SpaceX will develop superfast rockets to deliver weapons for the US military

captaincranky

Posts: 16,212   +4,972
The largest long-term product industrialized nations face at this point is not overpopulation, but under. Many now have a birthrate too low to maintain their populations.
I'd have to call at least a partial, "bullsh!t", at this point. The world is rapidly producing too many people it doesn't need, rather than individuals who actually contribute
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 394   +420
Space Tourism on a planet whose ecosystem is collapsing under the weight of fossil fuel burning. Lets all start launching into low-earth orbit in rockets, because that isn't going to do any harm is it?

Hopefully Covid20 will come soon and wipe us all out we so can leave this place to better tenants.
Well, it depends on what the fuel is. From what I understand, starting with the space shuttles, space-bound rockets have been burning a mix of hydrogen and lox. The only thing that they give off is steam, something that I've always been thankful for.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 394   +420
I'd have to call at least a partial, "bullsh!t", at this point. The world is rapidly producing too many people it doesn't need, rather than individuals who actually contribute
Yeah, it is partially BS but he does have a point. The population explosion isn't happening in developed countries, it's happening in some of the poorest countries on Earth like Niger, Mali, Uganda, Zambia, Burundi and Afghanistan. It's called the "fertility paradox" because the countries with the greatest population growth are the countries that are least able to support it.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,212   +4,972
Yeah, it is partially BS but he does have a point. The population explosion isn't happening in developed countries, it's happening in some of the poorest countries on Earth like Niger, Mali, Uganda, Zambia, Burundi and Afghanistan. It's called the "fertility paradox" because the countries with the greatest population growth are the countries that are least able to support it.
I think I made that point, but in a more allegorical way. It's a stone cold fact, that populations who have nothing to do but sit around and wait for "Doctors without Borders", often have to alleviate their stress by carnal outlets.

Then too, in areas where the infant mortality rate is high, it doesn't hurt to bang out a few extra, in case either an AIDs or Ebola epidemic hits. Also, when you need 13 year olds for soldiers, it doesn't hurt to have a few spares on hand either..

In times past, a "generation" was considered 20 years. Within the USA's white middle class, that figure has possibly expanded to maybe 27. In Somalia, it could be as low as 12.

Should I continue, or has my lack of empathy shocked you too much?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avro Arrow

Avro Arrow

Posts: 394   +420
I think I made that point, but in a more allegorical way. It's a stone cold fact, that populations who have nothing to do but sit around and wait for "Doctors without Borders", often have to alleviate their stress by carnal outlets.
That's true. Boredom from a lack of anything to do results in the one thing that everyone likes and everyone can do, proliferate.
Then too, in areas where the infant mortality rate is high, it doesn't hurt to bang out a few extra, in case either an AIDs or Ebola epidemic hits. Also, when you need 13 year olds for soldiers, it doesn't hurt to have a few spares on hand either..
That's true but their net population growth is still high despite these adversities.
In times past, a "generation" was considered 20 years. Within the USA's white middle class, that figure has possibly expanded to maybe 27. In Somalia, it could be as low as 12.
I don't know if it's that low because not everyone reaches puberty by 12 but I do agree with the spirit of your statement. The difference between first-world and third-world is massive.
Should I continue, or has my lack of empathy shocked you too much?
You don't need to continue. Not because I'm shocked, but because you're preaching to the choir. It's not a matter of empathy, it's a matter of reality and I have no problem with anyone who simply speaks in facts.

It's a terrible state of affairs but sugar-coating it doesn't change anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: captaincranky

imdarkbreeze

Posts: 58   +46
Great rant but, I do believe the combustion of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen produces water as the byproduct.

Liquid hydrogen delivers a specific impulse about 30%-40% higher than most other rocket fuels. Liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen are used as the propellant in the high efficiency main engines of the Space Shuttle. ... Despite these drawbacks, fluorine produces very impressive engine performance.

Hydrazine is also used as rocket fuel propellant. Mixing it with oxidising agent dinitrogen tetroxide, N2O4, creates a hypergolic mixture – a mixture so explosive, no ignition is required. As the fuel burns, three reactions take place, decomposing hydrazine into ammonia, nitrogen and hydrogen gases.

If you'll take note, you wonj't a single "C" mentioned in the reaction chains.

Agreed, these are all liquid propellants. And solid fuels have different chemical compositions But, I figure it should at least enough to take, "some of the wind out of your tailpipe", so to speak.

BTW, if you hadn't noticed, Covid19 has already taken up the cudgels for you, at least with respect to passenger air travel.
The "C"s aren't the problem, and nowhere did I say that the pollution they added was the same TYPE of pollution as the numerous automobiles I was comparing them too.

Every time a rocket launches, it produces a plume of exhaust in its wake that leaves a mark on the environment. These plumes are filled with materials that can collect in the air over time, potentially altering the atmosphere in dangerous ways. It’s a phenomenon that’s not well-understood, and some scientists say we need to start studying these emissions now before the number of rocket launches increases significantly.


It’s not the gas in these plumes that’s most concerning. Some rockets do produce heat-trapping greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, but those emissions are negligible, according to experts. “The rocket business could grow by a factor of 1,000 and the carbon dioxide and water vapor emissions would still be small compared to other industrial sources,” Martin Ross, a senior project engineer at the Aerospace Corporation who studies the effects of rockets on the atmosphere.


Instead, it’s tiny particles that are produced inside the trail that we need to watch out for, Ross says. Small pieces of soot and a chemical called alumina are created in the wakes of rocket launches. They then get injected into the stratosphere, the layer of Earth’s atmosphere that begins six miles up and ends around 32 miles high. Research shows that this material may build up in the stratosphere over time and slowly lead to the depletion of a layer of oxygen known as the ozone. The ozone acts like a big shield, protecting Earth against the Sun’s harmful ultraviolet radiation. However, the magnitude of this ozone depletion isn’t totally known, says Ross.


Right now, Ross estimates that rocket launches around the world inject 10 gigagrams, or 11,000 tons, of soot and alumina particles into the atmosphere each year.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,212   +4,972
The "C"s aren't the problem, and nowhere did I say that the pollution they added was the same TYPE of pollution as the numerous automobiles I was comparing them too.
So, with no carbon involved in the reaction, hence no CO or CO2, you took it upon yourself to compare "apples to oranges"?

If it's any consolation, the Saturn 5 booster ran on "JP1" something in the kerosene group. Thus it would have had a significant carbon footprint. With that said, you should trot your activist a** down to Cape Canaveral, and demand they they stop flying those things. :rolleyes: :eek: :laughing:
So you're worried about the 'pollution' of additional water vapor in the air?
Should Mr.Breeze's fanatical take on environmental activism be embraced, I would buy several boxes of colored chalk in advance, so that you could pass your "spare time", by drawing on cave walls.

What's the downside? I'm glad you asked. We rendered the mammoth extinct several thousand years ago. So, there won't be much for dinner, save for rattlesnake and rodent. Don't worry though, it all, "tastes like chicken". (y) (Y)
 
Last edited:

imdarkbreeze

Posts: 58   +46
So you're worried about the 'pollution' of additional water vapor in the air?
Not just deluded, but can't read too? Not water, but alumina and other particulates. Maybe if you actually read a post before responding to it, you might not look like such a fool.

And captaincranky, I'm no radical environmentalist, by any stretch of the imagination. I'm also not a head in the sand fact denier. I'm not against internal combustion engines. In fact, I'm a life long ASE master certified repair technician. I NEED for there to be automobiles, and I'm not convinced that electric vehicles aren't WORSE for the environment than internal combustion, however, I'm also not against making them more efficient so they don't needlessly wreck the rock we have to live on.

I know a lot of people don't give a crap, because they are selfish, and won't be around when most of these abuses come back around demanding payment, but those types can pound sand and I don't think you're one of them, but if you are, you can pound sand too.

If we CAN fix a thing, so that there is something of this world that remains for future generations, we owe it to them, and to ourselves, to at least TRY to do it, and in the case of people who really don't care either way, maybe fake it until you make it.
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,102   +914
Not just deluded, but can't read too? Not water, but alumina and other particulates.
Ah, alumina, the non-toxic, most abundant oxide of the second most common element in the earth's crust, found naturally across the globe in countless quintillion-ton quantities? You're right .. a few extra ounces just might be the tipping point that kills us all.

I know a lot of people don't give a crap, because they are selfish, and won't be around when most of these abuses come back around demanding payment...
If there was even a single shred of scientific evidence that these were indeed abuses, you might have a leg to stand on. Myself, I'm far more worried about the level of ignorance that believes our lives will somehow be bettered by squelching technological progress. Do you have any any idea how many hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved by just one single application of rocket launches -- the launch of weather observation satellites?
 

imdarkbreeze

Posts: 58   +46
Technological progress is good. Willful ignorance, not so much.

Even a little of both would be acceptable. Too much of either one, at one time, probably also not too good.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,212   +4,972
And captaincranky, I'm no radical environmentalist, by any stretch of the imagination. I'm also not a head in the sand fact denier. I'm not against internal combustion engines. In fact, I'm a life long ASE master certified repair technician. I NEED for there to be automobiles, and I'm not convinced that electric vehicles aren't WORSE for the environment than internal combustion, however, I'm also not against making them more efficient so they don't needlessly wreck the rock we have to live on.
Well, I hope they put up some more windmills so that you can tilt at them, Donny boy.

Man is nothing more than the most vicious apex predator to ever have hit the planet. We'll feed on the cattle, the grain, and we'll on the earth itself, until we die out, and the cockroaches take over.

And FWIW, lithium is #3 on the periodic table. It can't be produced by solar fusion. Consider that a finite resource as well. (I has to be produced by a supernova).

Here's couple of goods reads for you:



I know a lot of people don't give a crap, because they are selfish, and won't be around when most of these abuses come back around demanding payment, but those types can pound sand and I don't think you're one of them, but if you are, you can pound sand too.
For idealism to be effective, everyone has to be on board. Good luck with that.

I tell you a funny story about my kid. He was railing about how we were killing Christmas trees. I explained they were grown on farms, specifically to be cut down. "When I was a child, I spake as a child....blah, blan, blah".

If we CAN fix a thing, so that there is something of this world that remains for future generations, we owe it to them, and to ourselves, to at least TRY to do it, and in the case of people who really don't care either way, maybe fake it until you make it.
I have a slight touch of sociopathy in my personality, an almost complete lack of empathy for Homo sapiens.

Anyway, I have tried an tried to do all the recycling I could. However, my city is just trhowing the trash and recyclables into the same truck and taking it to the dump. The trashman punked me last week whee he told me the recycling truck would be around later. I called 311,. After an over 2 hour hold, they told me there was nothing they could do, and offered me the Sanitation commissioner's phone number, right before the supervisor hung up on me.

So, stop lecturing me. You're preaching to the choir, but I haven't been to church in 60 years
 
Last edited:

Endymio

Posts: 1,102   +914
And FWIW, lithium is #3 on the periodic table. It can't be produced by solar fusion...it has to be produced by a supernova.
This isn't true. While Li isotopes aren't part of the primary stellar nucleosynthesis chains (triple-alpha, CNO, etc), their primary production mode is from proton capture in stellar atmospheres (Li-6), and classical nova (Li-7) -- not supernova. More importantly, all these, including supernova, are still fusion reactions. Furthermore, there is a nucleosynthesis mode for lithium production in certain low mass stars.

Finally, lithium's position on the period table has nothing to do with its exclusion from primary nucleosynthesis in main-sequence stars, as elements both above and below it are produced in quantity.
 
Last edited:

captaincranky

Posts: 16,212   +4,972
This isn't true. While Li isotopes aren't part of the primary stellar nucleosynthesis chains (triple-alpha, CNO, etc), their primary production mode is from proton capture in stellar atmospheres (Li-6), and classical nova (Li-7) -- not supernova. More importantly, all these, including supernova, are still fusion reactions. Furthermore, there is a nucleosynthesis mode for lithium production in certain low mass stars.

Finally, lithium's position on the period table has nothing to do with its exclusion from primary nucleosynthesis in main-sequence stars, as elements both above and below it are produced in quantity.
Well, I'm sure you're right, but my astronomy instructor, and all of the material I read, indicate that you can't (sustainably) fuse past iron, because it takes more energy than it produces to do so..
And lithium being 3 on the periodic table has everything to do with it. You'll take notice that beryllium is 4 on the table, and more likely to interact in the tri-alpha cycle.

Lithium is more likely to be a fission product, than that of the fusion chain. Hey, sh!t happens, and who says you can't have a proton knocked off a beryllium nucleus during the tri-alpha process.

So what if lithium is produced in certain low mass stars? The overarching problem would still be, how the heck are you going to get it here?

And yes, you can fuse past iron, but at a net energy lossd. That (I hope), is the primary reason that novas don't go on for a few billion years, but low mass stars do.. In the case of "Sol", I think oxygen is the last stop before burnout, since it doesn't have the mass to explode. (You need 10 X).

You realize I enjoy interacting with you so that I can be informed how little I know about anything, and how much you do about everything. (y) (Y)
 
Last edited:

Endymio

Posts: 1,102   +914
Well, I'm sure you're right, but my astronomy instructor, and all of the material I read, indicate that you can't (sustainably) fuse past iron, because it takes more energy than it produces to do so..
Right, because iron is at the bottom of the binding energy curve. Iron is element 26, though. Lithium is #3 -- it can both fuse and be fused.

And lithium being 3 on the periodic table has everything to do with it. You'll take notice that beryllium is 4 on the table, and more likely to interact in the tri-alpha cycle.
This is because the cross section of He-4 is so much larger, and the result of that is Be-8. But regardless, lithium does fuse, and fuse energetically, I.e:

p+Li6 -> He4 + He3
D+Li6 -> 2 He4
p+Li7 -> 2 He4

There's also a P-P chain for lithium burning in stars. And I said above, lithium is also a fusion product in stellar nucleosynthesis in so-called "red clump" stars, see this paper for a reference.

Lithium is more likely to be a fission product, than that of the fusion chain.
You're thinking of tritium breeding used to boost nuclear weapons. That doesn't happen naturally, though, as the reaction consumes energy, it doesn't release it: you're moving the wrong way on the mass-binding curve.

You realize I enjoy interacting with you so that I can be informed how little I know about anything, and how much you do about everything.
Whether or not that was sarcasm, I certainly wouldn't say you "know little" about the subject; despite a few trivialities, you certainly grasp the basics of a subject of which most know absolutely nothing.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,212   +4,972
@Endymio OK, granted thsat lithium could be created during the fusion process. But, it's not really stable, and neither is beryllium The reaction chains you're showing are leading to helium. Obviously most of the lithium is consumed in the process.

Now, with respect to "red stars", these have very low surface temperatures, on the order of maybe 5000 C. Consequently, the fusion is much less energetic, and it would be much more so in a higher temperature blue white star..I would speculate that not all of the lithium would be reacted.

All this is fine in theory, but you still run into the impossibility of getting it here, should we run out. I believe you're correct that it only takes a star of 10 solar masses to "nova". A "supernova" requires something more on the order of 100 solar masses to occur.

The most intriguing thing about extremely high mass stars, is that they are very short lived. At the 100 solar mass point, a star's life is only about 160.000 years. At the end of the fusion chain, it will fuse all its silicon in about 1 day..!

Basically the fusion chain leading up to the tri alpha cycle, is a "count by twos", affair, and atoms with 3 or 5 protons, are more or less, out of the loop.

Here on earth, elements 1, 6, & 8, (hydrogen carbon, & oxygen, are likely the most plentiful, and oddly, all life is more or lass based on them.. #7, nitrogen is fairly non reactive. (And yes I'm aware of nitrates,and nitrides)

So, all I had was a short survey course in astronomy, so if you feel the need to fact check any of this, feel free.
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,102   +914
So, all I had was a short survey course in astronomy, so if you feel the need to fact check any of this, feel free.
Since you're asking, I'll point out those mass values are wrong; a Type Ia supernova occurs at the Chandrasekhar limit (1.44 solar masses) and even a more traditional Type II can occur in stars below 10 solar masses. As for "nova", this is caused by an even wider range of processes, and accretion-event type novas can theoretically occur in stars of any mass.

And while I'm picking nits, I would just say that, while your meaning is correct in loose English, technically the fusion reaction(s) in a red giant are just as energetic as in hotter stars; they simply proceed at a slower pace.