Space Entrepenuer

[hyper_fule]

I want to start my own rocket company, when I get out of the navy. Considering I am in the nuclear field it seems like good idea to try some kind of nuclear-ion rocket disign. I am not a billionair so I am probably out of my head. I have some ideas, not sure if any them will work. Any thoughts?

 

[kdavis007]

Find somone that has the money<br />

 

[j05h]

Thoughts? Yes, go to school with your nuke experience and get a free engineering degree - Uncle Sam probably owes you one. I'd suggest an aerospace program with emphasis on power systems and some physics. MIT might be a good choice. Once you have a degree, consider a masters and doctorate so the billionaires will listen to you. In 8 years of school, you can probably get the funding and labspace to build your demo technology.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

Yes, I hear thats what they were all telling Bill Gates just before he dropped out of Harvard to found Microsoft...

 

[hyper_fule]

I understand the importance of education. I do want to to be innovative but I don't think quiting school will prevent me from doing that. Besides, you can't do engineering without lots of schooling, buisness maybe but I think I might get a degree in that to.

 

[nyarlathotep]

Once you've finished your doctorate, consider brainwashing one of the Forbes top 10 for your startup capital.<br /><br />It worked for McCaw, it can work for you.

 

[tomnackid]

Yes, I hear thats what they were all telling Bill Gates just before he dropped out of Harvard to found Microsoft...<br />-------------------------------------------------------------<br />I think its funny when people talk about Bill Gates being a college drop out as if he were some kind of hippy rebel who pulled himself up by his own bootstraps to rule the (computer) world. His parents were already multimillionaires long before he learned to program. He dropped out to spend his trust fund on business ventures. He made some good decisions (eventually), placed himself in the right place at the right time. Hired the right people, got a little lucky and ran with it and the rest, as they say is history! Probably not having to jump through hoops for venture capitalists was his biggest advantage. <br /><br />Note: I'm not trying to denigrate Gate's achievements, but a college drop out with a million dollar trust fund is a little different than your garden variety drop out or person with only a high school education.

 

[rocketman5000]

Very true, money makes starting a company so much easier. Also having wealthy parents that know a person or two doesn't help, but ultimately beg, borrowing, and most of all stealing gets a far way. <br /><br />none of that works though without a boat load of motivation and unending hard work.

 

[spacelifejunkie]

Don't forget to hire a few lawyers. Any research resembling nuclear energy and some people will be out to get you. Especially if you want to make money doing it. I am a capitalist at heart and would love to see you or someone else make your dream happen. Nuclear ion and nuclear thermal rockets will open up the whole solar system for mankind eventually. You will have to knock down a mountain of political roadblocks before your first launch even if you are scientifically and financially successful in your venture.<br /><br />SLJ

 

[hyper_fule]

Thats why I am keeping my eyes peeled for a nice piece of realestate that is outside of the country. Only problem with that is I am worried that some future president might think I am haboring weapons of mass destruction or something. Maybe I'll just start out with solar thermal. It should be a hell of a lot cheaper and not have as much redtape.<br /><br />I am thinking of a new way to look at space economics. I call it thermo economics becuse it is based on thermodyamics. Theoretically all profit can be derived from energy gain. The only way to gain energy is from heat transfer. The warm spots in the universe and places where energy is stored tend to have gravitational fields. You can get energy from warm bodies like the sun at a distance because of thermal radiation, but the power output dcreases with the distance squared. This is fine though becuase the gravity field also decreases with the distance squared. So if we ignor the fact that we have to carry propellant we can have zero energy cost missions at constant thrust. This not only will be able to get you anywhere you want but it can get you there fast. In reality conservation of momentum is a &%$#@!. The only solution for that is things like tethers or perhaps something even bigger. I keep having vissions of this giant orbiting monolith that space craft can exchange momentum with. If it only serviced two way trips it could maintain it's momentum. It could be like a public momentum exchange system. Of cource booth this ideas are flawed. The first one assumes you happen to have an infinite amount of propellant that only has mass when you need it to and the second idea assumes you have an infinite amount of energy that you can whip out of your backpocket and use in moments notice sending your spacecraft thruogh an untold number of gees.

 

[hyper_fule]

Constant thrust? What was I smoking? lol I posted that whole thing kinda late at night.

 

[hyper_fule]

OK so I started talking about thermo economics than I went off on a tangent on imaginary propulsion systems. All matter in the universe radiates heat. Larger bodies like stars tend to emmit a lot of heat. The earth doesn't emmit that much heat. It is cheaper for us to implement solar technology to make a proffit than to implement geothermal.

 

[rocketman5000]

Maybe a better term would be constant acceleration and not constant thrust. Thrust would decrease propotionally to the amount of gravity.

 

[rocketman5000]

i've always thought of that too. It would be nice to go somewhere that wasn't so crazy about killing anything nuclear that wasn't goverment owned. Perhaps you should learn French. They seem to be pretty liberal about nuclear energy. Maybe use American money on French soil?? The US wouldn't attack France. At least not openly

 

[hyper_fule]

The primary currency I would use would be energy. If I used a more conventional currency I would no problem with using Euros. France is probably a good coice. They aren't as paranoid over there.

 

[MBA_UIU]

<font color="yellow">It is cheaper for us to implement solar technology to make a proffit than to implement geothermal. </font><br /><br />You might want to check your sources on this. Has I understand it with our current production and solar power technologies it takes nearly 8 years for a panel to recover the amount of energy it took to make it. On the other hand a geothermal power plant can recover this in about 2 years of power production. So why don’t we build more thermo power plants, as business says, location…location…location. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#0000ff"><br /><br /> <br /><img id="268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/8/268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /><br /></font></strong></p> </div>

 

[hyper_fule]

Photo voltaics are horribly ineficient even for heat engins. What I was thinking was more along the lines of solar thermal.

 

[micro10]

First of all I would not try and build any kind of nuclear Rocket to launch into space...Seconed maybe first you could invent a new type of metal to make lots of money to support your rocket entrepenuer wants.. How about a new type of Alluminium metal that would stand up to more heat, some type of alluminium carbon metal..HA! good luck

 

[nexium]

About 10 % of the USA is suitable for solar energy with another 20% marginal = very long payback.For 70%, the panels belong in the land fill before payback is reached.<br /><br /> Much less than 1% of the USA is suitable for geo-thermal energy plus there is at least a slight risk of a volcanic eruption that could destroy the geo plant and it's employees. Also the steam and hot water are very corrosive in most locations.<br />The better locations (for both) are typically thinly populated which means the early afternoon electricity is almost valueless, before solar reaches even 10% of the average local power need. At present it is quite wasteful to send power more than about 100 miles. Several types of thermal solar look promising, but investors are reluctant because of the possibility of cheap photovoltaic, and suitable locations cover only about 10% of the USA land area. The 8 years may be a serious exageration by the enemies of alternative energy. Neil

 

[hyper_fule]

I wonder how the crap it happened that photo voltaics are cheaper. I can build a solar thermal generator with a parabolic dish, some glass tubes, some mylar, a propeler and and an electric motor. All that &%$#@! is laying around my house.

 

[mlorrey]

They are cheaper because of automated mass production punching out silicon wafers, versus you, or someone else, assembling all those things together by hand.

 

[hyper_fule]

Of course, I forgot about Ford. I am going to have to think about this mor.

 

[scottb50]

Solar power will only get cheaper as it gets more common place. Like solar powered calculaters. The only way to reduce the costs is to up the production and lower the cost of production. Sort of the chicken and egg thing.<br /><br />What is even more ridiculous; the fossil fuels we are rapidly using up, were produced by Solar power to begin with. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

and that solar cells are produced by energy primary from fossil fuels.... <br /><br />However, I'd caution against buying the "peak oil" myth. The athabascan oil sands have many centuries of oil in them. The only thing that has peaked is the publics willingness to have oil refineries anywhere near their own homes.

 

[nyarlathotep]

We've got millennia of liquid hydrocarbons if you count oil shale. It's just not economic to extract when oil is sitting below $40/barrel.