Posted on 03/07/2007 10:24:04 AM PST by Uncle Peter
Launching rockets to create a sulphur screen high in the stratosphere is one way to counter global warming explored in a new BBC documentary, Five Ways To Save The World.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
Yes, there was. The answer is that, unlike suborbital vehicles, no one is working on them, or funding them. I also answered the payload question, unless you're unable to multiply two numbers together. If that's the case, I'll do it for you (six passengers plus two crew at 200 lbs each, average, is sixteen hundred pounds), but I'm not sure why you want to flaunt both your lack of knowledge and lack of ability to do simple arithmetic.
If you will check my post #60 on this thread, you will see I did the math you asked for and a little bit more. Please think before you post. You are sounding more and more pathetic.
PS: Bert Rutan is not working on a non-passenger SOV so the development time will be much longer.
I just like to hear you thrashing about with no substance to your “facts”. Reality must be a foreign concept for you. Who is working/funding on the non-passenger SOV? Would you please answer that for me?
I’m surprised you didn’t bring up the Aurora approach. That is much further along and has much more promise of being a delivery system of the sulfur earlier and is already flying. Just thought I would help you out since valid meaningful research seems beyond you very limited abilities.
I see you finally did figure out how to do the math.
Given the Nutty Professor’s estimate of 1,000,000 tons of Sulfur needed it will only require 1,250,000 flights.
Yes, unless they decide to build a bigger version for the mission. Building a ten-thousand pound vehicle would be trivial for suborbital.
I see in the propaganda for the tourist version they say they can maybe make 2 flights a day.
That's only because they don't see a bigger demand than that for tourist flights--it's no intrinsic limitation from a design standpoint. If there were a larger market, they'd just build a bigger fleet. These things aren't any larger than a business jet, and they use less propellant. There's no reason that one couldn't do thousands of flights a day, just as business jets do.
The numbers were run at this web site. The guy who did it is an aerospace professional. Your qualifications are...?
And the Greenhouse gases released from the launches???
Wouldn’t a couple of Volcano’s, or a few Nuclear Blasts have the same effect? (Nuclear Winter)
Which is a bigger pollutant SO2 or CO2? I can’t believe that someone is considering using massive amounts of SO2 to cool the planet.
SO2 + Rain = Sulphuric Acid! That’s right, acid rain.
Remember, you can’t fool mother nature. The supreme arrogance of man is reflected in his belief that he can control the events of nature on a global scale.
Be careful or you will pi$$ mother nature off then there will be hell to pay.
Still much less than from the commercial air transport industry. There are thousands of flights per day now from much larger aircraft.
Your qualifications are...?
Just a person who likes well written statements of facts based on sourced articles. No matter how many times you repeat a non-fact, it still won’t become a verifiable fact. All of your postings to date on this subject have been in the theoretical vein. Sure this world could do anything it sets its mind to. Does it have the will?? I doubt it. Before the world (read the good old US) invests $100B into a scheme, there will have to be a lot of Scientific FACTS brought to bear on the subject. You are doing a whole disservice to you quixotic crusade by being passionate and not practical about the problem. What is the problem?
I know that the celebrity crowd is convinced that global warming is man made. However, the science is not there. I refer you to http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm for some well cited science that goes a long way to dispelling the validity of the Man-Made global warming. When you can prepare a proposal that covers the concept, the development, the funding and the timeline for having a Sulfur delivery vehicle ready in time to save the planet based o the alarmist predictions of the Man-mad global warming crowd; then I’ll take you seriously. Until then your opinions are specious and disingenuous. I guess I gave away my qualifications.
I am a Vice President for the delivery of complex integrated systems to the commercial Banking and international trading arenas. I have worked on multi disciplined Government systems that addressed the professional Program development and Project management of strategic initiatives. I am in no way well versed in the passionate cause of man-made Global Warming. I am however, trained to think and make decisions on well developed facts and theories based on exhaustive research and not folklore. (Folklore is undocumented “Common Knowledge”).
So maybe that doesn’t put me in your league of an innate knowledge of things that need no documentation, but it does make me well qualified to inform you that your postings so far sound like a true Nutty Professor. You need facts and in lieu of facts, convincing scientific research to support a hypothesis when you make a statement.
I have already read his numbers. All they are proposals and fantasies. They are nothing more than “What ifs. . .” His proposals are pie in the sky. What would be the design/develop/test/deploy time lines? What would be the manufacturing time for this impressive fleet of vehicles to be delivered? All of this speculation is just that. There are no valid suggestions or recommendations on a course of action in the article. Give it up Nutty Professor. The more you rant the less relevant you sound.
Do you get the feeling Al Gore is lurking here?
Neither I, or anyone else has proposed that we invest any money at all in any scheme. This whole thing started because "Uncle Peter" ignorantly ranted about how expensive and ridiculous it would be to launch sulphur into the upper atmosphere, using a Titan rocket (which no longer exists) as an (irrelevant) example of how much it would cost. I simply pointed out that if one wanted to launch sulphur into the atmosphere, this would be an insane way of doing it, and that he hadn't made an effective argument against it. The only point is that if we really wanted to do this, there are affordable ways to do it, using the types of systems already under development for space tourism and low-cost research, and they don't involve huge, expensive expendable rockets. Or non-existent mag-lev schemes or fantasy vehicles (e.g., Aurora) for which no funds have been appropriated, and for which there's no solid evidence of their existence.
What would be the design/develop/test/deploy time lines? What would be the manufacturing time for this impressive fleet of vehicles to be delivered?
Similar to that for a similar fleet of Gulfstream executive jets. Shorter and cheaper, actually, since under current regulations, they don't have to be FAA certified (they would get launch licenses, which is much simpler). People really have studied this stuff, and run the numbers, even if you haven't bothered to educate yourself.
The Aurora has been built and has been flying for over ten years. It is officially a “No Comment” subject, just as the F117 was. However, there are pictures, the “string of pearls” and many radar trackings. It is one of the worse kept secrets of the skunk works.
Even if true, there is zero reason to suppose it more cost effective than a commercial space transport for such a mission. Government programs are not noted for their low procurement or operating costs.
Note the BBC's take on this. On one hand, they are quick to advance the "ONLY TEN YEARS LEFT BEFORE WE ALL DIE!!! DIE DIE DIE!" beliefs of the global warming movement. But they derisively treat any other solutions to the problem but the destruction of the American economy as NUTTY!
If we were really all going to die, wouldn't it be, I dunno, a good thing to consider alternative ways of cooling the earth? But instead, they laugh at them. What does that tell you about how serious a problem they really consider GW? If a meteor was going to strike the earth and kill billions, wouldn't we look at all sorts of bizarre solutions? The fact that they laugh at this means that they don't really take Global Warming seriously.
The point is, this sort of article is an unintentional reveal that "the global warming threat" is nonsense.
But of course, everyone here completely misses the point and joins with the BBC to, in essence, champion the standard Global Warming mythology. Big surprise.
To: noname07718
Get real!
Are you done spouting your profound ignorance yet?
Ooh! Powerful rejoinder! You must have been captain of your debate team. You reduced your argument to a petty non sequitur.
In case you haven't wrapped your tiny brain around the meaning of the acronym SOV, it stands for Sub Orbital Vehicle.
So let's see who I'm debating: You are smarter than an Idiot, but not quite as bright as a Moron. That makes you an Imbecile.
I think that the readers will decide that (random capitalization makes you look like a net k00k). You're the one who nuttily proposed to do it with a ridiculously expensive launch vehicle that is no longer in existence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.