New propulsion sytems for ships

[sharpii2]

Originally Posted by SheetWise

Sharpii2--


Start with the Arpanet -- now known as the Internet. That's one I think you're familiar with.


No. And why is it that when a lie is repeated often enough, people believe it? The examples you're offering have been disproven so many times, you have to be avoiding the truth so as to not stumble into it.


You mean if they would have fired all of the people who didn't understand O-rings, they would have learned all the secrets of heat tiles? How exactly does that work?

Thanks for the example, StreetWise. I was hoping for more than one.

As for the $500 hammers, I well remember reading about that in the reputable press, but I'll admit that was twenty years ago. And that was not my point anyway. My point was that, while our good freind FF was apearing to dump holy water on the defense crowd, I wanted to point out that they too are not perfect. And they have the same problems as any other large bureacracy; mannagement inertia.

As to the bit about NASA, I meant that I would fire only the top guy. He/she made the ultimate decision to go in both cases. Though it is true that they got their engineers to go along with them. It is also true that they brow beat them mercilessly to get them to change their minds.

I would NOT try to reinvent NASA, but merely try to get their mannagement style and substance more in line with the reasonable expectations of myself as well as those of the American people. The guy (or gal) next in line would be promoted 'battlefield style' to the top spot just after seeing his/her boss go down publicly in flames.

Hopefully, the message would be clear: delay is ok and astronaut death (due to stupid decisions on mannagement's part) = career death.

I hope I've made myself more clear.

Bob

[SheetWise]

You're more clear. We may have some disagreement about what constitutes the "reputable press" -- which I don't believe has ever been a part of the mainstream press -- but the mainstream press has certainly reported and repeated your statements for years (after they knew them to be false).

On your main (and more important) point I think it's important to recognize that NASA has become a PR tool for politicians -- to a large degree as a result of their successes. This puts the director in a position where the "bang" gets the "buck" -- that's a sad development that can only be tied to failures of American education. That people can be so ignorant of NASA's role in American tech that politicians feel comfortable browbeating them tells a lot.

We earmark a percentage of all federal expenditures for art -- yet science has to fight for funding and show results. That's dumb. We need to de-politicize science.

So, I agree with your statement "... merely try to get their management style and substance more in line with the reasonable expectations of myself as well as those of the American people". How will it get done? Educate the American people and quit electing ******.

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by SheetWise

.... We need to de-politicize science....

Yes. And this thread.

[SheetWise]

De-politicize propulsion for ships? I agree. But as far as energy and the science to make it viable goes -- impossible.

[FAST FRED]

De-politicize propulsion for ships? I agree

Hardly possible as the dead hand of governments sets the rules for almost everything that floats.

The latest "air polution" rules for ships (Tier 2) determines which engines mfg are "allowed" to produce.

On one end is vessel operators that want economy , the other side is pandering politicos that want "clean", but never are satisfied with "clean", .

With the introduction of the US 07 trucks the air leaving the exhaust is cleaner than that going in the intake , but MORE rules are on the horizon for "cleaner".

At a 15% fuel penalty on EVERY vehicle in the US, for "clean" ,the politicos have no problem destroying operators livings , and are ready to MANDATE , more "clean".

If only we elected politicos that have ever worked for a living , it would be a huge help!

FAST FRED

[SeaSpark]

Guillermo,

Do you have any information about the Vigo conference for us?
After your announcement i became very curious about what professionals working in the fishing industry have to say about this subject.

[Guillermo]

An interesting site showing several new engines, some of them exciting:
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Engines/index.html

More about alternative energies for fishing fleets:
Last May 25 we held a conference on this subject at Vigo, organized by the NA & ME Association of Galicia. We discussed the several possible alternatives and what is already being done to test them. I've writen some conclusions (to be presented to the fishing authorities) I have to translate into english and then post them here, whenever I find time.

For the time being, just to inform about a Fishermen Association in Celeiro, a tiny fishing village in Galicia's north coast, who is leading a searching program for the best solutions aplicable to small fishing vessels. Their project is called "Peixe Verde" (Green fish) and they are using "Santiago Apóstolo", an old long-liner, as a test bench. They will try the following: LNG, LPG, H2, solar & eolic. More info at: http://www.peixeverde.org/peixe_org_eng/index.htm

A "Spanish Technological Sub-Platform for ENERGY AND FISHING" is being created in Spain at this moment, within the global "Maritime Technological Platform" (http://ptmaritima.org/index.htm). Let's hope something useful comes out of all this....

[Guillermo]

I've found this one quite interesting
http://pesn.com/2005/08/02/9600142_IAUS_Solar/

[SheetWise]

Guillermo --

Were you thinking extension cords or a transoceanic trolley?

[Kiteship]

Originally Posted by sharpii2

I would NOT try to reinvent NASA, but merely try to get their mannagement style and substance more in line with the reasonable expectations of myself as well as those of the American people. The guy (or gal) next in line would be promoted 'battlefield style' to the top spot just after seeing his/her boss go down publicly in flames.

Hopefully, the message would be clear: delay is ok and astronaut death (due to stupid decisions on mannagement's part) = career death.

I hope I've made myself more clear.

Bob

Forgive me for disagreeing and of course this is getting far afield from the original thread, but this is a pet peeve of mine:

The US' current policy of "zero" deaths in its space program is so silly it's sublime. The history of flight is rife with bold heros losing their lives to advance the science and engineering of the subject. We wouldn't have modern airliners if earlier "politicians" had said, "Hey, those things are killing people. Stop in immediately or you're fired!"

Everything you do has danger associated with it. From taking your morning shower to driving to work to walking across the stree to your car after an after-work cocktail--let alone the cocktail itself--you take your life in your hands nearly every waking minute. It remains statistically far safer to fly in a Space Shuttle than it is to drive to the corner store. Why then do we make silly statements like "dead astronaut = career death"? And we wonder why our best and brightest *don't* work at NASA?

Every fisherman who leaves the shore; every yachtsman who crosses an ocean; every soccer mom who belts her most precious possessions into the back of the family minivan, knows they may not come home tonight. Trust me, our astronauts are willing to take similar risks.

Attitudes such as those you state are strangling the US'--and the world's--ability to move science forward. (No personal offense meant, please. I decry the statements you make--which were likely originally promulgated by someone else--not you personally)

Dave

[sharpii2]

Originally Posted by Kiteship

Forgive me for disagreeing and of course this is getting far afield from the original thread, but this is a pet peeve of mine:

The US' current policy of "zero" deaths in its space program is so silly it's sublime. The history of flight is rife with bold heros losing their lives to advance the science and engineering of the subject. We wouldn't have modern airliners if earlier "politicians" had said, "Hey, those things are killing people. Stop in immediately or you're fired!"

Everything you do has danger associated with it. From taking your morning shower to driving to work to walking across the stree to your car after an after-work cocktail--let alone the cocktail itself--you take your life in your hands nearly every waking minute. It remains statistically far safer to fly in a Space Shuttle than it is to drive to the corner store. Why then do we make silly statements like "dead astronaut = career death"? And we wonder why our best and brightest *don't* work at NASA?

Every fisherman who leaves the shore; every yachtsman who crosses an ocean; every soccer mom who belts her most precious possessions into the back of the family minivan, knows they may not come home tonight. Trust me, our astronauts are willing to take similar risks.

Attitudes such as those you state are strangling the US'--and the world's--ability to move science forward. (No personal offense meant, please. I decry the statements you make--which were likely originally promulgated by someone else--not you personally)

Dave

Dear Dave:

I do believe that there is a difference between calculated risks and blind stupidity. Don't you. If the pioneer aviators had acted as stupidly as some of these top NASA bureaucrats, we probably wouldn't have airplanes now either. There would be no one left to fly 'em or, more importantly, teach others how to fly them. I don't believe any of these guys or gals ever took off in an airplane knowing it was almost certainly going to have a fatal crash.
There may have been a high likely hood of that happening due to unforseen engineering short falls, but they were almost certainly confident that the risk was relatively small.

I don't think the same could be said about Challenger's launch and Columbia's reentry. In each case there was glaring evidence that there was something seriously wrong. And such evidence was most emphatically pointed out to the decision making bureaucrats at the time, but, still, said bureacrats, do to political expediency or God knows what else, decided to go ahead anyway.

In private pilot circles they have a saying:

"There are bold pilots and there are old pilots, but there are no old bold pilots."

To that I would add:

"...but there are plenty of stupid bureacrats to get even the old pilots killed...If doing so might get them a promotion."

Bob

[Wellydeckhand]

Let get back to propulsion gentlement..... or else I will be building boats with these.........

[marshmat]

Originally Posted by Kiteship

It remains statistically far safer to fly in a Space Shuttle than it is to drive to the corner store.

I don't like seeing politics here but I think it's necessary to correct this statistic.
The probability of losing a shuttle orbiter with all crew is approximately 1.7 % on any given flight. (Two shuttles have been lost in ~114 flights.) This is in a total of ~1040 days of flying. So a loss of seven crew every 520 days of flight time, on average.
The probability of an incident in your car depends mostly on your driving skill. But driver error aside, the probability of a mechanical failure in your car causing seven deaths is a lot less than once in 520 days. Say you drive 2 hours a day, every day- the car-crash equivalent to the Shuttle's track record would thus be your car killing 7 people once in 17 years. Do the math.
Keep in mind that roughly 9 in 10 car crashes are due to a bad decision on the part of one or more drivers and not to failure of the vehicle itself. Driver error is not a factor in spaceflight as all spacecraft are fully automated, or very nearly so, during launch and reentry.

[marshmat]

Originally Posted by FAST FRED

The latest "air polution" rules for ships (Tier 2) determines which engines mfg are "allowed" to produce.

On one end is vessel operators that want economy , the other side is pandering politicos that want "clean", but never are satisfied with "clean", .

With the introduction of the US 07 trucks the air leaving the exhaust is cleaner than that going in the intake , but MORE rules are on the horizon for "cleaner".

The best way to clean up the exhaust of an engine is to make it burn less fuel. Thus making it more economical to run as well.
Ask any trucker whether they prefer a 2006 CAT electronic diesel over the 1976 version. I'm pretty sure they'll tell you they much prefer the lower fuel costs, cleaner operation and good cold-and-idling ability of the new motor.
Yes, there are some very impressive clean-burning engines out there today. But should we let that stop us from making them even better? No! The transition to fully renewable energy is well underway- not fast enough to avoid all energy supply problems, but there is definitely a lot of progress being made. And history has shown that progress in such areas is fastest when there are nation- and world-wide incentives and targets for industry to strive towards.

[Vega]

Originally Posted by marshmat

The transition to fully renewable energy is well underway- not fast enough to avoid all energy supply problems, but there is definitely a lot of progress being made. And history has shown that progress in such areas is fastest when there are nation- and world-wide incentives and targets for industry to strive towards.

Originally Posted by Guillermo

I've found this interesting information about the use of ferrofluids to generate energy from the ocean's waves....

Here in Peniche, Portugal , in the local shipyard, they are finishing wave engines that will form the first energy park, producing energy from sea waves.

Corresponding to an investment of 8.4 millions of euros the wave energy park will be installed this summer in Póvoa do Varzim .

Peniche authorities are also interested in having one of those systems here.

The Finish have been here looking at it and have already showed interest in utilizing this technology in their country.

http://www.oceanpd.com/Anims/pelamis_V4.html
http://www.oceanpd.com/Links/videos.html
http://www.wave-energy-centre.org/pa...ENERSIS.ppt#14
http://www.wave-energy.net/index3.htm
http://www.oceanpd.com/default.html
http://dn.sapo.pt/2006/05/12/economi...rque_onda.html