NASA is a fucking fraud
114 2017-05-03 by High_Level_Insider_
They have failed to invest in technologies that could dramatically change the world for the better. For the cost of their annual budget ($30 billion) they could build a Launch Loop, which would take launch costs from $2000/kg to as little as $3/kg. This would generate goodwill internationally and pay for itself within a few years just from launching satellites for other nations.
Due to increased light exposure and efficiency due to the cold, solar panels in space produce far more electricity, and run 24 hours a day with no need for a backup system like terrestrial solar. We could produce power for far less than the cost of coal.
Even better would be an Orbital Ring Space Elevator, which for about $400 billion would let us deploy payloads for around $1/kg. Before you downvote and tell me we need carbon nanotubes, please read the article. This design only goes to low earth orbit, so it doesn't need superstrong materials like other Space Elevator designs you have heard of (and NASA invests millions of dollars investigating, knowing they can't be built yet).
In addition, it would allow us to connect tethers from solar power satellites directly to the ground. This decrease in transmission costs, along with the decreased costs of deploying satellits would let us produce power for less than 1 cent/kwh.
If sold at 15c/kwh (a discount to worldwide average electricity costs of 17c/kwh), the satellites would pay themselves off in 1-2 years, and the market is well supported for massive increases in capacity at very modest cost discounts (i.e. drop the price even 1-2 c/kwh and demand increases massively).
In the end, this means that every dollar invested into solar satellites would return at least 50% annually. It would be possible to start generating trillions of dollars in free cash flow within a few years. Enough to fund the entire government without taxes if we wanted. Enough to retire our debt, or create a basic income.
Yeah, NASA is a fraud.
Time to demand better. r/new_american_system.
246 comments
n/a joe_jaywalker 2017-05-03
This doesn't even scratch the surface of why NASA is a fraud, but as you will.
n/a Gaslightin 2017-05-03
It's a good intro for the uninitiated
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
Elon Musk has actually done ok with the constraints he has been given. $2000/kg launch costs is a big improvement over the space shuttle program.
But that's not saying much, when we could cut costs down to 1/1000 of what they are.
n/a Gaslightin 2017-05-03
Yeah I just don't trust that SpaceX is a natural, organic thing. I think it's all part of TPTB plan to privatize everything in order to install a world government controlled by corporations. It's happening in every industry. Elon Musk is the chosen way to have a controlled release of technologies that have been suppressed for decades.
I hope I'm wrong, tho.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
They already have that. They pay people to tell you "it's coming" so you don't realize it's been here for decades.
They control the big corporations, the reserve currency, the banks, the politicians through blackmail and bribery, and the policy groups that actually make the governing decisions.
The question is whether you can articulate an alternative, like I'm showing you with this post, so that they can be overthrown without firing a shot.
n/a Gaslightin 2017-05-03
+1 good stuff.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
There has been peer-reviewed science out on many viable non-rocket space launches for over 30 years, and they haven't taken serious steps toward any of them. Instead, they have sunk $150 billion into the International Space Station.
Even that idiotic project could easily be converted for use as a Sky Hook.
n/a remchien 2017-05-03
The ISS can not be easily converted to a skyhook. This requires orbit raising after the payload slingshot and currently they use resupply vehicles docked to the station to do large orbital maneuvers. Couple this with the fact that you would have to engineer the cable and attach it to the space station in a location that doesn't interfere with solar panels, docking stations, robotic arm, etc. It would be easier to build a new space station specifically for a skyhook than to repurpose the ISS.
Source: aerospace engineer
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
Solar-powered thrusters.
Sure, you'd need to add parts. But you already have a decent chunk of mass, solar panels, and a cabin up there already. That's a good start.
n/a remchien 2017-05-03
Solar power thrusters are very low thrust. You would need a large amount of these to move something like the space station and it would take a very long time to make any sizeable maneuver not to mention the power requirements would exceed the current solar array capacity.
I like the idea of a skyhook but there is 0% chance it is cost effective to repurpose the ISS for that reason. A new space station specifically designed for skyhook purposes would be far cheaper.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
Agreed. We would need more panels and thrusters. All I'm saying is that we already have mass and panels up there. So we can save launch costs.
How do you figure? Launch costs are everything, even having a giant rock to tether the thing to for extra mass would make the system work a lot better by it move less when it draws up a payload.
n/a OniExpress 2017-05-03
The current gen of those things are ridiculously low power, generally intended for low-mass objects where a small trajectory change can be calculated over a long period of time (and also precludes use where there would be any outside modifications, like docking). I'm not saying its completely impossible, but I don't think that the math upscales with our current capabilities.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
Yeah. It's not difficult, though. Just taking an existing system and scaling it up.
n/a OniExpress 2017-05-03
I'm specifically saying that the current hardware doesn't scale up past a certain point. It's like scaling up model rocket engines by just strapping a fuck ton of them together. There are drawbacks to the system that get more and more apparent as you try to upscale.
n/a arthurdent11 2017-05-03
Dude, just make it bigger. It's not rocket science. /s
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
Such as?
n/a OniExpress 2017-05-03
Well, for an example I'll take the biggest problem for ion drives, which is acceleration versus mass. They take ages to accelerate, speaking in astronomical terms. They also have a relatively low efficiency. The entire benefit of them is a trade-off in acceleration by being able to have less mass (and/or a longer operational lifespan), but if you scale up you're just adding more and more mass, making it less and less effective.
Lemme think of an example. So you blow up one balloon with helium, just the the point where it has positive buoyancy at sea level. Congrats, you've made a bit of latex rise slowly with a smidgen of helium. Now take 20 of these and glue them together: what happens? It rises the same way. A little less, actually, since you're adding mass (glue) to stick them all together.
The balloon is electricity powered thrusters. We're currently not able to add more than a smidgen of helium to them (aka - power to thrust efficiency and weight to thrust efficiency), which means that upscaling past a certain point has no benefit and actually degrades performance past a certain point without an increase in the efficiency of the engine.
n/a The_Watterboy 2017-05-03
Its nice to see positive alternatives being provided though, rather than just pointing out why its bad and having nothing to exchange it with
n/a SpongeBobSquarePants 2017-05-03
Do tell.
n/a VocabKey 2017-05-03
A few of many reasons. Thanks!
n/a DivineM0ments0fTruth 2017-05-03
But those panels would eventually smash into the dome?
n/a outtanutmeds 2017-05-03
Here. Read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fishbowl
n/a DivineM0ments0fTruth 2017-05-03
Neat, but rockets/wikipedia were debunked by Dubay so try again sweety
n/a washboardjim 2017-05-03
Dubay lol
n/a DivineM0ments0fTruth 2017-05-03
Smarter than Sagan and ND Tyson put together according to some on this sub
n/a SpongeBobSquarePants 2017-05-03
Then again he also thinks he has debunked Gravity, The Earth being a planet, the existence of the South pole, the Earth spinning, That stars are a thing, that nukes aren't real, and LOTS of other rather interesting things.
https://www.youtube.com/user/ericdubay77/videos
n/a LightBringerFlex 2017-05-03
All of these alphabet organizations are fraud. FBI, CIA, NSA, all shit!
Why are we paying taxes?
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
Working on getting rid of those, too.
n/a BillNyeScienceLies 2017-05-03
I'll never forget the look on the astronots faces when they gave their interview after the faked moon mission... complete shame
n/a haveyouseenmymarble 2017-05-03
"I don't remember seeing any!" in reply to what the stars looked like. That part always seemed extremely fishy to me.
n/a BillNyeScienceLies 2017-05-03
Followed immediately with a elbow nudge from Neil
n/a haveyouseenmymarble 2017-05-03
It's such a weird statement in context. I mean, Neil's explanation is reasonable enough, but Collins's (that's Michael Collins, right?) statement is totally off. As though it just occurred to him that he didn't see any stars while he was in space, up in the orbiter for hours by himself for that matter, with little to do other than staring out the window.
What're the three things you'd be looking forward to find when traveling into space? 1) Weightlessness, 2) a stunning view of Earth, 3) the most breathtaking sea of stars you'll ever see.
So if I went up into space and saw only blackness where the stars should be, that in itself would be such a mindblowing observation that a shoulder shrug followed by "I don't remember seeing any" really calls into question if the dude was ever up there in the first place.
Had he said, "and the weirdest thing to me was that we could barely make out any stars at all, and we still don't fully understand why that is the case. Something, something, atmosphere", it wouldn't be as strange as just saying "I don't remember seeing any."
Such a weird claim.
n/a shargy 2017-05-03
I would imagine they were kinda busy with other shit. Probably pretty nerve racking trying to not die. Ever been diving? I imagine it's like that, x1000.
n/a haveyouseenmymarble 2017-05-03
Sure, but if the first divers to Mariana's Trench claimed that they didn't remember seeing any fishes, I'd be wondering if they ever went too.
Of course, I don't expect them to be gazing out the window like kid on a planeride, but they were in transit between Earth and the moon for four days one way, spent almost an entire day on the surface of the moon (in which time Collins was orbiting the moon), before landing in the Pacific another four days later. Don't you think they would have checked out the stars on the way, just so they had something romantic to tell to their wives back home?
n/a plznokek 2017-05-03
Oh come on, the stars in the photos thing is so debunked, its basic photography.
n/a Ieuan1996 2017-05-03
We're not talking about the stars in the photos. We're talking about what they said
n/a plznokek 2017-05-03
What would that possibly prove?
n/a Honestliartom 2017-05-03
Its more probable that the moon landings happened but bad argument. He is questioning the landings happened and you state that the moon landings prove there were moon landings. Thats like saying god exists because god told people to write the bible. I support what you are debating for but its really not an effective argument. I believe in ya.
n/a haveyouseenmymarble 2017-05-03
I'm well aware of exposure and contrast issues in photography, thank you. But nobody is talking about the photos. They claim they don't remember SEEING any stars on their 9 day journey to the moon and back.
That, to me, is unfathomable. If the stars are in fact visible in space, as optical theory predicts common sense dictates and ISS astronauts claim, then the Apollo 11 astronauts should have seen them. If the stars, for some unexplained reason, are not visible from space, than that should have been a definitive and ground breaking observation in itself.
The fact that Collins says that he doesn't remember seeing any stars, as though that only just occurred to him, raises all sorts of questions in my mind.
The photos and videos of the event are a topic all on its own.
n/a plznokek 2017-05-03
What would that possibly prove?
n/a haveyouseenmymarble 2017-05-03
It's not supposed to prove anything. What gave you that idea? I find that the astronaut's statements during that interview make little sense, which makes me suspicious. But that is all it is. It's language, it can be misinterpreted, so I will never claim that language proves anything. Collins could have had a slow moment or could have had a case of stage fright or all number of things that might have made him say such an ambiguous statement when the truth of the fact should have been the most obvious aspect of their voyage.
It might not make you suspicious, but that's none of my business. And who knows, maybe there really is nothing to it. Who know, maybe there is.
n/a plznokek 2017-05-03
Okay cool, so it means nothing. Just wanted to make sure.
n/a haveyouseenmymarble 2017-05-03
That's up to you to decide.
n/a plznokek 2017-05-03
I've decided that in the light of all of the evidence that man landed on the moon, that this slightly odd segment of an interview can be dismissed as being just an odd quirk.
n/a haveyouseenmymarble 2017-05-03
Not an unreasonable judgment. I'm not convinced either way, but to think we went is a pretty safe bet.
n/a SmarkoftheTiles 2017-05-03
Yeah like the Van Allan belt that should have killed them.
n/a shargy 2017-05-03
That's why the apollo missions had polar departure and reentry trajectories. Not equatorial.
And then they spent a very short period of time in a thinner section of the outer van allan belt. Not enough to kill them, although they did get some pretty serious dose.
So there ya go. Easy answer.
It was accounted for, and they planned around it.
n/a plznokek 2017-05-03
Putting man on the moon is one of the greatest technological feats of the last 100 years, one of mans defining achievements. It was witnessed the world over, tracked by competing nation-states and physical evidence was brought back and analysed by thousands of independent scientists the world over. Try and enjoy something for once. Not everyone is out to get you.
n/a buffalopilot55 2017-05-03
The world is waking up the truth will be revealed!!!! Antarctic treaty
n/a WadeWilsonforPope 2017-05-03
Just sign up for the boat race around the antarctic or get a ticket for a flight that goes over the antarctic.
n/a buffalopilot55 2017-05-03
Ahaha no flights do silly
n/a WadeWilsonforPope 2017-05-03
http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/
Turns out they do.
"Adventurers" routinely cross into antarctica, Henry Worsley died doing so last year. How come no flat earthers have signed up for an expedition?
n/a buffalopilot55 2017-05-03
You know how many explores have been turned away hahahah look it up parrot
n/a WadeWilsonforPope 2017-05-03
So when you said that there were no flights over antarctica what you meant was there were no flights over certain parts, you gotta be more clear buddy.
I couldnt find any info about how frequently request for exploratory parties are rejected, could you link me to what youre referring to?
Still nothing about the boat race? You have no comment on that or do you think everyone who enters is in on it?
n/a buffalopilot55 2017-05-03
You clearly haven't done any research beside 5 min google search. I suggest you look into it. Don't feel like spoon feeding today
n/a WadeWilsonforPope 2017-05-03
Lol, Im pretty active on /r/flatearth but if it makes you feel better you can assume I dont know what Im talking about.
Since you cant be bothered to defend your points you resort to attacking my level of knowledge, unfortunately a very typical flat earth position.
Also when you get frustrated enough Ill bet you will even start attacking me personally, another flat earth strategy.
n/a buffalopilot55 2017-05-03
Hahahahaha flattearth reddit is a honeypot
n/a WadeWilsonforPope 2017-05-03
Ill have this debate in the open, at least I prefer. A lot of flat earthers get very antagonizing behind closed doors.
Unfortunately Im banned from most flat earth supporting subs for raising too many questions so Im kinda stuck in /r/flatearth
What do you mean by a honeypot? I understand what a honeypot is I dont get why that sub would be one or why you would think that?
I assumed you would have been aware of this race considering how you touted your knowledge. Its really just an entry level argument not my only one :) Read up on it since you havent heard of it.
http://www.acronautic.com/antartica-cup-ocean-race/
n/a buffalopilot55 2017-05-03
Literally not even gonna read that^ I'm on mobile. And if you want a real conversation offer on the table. But I don't debate on Reddit for a hobby. Not about that life 👍
n/a WadeWilsonforPope 2017-05-03
Okay... Its just a pretty common talking when debating flat earth and antarctica, surprised you havent heard about it...
I would love to have a debate but since you dont want to have one in view of others Im going to have to skip.
Good luck with the whole flat earth thing, if you have any questions about your world please dont hesitate to ask.
n/a buffalopilot55 2017-05-03
Okay I read this one and checked it out. I'll humor you haha. What is your point. I understand there is race that goes around Antarctica? How does that disprove NASA is full of shit.
n/a WadeWilsonforPope 2017-05-03
The world is round.
Lol why do you think NASA is full of shit? You havent actually said.
Apologies if I got you mixed up with the FE crowd if Im mistaken.
n/a buffalopilot55 2017-05-03
Idk If you did or not. I don't know the shape man but it seems to be a flatt plain. The moon landings fake. All the pictures are cgi. Still don't get how a boat race proves the earth is round lol. Listen to science spokes man hahah https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1OeWTrEA5fE
n/a WadeWilsonforPope 2017-05-03
Until you do the barest amount of research.
Very debateable... I know for certain we at least have a mirror on the surface. We actually bounced a signal off of it in college.
Nope, we have quite a few unedited uncorrected images of the Earth. Composites are simply because there is no reason to move these satellites that far away so you take a bunch of pics and stitch them together. Shitty part about that is none of the clouds will match up so some license is taken to make it look "pretty". NASA has never once denied this.
Dude... Im doubting how much you know about this. Why do you think the Antarctic treaty exists? What do you think its protecting?
Again its common knowledge in teh FE communities that antarctica is an ice wall. The fact that we can circumnavigate that shows that it is an island not the exterior border.
n/a buffalopilot55 2017-05-03
Way to not watch the link hahahaha
n/a WadeWilsonforPope 2017-05-03
Again Im pretty familiar with what NDT just said. The Earth isnt a perfect sphere because of tidal forces around the equator and the unequal distribution of land then add in an active core with plate tectonics and you get a slightly oddly shaped planet.
Do you have any questions about what NDT said or do you normally just link a youtube video and not explain your position?
Im confused about why what he said is a mic drop moment for you.
n/a buffalopilot55 2017-05-03
Because not even he agrees it's round like you said. And so far you've made no arguments that made me think. Just typical NASA parroting.
n/a WadeWilsonforPope 2017-05-03
Starting off the conversation with "Well its technically an oblate spheroid" is fucking dumb.
Go grab a telescope sometime and tell me what the shape of every single other planet is.
There are so many examples...
Ships disappear below the horizon, the Coriolis effect, seasons, time zones, the list goes on and on.
If it makes you feel better you havent convinced me of anything besides you arent as well versed in this as you claim.
n/a buffalopilot55 2017-05-03
Yeah it doesn't look anything like NASA CGI renderings. Bro this is embarrassing brainwash to strong
n/a WadeWilsonforPope 2017-05-03
Lol can you call it brainwashing if you arent able to debate it?
You havent researched this at all, its pretty clear you put maybe 5 minutes worth of thought into this.
You havent challenged a single point lol.
n/a buffalopilot55 2017-05-03
You haven't made any points.. just vague statements.
n/a WadeWilsonforPope 2017-05-03
Well you were wrong in your assumption that you cant go to antarctica or fly over it. Thats the first one.
Then you were unaware that there is a sailing race around antarctica, further reinforcing the fact the Earth is round. This was again unchallenged and seemed to be unknown to you.
You never bothered to address why you think NDT saying the Earth is an oblate spheroid supports your position. You actually dropped that one altogether.
You never addressed the fact that there are unedited whole images of the Earth. Look up DSCOVER - EPIC a satellite that routinely takes images of Earth unedited. Same with some chinese satellite they launched last year.
You never bothered to address my claim that other planets are round lol
Thats off the top of my head of points you dropped or were proven wrong about. You arent doing a very good job of defending your position.
n/a buffalopilot55 2017-05-03
Everyone my final statement to this genius It's useless to try and reason with a man out of something he was never reasoned into. 😁
n/a permanent_denial 2017-05-03
I mean, it does seem like he has pretty good reasons for his positions.
n/a natraye 2017-05-03
I assume you're talking about yourself here?
n/a open_ur_mind 2017-05-03
Have you researched this at all? It sounds like you haven't.
n/a WadeWilsonforPope 2017-05-03
A guy died hiking or last year. Why don't flat earthers do the same?
n/a TheWiredWorld 2017-05-03
What makes you think any truths will be revealed,
n/a SpongeBobSquarePants 2017-05-03
What shape is the Earth?
n/a buffalopilot55 2017-05-03
According to mainstream science pair shaped...... me personally. I have no clue
n/a SpongeBobSquarePants 2017-05-03
Ah. Ok Richie let me explain. When Neil said it was kind of pear shaped he was talking about one portion be about 0.6% wider than the other. That would be about 1 pixel different on a 1920x1080 image. Check my math, I could be a bit off.
The question I have is why haven't you checked for yourself?
That, I believe, isn't a totally accurate statement now is it?
n/a buffalopilot55 2017-05-03
Yeah your math is off.... and that's not what he meant
n/a SpongeBobSquarePants 2017-05-03
Then please correct my math and show me where I am wrong.
"A little wider at the equator" "Slightly wider below the equator.
Sure looks that way to me.
n/a buffalopilot55 2017-05-03
That's pair shaped? And please show your work so I can correct you
n/a SpongeBobSquarePants 2017-05-03
How do you know my math is off if you didn't do the math yourself?
n/a buffalopilot55 2017-05-03
I did. I want to see how you did it. Because you clearly don't know. Or you just gonna keep pretending 😏
n/a Honestliartom 2017-05-03
I think the earth is round but it is a fair question. I would appreciate some math
n/a SpongeBobSquarePants 2017-05-03
Just as soon as the person who thinks the Earth is pear shaped shows his.
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6914hn/nasa_is_a_fucking_fraud/dh3aly9/
n/a Honestliartom 2017-05-03
Link takes me to this exact convo
n/a Fuckaduckfuckaduck 2017-05-03
I'm of the belief that nearly everything NASA has shown the public is a fraud. Pretty certain their real technologies have never been seen by the public.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
In any case, you can verify for yourself that, for the same budget NASA has put into things like the space shuttle or international space station, you could have things like space tourism for a few thousand dollars, and space-based solar power for far less than any fossil fuels.
The whole regime is a fraud, and it's time to demand better.
n/a EhrmantrautWetWork 2017-05-03
why hasnt another country done it?
n/a SpongeBobSquarePants 2017-05-03
The design concept was published by Keith Lofstrom and describes an active structure maglev cable transport system that would be around 2,000 km (1,240 mi) long and maintained at an altitude of up to 80 km (50 mi). A launch loop would be held up at this altitude by the momentum of a belt that circulates around the structure. This circulation, in effect, transfers the weight of the structure onto a pair of magnetic bearings, one at each end, which support it.
Because we don't know how to engineer it. It would be rather difficult to build with our current technology.
n/a EhrmantrautWetWork 2017-05-03
Op thinks it's because NASA is Satan
n/a dandroid1_0 2017-05-03
Well, they did put the serpent's tongue in their logo. Do an image search of that, you won't be able to unsee it.
n/a EhrmantrautWetWork 2017-05-03
That's the narrow dick of the devil
n/a brildenlanch 2017-05-03
These ideas exist but it's like saying Dyson was a fraud because he envisioned Dyson Spheres but never built one. There are limits with what we can do with current materials.
n/a EhrmantrautWetWork 2017-05-03
Yeah, that's my point. NASA not building these contraptions isn't evidence of evil. There's several reasons why we're not using them
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
Tell me one valid reason. This whole thread is full of "too big" and "we haven't built it yet, therefore it can't be built"
n/a EhrmantrautWetWork 2017-05-03
I think most of the reasons in this thread are the reasons. are you an engineer?
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
Like what?
Or are you just assuming it's impossible and not thinking?
n/a EhrmantrautWetWork 2017-05-03
its very expensive, its currently not cheaper than rockets, and currently we dont have the materials to do it. so in the meantime, we will use rockets.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
This is not the long space elevator to geosynchronous that everyone distracts you with. It has a short tether than can be built with existing materials like kevlar.
n/a brildenlanch 2017-05-03
The materials exist in small quantities but are extremely difficult and expensive to build. Same with anything. It's why you can get a 6 inch Android phone that's decent quality for 40$ now. It'll happen. I'm not saying NASA is without its problems, it does have them, the bureaucrats being the main one. Humans being another. You can barely convince Americans to fund the shit they are doing now, try convincing this current block of voters to spend money on a Rocket Coaster to Space.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
Which ones? Steel? Kevlar? Magnets?
Re-read the section on economics. I'll have a pitchfork ready when you realize we can have 20% economic growth and no taxes.
n/a 1776projectiles 2017-05-03
I work for nasa nasa is a joke
n/a Fuckaduckfuckaduck 2017-05-03
Then why do you continue to work for them?
http://imgur.com/PuJ9zp2
n/a 1776projectiles 2017-05-03
gaining experience then leaving the bull shit red tape is so ridiculous. its a marvel they can even launch a rocket
n/a meshedsabre 2017-05-03
He doesn't actually work for them. Browse his history. The guy is a straight-up troll. This isn't me calling names, it's me stating a verifiable fact.
He also claims to not be on the government payroll, to be a Mexican immigrant, and other tall tales.
Ignore him. Always.
n/a AutoModerator 2017-05-03
While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
n/a Fuckaduckfuckaduck 2017-05-03
Thanks for the heads up. Blocked him.
n/a EhrmantrautWetWork 2017-05-03
thanks. just looked, must be a sad person
n/a Tacofangirl 2017-05-03
E.g the moon landings.
n/a washboardjim 2017-05-03
Of course none of this is supported by anything real.
Keep dreaming.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
The first question is: if it's "not supported by anything real" why are there 3 peer-reviewed journal articles in the post?
The second question is: who stands to benefit from no-content troll attacks like your? Big oil, coal, the military-industrial complex with their wars for oil and destabilization of the Middle East.
n/a washboardjim 2017-05-03
The papers discussing hypothetical sysytems and designs.
No prototype. No life cycle analysis. No detailed blueprints.
You clearly have no idea what's involved in a project of this magnitude.
Nice deflection princess why are you so scared?
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
Nice circular argument. "Don't build a prototype, we don't even have a prototype yet!"
You should actually read the articles, because there are in-depth drawings and calculations to the point that one might accuse Birch of "beating the idea to death" in making sure we knew that it was feasible.
I'm not scared in the least. The only ones that should be scared are the people that are trying to suppress this kind of information. Who knows what will happen when the people get wind of it?
Do you remember what they did in the French Revolution?
n/a washboardjim 2017-05-03
So go ahead, keep harping on how this technology is not only viable, but so painfully obvious a solution- without as much as a single prototype.
They aren't actually. They are a series of hypothetical designs.
I'm not suppressing, I'm laughing at your how naive you are and your obsession and constant mischaracterization of the topic.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
You are. You are intentionally lying to keep projects from being implemented that would create double digit economic growth.
Worse, cheap energy can be used for desalination of water so people don't die of thirst or dirty water anymore. And it lets us shift to indoor agriculture with cheaper grow lights, so people won't starve due to desertification.
You are literally advocating for the continuation of tens of millions of preventable deaths per yer. You will wake up in the middle of the night, sick to your stomach with regret.
n/a washboardjim 2017-05-03
Quote my lie
Have anything resembling a working prototype yet?
Stay on topic please
Bahahahah
Want some of these magic beans?
n/a EhrmantrautWetWork 2017-05-03
if its so profitable why wont another country do it?
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
Only a handful of countries even have a space program. And the corrupt US regime would probably attack anyone else's efforts to build a useful project like this.
The BRICS might be able to finance and defend it if they united, and it will happen if the US regime doesn't stop their genocidal actions.
n/a EhrmantrautWetWork 2017-05-03
russia?
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
They are in the BRICS.
n/a EhrmantrautWetWork 2017-05-03
the us doesnt have influence over them. why havent they started the research and prototypes? it would be a huge advantage if they had control over cheap space flight.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
The US has the military capability to destroy anything they would try to do. They murder anyone who engages in economic development that isn't approved of by the banking cartel.
n/a EhrmantrautWetWork 2017-05-03
the US would start a war with a nuclear power over this? that doesnt seem reasonable
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
You think the US regime is rational? They're already risking war with Russia by their continued "play both sides" game in Syria.
n/a EhrmantrautWetWork 2017-05-03
little different then attacking a peaceful space project directly. I dont think you have a good reason to believe the US would actually destroy this if russia did it. I think there are other reasons that russia has not started research and prototypes on these things
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
They flew a plane into a building to terrorize their own people.
n/a Thatsmahdood 2017-05-03
So you're the type that doesn't believe it til he sees it?
Is that because you already know everything about anything anyone else is investigating? Or is it because things you've never seen can't exist? Like the ocean floor, the moon, Snow leopards... these are all things we've never seen. Do they exist? You must not believe in them, because you only accept hard evidence, blueprints, prototypes and the such. Not videos, analysis, photos or peer reviewed research. That shit's too soft, yeah? Only tangible, empirical evidence for you.
Right?
n/a washboardjim 2017-05-03
No, I'll believe it when something even remotely resembling a viable design spec and implementation program is created.
yawn
Very clear you have NO what goes into such programs.
Do you think the guy who designed the Airbus or the Troll A Platform just scribbled it down on a notepad and it went into production?
n/a Thatsmahdood 2017-05-03
This
n/a Thatsmahdood 2017-05-03
This
n/a antbates 2017-05-03
You've never seen the moon or the ocean floor?
n/a BubbhaDunkh 2017-05-03
You forget to mention it's only half of a percent of the total budget. NASA is totally out of control.
n/a dinodares99 2017-05-03
Yep. It's like saying that a tiny pin prick on your skin has 0.00004% of being cancer so let's get angryyyyy
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
The point is that we could have clean energy for 1/10 the cost of coal. That is worth getting angry about.
n/a BubbhaDunkh 2017-05-03
We are in complete agreement there.
n/a OniExpress 2017-05-03
Personally, I'd like to see a year where everything other than operating costs (salary, maintenance, utilities, etc) was stripped from the military budget and put into NASA. Worried about national security? Make a very clear message: "Fuck with us this year and we will retaliate with maximum resources. Otherwise, don't expect to hear from us for 12 months."
n/a BubbhaDunkh 2017-05-03
I like it.
n/a OniExpress 2017-05-03
I mean, China is already going to outpace our military growth in a few years (and that's before they increased the budget after Trump was elected) so the current strategy is already not working. It's literally pointless to continue putting so much money into military spending every year, and pretty much everything outside of DARPA has no renewing benefit. It's like spending $3000 a year maintaining a 1997 Ford Focus until 2030. You've spent $99,000 maintaining something with a resale value under $2000.
n/a ring-ring-ring 2017-05-03
NASA is a bureaucratic entity. The first priority of any bureaucratic entity is saleries and benefits for its top managers. They want long-term job security, and at NASA the got it. There are still engineers left over from the old Apollo days. Actually doing anything useful in space is way down the list of their priorities. I realized all this during the 1970s, and nothing has changed since then. NASA needs a house cleaning, with high explosives, to get the dead wood out.
n/a shargy 2017-05-03
There are always effects that are unforeseen in unprecedented engineering challenges and constructions.
If fracking and wastewater wells are possibly causing unpredicted earthquakes, we can't even begin to predict the consequences of building a giant space hoop tethered to the ground.
This is all well and good, and maybe the math checks out, but we lack the manufacturing capacity to build any of these things. The infrastructure to create them, even if they work in theory, doesn't exist.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
Of course we would need to create some new manufacturing plants, or retool things.
n/a dinodares99 2017-05-03
So I'm not here to argue since nothing I say will sway you in any shape or form, but
You obviously have literally no engineering or economics experience. This is painfully obvious in your claims that a space elevator is an easy project, or that satellites could beam down energy for is to use and it would be cheaper than energy is now.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
http://i.imgs.fyi/img/fwg.jpg
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090015024.pdf
n/a KiwiBattlerNZ 2017-05-03
So you're linking to a NASA document to prove that NASA is not doing the things this document shows they are doing?
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
Did you read anything besides the title of the post?
n/a permanent_denial 2017-05-03
That IS pretty telling.
n/a DirewolfGhost 2017-05-03
NASA is preparing for space-based power like the IPCC is stopping carbon emissions.
They do studies, spend a fuckton of money to figure out what they do not do, then pat themselves on the back.
They're the fat chick who tells you about the diet shes about to start.
n/a particle409 2017-05-03
The numbers in that paper are pretty telling. We are way far off from that tech right now. Better to invest in wind and solar until the technology develops a lot more.
n/a DirewolfGhost 2017-05-03
Its ready now. The only reason to stall even longer is to keep TPTB in control.
n/a rmwe 2017-05-03
I dont see where you are getting $400 billion from. By your first source:
Even if somehow someone figured out how to do the project for 400 billion, that is still 20 years worth of expenditure for NASA, for a project well beyond the scope of NASA's charter. I don't think its fair to blame NASA for a failure of Congress to allocate such staggering sums to a project.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
2nd paper, bootstrapped cost estimate p.3. Updated from 1980s figures. This might shed some light on things, although he uses more optimistic launch costs of around $200/kg, and I'm using the very conservative number of $2000/kg.
n/a rmwe 2017-05-03
Its a really neat idea, but as your link points out this cost is just for launch of mass into orbit.
So, just launch costs at the $2000/kg launch price is your $400 billion. And this is for the "bootstrap" version. This is ignoring the cost of the materials were launching and the engineering costs, let alone the upfront and one time costs of building the infrastructure to launch these millions of kilos of mass into orbit via rocket. I think, at the very least were looking at a cost in the low trillions of dollars.
If people started taking the idea seriously and pushing for such an expenditure, id be pretty happy - but it would be one of the modt expensive projects ever undertaken
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
The materials are nothing. $1-2 billion. Mostly steel, then some magnets and kevlar.
I think you're doing your cost allocation wrong. The cost of space to build rockets is already baked into the sale price of the rocket which is already baked into the cost of sending payloads to space.
The cost per rocket would go down as you build more.
Not even as big as our defense budget.
n/a rmwe 2017-05-03
The materials are not raw commodity steel "some magnets" and Kevlar. The materials are engineered finished pieces. You might as well say the cost to build the Burj Khalifa should have only been a few million instead of 1.5 billion because its just a bunch if steel, glass and concrete. Or that the Large Hadron Collider is just a hole in the ground and "some magnets" so shouldn't be $13 billion.
The engineering and machining costs for a project this size and of this uniqueness are going to be huge.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
Yes, I'm glossing over some welding costs of a few hundred million. But the Burj Khalifa isn't in space. That's why the Orbital Ring costs so much.
It would be cheaper to build it out of silver than to build it in space.
n/a rmwe 2017-05-03
It's not "some welding costs". Do an experiment: Buy 1 kg of aluminum. Itll be maybe $1.50. $2000 to get to orbit.
Now get a machinist to cut it into a high precision custom part for you. That alone will cost about $150 on the very low end - probably closer to $300 if there is any complexity.
Now get an engineering firm to engineer the part specs you give to the machinist. Even if this is a simple support strut, they are going to wind up charging you at least several hundred dollars. So now we have something close to $1000 in design costs for an engineered and machined part with no moving parts.
Scale that up for the complexity of this project, the testing the "some magnets" etc etc
For example, Google "texas a&m estimating cost of spaxe systems" and download the pdf produced by the University. Youll see that for a communication satellite one can expect $55 million in launch costs and $75 million in engineering and materials cost. And that is for a relatively "known" technology.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
Yes, let's compare a single custom job to a $400 billion project with lots of similar parts.
This is a maglev to space.
n/a jubway 2017-05-03
Space welding would be putting 2 pieces of the same material together, and then they insta-bond on a molecular level due to the lack of atmosphere.
n/a rmwe 2017-05-03
If they are perfectly flat, free of oxide and the same material.
n/a OniExpress 2017-05-03
To be fair, I'd be interested in seeing a study on the structural integrity of naturally occurring space welds, and how margin of error comes into play.
n/a rmwe 2017-05-03
http://esmat.esa.int/Publications/Published_papers/STM-279.pdf
PDF warning, but this is almost exactly what you are looking for. Its mostly talking about vacuum welds as a problem, rather than a construction method. However, it looks like it cites a paper that looked at intentionally prepared surfaces for vacuum welding.
n/a OniExpress 2017-05-03
Oh, spiffy. Downloaded to read later.
n/a Ducttapehamster 2017-05-03
He also doesn't seem to understand how budget works. Or how congress makes budgets work. They give money to NASA for specific things they don't just go hey NASA here's 18B do whatever the fuck you want with it.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
Did NASA request a budget for any of these projects? Why not request a budget of a few hundred billion for a project that would return hundreds of trillions of dollars?
n/a Ducttapehamster 2017-05-03
Because it would never get put in the budget. They understand that no one has the political capital to do this.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
Not until we demand it.
n/a Ducttapehamster 2017-05-03
If this won't happen until we demand it then how is NASA a farce for not doing it?
n/a Chokaholic 2017-05-03
Because NASA knows it can be done and what it can provide? They're withholding the technology maybe?
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
They should have been lobbying for this for decades.
n/a 1pt21jiggawats 2017-05-03
NASA is nothing but a public front to deceive people into believing that all we're capable of are reactive propulsion engines.
The real shit is being done in total secret.
http://physics.wikia.com/wiki/Electrogravity
n/a Chokaholic 2017-05-03
The scary thing here is that NASA has many fanboys who get SEVERE cognitive dissonance whenever anything they do is questioned. They've effectively enchanted the minds of many people, through their curiosity of the universe around us.
n/a AfrikaCorps 2017-05-03
To be honest they want like x100 the budget
n/a Chokaholic 2017-05-03
Forsure, but the it would be a worthwhile investment, seeing as how it would pay itself off fairly quick. It'll never happen though, unless millions of people get out their pitchforks and revolt.
n/a acmesrv 2017-05-03
NASA isnt a hoax however you are right rockets are a big scam why do them if we can build space elevators NASA is spending billions building shit with no progress on you know getting to fucking mars!
n/a RoofedSnail 2017-05-03
There real job is to protect us from aliens
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
Bill Cooper explains how the government misled him about aliens being real
n/a allaboutscapes 2017-05-03
Nasa itself is a cover up for the real secret space programs.
n/a damn_this_is_hard 2017-05-03
Our economy exists on debt, unless we restructure major parts of the economy, we will never retire our debt as a nation
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
All explained in the post. Easy to create trillions of dollars per year in free cash flow. Plenty of money to retire the debt within a decade.
n/a damn_this_is_hard 2017-05-03
That's great and all, but that would take the power from those at the top of the economic system and put them in the middle because their industry controls are all protected. They will hold on with their dying breath to make sure the system doesn't change.
Hence why we won't get rid of debt as a nation. Your ideas are smart and in the right direction, its the application of those ideas that is falling short.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
Right. That's what we want.
n/a damn_this_is_hard 2017-05-03
exactly what we want, but the people that have that also control all the military, police, food, power, water...
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
And this is how we wake up the people to how badly they are being defrauded. 0% taxes, double digit economic growth, and space tourism for the middle class are possible right now.
n/a damn_this_is_hard 2017-05-03
best of luck man, great ideals but you should look more into how people could receive this information and feel empowered by it. Most people when told that the govt is screwing them over is "yea ok I knew that thanks" and they go right on living life. That's what TPTB want and get.
n/a EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-05-03
Let your eye find the star closet to the center of the flag. Note that star, along with 2 directly above it, are in a shadow. Note that the shadow is identical in both pics
n/a duhraheemz 2017-05-03
NASA's budget isnt anywhere near 30bil. this year they barely got 17, and that was from Obama. Trumps reducing it further in 2018.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
You're absolutely right. I was thinking ~$20 billion for their budget and $30 billion for the launch loop, but smashed them together for some reason.
n/a Ducttapehamster 2017-05-03
But it's not like they can throw all the money they get into one project, they have to fund all the different satellite missions and rover missions they have going currently. In addition to administrative saleries plus the costs of making sure the commercial entities are safe. Then they have all the R&D that they do on Earth or on the ISS that they can slice but it's fucks over so many people. So yeah the NASA budget is whatever it is but they can't just slash everything for a hyperloop. It would be like if the military decided to take their whole budget and develope a death Lazer. Sure they technically could but we would have to not pay any troops or keep our arsenal up.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
Did NASA request funding for any rational project that would lower their launch costs by several orders of magnitude?
No?
They're a fraud.
n/a MajorMayday 2017-05-03
Perhaps they don't have the human or technical resources to do it? Just because you don't agree with their direction doesn't make them frauds lol
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
Here's a few dozen possibilities they have explored, many of which are currently feasible.
And here we are, still using deadly rockets like it's the 1950s.
n/a stoap 2017-05-03
He actually increased it by a bit.
n/a antbates 2017-05-03
Congress increased, his proposed budget slashed it.
n/a stoap 2017-05-03
His proposed budget increased. I read it when it was released.
n/a EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-05-03
Apollo Moon Landing Story Problems For Math and Science Dummies
note how this submission does not show up in the reddit search
https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/search?q=EnoughNoLibsSpam+moon
n/a j3ttPrescott 2017-05-03
All true, because it's a facade for the public to think we're making efforts in space and technology...when in reality the Secret Space Program (over 35 clearance levels above POTUS and generally all public officials - all countries contribute) has been operating with beyond insane tech since the 50s if not sooner.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
There's a bit of truth to this. But most of that money was just stolen. Don't believe everything you hear from Steven Greer
n/a downisupp 2017-05-03
pleas expand on steven greer?? was always skeptical about him.
n/a j3ttPrescott 2017-05-03
Agreed on Greer, my intel comes from sources like Corey Goode and William Thompkins
n/a throwawaytreez 2017-05-03
Are you completely unaware of all of the inventions they have created? This is their 2017 issue of Spinoff, their journal that details recent technologies they have invented and spunoff into the private sector.
You are also massively oversimplifying the headache that is dealing with different administrations. The $400 billion ring elevator would be AWESOME but how could they ever do that? Not do anything and save for over a decade?
Maybe we should get mad that the military has $600 billion in funding. Now that is a waste.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
Most from decades ago when they engaged in ambitious projects.
I think you answered your own question.
n/a throwawaytreez 2017-05-03
Please read Spinoff, they are constantly pushing out new tech.
So you are blaming NASA because they don't get enough funding? Because that's what it sounds like. Don't blame NASA, the blame goes higher.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
I didn't say NASA was responsible for their being a fraud. They are a fraud put on by the regime to make you think space exploration has run its course.
In reality, tens of trillions of dollars await.
n/a permanent_denial 2017-05-03
This. Congress doesn't want to fund anything groundbreaking at NASA, they just want then to make rockets for a tiny bit cheaper than they currently are. The problem isn't with the NASA organization, it's with the initiatives they're given top down from people who understand next to nothing about science and technology.
n/a Troll2HQIgot1 2017-05-03
$600 billion? the war against the Muslims is now $600 trillion. it's sad.
n/a bartink 2017-05-03
Huh? That's more than our total budgets from the beginning of the nation.
n/a thedogshittacos 2017-05-03
Sure but only on paper, money is all made up and fake anyways so who gives a shit what number they throw out, whatever it is... it ain't good.
n/a bartink 2017-05-03
Then why say anything about it?
n/a thedogshittacos 2017-05-03
I didn't create this.
I'll make sure to ask you next time I post an internet comment, sorry.
n/a bartink 2017-05-03
-You
You are on an internet forum where people respond to one another. If someone pointing out the silliness of something you say offends you, that's really your problem.
n/a sydewayzsoundz 2017-05-03
NASA is Military
n/a shockaDee 2017-05-03
The public relations front of the military space program.
n/a joshdabearjew 2017-05-03
If the US wants to start a war with someone (Iran, Syria, NK, or even Russia to name a few) military spending is probably paramount to success.
n/a thedogshittacos 2017-05-03
Please do get mad, I've been waiting 20 long years for the public to put a stop to this.
n/a WadeWilsonforPope 2017-05-03
Why not a sky hook or a space elevator?
I would really like to see the cost benfit analysis of what NASA thinks about these.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
The orbital ring is a space elevator. And it doesn't need advanced materials like the long elevator past geostationary.
n/a WadeWilsonforPope 2017-05-03
There must be a reason why Musk or any world space agency is declining to do it.
I wonder what they would say when asked?
The only problem with a 2000km long 80 km high track would require a lot of maintenance. Weather would be more of an issue since you would most likely need a clear shot all the way through. If something does go wrong we are looking at a nuclear like explosion (According to your link).
While rockets are more expensive they are arguably the devil we know.
n/a taiyoukei 2017-05-03
Space Elevators don't work because of the voltage differential. It's a giant lightning rod.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
It snapped because the insulation failed.
n/a rmwe 2017-05-03
This is just one of the many unexpected engineering challenges that makes this a multi-trillion dollar endeavor unlike the "off the shelf, economy of scale" project you argue elsewhere in the thread.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
From a different project
Completely fabricated number. I cited conservative cost estimates of $30 and $400 billion.
n/a rmwe 2017-05-03
This is an actual engineering issue. This is a long power cable in space, exactly like you propose in your post. Any conductor in the ionosphere will have related problems.
The multi-trillion figure is not even remotely fabricated -- $31 trillion is the original cost of the proposal by its own author. $30-$400 billion is your wildly optimistic cost, which only accounts for launch cost and not engineering cost. Even there you are estimating $200-$2000 per kg, when actual current costs are much higher.
So, under an optimal current scenario, prices are 4.5x higher than your conservative estimate of $400 billion -- ie they are $1.8 trillion just for launching, and this is for the cheaper "bootstrap" option.
Like Ive said before, this is a fun and interesting project. But there is nothing to be gained by claiming its going to be orders of magnitude cheaper than it actually would be, and certainly nothing to be gained by downplaying the (expensive) engineering challenges beyond the logistical problem.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
So, you stopped at the part where he said "this is a stupidly expensive proposal, here's 6 more ways we can make it cheaper?" and assumed that I'm just too fucking retarded to read? This is what happens when you don't think critically, and look for any possible reason it can't be done.
Look at the bootstrapped cost estimate. We need about 160 million kilograms of materials launched into space. At $2000/kg, that is about $320 billion in launch costs. An extra billion or two for the actual materials (which are almost nothing), fabrication, safety cushion, etc. And we have a conservative estimate of somewhere around $400 billion.
Falcon Heavy is running at $2000/kg, and that's with no cost decrease from massive scaling, which will happen.
It would still make plenty of sense at $1.8 trillion.
n/a rmwe 2017-05-03
You are inexplicably hostile about this. Like I keep saying, its a cool project. But actually getting it done means figuring out the problems. This is the fun part.
Talking about engineering and logistics problems is the first step to getting it done. Cherry picking numbers and assuming best case scenarios, then accusing everyone who wants to get serious about costs of being a fraud or not thinking critically is not going to get anything built.
Falcon Heavy is not operational yet. $2000/kg is best case advertised by Space X. I dont see why you think it would get cheaper with "massive scaling" -- the estimate already factors in full utilization of the rocket. More rockets wont make the per kg price drop.
I agree
This is by no means "conservative". Here is a link to a PDF source estimating that the engineering costs on a simple communications satellite is about $75 million, while launch costs are $55 million. This is under current $10-20k/kg launch cost. You are massively under estimating engineering cost.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
Engineering costs are based on the system, not the overall cost. You're only engineering a few systems. Stations, tethers, climbers, etc. It's not like you have to engineer 1000 completely different systems from scratch. Most of the cost is just throwing pieces of steel up there, which is expensive as hell.
Building your first mile of interstate highway is expensive. After that, building thousands of miles doesn't create more development costs.
n/a lsparrish 2017-05-03
This factoid is a Wikipedia goof that happened because someone skimmed the source and didn't understand it. Read the original paper and you'll see he's saying nothing of the sort -- he's setting up an argument for cheaper and more realistic projects and quoting a nominal cost to show why it wouldn't be done that way.
The ORS bootstraps itself ridiculously well, so the obvious approach is to start much smaller than the target goal and work your way up. Nobody has yet done any research to determine the smallest possible ORS, so the 180,000 ton version he calls a 'bootstrap' is probably overkill.
n/a rmwe 2017-05-03
Yes, which is why I brush over it just to show a multi trillion dollar figure is not "completely fabricated" like op says, then run his own math with current launch prices and still get a mult-trillion cost just for launching. If you know someone whos run numbers on a "non-overkill" version of bootstrap, id love to see them. We still have the engineering and construction costs of course...
n/a lsparrish 2017-05-03
Gotcha. Just wanted to put the brakes on the information cascade just in case.
The PORS further down in the list of options is similar to Lofstrom's Launch Loop, which has been worked out in a lot of detail. However, I haven't seen the arguments why we could not build a very lightweight proper orbital ring of similar scale. Why not 180 to 1800 tons instead of 180,000? Birch admits that the number is chosen somewhat arbitrarily (he wanted it to bootstrap to 1000x the mass in about a year).
One possible thing that affects minimum size of a circumglobal ring is that it has to be big enough to support at least one sufficiently durable elevator. But there are other logical options to consider besides the ground anchored tether, for example you could have an ORS that rotates slightly and supports a series of vertical tethers that dock to a high altitude plane.
n/a Guru_238 2017-05-03
Bags NASA links NASA Again
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
In the future, please read the actual content, instead of making lame arguments based on headlines.
I said NASA is failing to develop the right technologies and projects, not that they are falsifying research.
n/a notjaker44 2017-05-03
On top of that we don't even got moon tourism yet...
n/a LongGone8 2017-05-03
Even without needing carbon nanotubes, the feasibility of an orbital ring right now is basically impossible.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
Surely you can explain to everyone why that is the case. You're not just naysaying out of fear, or perhaps being ordered to do so by some entity that has a vested interest in expensive energy and keeping the people oppressed.
n/a LongGone8 2017-05-03
I don't put my full trust into 3 papers on the subject written in the 1980s.
How do we get the materials up there for a low price to begin with? Either launching them (which is an extreme cost) or building a spire and branching off it. The latter requires you to build a spire from the ground up 400 km. What do we do with the turbulence acted on the structure?
When you are up there, how do we keep it safe? Space debris is a recent issue, and while there have only been a handful of strikes, it would be different is you built a skyscraper and a railroad in LEO. Other than that, micrometeorite impact will need near-constant inspection and replacement.
That's a handful of problems.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
Why? This isn't a thought, and you need to actually think.
Rockets to get a smaller ring going, then lift up the rest. Birch even considered a launch loop type of system to set up the orbital ring, and estimated the whole thing would only cost about $13 billion.
We have a lot of ways of dealing with space debris.
n/a NonThinkingPeeOn 2017-05-03
"rocket ships" are basically giant metaphorical dildos. They represent how you get fucked in the ass with lies and deception.
keep going to work slave. Continue to operate on a credit and debt system for plebs. Keep paying for energy that is free and abundant throughout the universe. And keep supporting your leaders who destroy the earth for greed and profit.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
Did you even read the post?
n/a NonThinkingPeeOn 2017-05-03
yes. why?
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
It explains exactly how to deal with all of those problems.
n/a casualjane 2017-05-03
Read Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA for a very fun time!
n/a SpongeBobSquarePants 2017-05-03
If these are so easy to do what hasn't China done it?
n/a swarlesbarkley_ 2017-05-03
so happy to see a post that's saying these things and NOT parroting flat earth. Awesome post, you would really think at this point nasa would have at least made some headway with new technologies, but spacex is doing more in a few years than the administation has done in decades.
they are definitely a fraud and they are most definitely hiding shit, but they arent hiding that the earth is flat
thank you for an interesting and thoughtful post op
n/a Oveneise 2017-05-03
NASA = Satanists in Scuba Suits
n/a Strelock 2017-05-03
I'm at 7 cents per kw/h so fuck this noise. Even if it comes from space!
n/a astralrocker2001 2017-05-03
Just like the Smithsonian, their actual purpose to HIDE discoveries from the moronic public...
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
Exactly. Elon Musk is the modern Isaac Newton. "Build $100,000 electric cars! That's the future!"
In reality, we could build launch systems that cost 1/1000 of Musk's, and it would be able to transport you across the planet for $50 in a few hours.
n/a honestlyimeanreally 2017-05-03
I'm exhausted but I have a nitpick I wanted to voice: solar power is efficient in space for energy harvesting but how do you get the energy back to earth?
More energy. This kills the EROEI.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
Run wires down the tethers of the space elevator. Or transmit it wirelessly.
n/a honestlyimeanreally 2017-05-03
I think wires would have their own host of problems with maintenance costs, but thanks for that link!
It does not mention much about efficiency as far as I can tell. Another concern in any event would be space debris affecting the panels, no?
I'm no expert by any means but this piques my interest.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
You can look at transmission losses along terrestrial wires to get an idea. Usually single digit % for a few hundred miles. The losses are lower in space due to the cold.
Yes, space debris is always a concern. We do have robust methods of dealing with larger pieces, including laser systems currently deployed on ships.
n/a honestlyimeanreally 2017-05-03
Cool, looks like I have some weekend leisure-reading!
Thanks for the reply.
n/a lsparrish 2017-05-03
If you pour the energy into manufacturing new solar panels in space, you can get arbitrarily high amounts of energy back. Doesn't need to be efficient to work.
n/a Fresh_Wax 2017-05-03
200+ comments and no where near the front page of r/conspiracy... this thread had been buried boys and girls
1 kylemacmac 2017-05-03
You assume people and satellites actually go to space.
n/a BillNyeScienceLies 2017-05-03
Followed immediately with a elbow nudge from Neil
n/a washboardjim 2017-05-03
Dubay lol
n/a Gaslightin 2017-05-03
+1 good stuff.
n/a shargy 2017-05-03
I would imagine they were kinda busy with other shit. Probably pretty nerve racking trying to not die. Ever been diving? I imagine it's like that, x1000.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
Solar-powered thrusters.
Sure, you'd need to add parts. But you already have a decent chunk of mass, solar panels, and a cabin up there already. That's a good start.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
All explained in the post. Easy to create trillions of dollars per year in free cash flow. Plenty of money to retire the debt within a decade.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
The orbital ring is a space elevator. And it doesn't need advanced materials like the long elevator past geostationary.
n/a plznokek 2017-05-03
Okay cool, so it means nothing. Just wanted to make sure.
n/a rmwe 2017-05-03
This is an actual engineering issue. This is a long power cable in space, exactly like you propose in your post. Any conductor in the ionosphere will have related problems.
The multi-trillion figure is not even remotely fabricated -- $31 trillion is the original cost of the proposal by its own author. $30-$400 billion is your wildly optimistic cost, which only accounts for launch cost and not engineering cost. Even there you are estimating $200-$2000 per kg, when actual current costs are much higher.
So, under an optimal current scenario, prices are 4.5x higher than your conservative estimate of $400 billion -- ie they are $1.8 trillion just for launching, and this is for the cheaper "bootstrap" option.
Like Ive said before, this is a fun and interesting project. But there is nothing to be gained by claiming its going to be orders of magnitude cheaper than it actually would be, and certainly nothing to be gained by downplaying the (expensive) engineering challenges beyond the logistical problem.
n/a permanent_denial 2017-05-03
I mean, it does seem like he has pretty good reasons for his positions.
n/a High_Level_Insider_ 2017-05-03
Yeah. It's not difficult, though. Just taking an existing system and scaling it up.
n/a EhrmantrautWetWork 2017-05-03
its very expensive, its currently not cheaper than rockets, and currently we dont have the materials to do it. so in the meantime, we will use rockets.
n/a SpongeBobSquarePants 2017-05-03
Then again he also thinks he has debunked Gravity, The Earth being a planet, the existence of the South pole, the Earth spinning, That stars are a thing, that nukes aren't real, and LOTS of other rather interesting things.
https://www.youtube.com/user/ericdubay77/videos
n/a natraye 2017-05-03
I assume you're talking about yourself here?