3DWannabe Blog


Global warming? Get serious.

by on Aug.04, 2012, under Science

Are you someone who believes the earth is getting warmer, the sea levels will rise and we’re all going to die if we don’t stop driving our cars? Bad news people, given the rate that the world is increasing it’s energy usage,  even if you never drive a car again,  if your theories are correct, all the bad predictions are going to come true. Unless of course we do the human thing and build a tool to fix it. What we’re doing now is touching a hot stove and pulling our hand away. Any animal can do that. Let’s work the problem.

There are a couple of theories of how human activity is increasing the temperature. One is the greenhouse gas theory. We are putting huge amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere trapping the heat in the atmosphere causing temperatures to rise. This would increase temperatures in the upper atmosphere and we’re not really seeing that.  The other is that we are taking stored energy from under the earth and releasing it in a very short period of time. This would increase surface temperatures, particularly around areas of heavy human activity. This actually fits the observed data, but doesn’t get much airplay since it contradicts the actions taken for the first theory. The reasons for that are for a different discussion and for the purposes of working the problem the difference is irrelevant.

Irrelevant! Are you mad! If there is to much CO2 you must lower it, if there is too much energy being used you must use less! No, that kind of thinking is wrong. The problem is to much heat. Let’s work the problem. One thing is certain and agreed upon by all. The biggest cause of heat on the planet Earth is the Sun. 99.9% of the heat is from the Sun. If we can reduce the amount of sunlight striking the earth, even by a very small percentage, we can control the temperature. We know how to do this, we have the technology.

Blocking the sun can be done in two basic ways. The first is treating Earth like your body on putting sunscreen on it. This can be accomplished by putting particles in the upper atmosphere to reflect sunlight back in to space. There was a time in the 70’s when the scientists assured us we were doing this accidentally  and were headed to another ice age. (Leading to an infamous Time magazine cover (http://obrlnews.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/climate-shame/)) The idea was that the dust in the air from burning coal would block the sun. It’s the same idea, we just do it on purpose and use something more reflective than coal dust. We can start today, pick a material, start launching it in to the upper atmosphere. It has some problems however. Air currents will create eddies making the coverage uneven. Some areas will cool more than intended, some will stay hot. Is there a way to block sunlight evenly over the entire Earth? Yep, but you can’t do it from here.

The second way is to put up an umbrella in front of the Earth. Did you see the pictures of the Venus transit earlier this year? There was a small black dot on the Sun blocking a small percentage of the sunlight striking the earth. If we could just get Venus to stay still that would do the trick. Physics is not our friend in this case and that’s not going to happen, but physics and celestial mechanics does provide a substitute.  There are points in space called Lagrange points that can help us. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point)


The one we’re interested in is L1. It’s roughly 1 million miles sun-ward from us. Anything you put in that spot will want to stay put for the most part, given an occasional correction. It’s a balance point between the Earth and the Sun’s gravity and that’s the place to build our umbrella. This umbrella can be very thin, on the same lines as a solar sail. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail) Very large structures can be made that only weigh a few tons. There would need to be an engineering study done to see the most efficient way to do this, either with a cluster of smaller structures or a larger one depending on construction techniques. A scifi author name Gregory Benford came up with an estimate of a 1000 mile disc to block enough light. (Arthur C. Clarke also came up with this solution twice, once in Childhood’s End, the other in Sunstorm with Stephen Baxter, the latter going in to a great deal of detail)  Large? Yep. Doable? Yep. It doesn’t have to be done with a huge 1000 mile disc, you only need to block the equivalent amount of light.  A flotilla of coordinated smaller structures would have the same affect and could be a better solution anyway since it would be easier to adjust the amount of sunlight blocked. Just move one in front of the other. Need to block more light? Launch a couple more modules. It might even be possible to use them as giant power satellites beaming electricity to collectors at the Earth’s poles.

Do these solutions sound far-fetched? Do they sound as far-fetched as convincing the entire third world that they must live out their days energy starved for the good of the planet? The world as a whole will continue to generate and use more energy. That is the fact that must be confronted and any realistic solution needs to take that in to account.

Have a better idea?

Leave a Comment more...

The Station

by on Feb.19, 2011, under General, Science

So, what’s this space station going to look like. Since humans are pretty sensitive to Coriolis forces I’m going to use a maximum of 2 rpm. I need a disk 170m in diameter at that spin to simulate Mars’s gravity.  The intermediate rim for the moon crew has a diameter of 72m.  Let’s set the width of both at 5m and the roof height at 4m. Gives you a meter above and below, right and left for duct work, wiring, counterbalance system etc. The picture below shows the wagon wheel station and a 747 for a size comparison.


To big? You’ve decided only to worry about the moons gravity and use that data to make a Mars decision? Probably a good choice, now you only need to build the inner ring and hub. The inner ring and hub is actually smaller than the current ISS and would probably mass about the same. (You have the option of revising the spin to 3rpm at some point, that would give you Mars’ gravity)  Another couple hundred billion and 10 more years? No, not if we use our heads and not leave it to congress this time. The current ISS was way over budget and behind schedule. NASA incompetence? Not quite. The original assumptions were based on the approval of a shuttle derived heavy lift vehicle, the C vehicle circa 1987. Boeing quoted $500 hundred million to develop it, congress canceled it. (Wasn’t that expensive because it was never intended to be man-rated, just move cargo in to orbit.) Each launch would have put 150,000 pounds in to orbit. The final weight of the ISS is 800,000 pounds.  That would be 6 launches. About 2 years worth and much cheaper to build since you could put more together here on earth and have less space assembly.  A few years and your done. Cancel the heavy lift, break it in to tiny pieces, have manned launches to put it together and you get what you currently have. Since that time, the heavy lift concept has been revised to the J232, which is 230,000 pounds per launch. Four cargo launches and you have everything you need in orbit.

Leave a Comment :, more...

Give In To Gravity

by on Feb.15, 2011, under General, Science

There was a story the other day about the end of the space shuttle. It got me thinking about the space program and how things could have been different. One big change that should be made is the 40 year focus on trying to make humans survive long term in a zero g environment. Well, after 40 years of trying it’s time to learn from the evidence, you can’t. 3 billion years of evolution has won. Humans need the resistance of gravity to develop and maintain health. The space station is the 100 billion dollar period on that conclusion. Let’s call it lesson learned and move on.
This gives us a big problem. All plans for space assume that we can survive and prosper in less than one g of gravity. The moon’s gravity is 1/6 that of the Earth. All of Zubrin’s plans for Mars hinge on the fact that 40% gravity is enough. What if those assumptions are wrong? What if we can only visit these places, not live there? From this point on, all our gravity research should have a different focus, to see what the bodies limits are.
There have been plans for rotating space stations floating (sic) around almost since the first genius figured out that a rock spun around your head wants to fly away. Let’s build one. Put it near the ISS, zero g industry may be the future, but our factory workers will need to return to a gravity environment. Basically you’ll need a hollow tire / wheel with spokes going up to the hub. Two living levels. One, the ‘bottom’ level would have 40% gravity, like Mars. The upper tier would have 15% gravity, like the moon. Put long term crews on each, let’s find the answer to the question, can we survive in these gravity environments before building colonies. If the answer is no, particularly if you opt for one of the one way methods for your colony, you might be condemning those people to a long, slow, painful failure.
While this seems to be basic research, it holds the key to human space exploration. Will our future be in rotating habitats building empires in the asteroid belt, or expanding colonies on the multitude of planets and moons in the solar system. The future, our future, hangs on the results.

Leave a Comment :, more...

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!