Originally posted by bless 'em all
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Apple patents something to do with hydrogen fuel cells
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by AtW View PostAs I said none of those are in production - there is NO other more economical way to launch stuff (commercial weights) into orbit but rockets.
Newer rockets made by SpaceX and others should cut down costs nicely as well.
Funnily enough, the very thing we are talking about, hydrogen, gets in to orbit without any help from us at all.Comment
-
Originally posted by TimberWolf View PostRockets will always be inefficient because most of the energy goes into lifting the fuel itself.
Efficiency talk is pointless unless you've got better way of doing it.
At the moment rockets fired up by NASA cost so much due to Govt higher costs: pensions, extortion from sole suppliers etc, but private smaller companies will cut down price massively.Comment
-
Originally posted by AtW View PostLook, it's like this - rockets it the CHEAPEST available means of putting stuff to orbit right now.
Efficiency talk is pointless unless you've got better way of doing it.
At the moment rockets fired up by NASA cost so much due to Govt higher costs: pensions, extortion from sole suppliers etc, but private smaller companies will cut down price massively.
I was speaking in physical terms. A tiny fraction of the energy in those huge rockets ends up in an orbiting satellite and sacking people and cutting pensions payment won't change that. Rockets will be inefficient even with smaller companies.Comment
-
Originally posted by TimberWolf View PostI was speaking in physical terms.
As I said - there is no currently any other proven method of launching commercial grade heavy stuff up in orbit other than rockets.
If you have come up with a better way then stop posting tulip on CUK and get it working!Comment
-
Originally posted by AtW View PostWhen trying to make something big happen physics is nothing, it's all about economics - the cost of launching newer rockets from private companies probably 10 times cheaper than the kind of cost everybody got used to in the last 10 years.
As I said - there is no currently any other proven method of launching commercial grade heavy stuff up in orbit other than rockets.
If you have come up with a better way then stop posting tulip on CUK and get it working!
Anyway the last guy who was getting somewhere ended up deaded: Gerald Bull - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It was to be capable of placing a 2,000-kilogram projectile into orbit
But people are working on it. Also sometimes there are large capital costs that deter the short-sighted, see the British Space Programme (RIP).Comment
-
Looking at the Wiki, getting to Low Earth Orbit isn't as energy inefficient as I thought:
Given the energy input of 20 TJ, the Space Shuttle is about 16% energy efficient at launching the orbiter and payload just 4% efficiency if the payload alone is considered.[citation needed]
Fuel efficiency in transportation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaComment
-
Originally posted by TimberWolf View PostYou have to understand the physics though
What you don't understand is economics - there is no other feasible way to get stuff into orbit, end of story.
You have new way to do that cheaply with your physics? Great - a lot of companies would love to cut down costs of launching satellites up there, but word of worning - none of then give a flying monkey about physics.Comment
-
-
Originally posted by AtW View PostI understand the physics.
What you don't understand is economics - there is no other feasible way to get stuff into orbit, end of story.
You have new way to do that cheaply with your physics? Great - a lot of companies would love to cut down costs of launching satellites up there, but word of worning - none of then give a flying monkey about physics.
I said rockets were inefficient, I didn't say that there is currently any other way of getting to orbit. You like totally invented that argument.
Without the physics there is no economics, unless you want rapidly emptying pockets. Want to invest in a perpetual motion machine?
Work is in progress on more efficient methods of getting things in to orbit, for example by using air breathing engines. And once in space further proposals still, solar sails, nuclear powered engines, etc.Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment