Gold/Mining/Energy | Big Dog's Boom Boom Room


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: The Jack of Hearts who wrote (119847)4/16/2009 12:49:50 PM
From: Webster Groves   of 178586
 
Not necessarily.
DOD I believe was once sold the space hook idea that would pull stuff up from earth into geosync orbit.
I kid you not.

wg

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Webster Groves who wrote (119848)4/16/2009 1:21:51 PM
From: The Jack of Hearts   of 178586
 
Well it's a cool idea but if you say my first post yep.. beaming highpower microwaves is scary ...

I wonder if the satellite will come with a popcorn setting :O)

If they can solve that issue.. ... exciting to see the efficiency gain...

TBS

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: The Jack of Hearts who wrote (119851)4/16/2009 1:25:42 PM
From: CommanderCricket   of 178586
 
A better solution would be a space elevator using superconducting materials - LOL

We could build that too....

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

From: tradingfaster1234/16/2009 1:32:22 PM
3 Recommendations   of 178586
 
I'm back all-in short NG. There is enough visisbility and enough data points to suggest that the price will have to collapse by September to prevent storage from filling over 3.8TCF. The latest data indicates something like 3bcfpd oversupplied, down from 5bcfpd over the winter. Interestingly, the EIA data from January (the latest month where data is available) showed that demand is down 4bcfpd...industrial collapsing 12 percent and electric generation down 8 percent. Production had already declined from the peak by 1bcfpd in a mere two months in January so it must be down even more by now--but it was still up 4bcfpd year over year for onshore and 2.8bcfpd for total (offshore+onshore). Canadian imports were down 1.5bcfpd yoy and I think it is probably similar today. Overall there was a 5bcfpd oversupplied market in January per the EIA ex-weather, which corrborates what the inventory data was suggesting back then.

imo, the inventory data is now suggesting 3bcfpd oversupplied today, which is down significantly, but there is not enough time as we approach May. there may have been enough time were it not for LNG, but that is the dagger in the heart that will ensure that even as domestic production drops, LNG will take share, and is already doing so. europe industrial production down 18 percent is case in point. so I'm assuming the oversupply stays around 3bcfpd, which puts inventory on a trajectory for 4.5TCF by november...so something like 700bcf of production must be shut-in before November. I think sometime in May NG will have a $2 handle as the market attempts to force shut-ins. $1 handle later on is still a possibility. You want to be long e&p's come next winter, however, since LNG will no doubt dry up as it always does, and the production fall off will be most severe by then. so i'm looking to buy in the September time frame. FWIW JMHO WTFDIK

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: CommanderCricket who wrote (119852)4/16/2009 1:36:10 PM
From: JimisJim2 Recommendations   of 178586
 
Cricket: isn't that exactly what Arthur C. Clarke proposed? And he was serious as I recall... though now that I look at wiki about it, he was far from the first guy to have the notion... amazingly, a group claims that they could have one operational in 2014... with some pretty big "ifs":

"A space elevator is a proposed structure designed to transport material from a celestial body's surface into space. Many variants have been proposed, all of which involve traveling along a fixed structure instead of using rocket powered space launch. The concept most often refers to a structure that reaches from the surface of the Earth on or near the equator to geostationary orbit (GSO) and a counter-mass beyond.

The concept of a space elevator dates back to 1895 when Konstantin Tsiolkovsky proposed a free-standing "Tsiolkovsky" tower reaching from the surface of Earth to geostationary orbit.

Most recent discussions focus on tensile structures (specifically, tethers) reaching from geostationary orbit to the ground. This structure would be held in tension between Earth and the counterweight in space like a guitar string held taut.





Space elevators have also sometimes been referred to as beanstalks, space bridges, space lifts, space ladders, skyhooks, orbital towers, or orbital elevators.

Current (2009) technology is not capable of manufacturing practical engineering materials that are sufficiently strong and light to build an Earth based space elevator. This is because the total mass of conventional materials needed to construct such a structure would be far too great.

However, recent conceptualizations for a space elevator are notable in their plans to use carbon nanotube-based materials as the tensile element in the tether design, since the measured strength of microscopic carbon nanotubes appears great enough to make this theoretically possible. Current technology could produce elevators for locations in the solar system with a weaker gravitational field, such as Mars.

This concept, also called an orbital space elevator, geostationary orbital tether, or a beanstalk, is a subset of the skyhook concept, and is what people normally think of when the phrase 'space elevator' is used (although there are variants).

Construction would be a vast project: a tether would have to be built of a material that could endure tremendous stress while also being light-weight, cost-effective, and manufacturable in great quantities. Materials currently available do not meet these requirements, although carbon nanotube technology shows great promise. A considerable number of other novel engineering problems would also have to be solved to make a space elevator practical.

Not all problems regarding feasibility have yet been addressed. Nevertheless, the LiftPort Group stated in 2002 that by developing the technology, the first space elevator could be operational by 2014."

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: CommanderCricket who wrote (119852)4/16/2009 1:37:11 PM
From: The Jack of Hearts   of 178586
 
got the ticker for Otis LOL

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: JimisJim who wrote (119854)4/16/2009 1:45:38 PM
From: CommanderCricket   of 178586
 
What's real cool about the concept is by using a counter balance weight, lifting costs to orbit will be dramatically reduced.

Someday we'll see this technology in work as its the best way to get our butts out of the gravity well without much energy.

We could build an elevator if the material science could provide a high tensile strength material. Wouldn't want this thing falling back to earth.

Don't go shorting Otis....

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: JimisJim who wrote (119854)4/16/2009 2:04:31 PM
From: Salt'n'Peppa   of 178586
 
There are severe static electricity problems to be overcome by doing anything of this nature.

There must be a million other difficulties, but my reading on the subject in past months/years indicates static as the single biggest hurdle.

Cheers,
S&P

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Salt'n'Peppa who wrote (119857)4/16/2009 2:06:23 PM
From: CommanderCricket1 Recommendation   of 178586
 
No problem - shunt it off onto the grid and collect additional revenue....

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: CommanderCricket who wrote (119856)4/16/2009 2:10:04 PM
From: Webster Groves1 Recommendation   of 178586
 
<What's real cool about the concept is by using a counter balance weight, lifting costs to orbit will be dramatically reduced.>

Not true.

Who pays to get the counterweight up ?
What happens to the weight after every lift ?
Who pays to put it back where it was ?
Costs go up, not down.

wg

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.