No…your posts…so its you
A stalemate would ensue: the government would demand X as payment, but no one would have X with which to pay.
He had a blueprint when he was a lifeguard. It made the hair on his legs so shiny the kids loved to play with it.
On one side you have real world working economies. You can compare and contrast them, with actual numbers and policy changes with measurable effects.
Thats a valid argumentation strategy.
Then theres you. With a Green Day song.
1 Like
Why don’t you start the movement? Furthermore what would be accepted as currency?
What the fuck is this supposed to mean?
If the government is extremely inefficient, then why do they spend far less on admin. when compared to the dynamic private sector.(think Medicare)
Wow, more incoherent drivel from you.
What the hell does this have to do with federal economics? Enlighten us all with your real world working economies. And then compare and contrast their operations.
What you do is make statements not real arguments.
This is a thread based around oil and you have stated it should be phased out. Then you go and claim GPS is some free thing. GPS only continues to exist because oil based rockets continue to support launching new satellites as old ones wear out.
Did you look at how over budget most DoD contracts are? How bout the fact that social security and runs a deficit (i.e. losing money)? How about state governments that can’t afford to pay their state worker pensions (Illinois for example)?
1 Like
And this is because?
SS can only lose money by a choices made from politicians. Can the U.S. run out of dollars?
And who do they try and turn to for help?
Right now most, if not all, of the states are running a surplus thanks to the federal government giving them dollars.
When did I say GPS was a free thing?
Who doesn’t think this?
You assume that oil based rockets are the only way to power a rocket? Will another way not be found?
I guarantee I know way more about this particular item then you and, no, there are not currently (or in the near (~50 years) future) viable ways of creating a rocket capable of launching something orbit sans oil.
Oil is here to stay. No matter how much green/clean (like that’s a thing) energy gets produced, too much product relies on some form of oil. All the green energy posturing is purely showmanship. The solution to less reliance on fossil fuel for energy production already exists but no one will invest in it - nuclear.
Gas prices are coming back down in what is most likely a move driven by politics so the Dems don’t get their shirts handed to them in November.
3 Likes
The assertion that there is no viable alternative to oil-based rocket propulsion is absurdly false and can be disproven with a simple google search. I’m afraid you don’t know much more than OP if you are going to make that claim. The space shuttle launched with liquid hydrogen, liquid methane is a suitable fuel more powerful than rp-1 (no, natural gas is not oil), and there are a number of non-hydrocarbon hypergolic bipropellant mixtures capable of reaching orbit.
You can concede one point and not lose the rest of an argument. No need to make shit up.
You realize even in that scenario how many things are made with oil in those rockets right?
SRBs (Solid Rocket Boosters) have been in use for many decades. The Space Shuttle used them as do many other rockets. Virgin Galactic also use them but they do not achieve orbit so don’t move payloads off the Earth in the sense I think you were asking about.
But they are inherently dangerous. Once ignited, there’s no shut off. They were a primary cause of the Challenger Shuttle loss in 1986.
There’s also no active throttling during their burn time although a crude form of pre-programmed throttling can be incorporated into the stack of solid propellant by putting more or less fuel at different levels within the stack. So if you know that at 50 seconds into a burn you need to throttle down, then you put less fuel into the fuel stack at that point.
But other than liquid and solid chemical rockets, there is no viable alternative for lifting payloads to orbit. If there were, we’d already be using them even if they were only safe for unmanned launches.
Even electric cars require oil.
Windmills for energy require lots of … you guess it - oil.
2 Likes
I am not convinced that was the assertion he made. I think what was asserted was that there isn’t a viable way of creating a rocket capable of launching something in orbit without oil.
I am guessing that lot of components are oil based?
Beat me to it haha.
2 Likes
Actually seems like usage. Demand is somewhat falling off. People are driving less as the price of other essential goods goes up.
As I understand the solid propellant used in rockets is ammonium perchlorate. That is the same propellant we used in high powered rocketry.
As a random, unrelated comment, I got my Level 3 Certification on a full “M” motor in a 14ft, 95lb rocket that travelled to an altitude of 4500ft.
Ammonia is produced via the haber boch process, combining hydrogen generally made from cracked natural gas and atmospheric nitrogen and heating with electricity. Perchlorate is produced through heated electrolysis of salt, and converted to perchloric acid via some mineral acid, also produced electrolytically. And since electricity can be cheaply produced without oil (where I live like 90% of electricity is produced via renewable sources, so I’m not going to entertain arguments stating that oil is needed for electrical power. The future is now, it can be done), yes the solid rocket booster oxidizer component can indeed be made almost entirely oil-free.
Hydrogen, also produced electrolytically.
Liquid oxygen, lol ripped right out of the air. Electricity powered cryogenic cooling system.
Aluminum is also refined electrolytically, as carbon is not a strong enough reducing agent compared to aluminum to allow for your typical coke furnace reduction. But even if it were, coal isn’t oil so worrying about that is irrelevant.
Plastics, sure generally made with oil. But since plastics are generally polymerized small molecules, pretty much all of them can be reformed from cracked natural gas.
Is producing a rocket completely oil-free viable now? No probably not. Will it be within 10 years? Absolutely. 50 years is an outrageous claim.
Talking about solid rocket boosters is kind of moot in a conversation about orbital propellant mixtures since solid rocket boosters generally lack the specific impulse to accelerate a payload to orbit.
A 95 pound rocket is a monster lol that must’ve been fun to launch
I had always thought that ammonium perchlorate is uncontrollable, thus making its primary function to get the rocket up to speed and altitude, where the controllable fuels could then be the propellant of choice.
Due to the relatively high cost of ammonium perchlorate propellant, the rocket club that I was a member began mixing their own ammonium perchlorate propellant. It is very dangerous, and I elected to miss all those events.
BTW, the propellant that I used to fill my full “M” motor cost me $500, totally burnt in 2 seconds. I had to pick it up at the launch site because I did not have a BATF license to store that quantity of ammonium perchlorate.
Come on bros! Fossil fuels are getting super played out.
Some dudes in England are like 3 years away from useable Fusion energy.
And another guy has already come up with a solar powered cable-elevator to the moon.
Right now I’m looking for investors so I can start the first commercial whale farm to harvest whale oil.
1 Like
Okay, I will concede on the fuel but there will be components of the system made from products dependent on oil.
Maybe these fuels are coming but the most launched rocket right now is the Falcon 9 which is liquid oxygen and RP-1. That likely won’t change for quite a few years given the time to get to production TRL.