Saturday, March 20, 2010

Is CANDU a Success Story?


Re: Time to rethink AECL's meltdown, Tom Adams, Feb. 26

After reading Tom Adams' dismal portrayal of AECL and CANDU, I felt compelled to respond to your readers with a different perspective.

Having come from the U.S. nuclear industry, I am new to Canada and new to AECL as its chief technology officer. I joined after a great deal of careful investigation of the company I was being asked to join.

Although I was well aware of the international reputation for safety, performance and reliability CANDU has earned, I knew less about AECL itself, other than a reputation for its critical mass of technical talent and leadership.

Contrary to Mr. Adams' assertions, upon closer inspection I found that AECL is a public policy success story of which all Canadians can be proud.

Since being incorporated in 1952, AECL has received almost $8-billion in funding from the Government of Canada. This in turn has generated more than $160-billion in GDP benefit from the production of electricity, leading-edge research and development, international sales of CANDU plants, uranium mining and refining, medical radioisotopes and a wide range of professional services.

The window of opportunity is here. More than 200 reactors are planned to be built in the next 20 years and Canada is already in discussion with potential customers like China, Argentina, India, Jordan, Romania and other Eastern European countries who see the advantages of CANDU for their country.

Dr. Anthony De Vuono, senior vice-president and chief technology officer, AECL, Mississauga, Ont.


http://www.kelowna.com/2010/03/16/candus-potential/

Monday, March 15, 2010

Robots vs Humans in Space

Stephen Hawking: The Future of Space -Manned vs Robotic Missions?

In astronomy, extraterrestrial, sci-fi, technology on March 7, 2010 at 4:06 pm

“Robotic missions are much
cheaper and may provide more scientific information, but they don’t catch the public imagination in the same way, and they don’t spread the human race into space, which I’m arguing should be our long-term strategy. If the human race is to continue for another million years, we will have to boldly go where no one has gone before.”


Stephen Hawking, Cambridge University

Will unmanned robotic missions be able to detect weird microscopic life-forms they are not programmed to recognize that might be lurking below the surface of Saturn’s Titan, or beneath the murky seas of Jupiter’s jumbo moon, Europa?
The answer to this question is at the core of one of the greatest of the ongoing debates in space exploration: the question of man vs. unmanned robotic missions.
NASA currently operates more than 50 robotic spacecraft that are studying Earth and reaching throughout the solar system, from Mercury to Pluto and beyond. Another 40 unmanned NASA missions are in development, and space agencies in Europe, Russia, Japan, India and China are running or building their own robotic craft.
What is not commonly known however is that many of NASA’s leading scientists also champion human exploration as a worthy goal in its own right and as a critically important part of space science in the 21st century. The Obama administration’s new NASA strategy that strongly favors robotic exploration, has opened the debate anew........

http://mindgangsta.wordpress.com/2010/03/07/stephen-hawking-the-future-of-space-manned-vs-robotic-missions/

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Russia's Flying Saucer Aerostat



Current LocomoSky aerostats can carry one tonne of payload and a crew of 2 to 8 people. But the Russian LocomoSky company is planning to build flying saucer like aerostats to transport 60 to 600 tonnes of payload or between 270 to 1100 passengers. Such aerostats can transport people and huge payloads practically anywhere in the world. With a payload capacity of 600 tonnes, these Russian aerostats could potentially transport one of Babcock and Wilcox's future 120 MWe mPower nuclear reactors to practically any site on the planet.

Marcel F. Williams



http://www.locomosky.ru/en/

http://www.locomosky.ru/presscenter/news/61/

http://singularityhub.com/2010/03/10/russia-is-making-flying-saucers-dun-dun-dun/#more-13229

Saturday, February 27, 2010

Space Commercialization and the Lunar Lotto


by Marcel F. Williams

First of all, I applaud the Obama administration budget for providing $1.2 billion in annual funds over the next 5 years for the development of private commercial manned access to low Earth orbit. If humans are to truly open up the New Frontier for human colonization and commerce, private industry is going to have to have the capability of transporting humans into orbit. Hopefully, such a measure will be extended for at least a decade so that several new rocket vehicle options will be developed.

However, I strongly disagree with the notion the NASA should move out of LEO and leave that solely to private industry. Why should NASA should have to resort to a private middleman in order to access a government funded space station for government employed astronauts? And trying to use the ISS in order to sustain multiple private space launch companies would be a foolish venture. We need a strong government funded manned space program because these are the essential space pioneers that will help pave the way for the privateers and future settlers of the New Frontier.

But the real money for these emerging private American manned spaceflight companies is not in NASA contracts but in-- space tourism and commercial satellite launches where they're going to face some stiff international competition from companies like Russia's Energia.

There have already been eight space tourist to the ISS via Energia. And these individuals have payed between $20 to $35 million to to fly into space. Polls have shown that 7% of wealthy individuals in America would be willing to pay more than $20 million for a trip to a space station (93% would apparently not be willing to do so). There are nearly 100,000 adults in the world worth more than $30 million. So if 7% of these individuals were willing to dish out the big bucks to fly into to space, that would mean 7000 potential passengers willing to pay $20 million for a flight into space. If only 10% of these individuals flew into space each year aboard a vessel with 4 passenger seats, that would mean at least 175 flights per year. NASA flew just 5 flights in 2009 and 9 flights at the height of the Space Shuttle's glory years.

But what about the average Jane and Joe who does have tens of millions of bucks to just throw away? A 2008 ABC poll indicated that 40% of Americans would jump at the chance to fly into space.

What if NASA gave the average American and folks around the world that option by setting up a national and international space lotto system? Adult Americans and non-Americans could simply purchase $1 dollar space lotto tickets online at the NASA website for a chance to fly aboard an American private space launch vehicle to an American space station or, eventually, to an American base on the Moon. Obviously, the cost of astronaut training would have to be included.

Additionally, under my scenario, each winner would also receive $200,000 in prize money to compensate for the winners time off from work for astronaut training-- or if the winner decides to back out of flying into space out of fear-- or if it turns out that an individual is simply not qualified to fly into space. The $1 dollar purchase price would make this lotto affordable to practically every one on Earth. And the $200,000 cash prize money would also make this lotto especially attractive to people in third world countries.

If we assume that for a total population of 1000 people, at least 300 $1 tickets would be sold every year (with some individuals buying multiple tickets, some individuals buying just one, and some individuals purchasing no tickets at all) , that could mean over $100 million dollars in annual ticket sales in the US-- enough for perhaps 4 or 5 American passengers per year that could finance perhaps one flight per year aboard a private commercial launch vehicle. For the rest of the world, however, $2 billion worth of tickets could be sold annually equating to perhaps 20 manned spaceflights per year.

However, once several American companies have achieved manned spaceflight capability, I'd use the $1.2 billion a year that NASA uses to help develop private manned space launch capability by adding these funds to the American Space lotto system. That could mean at least 48 additional average Americans flying into space every year with perhaps 12 additional manned space flights per year. So a space lotto system alone could mean more than 30 manned space launches on an annual basis.

Hundreds of manned space launches every year would have a dramatic effect on the cost of space travel. Space rockets are expensive because the total demand for them is very low. And this is exacerbated by the fact that there are multiple types of space craft utilized for a relatively limited amount of manned and unmanned spaceflights. However, if American space companies can settle on perhaps two or three types of space craft and launchers for delivering humans, satellites, and cargo into orbit then dozens or perhaps even hundreds of a particular type of manned space craft could be manufactured by a factory or factories. And this could allow space craft building companies to finally move away from economies of craft to economies of mass production for space craft and space craft components- especially the highly expensive rocket engines. This could potentially dramatically lower the cost of space craft and correspondingly lower the cost of passenger flights into space. This could ignite an economic feed back process that could increase passenger volume thus increasing the demand for rockets and further lowering prices.

Space tourism for the wealthy has already begun. But even though private companies in the US do not currently have their 'people shuttles' in operation, there's no reason why NASA can't kick off a space lotto system right now to get people acclimated to the system. Suborbital tourism is thought to be only a few years away with an initial cost of $200,000 per passenger. Companies like Space Adventures, Virgin Galactic, Starchaser, Blue Origin, Armadillo Aerospace, XCOR Aerospace, Rocketplane Limited, the European "Project Enterprise" are all striving to offer commercial suborbital flights . Companies like Zero G company are already offering parabolic flights for brief zero G experiences, starting at $4,950 per person.

A space lotto system could immediately offer winners a monetary award ranging from $10,000 up to $200,000 plus a ticket for a parabolic flight and could be an immediate job creating boon for this industry all over the US. Once suborbital flights become available, then tickets for these flights could be added as part of the winning prizes. Tickets for orbital flights to new American space stations would be added once private industry has their manned space operations up and running. And finally, winning tickets to an American or private Moon base could be added as the ultimate prize for space lotto winners.

A NASA space lotto system could be the best way to help develop the private manned space launch industry. And such a system to enhance the commerce of space tourism which could eventually lead to the first wave of privateers and permanent colonist in the New Frontier.

http://www.zogby.com/news/readnews.cfm?ID=577

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=4255841&page=1

http://www.gozerog.com/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Unionized Labor Criticizes Obama Space Plans

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers

"......NASA plays a critical role in both our national and economic security. Our space program has been a critical driver of innovations in such key technologies as computers and composite materials, and plays an important role in emerging industries such as wind energy and sensors to detect biological threats.....

....While our military services rely on private contractors to design and build most of their equipment, the military owns the planes, ships, armored vehicles, weapons, information systems, and other key technologies. The armed services also own their domestic bases and operate their own foreign bases. The military, like NASA, uses private contractors, but the military exercises control of its operations and the technology. NASA has owned its manned space vehicles and its launch facilities. Laws and regulations govern NASA and military procurement so that sourcing, security, technology transfers, and a wide range of key decisions promote U.S. security and economic interests.....

...The push to privatize space travel is similar to efforts to privatize other critical government services. These efforts are based on anti-government ideology and are promoted by companies that want to profit from government outsourcing. It defies common sense to believe that the way to save NASA money is to outsource even more when these same contractors are already frequently over budget and often involved in over-billing and even fraud.....

......I respectfully urge you to reconsider the proposal for NASA to become completely dependent on private contractors for space travel. Thousands of high wage, high skill jobs critical to our long-term economic future are at state. In the meantime, instead of relying on the Russians to launch our astronauts, we need to extend the space shuttle program and accelerate and modify the Ares and Orion program to meet NASA’s mission needs. Only then can we be assured that America will continue to be the world leader in new and innovative space technologies vital to future economic and national security."

R. Thomas Buffenbarger, International President

For a complete copy of the of the letter, go to the following URL:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/files/2010/02/2_2_4_10_letter.pdf

Blog Archive

Popular Posts