Category Archives: Enegery

THE BEADY EYE ASK,S. WHICH CAME INTO EXISTENCE FIRST – TEMPERATURE-GRAVITY- PROTONS- ELECTRONS – ATOMS – MOLECULES- MATTER- LIGHT- TIME.

01 Friday Feb 2019

Posted by in Enegery, Evolution, Scientific., The Atom., The Obvious., THE ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

( A HALF AN HOUR CONFUSING READ.)

Theoretical Science has endeavoured to explain what the universe is made up of with some success until it comes to the vast emptiness of spaces.

Perhaps some logical thinking is needed to enable us to understand how the universe began.

It requires developing a better theory of how space, time, and matter are related.

Every single second of every single day, you are being bombarded by trillions upon trillions of subatomic particles, showering down from the depths of space. They blow through you with the strength of a cosmic hurricane, blasting in at nearly the speed of light. They’re coming from all over the sky, at all times of the day and night. They penetrate the Earth’s magnetic field and our protective atmosphere like so much butter.

These tiny little bullets are called neutrinos.  Neutrinos have this annoying habit of changing character as they travel. That’s right, as a neutrino travels in flight, it can switch masks among the three flavours.

Although many subatomic particles break down into other particles, so far no one has caught the decay of protons or neutrons, which make up the nuclei of atoms.

Neutrinos continually challenge everything we know about physics.

Neutrinos are the ghosts of the subatomic world. Interacting via only the weak nuclear force, they can pass through matter without interacting nearly at all.

The visible universe—including Earth, the sun, other stars, and galaxies—is made of protons, neutrons, and electrons bundled together into atoms.

(Protons and neutrons are particles called baryons, and baryogenesis means the creation of baryons. (Understanding this requires more brain power than I have.)

The rest of the universe appears to be made of a mysterious, invisible substance called dark matter (25 per cent) and a force that repels gravity known as dark energy (70 per cent).

Perhaps one of the most surprising discoveries of the 20th century was that ordinary, or baryonic, matter makes up less than 5 per cent of the mass of the universe.

Although astronomers understand what the universe was like just a few seconds after the Big Bang, no one yet knows what happened at the instant of the Big Bang – or what came before.

The key assumption of this model is that just before the Big Bang, space was filled with an unstable form of energy, whose nature is not yet known. 

Energy comes in different forms:

  • Heat (thermal)
  • Light (radiant)
  • Motion (kinetic)
  • Electrical
  • Chemical
  • Nuclear energy
  • Gravitational
  • Energy sources are divided into two groups: Renewable / Nonrenewable.

In fact, all the matter in the universe could have arisen from a bit of primordial energy weighing no more than a pea.  At some instant, this energy was transformed into the fundamental particles from which arose all the matter we observe today.

This energy in the form of light comes in discrete packets called photons.

All the results, the origin of space and time rest with the Big Bang.

This leaves us with the question what caused the big bang, what was there before.

According to the Big Bang model, the Big Bang took place everywhere in space (not just at a point).

The Big Bang could have been triggered when our own universe collided with a “parallel universe”  which set off tiny gravity waves in motion.

After the Big Bang, all of space was filled with matter so hot that it glowed -In fact, a steady stream of this light is continuously arriving at Earth, from distant regions of space, having travelled for billions of years to get here.

So the afterglow of the Big Bang IS still filling the universe today- with cosmic microwaves.

This is where it starts to get complicated.

Light is being distorted and magnified by massive, invisible clouds of dark matter in the foreground-a phenomenon known as gravitational lensing.

The inflationary model predicts that Big Bangs are continually taking place in other regions of space – and string theory suggests that these other mini-verses may be so different from our own that even the laws of nature and the number of dimensions of space may be different.

The inflation model makes several testable predictions. One of the most important is that the primordial energy would have been “lumpy” – i.e., unevenly spread out in space – due to a kind of quantum noise that arose when the universe was extremely small.

However, there is not enough mass to support a universe that is closed so it expands forever.  New space is continuously coming into existence between galaxies. Thus, the creation of the universe – or at least of the space in the universe – is a continuous process that is still taking place.

If there is enough mass, the gravity attracting all the pieces to each other will eventually stop the expansion and pull all the pieces of the universe back together in a big crunch. The universe would then be closed universe made up of dark matter, dark energy, and antimatter.

An international team of astronomers using the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope has discovered a ghostly ring of dark matter that was formed long ago during a titanic collision between two massive galaxy clusters. It is the first time that a dark matter distribution has been found that differs substantially from the distribution of ordinary matter. This image shows the galaxy cluster Cl 0024+17 (ZwCl 0024+1652) as seen by Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys. The image displays faint faraway background galaxies that had their light bent by the cluster's strong gravitational field. By mapping the distorted light and using it to deduce how dark matter is distributed in the cluster, astronomers spotted the ring of dark matter. One of the background galaxies is located about two times further away than the yellow cluster galaxies in the foreground, and has been multiple-imaged into five separate arc-shaped components, seen in blue.

For something that supposedly takes up 80 per cent of the total mass of the universe, we don’t know a whole lot about dark matter, antimatter, or dark energy.

There is little or no evidence supporting their existence.

We are yet observed dark matter directly, however, scientists are confident it exists because of the gravitational effects it appears to have on galaxies and galaxy clusters.

If this is so dark matter came into existence before gravity.

However, if dark matter and dark energy are interchangeable, the same thing and do not absorb or emit light and interacts with visible matter through gravity, Gravity came first for it to be able to interact in the first place.

Is dark matter even real? And if it’s not, then is everything we know about gravity wrong?

One leading hypothesis is that dark matter consists of exotic particles that don’t interact with normal matter or light but that still exert a gravitational pull but there are multiple forms of gravity and all are attractive forces irreverent of their strength.

According to another idea, dark energy is a fifth and previously unknown type of fundamental force called quintessence, which fills the universe like a fluid. A  repulsive force that counteracts gravity, keeping the universe from collapsing in on itself.

I ask why the strange force exists in the first place.

For example, why is the speed of light not faster than it is?

Why are electrons so much lighter than the protons they orbit in atoms?

Why are the constants and laws of nature just so, and not different?

If there was nothing, to begin with, then where did the laws of nature come from?

How did the universe “know” how to proceed?

And why do the laws of nature produce a universe that is so hospitable to life?

What we do know is that if these fundamental laws and constants were even slightly different from what is observed, then life as we know it would not exist.

If the universe is expanding what is it expanding into?

If the universe is infinitely big, then the answer is simply that it isn’t expanding into anything; instead, what is happening is that every region of the universe, every distance between every pair of galaxies, is being “stretched”, but the overall size of the universe was infinitely big, to begin with, and continues to remain infinitely big as time goes on, so the universe’s size doesn’t change, and therefore it doesn’t expand into anything.

The answer is that we really don’t know what, if anything, the universe is expanding into. The space between the galaxies “stretches”, so we have no way to see “outside”  to get a sense of the entire shape and figure out where the centre is.

So we don’t think there is any way to observe or measure what is beyond unless it had some effect on us that we currently don’t know about. It would be really weird to imagine reaching the “end” of space.

What would it look like, for example?

If the universe is indeed infinite, it doesn’t have anything to expand into.

So the total size of the universe is the same!

You and I aren’t expanding, the Earth isn’t expanding, the sun isn’t expanding, even the entire Milky Way galaxy isn’t expanding.

That’s because, on these relatively small scales, the effect of the universe’s stretching is completely overwhelmed by other forces (i.e. the galaxy’s gravity, the sun’s gravity, the Earth’s gravity, and the atomic forces which hold people’s bodies together).

It is only when we look across far enough distances in the universe that the effect of the universe’s stretching becomes noticeable above the effects of local gravity and other forces which tend to hold things together.

Massive collisions are produced as pairs of black holes or neutron stars — both incredibly dense objects left behind after a star explodes — draw close to one another.

As they dance, they cause gravitational waves to ripple outward until the objects eventually collide. This explosion is more than just a pretty sight; it is the main source of the elements that make up our planets and all the other objects in the night sky.

So how are the elements that make up matter created in the first place?

From what element are all other elements made?

Elements are subdivided into several categories based on where they originated from: The Big Bang, Cosmic Rays, Large Stars, Small Stars, Supernovae, and Man-Made labs.

Everything is made starting with hydrogen. But where did the hydrogen in the universe come from? From a proton and an electron.

So maybe it is particles that came first.

Where do those fundamental particles, and their even more fundamental particles come from? No one knows because it would require knowing exactly how the universe began, and where all matter in it originated from.

Humans will never know that.

When particles of both collide, heat would naturally move from the warmer body to the colder one, causing the warmer body to cool ever so slightly.

Humans and their galaxy have about 97 per cent of the same kind of atoms.

A new element is discovered, by smashing atoms together to see what happens.

Each element emits distinct wavelengths of light from within a star they are substances that cannot be broken down further.

There are several ways to consider the composition of the human body, including the elements, the type of molecule, or type of cells.

Some 60 chemical elements are found in the body, but what all of them are doing there is still unknown. Roughly 96 per cent of the mass of the human body is made up of just four elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen, with a lot of that in the form of water. For now, we can only say for certain what 20 or so elements are doing.

Although humans share most elements with the stars, the proportions of those elements differ between humans and stars. For example, humans are about 65 per cent oxygen by mass, whereas oxygen makes up less than 1 per cent of all elements measured in space.

So here are my logical conclusions:

The assumption here is that “before the big bang” actually means something.

The standard cosmological model is based on time and space both being countable numbers in natural units. This assumes we have a meaningful definition of void and exist without our universe being around.

Our model does not provide these definitions, so our assumptions rely on some false hypothesis premises.

I’m not going to say there was emptiness or nothingness before, at least not in the sense you mean them.

Nothing does not indicate emptiness (where there is no matter) but indicates the  NOT existence.

Only with Quantum Mechanics is it hypothesized that even in nothing can be created with quantum fluctuations the Universe. I have not understood how it is possible but it seems that there are Physicists who imagine this possible.

Why is there something, instead of nothing?

Go one step back and remember that before vacuum, you have to have space and before space, you have to have a dimensionality.

Nothing was Fluctuating.

The WHOLE UNIVERSE (and then some) is a Cold Black Hole.

Currently, we consider Black Holes to be gravitationally induced space deformations where not even light can escape.

THIS IS A FALSE LOGICAL FLAW SINCE BLACK HOLES ARE MADE UP BY MATTER AGGREGATES.

THEY PRODUCE TIME SPACE DARK ENERGY DARK MATTER ECT AND THE BIG BANG.

SO BLACK HOLES CAME FIRST. 

HOWEVER, Without time, we and THE UNIVERSE  wouldn’t be here.

SO TIME CAME FIRST AND WILL EXIST EVEN IF THERE IS NOTHING.

Even physicists agree that time is one of the most difficult properties of our universe to understand. … In the sciences generally, time is usually defined by its measurement:

The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present and future regarded as a whole.

Clearly, time is not an object or substance we can touch or see.

It may be considered as potentially infinite. We remember the past but we don’t remember the future. There are irreversible processes.

Even in empty space, time and space still exist.

So there’s an infinite number of universes behind us and an infinite number of universes coming ahead of us.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked into the black hole.

 

 

Advertisements

THE BEADY EYE LOOK’S AT THE PROSPECTS FOR THE EURO IN 2019.

31 Monday Dec 2018

Posted by in 2019., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Enegery, European Commission., European Union., Populism., Sustaniability, The common good., The Euro, The new year 2109, The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

 

( SIX MINUTE READ)

While we are all distracted by Brexit which has several possible outcomes in March 2019, all given a certain probability by market analysts:
– No-deal
– Canada-style trade deal
– Chequers plan
– EFTA/Norway agreement.
– Suspension of Article 50
– Reversal of Article 50.

Each is given a probability in terms of its likelihood but I would pay little attention to those probabilities as market analysts are not political insiders and in general, a lot of experts have misjudged the EU, as its rule-based way of operating has caught many out, not least the British negotiation team.

No matter how you look at the European Union it is a market run by rules which Independent Countries join to trade in a currency called Euros.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the euro currency"

Although the creation of the euro, in particular, was deemed to be a key component helping to move the EU to an “ever closer union,” riding the continent of centuries of historic enmities, in reality, it has and is doing the opposite.

The monetary union and the austerity-linked conditions governing membership in the eurozone continue to create conditions ripe for extreme nationalist movements in Italy, France, Hungary, Poland and elsewhere.

The two principal goals of prosperity and political integration … are now more distant than they were before the creation of the eurozone.

The euro crisis was always likely to have a second act, and the stage was always likely to be Italy. (The only member yet to come to terms with the single currency. To do that, Italian democracy must be allowed to rise to the challenge.)

Were a further divorce to happen within the Union it would create a tremendous financial fallout for the rest of us, and likely mean the end of the euro itself.

The Euro to date has been both the glue and dissolvent of the European market.

Since the financial crisis of 2007-09, after dealing with Greece and the potential for defaults that led to a bailout of the EU member just a few short years ago, Italy is now on the list.

As such, these “states” are or were subject to solvency risk, because they themselves cannot create the euros to fund their debt.

With Brexit, it will become clear that we shouldn’t wait for the next crisis.

The next one could be very harmful, if not destroy the euro altogether.

A construction like the eurozone only partly rests on rules, technical procedures, institutions, etc. It relies on the fact that governments can trust each other at a minimum level. Take that away, and the whole edifice suddenly becomes much more fragile and the willingness to reform shrinks.

In these terms, a sustainable European currency requires either the export of the foundations of German economic strength to the periphery or Germany’s willingness to relinquish its obsession with ordo-liberalism and achieving a large current account trade surplus.

To date, its willingness to act to save the euro has not in fact been put to the test.

Far from involving domestic sacrifices imposed to save the euro, Germany’s handling of the eurozone crisis thus far has been, first and foremost, an opportunity for Germany to ‘Europeanise’ the burdens of its banks.

Germany may, therefore, end up with total dominance over something that doesn’t work, and holding the creditor bag on a currency that eventually may not exist.

Barring a wholesale shift in ideology, any short-term stitch-up will just set the stage for a bigger problem down the road, likely provoking more nationalist backlashes against the EU, which continues to play with fire, backed by Berlin.

So can the euro survive an Italian Bank/Country collapse?

Italy’s GDP has shrunk by a massive 10%, regressing to levels last seen over a decade ago. In terms of per capita GDP, the situation is even more shocking: According to this measure, Italy has regressed back to levels of 20 years ago, before the country became a founding member of the single currency.

As a result, around 20% of Italy’s industrial capacity has been destroyed, and 30% of the country’s firms have defaulted.

Its competitiveness can only be restored, therefore, via an “internal devaluation,” which in essence means crushing the living standards of the Italian people, so that they can compete in the global export market, rather than using fiscal policy to enhance the country’s domestic economy.

Understandably, the current coalition government in Rome doesn’t want to play along.

Its component parties were elected to defend the interests of the Italian people and deliver a different sort of economic program, which doesn’t consign the electorate to another decade of declining living standards. And Italy’s voters remain supportive if the most recent polls are anything to go by.

Hence the coalition’s resistance to Brussels/Berlin–imposed spending limits.

Europe’s central bank was (and is) the only institution that could credibly backstop the debt without limit because it is the sole issuer of the euro. However, the ECG has recently decided to put a stop to Quantitive Easing.

(Quantitative easing is a modern version of the printing press. It consists of the central bank creating money to buy government or private bonds held by investors on the market. The goal is for the latter to reinject the cash they get back into the economy by lending to households and businesses, which in turn must stimulate growth and inflation.)

As it concerns nineteen countries using the same currency, the ECB’s purchasing program is more framed than that of the US Federal Reserve, the Bank of England or the Bank of Japan.

It may have taken Trump, Brexit and the threat of a global trade war, but the markets in Europe are finally waking up to what the end of QE will look like.

The markets are finally facing up to a reality where fundamentals actually matter and are no longer being swept away by ‘QE infinity’.

That should be a relief, given the huge distortions that QE has created in the global economy, most notably in asset price inflation and a consequent widening of inequality throughout the developed world.

The political implications are obvious and are still continuing. But how quickly and safely central banks can be weaned off this great monetary experiment remains to be seen.

If QE is no longer an active policy instrument what will replace it?

Quantitative easing is – and always has been – a dangerous monetary experiment and these are not the times to experiment. Especially not in Europe, where the political gap between north and south has widened in a disturbing way and interdependencies grow bigger and bigger.

What if Germany, France and the Netherlands continue to grow, and Italy, Greece and Portugal don’t?

Then the gap between the higher income rates they have to pay and their lack of growth becomes even bigger.

The political and economic instability of the southern European democracies is eroding the political basis of the euro – and therefore its stability. Because of this everyone suffers.

THE QUESTION IS WILL ITALY BE ALLOWED TO GO THE WAY OF GREECE?

That could prove economically calamitous, exposing the country’s international creditors (including other eurozone nations, such as Germany and France) to literally trillions in liabilities. To be repaid in what? Euros?

A reconstituted, and possibly heavily devalued, lira?

What happens to the pension funds? What about capital flight? Runs on the banks?

The point is that Italy does have leverage, but deploying the leverage will be costly for all concerned.

Considering the political turbulence in Italy which wants to raise its budget deficit by 2.4% in 2019, ( Its current debt is more than 2billion euros 131% of its GDP.)

Driving Italy out of the euro makes no sense at all. Italy is facing not just a financial but a democratic reckoning.

The euro debacle has tested the democratic integrity of the weakest eurozone member states to a breaking point. In Ireland, Spain and Portugal – the other countries affected by the single currency’s woes – democracy not only survived the test but flourished after it.

In 2019 we are going to see Italy’s political class discredited, its economy exposed as a sham, and it can only be rescued with other people’s money on other people’s terms.

It has now brought Italy to the brink of another failure of state as dangerous as the one that occurred during the confrontation with the Mafia in the early 1990s.

One of the major challenges for members of the euro area has always been not simply to rectify external imbalances, but to do so at reasonably high levels of employment. The fact that failures to meet this challenge are encountering political difficulties in Italy and elsewhere is hardly surprising.

So to stabilize the euro area and foster the financial integration across countries, we need to end the vicious circle of youth unemployment in the Southern countries of Europe and not penalise breached of budgetary Rules.

The euro is neither the problem nor the solution.

Italy’s profound problems lie at home — especially in central and southern Italy — and need to be addressed at home.

Both Europes and Italy’s problems arise out of acute regional imbalance.

You can not look at Italy as one economy, but two or perhaps three: North, Centre, South which is reflected in the whole of Europe’s problem.

Take the hyper-competitiveness of Germany.

Its massive current account surplus (8% of GDP) combined with its virtually full employment implies unambiguously that for Germany the euro is significantly undervalued, just as for Italy the evidence suggests that it is overvalued.

So we have an interesting, but risky, game of chicken developing.

Even though virtually every country within the eurozone, including fiscally virtuous Germany, has routinely breached budget limits, these rules do matter because, under Maastricht Treaty terms, countries can be punished by European institutions and also by markets, as has happened to Greece and now is increasingly happening to Italy.

Its debt load is the third-largest in the world and will eventually become unsustainable if the country is unable to revive economic growth.

What can Europe do – that is not already being done – to get its millions of jobless young people into work?

Things cannot be implemented overnight and will never be unless there is a willingness to move on with euro area reforms.

On top of all our problems is the Automation of the job market.

WILL THE EURO SURVIVE?

YES.

Boosting productivity is essential to resolve both problems.

So here is a suggestion.

Why not make the two most Southern Countries of Europe where the sun does shine – Italy Spain – the new green energy hobs of Europe – implementing a huge investment into solar power to supplement the energy requirements of the Northern member states.

All human comments appreciated. All abuse and like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: DO YOU KNOW THE WORLD YOU LIVE ON

04 Tuesday Sep 2018

Posted by in 2018: The Year of Disconnection., Arms Trade., Artificial Intelligence., Capitalism, Climate Change., Education, Enegery, Environment, Evolution, Fourth Industrial Revolution., Fresh Water., G7., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Life., Modern day life., Natural World Disasters, Oil, Our Common Values., Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., Reality., Space., Sustaniability, Technology, The cloud., The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., United Nations, War, Wealth., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Organisations., World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

( A FIVE MINUTE READ)

 

7.6 BILLION OF US LIVE ON IT

BUT VERY FEW OF US KNOW WHAT IT IS WHERE IT IS OR WHAT WE ARE DOING ON IT OR TO IT. How Big Is Earth?

IT IS 6.378KM IN RADIUS, 6.6 SEXTILLION TONS IN WEIGHT, WITH A SURFACE AREA OF 197 MILLION SQ MILES MADE UP OF 71% WATER, 29% LAND OF WHICH 5% IS LIVABLE ON.

IT IS 4.54 billion years old, plus or minus 1%.

We humans speaking 7, O97 LANGUAGES of which 23 accounts for half the world’s population has been on it for a mere 0.004% of the Earth’s history.

humans on earth

IT HAS 15,000 BIRTHS PER HOUR. 360,000 PER DAY, 132 MILLION PER YEAR WITH 56 MILLION DEATH PER YEAR.

IT HAS 10.7 percent LIVING IN EXTREME POVERTY WITH 68.5 MILLION DISPLACE PEOPLE, OF WHICH 25.4 million are refugees, over half of whom are under the age of 18 with 1% OF RICH PEOPLE owning half the world’s wealth.

 IT IS THE 5TH LARGEST PLANET IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM WITH ABOUT 10 BILLION WITH TONS OF CONCRETE POURED ON IT EVERY YEAR.

3% OF THE WORLD IS COVERED IN URBAN AREAS WITH 33 BILLION METERS OF ROADS.

After water concrete is the single most widely used material in the world – and it has a carbon footprint to match.

As you read this, there are more than 40 conflicts unfolding in countries around the world. Yet these are just the most visible look beyond them and there are plenty more.

Total world military expenditure rose to $1739 billion in 2017.

We can blame terrorism and the fear it inspires despite the statistically unimportant number of casualties it inflicts, or the contemporary media and the breathless cycle of “breaking news”, but the truth remains that the wars that seem to inspire the fanatics or have produced so many headlines in recent years prompt deep anxiety.

And with climate change and profit-seeking algorithms things are only going to get worse.

Surely the needs of humanity should always come first. While there are people on Earth who need help, they should be helped, rather than seeing money spent on sending robots onto other planets. Humanity is the number one priority; keeping the human race alive is a necessity.

But we cannot live without the other species we share the earth with. Okay, guess quickly: how many species do you think we share the earth with.

A trillion.

While that may (or may not) be true, the next sentence is spuriously precise: “Every hour three species disappear. Every day up to 150 species are lost.”

Even putting aside the apparent mathematical error in that claim (on the face of it, if three species are disappearing every hour, 72 would be lost every day) there is an obvious problem in generating any such number. No-one knows how many species exist. And if we don’t know a species exists, we won’t miss it when it’s gone.

BP claimed the earth has enough oil left for about 53 more years at current production levels

So far Nasa has spent trillions on trying to get off it.

Science may well give us good things.

We all know Velcro came from NASA.

But why bother spending all this money exploring space and finding out there was water on Mars at some point in the last few thousand years (we have water in Earth) when these same great minds could be applied to finding better ways to power humanity’s insatiable desire for energy, to feeding the starving millions around the globe, and generally making life down here better before looking up into the heavens.

It seems the authoritative powers have their heads way, way up in the clouds.

Earth first:

14 billion pounds (6B Kg.) of garbage are dumped into the ocean every year. Most of it is plastic. Americans make up 5% of the world’s population, and yet, produce 30% of the world’s waste and use 25% of the world’s resources.

More than 95 percent of the world’s population is breathing polluted, unsafe air.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of earth from space"

THIS IS THE EARTH YOU NOW LIVE ON SURROUNDED BY JUNK.

NOT THE EARTH ON YOUR SMARTPHONE NOR THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENT EARTH.

IF YOU WANT TO GROW UP ON THIS BEAUTIFUL PLANET LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S YIPE WE NOW HAVE A CAR IS SPACE.

08 Thursday Feb 2018

Posted by in Elon Musk., Enegery

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

( A two-minute read)

We now have a car in space at a cost of $90 million. That’s $639.80 per pound thanks to Elon Musk’s Falcon Heavy SpaceX rocket. The next most powerful rocket, the Delta IV Heavy, runs about $350 million per launch.Screen Shot 2018-02-06 at 4.58.03 PM

It boasts 27 engines, more than any other working rocket has ever used, which together create a combined 5 million pounds of thrust at liftoff. Falcon Heavy is capable of taking 68 tonnes of equipment into an orbit close to the Earth.

With a world in turmoil, the new age space race is upon us.

Next, we need traffic lights.

Space debris is rapidly becoming one of the biggest problems we face – there are more than 150m objects that need tracking to ensure as few collisions with working spacecraft as possible.

The amount of kerosene in three Falcon 9 rockets is roughly 440 tonnes and RP-1 has a 34% carbon content, which is a lot of carbon dioxide when burnt.

However this amount of carbon is a drop in the ocean compared to global industrial emissions as a whole, but if the SpaceX’s plan for a rocket launch every two weeks comes to fruition, this amount of carbon (approximately 4,000 tonnes per year) will rapidly become a bigger problem.

Now for a bit of history:

For the 1967 Apollo mission to the moon, Saturn V rocket’s first stage carried 203,400 gallons of kerosene fuel and 318,000 gallons of liquid oxygen, totaling over 500,000 gallons of fuel for getting out of the atmosphere alone. The second stage carried another 260,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen and 80,000 gallons of liquid oxygen. The third stage carries 66,700 gallons of liquid hydrogen and 19,359 gallons of liquid oxygen.

All told the rocket that achieved one small step for a man and one giant leap for mankind held just under 950,000 gallons of fuel.

Falcon 9’s first stage uses 39,000 gallons of liquid oxygen and almost 25,000 gallons of kerosene, while the second stage uses 7,300 gallons of liquid oxygen and 4,600 gallons of kerosene. Combined, it makes lean mean 75,900 gallons of fuel.

On the other hand.

The Saturn V’s first stage lasted 180 seconds So. The first stage consumed 1,400,000 pounds of RP-1 and 3,178,000 pounds of LOX.

That’s 4,578,000 pounds of the expanded chemical in total.

The mass of most rockets is more than 95% fuel.

 Let me congratulate Mr. Musk and remind him of his own words ” Only a carbon tax—not innovation, conservation, or renewable energy—will accelerate the transition from carbon-producing fossil fuels to sustainable energy.”

My point is:

Perhaps it might have been better putting his energy and all that energy into something with a bit more imagination.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.