There is far more than 1 600 000 tonnes of recoverable Th in the Earths crust. Those numbers refer only to estimated amount in presently known high quality reserves on dry land - easily accessible thorium mineral deposits recoverable at price below X. And considering we have not even seriously...
If scaling up is the big problem causing huge decreases in service life, why even do it? Maybe it would be more economical to build an array of more smaller kW range LFTRs with longer service life than fewer bigger ones with reduced service life (for the same power generation capacity).
http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.2223
Abstract
Even though ideas of extracting future-related, or Faster-Than-Light (FTL) information from hyperspace using quantum entanglement have generally been refuted in the last ten years, in this paper we show that the original 'Delayed Choice Quantum...
Dr. Stevenson recognised this:
It was not assumed to be true, quite the opposite, the null hypothesis was standard skeptic explanation you speak of:
Only after failure of the null hypothesis to sufficiently explain the observed Dr. Stevenson turned to alternative theories. And even then...
Thats not a fitting analogy, since unicorn claims cannot be verified or falsified and are therefore unscientific.
But those children just starting to speak were telling detailed descriptions about the past lifes which they have no way to know, and which were verifiable, and matched the actual...
I would like to know your opinion about the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty_Cases_Suggestive_of_Reincarnation"
http://www.pureinsight.org/node/1165"
http://energyfromthorium.com
http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com
According to the links, thorium power has very real potential to solve all our energy needs practically forever, just like fusion, but compared to fusion it is far easier to achieve it. And why are we not already using it...
Imagine the cable as a stream of particles - because only its own tensile strenght is insufficient to hold it together against the gravity in the scale of Launch Loop, it actually is a "stream of particles", holding against gravity by its kinetic energy, not tensile strenght.
By "space elevator" I meant launch loop too, which is a type of space elevator (I had misquoted dr dodge, edited now..). Yes, they are the best and only realistic choice now, compared to other designs. :)
For launching satelittes, yes. But for space colonisation and tourism, it is not enough. I don't think it will ever achieve few dollars per kg launch cost like space elevator (launch loop) approaches. Even with huge 200+ t rockets, it may be far more expensive.
I think launch loop design is better because it gives you not only velocity, but also correct velocity vector for orbital insertion (compared to Hyde design).
I agree, Launch Loops are more possible now because they don't require sci-fi materials. Engineering problems can be overcomed, but if you don't have material with enough tensile strenght, cable approach is just a no go...
Why would you want to go through van Allen belts? LEO is almost...
All space elevator concepts don't require currently unfeasible high tensile strenght materials. The Launch Loop substitutes tensile strenght with kinetic energy of moving belt, so no new materials need to be developed.
I think the best alternative would be either the launch loop...
Thats hell of a expensive subway btw... Maybe digging through hard soil instead of air could be the cause.
Anyway, here is the original Launch Loop paper with more exact figures, preliminary designs and much more: http://launchloop.com/LaunchLoop?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=launchloop.pdf
Space is the final frontier. The biggest obstacle to human space exploration and colonisation of the solar system are not the distances involved, but rather our hard-to-escape imprisonment - Earth gravity well. Conventional way using only chemical rockets has surely achieved a lot in the past...