I think it is called transhumanism.

I haven't spent much time on the subject.  For those who have, this must be quite obvious.  I have mixed feelings about it.  Space colonization appears to be a part of transhumanism, but to me, it just seems to be a natural development.  I prefer natural developments as opposed to artificial ones.  That's the impression I have of transhumanism.  It is freakish and unnatural.

For example, why would anybody want to go live on Mars?  Could it be because of the same impulse that led the pioneers to settle America?  The old pioneers came to look for God, but also to escape the tyranny of the Old World.  If it were possible to go somewhere which has not be settled already, and make a new world based upon new ideas and greater freedom.  That would seem quite natural, but it may not be the only reason why someone may want to go off world.

However, I don't think going to Mars is necessary.  Humans can colonize the moon and then construct their own worlds in space with lunar materials.   You cold literally shape a new world from scratch.  But should this world be dominated by machines?  Or could it be a new world on a human scale?  An O'Neill colony would be about the size of a small town.  In space, it could have all the energy it could use.   The sun would power it and they could grow their own food.  There wouldn't be a need for much trade, but there could be something in which it could exchange with the Earth.  That would be energy.  There is so much of it in space, that it dwarfs whatever falls on the Earth's surface.  That was O'Neill's idea: to use the sun as an energy source and thus as an economic basis of his colony.

Each world could develop according to its own preferences.  Some could be just agricultural in nature with a modest trading component.  Others could continue looking for the "fountain of youth".  For me, I think such a notion is rather unnatural, as that would not be my preference.  But for others, this could hold an attraction.  The freedom of association carried to that level could result in any number of combinations of future development.

The unnaturalness of this continued desire for the unattainable is the thing that is most troublesome to me.  This quest for new and even more powerful machines to dominate, control, and run everything.  Is this really necessary?  Yet, it is also a part of the human condition for some of us to want to dominate and control the others.  But to what end and for what purpose?