--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to power-satellite-ec...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/CAPiwVB4P%2BXQvDd650Lxdi7XJT_0qQ2K%3D9DAQJQ0JAUOtg4yd3w%40mail.gmail.com.
From https://www2.tulane.edu/~sanelson/Natural_Disasters/impacts.htm, the total meteorite flux (i.e., total mass of extraterrestrial objects) that strike the Earth is in the range of 10,000 to 1 million tonnes per year. That will include a range of chemical compounds and minerals --- much rock and metal, also a fair bit of carbonaceous materials. For meteorites in the vicinity of Earth, probably the only volatile materials (e.g., water) will be whatever is chemically bound to minerals, rather than chunks of ice (we’re too close to the Sun for ice to last long).
For reference, SpaceX is currently flying about 60 Falcon 9 missions per year. Upper stage is not re-used, its dry mass is about 4 tonnes, presumably most of that ends up as gases and fine particulates in the upper atmosphere. Payload delivered to LEO is about 20 tonnes; eventually much of that will also end up burning up in the atmosphere. That totals to something less than 60*24=1440 tonnes per year of waste disposed by burning up in the atmosphere. Of course, there are also a few others rockets in the world 😊, so maybe double that number to something less than 3000 tonnes per year. That is something less than 30% of the natural meteoroid flux (for the low-end flux estimate), or 0.3% for the high-end flux estimate.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to power-satellite-ec...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/049401d95177%241babeaf0%245303c0d0%24%40sympatico.ca.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/056b01d951cb%242d12d480%2487387d80%24%40sympatico.ca.
There are alternatives to get material into orbit, One example is Spin Launch, where a centrifuge is used to get to orbital velocity
Rail gun approaches have been suggested in the past
Charlie Jackson
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/CAHrmgts%3Dm0DYJpS%2B_rB4bkMFV%2B%2BP6FrVkF8jdUsZJqkysmumqQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Centrifuge does not get to orbital velocity (~24,440 f/s Easterly from KSC). It gets only to Mach 6ish. SpinLaunch also has tremendous g forces.
IMO it will never work on Earth. Moon maybe.
Other options like Skylon cannot close either.
SpaceX Starship or F9H are the best options so far by far. Hopefully RocketLab’s Neutron will compete and some day (!) Bezo’s New Glenn.
-------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Ajay P. Kothari
President
Astrox Corporation
AIAA Associate Fellow
Ph: 301-935-5868
Web: www.astrox.com
Email: a.p.k...@astrox.com
-------------------------------------------------------
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/02ba01d951d8%24d014f340%24703ed9c0%24%40earthlink.net.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/CAPiwVB7Osdynzegmk745PGr%2BNJ1OqDrWi3JV2oBp%3DL51-vPfNg%40mail.gmail.com.
>On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 10:08:51AM -0800, Keith Henson wrote:
In an all too real sense being a profit of doom suffers tremendously from confirmation bias. After all, what do you get out of it if you are right?
What you get is skipping the effort of having to prove the positive is possible. Speaking of which, The Millennium Project is beginning a two-year study on AGI governance – what may well be impossible but we have to try. https://www.millennium-project.org/transition-from-artificial-narrow-to-artificial-general-intelligence-governance/
And: "Failure to do so will not just result in profound misunderstandings, it could easily prove to be our undoing".
The Millennium Project is preparing to interview leading AGI “experts” worldwide for their insights on how AGI could be created and governed. The results will be used for an international assessment (Real-Time Delphi) of the most important unresolved questions. This Real-Time Delphi will be submitted to 50-75 AGI authorities worldwide. The results will be used to provide content to alternative global governance AGI scenarios that will be widely distributed to broaden and deepen the current conversations about future AI.
If you would like to be invited to the RTDelphi (in two or so months) please send me via email to jerome...@millennium-project.org a one line or two your experience working on AGI issues.
Cheers.
Jerry
Jerome C. Glenn
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/64110FE70200001600191053%40gw1.barnhard.com.
“The Millennium Project is preparing to interview leading AGI “experts” worldwide for their insights on how AGI could be created and governed.”
As I understand the intent of this project is to locate self-identified “experts” who will volunteer to tell everyone else how they, through their “wisdom”, will instruct a computer to govern and control us through enforced ignorance of truth that conflicts with the “wisdom” of the self-identified “experts”.
Seems like this was tried with COVID-19 and massively failed, and is now being tried with ESG, equity, and a number of other similar topics. I opine that AGI is seen by these experts as just another means to control the message by controlling what the public is told as being the only accepted “truth”. Having a computer program say that it is AI, simply is putting another stamp of “approval” on the information to try to dissuade or even socially punish disbelief. The real intelligence remains with the human programmers of so-called artificial intelligence.
I enter a library seeking an answer to a question on plumbing. I walk up to the old-fashioned wall of trays of index cards arranged by topic. Opening the tray labeled plumbing, I find the card identifying the book—“Everything you wanted to know about toilets”—with the apparent answer to my question on toilets. In examining the book, written by a human, it answers my question. Does an AI chatbot answer merely repeating the same information from the same book on toilets have intelligence? If the AI has never used a toilet, how would it “really” know if its answer was correct? If the AI doesn’t really know an answer is correct, is it really intelligent? Or is it just a fancy index card?
Mike Snead
This was written without any AI help.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/024001d95744%2448888740%24d99995c0%24%40igc.org.