Today, Frances Beinecke, President of NRDC Action Fund, wrote about saving the last 375 beluga whales of Alaska's Cook Inlet.
In the report was the usual suspect: "whose population has plummeted due to the industrialization of Alaska's most populated and fastest-growing waterway."
There it is again, growth and development. We destroy wilderness and habitat, then we are supposed to spend massive amounts of reources to preserve nature.
I am beginning to see a paradigm shift in how we perceive ourselves and nature. For example, people initally saw hybrid vehicles as an alternative to the interanal combustion engine due to higher mileage in city driving. Now we are now seeing that a hybrid vehicle is an alternative to a power outage; a hybrid vehicle has energy to power a typical home for several days in the event of a power outage due to the batteries.
We are also beginning to realize wilderness begins at home. Rather than go away from home to nature and wilderness, we are beginning to turn our yards into wilderness by removing lawns and putting in native plants.
I ask you - are your children going to live in a world with less wilderness? What legacy are we leaving?
Daniel Barker
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Friday, May 9, 2008
The new Age of astronautics
Astronautics
The minimum orbital velocity of the Earth is about 25,000 feet a second, rocket fuel exhausts at about 20,000 feet per second.
Because adding fuel increases velocity logarithmically, it is obvious that there is a very finite amount of fuel and response time that can be added. Doubling the amount of rocket fuel only adds ln(2) times the time, or about .69 times, tripling the amount of fuel. adds ln3 or about 1.098 times the amount of time the fuel lasts, and in order to have ten times the response time you would need about 22,000 times the rocket fuel.
There is a finite limit of the velocity of a rocket. If the entire universe were converted to rocket fuel, the mass would be the mass of the sun, about 2.0*10^30kg, an average sized star, times 100,000,000,000 stars in a galaxy times an estimated 100,000,000,000 galaxies, plus an estimated ten times the mass in dark matter, yielding 2.0*10^30kg*100*10^9*100*10^9*10, or 2.0*10^53kg. Taking the ratio of the Saturn V rocket, about 6*10^6lbs or 2.718*10^6kg, yields a ratio of about 7.36*10^46. The logarithm is about 107.9, meaning that if the whole universe were converted to rocket fuel, the Saturn V could only go about 108 times faster. This is incredible! (When I began doing these calculations, the space shuttle was not in existence.)
Yet current technology easily allows us to fly spacecraft more than a hundred times the velocity of the Saturn V, if we use fission.
In the current space age, the chemical age, the life of a rocket motor is measured in seconds, and missions are calculated in milliseconds. Fission allows engines to last for many hours. This opens the door for space travel beyond our imagination.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flying a manned spacecraft using fission in the solar system
I propose a manned mission flown by mission and payload specialists. Where would they fly?
The Earth is a double planet, so we would have to be beyond the pull of both the Earth and the moon, perhaps a million miles away. Realistically an average mission specialist cannot orbit the Earth closer than the moon.
Our first main consideration is the gravitational pull of the sun. At an average distance of about 93*10^6 miles, the gravity of the sun is about 1/800th of the Earth's gravity, or about .00125g or about 1.25cm/second/second.
To realistically travel in space we would need a safety factor of about ten, or about ten times 1/800th of a g or 1/80th of a g, or about 12.5cm/second/second.
Our next priority is debris. There are meteor showers; places where the Earth has collided with a comet and debris is left. We cannot travel near the Earth when the planet is near one of these clouds of debris.
Where would the mission go? The main criteria are radiation and debris. For example, a comet may have an irregular orbit due to ice vaporizing and perturbing the orbit, an unstable surface as ice melts and vaporizes, and of course a tail that might equal the size of Earth. Therefore a comet is out of the question.
We need to change our way of thinking. The reason space travel is measured in seconds and milliseconds is because a chemical rocket has a very limited lifespan. The nuclear age opens up the door. With fission as energy source life of an engine is measured in days and weeks.
It is obvious the Earth is a double planet, has measurable but insignificant hyperspace, debris, and atmosphere. This means it is impossible for a mission specialist to fly a manned spacecraft in an Earth orbit. Because it requires thousands of times the amount of rocket fuel to realistically extend the response time, it will never be feasible for a mission specialist to orbit the Earth.
When better nuclear engines become available we will fly further away from the sun.
While 1/800 g, or about .00125g does not seem much, if an object were to accelerate at this rate in two days it would be traveling at over a mile a second.
I would like to be the first mission specialist to fly a spacecraft. If I can do it, anybody can.
The minimum orbital velocity of the Earth is about 25,000 feet a second, rocket fuel exhausts at about 20,000 feet per second.
Because adding fuel increases velocity logarithmically, it is obvious that there is a very finite amount of fuel and response time that can be added. Doubling the amount of rocket fuel only adds ln(2) times the time, or about .69 times, tripling the amount of fuel. adds ln3 or about 1.098 times the amount of time the fuel lasts, and in order to have ten times the response time you would need about 22,000 times the rocket fuel.
There is a finite limit of the velocity of a rocket. If the entire universe were converted to rocket fuel, the mass would be the mass of the sun, about 2.0*10^30kg, an average sized star, times 100,000,000,000 stars in a galaxy times an estimated 100,000,000,000 galaxies, plus an estimated ten times the mass in dark matter, yielding 2.0*10^30kg*100*10^9*100*10^9*10, or 2.0*10^53kg. Taking the ratio of the Saturn V rocket, about 6*10^6lbs or 2.718*10^6kg, yields a ratio of about 7.36*10^46. The logarithm is about 107.9, meaning that if the whole universe were converted to rocket fuel, the Saturn V could only go about 108 times faster. This is incredible! (When I began doing these calculations, the space shuttle was not in existence.)
Yet current technology easily allows us to fly spacecraft more than a hundred times the velocity of the Saturn V, if we use fission.
In the current space age, the chemical age, the life of a rocket motor is measured in seconds, and missions are calculated in milliseconds. Fission allows engines to last for many hours. This opens the door for space travel beyond our imagination.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flying a manned spacecraft using fission in the solar system
I propose a manned mission flown by mission and payload specialists. Where would they fly?
The Earth is a double planet, so we would have to be beyond the pull of both the Earth and the moon, perhaps a million miles away. Realistically an average mission specialist cannot orbit the Earth closer than the moon.
Our first main consideration is the gravitational pull of the sun. At an average distance of about 93*10^6 miles, the gravity of the sun is about 1/800th of the Earth's gravity, or about .00125g or about 1.25cm/second/second.
To realistically travel in space we would need a safety factor of about ten, or about ten times 1/800th of a g or 1/80th of a g, or about 12.5cm/second/second.
Our next priority is debris. There are meteor showers; places where the Earth has collided with a comet and debris is left. We cannot travel near the Earth when the planet is near one of these clouds of debris.
Where would the mission go? The main criteria are radiation and debris. For example, a comet may have an irregular orbit due to ice vaporizing and perturbing the orbit, an unstable surface as ice melts and vaporizes, and of course a tail that might equal the size of Earth. Therefore a comet is out of the question.
We need to change our way of thinking. The reason space travel is measured in seconds and milliseconds is because a chemical rocket has a very limited lifespan. The nuclear age opens up the door. With fission as energy source life of an engine is measured in days and weeks.
It is obvious the Earth is a double planet, has measurable but insignificant hyperspace, debris, and atmosphere. This means it is impossible for a mission specialist to fly a manned spacecraft in an Earth orbit. Because it requires thousands of times the amount of rocket fuel to realistically extend the response time, it will never be feasible for a mission specialist to orbit the Earth.
When better nuclear engines become available we will fly further away from the sun.
While 1/800 g, or about .00125g does not seem much, if an object were to accelerate at this rate in two days it would be traveling at over a mile a second.
I would like to be the first mission specialist to fly a spacecraft. If I can do it, anybody can.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Electricity and common sense
We are about to end our dependence on fossil fuel, beginning with petroleum, and our energy must come from somewhere. One good start are photovoltaics, solar cells.
Solar cells produce electricity, and there are ways we can use them effectively. First of all, solar cells produce electrical power when we need it the most, the middle of the day. Remember, businesses and factories are busiest during the day shift, from early morning until early evening. Producing electricity from 10AM to 2PM helps relieve the pressure on utilities to provide everyone with power.
Second, solar cells can be much more productive by simply reflecting more light on them. For example a 50 watt solar panel will produce almost 100 watts of electricity if the same amount of surface area is reflected on it. Reflecting more light produces more power. How much more? Believe it or not, up to a thousand times! Decades ago a French physicist produced an amazing one thousand times the rated output of a solar cell by reflecting massive amounts of light on it.
As mirrors are much cheaper than solar cells we can easily produce more power.
Third, in the summer time solar cells reduce our demand for air conditioning. Do you know why? Sunlight hitting the solar cell becoming electricity is not converted to heat - if the solar cell were not there, that sunlight would be absorbed by the roof, heating it.
Solar cells produce electricity, and there are ways we can use them effectively. First of all, solar cells produce electrical power when we need it the most, the middle of the day. Remember, businesses and factories are busiest during the day shift, from early morning until early evening. Producing electricity from 10AM to 2PM helps relieve the pressure on utilities to provide everyone with power.
Second, solar cells can be much more productive by simply reflecting more light on them. For example a 50 watt solar panel will produce almost 100 watts of electricity if the same amount of surface area is reflected on it. Reflecting more light produces more power. How much more? Believe it or not, up to a thousand times! Decades ago a French physicist produced an amazing one thousand times the rated output of a solar cell by reflecting massive amounts of light on it.
As mirrors are much cheaper than solar cells we can easily produce more power.
Third, in the summer time solar cells reduce our demand for air conditioning. Do you know why? Sunlight hitting the solar cell becoming electricity is not converted to heat - if the solar cell were not there, that sunlight would be absorbed by the roof, heating it.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
wealth and prosperity
We support President Bush and the Fascists when we drive our SUVs as macho, when we support shows that glorify violence (I would like someone to explain to me the difference between Pulp Fiction and Iraq), when we support Fascist slave labor (why is it the first words out of our mouths when asked where to buy something are "Wal-Mart"!), when we glorify the suffering of others under the guise of humanity (how many of us glorify Michael Moore's new film when he is responsible for suffering of others by eating too much meat) and when we glorify destruction of the planet by growth and development under the guise of 'amnesty' to illegal aliens (for the record I oppose growth and development in any form by practicing family planning - I have no children and plan on one child and adoption).
I support the Green, the Constitution and the Libertarian parties. If Al Gore had asked Ralph Nader to be his running mate instead of running against him he would have been declared president and we wouldn't be in this mess right now (I would like someone to explain to me if they support Broadway Joe of Connecticut who has morphed into a neocon).
You are right that the Republican Party is Fascist and opposed to human rights. You are wrong that Rightists support the Republican Party. Have you heard of Ron Paul (as I have for some years) opposed to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Have you heard of Alan Keyes (whom I went to see years ago and voted for in the 2000 primary) who states that man must serve his private duty and if he does not the State will do so?
I believe in free enterprise, not Fascism. You state that corporatism must be stopped because it produces wealth. For heaven's sake, look in the mirror!, if corporations produce wealth, than make everyone their own corporation! When Africans, Asians, Americans are free to start their own multi-national corporation we will all be better off.
Of course freedom is prosperity!
I believe in the freedom to make money. In fact the Founding Fathers originally wrote 'the pursuit of property' before changed to 'pursuit of happiness'.
As a Rightist I support prosperity - for everyone! I have written (and was about to post on my site) that I want to abolish labor and make every citizen in the world a corporation. You argue that corporations generate wealth. I couldn't agree more - if we want more wealth, make everyone a corportation!
Let Africans, Americans and Asians become as properous as possible. Money certainly buys me happiness - if I had money, the first thing I would do is buy a horse. (The second thing would be a tent to live as the cavalry did so I could travel the world with my horse.)
People complain they do not have enough money - when was the last time you heard someone complain they had too much? (I know two - the actress on 'The Love Boat' who spent her entire million dollar a year salary for five years on cocaine - and the poor husband in Texas who endured years of suffering in an abusive divorce, only to win the lottery the day it was annulled to have it start all over again.)
Yes, I want Iraq and Afghanistan to be prosperous, as well as the rest of the world. I want to end hunger and want. Don't you?
I support the Green, the Constitution and the Libertarian parties. If Al Gore had asked Ralph Nader to be his running mate instead of running against him he would have been declared president and we wouldn't be in this mess right now (I would like someone to explain to me if they support Broadway Joe of Connecticut who has morphed into a neocon).
You are right that the Republican Party is Fascist and opposed to human rights. You are wrong that Rightists support the Republican Party. Have you heard of Ron Paul (as I have for some years) opposed to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Have you heard of Alan Keyes (whom I went to see years ago and voted for in the 2000 primary) who states that man must serve his private duty and if he does not the State will do so?
I believe in free enterprise, not Fascism. You state that corporatism must be stopped because it produces wealth. For heaven's sake, look in the mirror!, if corporations produce wealth, than make everyone their own corporation! When Africans, Asians, Americans are free to start their own multi-national corporation we will all be better off.
Of course freedom is prosperity!
I believe in the freedom to make money. In fact the Founding Fathers originally wrote 'the pursuit of property' before changed to 'pursuit of happiness'.
As a Rightist I support prosperity - for everyone! I have written (and was about to post on my site) that I want to abolish labor and make every citizen in the world a corporation. You argue that corporations generate wealth. I couldn't agree more - if we want more wealth, make everyone a corportation!
Let Africans, Americans and Asians become as properous as possible. Money certainly buys me happiness - if I had money, the first thing I would do is buy a horse. (The second thing would be a tent to live as the cavalry did so I could travel the world with my horse.)
People complain they do not have enough money - when was the last time you heard someone complain they had too much? (I know two - the actress on 'The Love Boat' who spent her entire million dollar a year salary for five years on cocaine - and the poor husband in Texas who endured years of suffering in an abusive divorce, only to win the lottery the day it was annulled to have it start all over again.)
Yes, I want Iraq and Afghanistan to be prosperous, as well as the rest of the world. I want to end hunger and want. Don't you?
Sunday, June 17, 2007
It's true
Dear concerned citizen,
I know how you feel. You are scratching your head wondering why your organization is not receiving enough money when there are wealthy Americans who do not care about the poor. You know something is very wrong, and it is not your imagination.
I've been looking for the right word and today I found it. The problem is that mean-spirited people dominate our government, and money is not flowing freely. How do I know that? In the early 1960s, astronaut Alan Shepard was about to become the second man, and first American, in space.
A reporter asked him what he was thinking as he sat atop the Redstone rocket, waiting for liftoff, he had replied, 'The fact that every part of this ship was built by the low bidder.'" (Courtesy Gene Kranz in his book Failure Is Not an Option)
The obvious humor is the reality of fraility of life, but there is sadly a second meaning. Today, it is a fact that some government contracts are not going to the low bidder. In fact, some government contracts are not bidded at all. Contracts for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are going to whoever benefits the most.
Our government is corrupt at the highest level, we are paying the price, and I want to help you. I read your letters and I know there are people who need help they are not receiving. We must restore honesty and dignity. We must show people that money does not buy happiness.
I know how you feel. You are scratching your head wondering why your organization is not receiving enough money when there are wealthy Americans who do not care about the poor. You know something is very wrong, and it is not your imagination.
I've been looking for the right word and today I found it. The problem is that mean-spirited people dominate our government, and money is not flowing freely. How do I know that? In the early 1960s, astronaut Alan Shepard was about to become the second man, and first American, in space.
A reporter asked him what he was thinking as he sat atop the Redstone rocket, waiting for liftoff, he had replied, 'The fact that every part of this ship was built by the low bidder.'" (Courtesy Gene Kranz in his book Failure Is Not an Option)
The obvious humor is the reality of fraility of life, but there is sadly a second meaning. Today, it is a fact that some government contracts are not going to the low bidder. In fact, some government contracts are not bidded at all. Contracts for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are going to whoever benefits the most.
Our government is corrupt at the highest level, we are paying the price, and I want to help you. I read your letters and I know there are people who need help they are not receiving. We must restore honesty and dignity. We must show people that money does not buy happiness.
Friday, June 8, 2007
The end of our universe
Scientists announced they have detected a black hole nearly thirteen billion light-years from Earth.
In point of fact astronomers use AU (Astronomical Unit, the distance from the Earth to the Sun) and parsec, the distance of one arc of parallax, to measure distance in space. I grew up with light-years and is the distance I use.
Since the discovery of the telescope in the early seventeenth century man has been able to look ever further (and earlier) away. Before the telescope there was no proof even that the Earth was not the center of the universe. When Galileo pointed his telescope at Jupiter and saw the four moons orbiting it, this became affirmation that we are not the center of the universe.
As scientists look ever further and earlier, it begs the quesion; what lies beyond our universe? Is our Universe the only universe in space? As for earlier in time, physicists believe the universe was a single piece of matter that exploded, the Big Bang billions of years ago creating everything. What existed before that piece of matter? Where did it come from?
In point of fact astronomers use AU (Astronomical Unit, the distance from the Earth to the Sun) and parsec, the distance of one arc of parallax, to measure distance in space. I grew up with light-years and is the distance I use.
Since the discovery of the telescope in the early seventeenth century man has been able to look ever further (and earlier) away. Before the telescope there was no proof even that the Earth was not the center of the universe. When Galileo pointed his telescope at Jupiter and saw the four moons orbiting it, this became affirmation that we are not the center of the universe.
As scientists look ever further and earlier, it begs the quesion; what lies beyond our universe? Is our Universe the only universe in space? As for earlier in time, physicists believe the universe was a single piece of matter that exploded, the Big Bang billions of years ago creating everything. What existed before that piece of matter? Where did it come from?
How to end one's life without committing the unpardonable sin of murder.
People believe there are two ways of dealing with terrible terminal illness; endure till the end, or end the life early. There is a third choice which a man took in 1982 and was hailed a hero.
Barney Clark was suffering from heart disease and opted for a new procedure, the world's first artificial heart. Mr Clark knew he was not going to live long with the transplant. He barely survived 112 days.
When we are faced with an illness of immense suffering for which there is no ease of pain we should be able to decide to volunteer for medical research as Barney Clark did. There are always any number of experimental drugs and procedures that by law cannot be performed on humans because they have not been approved for use.
I believe in those circumstances the patient has the right to choose. This is not suicide. Barney Clark did not commit suicide, even though his choice was responsible for his death. His act saved lives as research on his artificial heart provided the medical profession with knowledge that could not be obtained otherwise. In the end he has been responsible for saving lives.
People believe there are two ways of dealing with terrible terminal illness; endure till the end, or end the life early. There is a third choice which a man took in 1982 and was hailed a hero.
Barney Clark was suffering from heart disease and opted for a new procedure, the world's first artificial heart. Mr Clark knew he was not going to live long with the transplant. He barely survived 112 days.
When we are faced with an illness of immense suffering for which there is no ease of pain we should be able to decide to volunteer for medical research as Barney Clark did. There are always any number of experimental drugs and procedures that by law cannot be performed on humans because they have not been approved for use.
I believe in those circumstances the patient has the right to choose. This is not suicide. Barney Clark did not commit suicide, even though his choice was responsible for his death. His act saved lives as research on his artificial heart provided the medical profession with knowledge that could not be obtained otherwise. In the end he has been responsible for saving lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)