Category Archives: Economics

California

…the Lindsay Lohan of states. One of the many good things about Tuesday’s result is that there is now no prospect for the state to be bailed out by the federal taxpayers. The moronic electorate here is about to have a hard collision with reality.

[Update early afternoon]

What happens when a state goes bankrupt? I guess we’re going to find out, because California (and other states, such as Illinois) are essentially already there.

I Don’t Want A Government That Is “Pro Business”

I want one that is for the free market.

Yes, I know that I’ve been complaining that the administration has been anti-business, and it has been, particularly with all of the uncertainty that it’s engendered, with businesspeople not knowing what new atrocity and attack on profits it’s going to commit. But that doesn’t mean that I want it to be subsidizing politically favored business (including energy businesses, of all flavors) either.

Thoughts On Facts And Science

…from an unwashed hillbilly:

Those words mean two things to this unwashed hillbilly: (1) I have doubts that Obama is “the smartest guy ever to become President,” and (2) he lies.

When Obama was trying to sell the plan, he said it would bring the cost curve down. Once his plan was signed into law, he said he knew that it was “going to increase our costs.” At least that sure looks like a lie to this ignorant know-nothing. Maybe there’s some nuance I don’t understand. Or does “down” mean “up” in actuarial science? Maybe Katie Couric could enlighten me; she knows pretty much everything about climate science.

I guess I’m an unwashed hillbilly, too.

California, Too Far Gone

We seem to have reached a tipping point here. Too many Californians think that they can have both lunatic environmental and economic policies, and a viable economy. Almost every initiative went the wrong way, as did the gubernatorial and senatorial elections, though the former was partly a result of an awful Republican candidate — Jerry Brown might have been beatable by Chuck DeVore.

It’s a positive feedback situation with increasingly negative results. The economic ignorami in the electorate vote for idiotic propositions, and send economic ignorami to Sacramento in the legislature and governor’s mansion, resulting in flight by the sensible, continuing to distill and concentrate the idiocy in the electorate. It will end in bankruptcy (the state is basically already there), and then they’ll demand a bailout from the rest of the country. Fortunately, with the new Congress, they won’t get it. But I don’t know if the state is salvageable at this point. It’s some of the best real estate on earth, but its current inhabitants don’t deserve it, and have squandered a great legacy.

It’s an opportunity for other states to poach a lot of space companies, I think.

[Update early afternoon]

California, winner of the Dumbest State Award, by a landslide.

LEO Game Changers

Joe Carroll is giving a talk on some long-shot “wild cards” that could have a high payoff. One of them is aerosnatch of first stages, which could simplify launch system design by eliminating the need for flyback, and has such a high payoff in performance, that he suggests we understand it better before making any decisions on heavy-lift design, because it may set an upper limit on economical launch vehicle size.

Another is recycling aluminum on orbit, as a first step toward processing true extraterrestrial materials. He points out the bizarre (and typical of a government) situation in which everyone agrees that orbital debris is a problem, but there is no budget for it anywhere in the federal government. Also discussing slings and elevators, propounding the advantages of the former over the latter. For people to an from LEO, elevators, but for a lot of payload beyond, slings are the way to go. Makes an analogy of going from ships to railroads. Rockets are the ships, slings are the railroads (the latter requires an up-front infrastructure, and is limited in destination, but very efficient once in place). Thinks that the first sling will be at 51.6 inclination, second at zero.

Top Ten Technologies For Reusable CisLunar Transportation Architecture

Dallas Bienhoff:

Architecture has propellant depots, “depot tugs” between LEO and EML1, and landers from EML1 and the moon. Breaking up propulsion steps makes system more efficient. Can be launched and supported in 25-ton chunks (no HLV needed). Can also get tonnage back to LEO via aerocapture, to allow delivery of lunar water there.

Consists of personnel modules (zero-gee and g-oriented), propellant carrier, two modular depots, reusable transfer vehicles, aerobraked reusable vehicle, lander, all Lox/hydrogen.

Top ten techs:

10. Variable mixture ratio lox/hydrogen engine.

9. Low-g and zero-g oxygen/hydrogen liquefaction

8. Low-g water electrolysis

7. Deep-space autonomous rendezvous and docking (AR&D)

6. Aerocapture (need to fly aerocapture experiment from eighties that never flew)

5. Long-life reusable lox/hydrogen engine

4. Aero-assisted entry, descent and landing

3. Long-term zero-g cryo storage

2. Zero-g cryo transfer

1. Zero-g cryo fluid management (storage). Can be done with cryo coolers.

NASA flight technology demos (FTDs) support some but not all, but schedule far too long. Really important stuff out in 2025 time frame.

10, 9, 8, 7 and 5 (half of them) not covered by FTDs.

Needed now, cryo management, storage, transfer.

Next, AEDL, then aerocapture.

First three technologies enable depots, AEDL enhances ETO propellant tankers, long-life engines help cost, deep-space enables depot assembly and lander/stage mating.

Overall, enable reusability, enhance efficiency, promote reduced propellant delivery cost to LEO.

[Update a while later]

Dallas went too fast for me to capture everything, but in answer to a comment here, the reason for variable mixture ratio is that due to other uses (e.g. oxygen for life support), differential boil-off rates in storage, etc., you can’t count on any particular mixture ratio. Electrolysis gives you stoichiometric output, but while that’s the most efficient ratio in terms of energy production, it doesn’t maximize specific impulse (6:1 is the best for that). But the point is that you don’t want to waste any propellant when it cost so much, so you don’t care about Isp per se, as long as the engine can turn whatever ratio into useful thrust. The trades for this problem are very different than the ones for launch systems, when propellant, in whatever ratio desired, is a trivial part of the launch cost.