Geoengineering with Rockets?

Jason

Senior Member
my personal (outsider) opinion, is if they are going to hijack the term geoengineering, you should stick them to it. and if its inefficient under 60,000 feet for climate change then its inefficient. *

if they are spraying aluminum to sell Monsanto seeds then the planes need to be lower to have any effect.

* its also ridiculous to suggest America would spray for climate change (sun screening) OVER AMERICA. you'd think people would know our reputation by now. we would do it over another country.
OT: And in theory a rocket would probably work better at that altitude than a plane. It would be very easy to have re-useable rockets sent up to that altitude and release the chemical cocktail, rather than refitting planes.
 
Last edited:
OT: And in theory a rocket would probably work better at that altitude than a plane. It would be very easy to have re-useable rockets sent up to that altitude and release the chemical cocktail, rather than refitting planes.

Actually, this is not off-topic.

The concept (theoretically) for an attempt at influencing Earth's atmosphere WILL involve other vehicles than commercial passenger airliners.

However, as I usually attempt to convey and point out, ANY such endeavor is on such a scale as to be...well, GLOBAL. This means it encompasses many countries, and as such, is going to be a HUGE public event.

There is little doubt that the various 24-hour News networks would miss this.... ;)
 
Actually, this is not off-topic.

The concept (theoretically) for an attempt at influencing Earth's atmosphere WILL involve other vehicles than commercial passenger airliners.

However, as I usually attempt to convey and point out, ANY such endeavor is on such a scale as to be...well, GLOBAL. This means it encompasses many countries, and as such, is going to be a HUGE public event.

There is little doubt that the various 24-hour News networks would miss this.... ;)

Unless it's being done secretly, and/or the news media is silenced, as the theorists suggest.
 
Unless it's being done secretly, and/or the news media is silenced, as the theorists suggest.
http://www.numberof.net/number-of-rocket-launches-per-year/
By the looks of it, it seems this will most likely become a widespread CT by the end of the decade because some are predicting there will be a 1000 launches a "day". Currently NASA sends up about a 1000 a year not counting other nations. It's hard to find an accurate total on the web including all nations and private entities.
 
Just saying NASA launches a 1000 a year. How many of them are televised or reported in the media. That's just NASA

1,000 a year? They only have 15 scheduled in the next six months:
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/schedule/#.U5MsTGQv-Gk

I don't see this becoming a conspiracy theory, as all the launches have a specific purpose with specific payloads. A rocket heading into space is not a very useful deliver mechanism for the stratosphere.
 
1,000 a year? They only have 15 scheduled in the next six months:
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/schedule/#.U5MsTGQv-Gk

I don't see this becoming a conspiracy theory, as all the launches have a specific purpose with specific payloads. A rocket heading into space is not a very useful deliver mechanism for the stratosphere.
Im sure its no where near a thousand but you cant just count Nasa any more . The last launch wasn't on their schedule since it was a private firm . May 16, 2014 • Delta 4 • GPS 2F-6
Launch Time: 8:03 pm EDT
Launch Site: SLC 37-B, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida
United Launch Alliance will launch a Delta 4 rocket that will carry the Air Force’s sixth Block 2F navigation satellite for the Global Positioning System.
 
1,000 a year? They only have 15 scheduled in the next six months:
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/schedule/#.U5MsTGQv-Gk

I don't see this becoming a conspiracy theory, as all the launches have a specific purpose with specific payloads. A rocket heading into space is not a very useful deliver mechanism for the stratosphere.
Agreed but the fact that planes aren't suitable or a best method for geoengineering hasn't stopped the conspirators. You're right most rockets are used for leaving earth's orbit but rockets can have a multitude of payloads and detonate at a specific height. What were those high altitude test NASA was launching from Virginia or Maryland last year. I remember them making announcements to the public so people didn't panic if they saw vivid colors in the sky. I can't find it yet
 
Just a thought. Does NASA and US Gov have to announce each rocket they launch. Are there certain international laws regarding this topic.
 
Just a thought. Does NASA and US Gov have to announce each rocket they launch. Are there certain international laws regarding this topic.
I dont think so but its pretty hard to keep that a secret .
 
Im sure its no where near a thousand but you cant just count Nasa any more . The last launch wasn't on their schedule since it was a private firm . May 16, 2014 • Delta 4 • GPS 2F-6
Launch Time: 8:03 pm EDT
Launch Site: SLC 37-B, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida
United Launch Alliance will launch a Delta 4 rocket that will carry the Air Force’s sixth Block 2F navigation satellite for the Global Positioning System.
Great point. So what about the US Gov and their research facilities. Can they orchestrate their own launches or do they use NASA for everything. I'm sure out gov had to run rocket test each year to ensure our ballistic missiles work or new technology they come up with. Is there any governance over what gov's can launch each year.
 
Just a thought. Does NASA and US Gov have to announce each rocket they launch.

Airspace restrictions, so yes this is known in advance (in the USA) via the NOTAM system.

Keeping in mind that the Vandenberg Launch Complex has dedicated restricted airspace (out over the ocean) already, but these areas go "hot" only for an active launch window (usually). Vandenberg is utilized for many secret D.o.D missions, and also for all Polar orbit insertion launches.

There is a "public" launch schedule, as well:
http://www.spacearchive.info/vafbsked.htm
 
Airspace restrictions, so yes this is known in advance (in the USA) via the NOTAM system.

Keeping in mind that the Vandenberg Launch Complex has dedicated restricted airspace (out over the ocean) already, but these areas go "hot" only for an active launch window (usually). Vandenberg is utilized for many secret D.o.D missions, and also for all Polar orbit insertion launches.

There is a "public" launch schedule, as well:
http://www.spacearchive.info/vafbsked.htm
Are these rockets launched in good faith. Meaning who governs that these rockets are being used for the right reason or for R&D. Are there inspectors at each launch to ensure safety and that they are doing what they said they were going to do.
 
Geoengineering with rockets IS something that has been looked into. It's really not practical.


8 Non-Aircraft Systems 8.1 Rocket Powered Glider

An analysis of a rocket powered system was carried out for comparison to airplanes. The concept vehicle utilizes off-the-shelf rocket engines or motors to boost a vehicle and payload to altitude. At apogee wings are deployed to increase the vehicle’s lift-to- drag coefficient to allow it to glide at altitude and disperse payload. Once dispersal is completed, the wings retract to allow it to descend quickly.

8.1.1 Cost Estimate

Rocket glider cost estimates were developed; however, a preliminary analysis showed this architecture is far too costly when compared to other systems. An initial estimate for the cost of the rockets was made using the cost per kilogram-payload of existing rocket systems. Both sounding rockets and orbital rockets were examined. Orbital rocket costs per kilogram are scaled down by 1/7 to account for the reduced complexity and energy required to achieve high altitude instead of orbit. Similarly, suborbital rock- ets costs were scaled to equalize costs based on a constant altitude and payload capa- bility (Figure 34). Seven sounding rockets and seven orbital rockets costs were com- pared.

The average cost computed from the 1/7 orbital rocket cost is $2,086 / kg-payload. This is in line with several published values that price a suborbital rocket launch at about $2,000 / kg-payload40. Based on this, our notional 5,000 kg-payload rocket-glider has a fly-away cost of $10M each. At this rate, launching 1M tonnes a year to altitude requires 200,000 vehicles a year and would cost $2,000B per year. It is important to note that these values assume a signal use rocket.

Due to the high acquisition cost of rockets, refurbishing and reusing them is cost effec- tive. Assuming a 1 month turnaround time, reusing the rockets reduces the required fleet to 16,000 bringing total yearly costs down from $2,000B per year to $390B per year. If 10 full time technicians are required to refurbish each rocket, an army of 160,000 technicians is required costing $30B in labor each year.

Rocket motors and engines produce extremely large amounts of energy through con- trolled combustion of highly volatile chemicals. For this reason, a typical rocket has a failure rate of several percent. The top 10 most utilized rockets have a failure rate of 7%, with 1,973 launches between them.41 The Delta 2 rocket has a realized failure rate of 1.35% with 93 consecutive successful launches, the most of any orbital rocket. Be- cause the chemical propellants and oxidizers are carried with the rocket, payload frac- tions are small and a large number of launches would be required to achieve geoengi- neering up-masses. With a 5,000 kg payload, 200,000 launches a year would be re- quired. If rockets can be refueled and refurbished in 1 month, each rocket can fly 12 sorties a year. If no failures occur, a fleet of about 16,000 vehicles is required. If a fail- ure rate of 5% is assumed (note, this is equivalent to retiring a rocket after 20 success- ful launches), a staggering 10,000 rockets will be lost or retired per year. Replacing these rockets dominates acquisition costs requiring a total fleet size of over 216,000 rockets with almost all lost or retired.
Content from External Source
AuroraGeoReport.pdf (page 62 of 87) 2014-06-07 12-06-30 2014-06-07 12-06-32.jpg
 

Attachments

  • AuroraGeoReport.pdf
    4.1 MB · Views: 964
Geoengineering with rockets IS something that has been looked into. It's really not practical.


8 Non-Aircraft Systems 8.1 Rocket Powered Glider

An analysis of a rocket powered system was carried out for comparison to airplanes. The concept vehicle utilizes off-the-shelf rocket engines or motors to boost a vehicle and payload to altitude. At apogee wings are deployed to increase the vehicle’s lift-to- drag coefficient to allow it to glide at altitude and disperse payload. Once dispersal is completed, the wings retract to allow it to descend quickly.

8.1.1 Cost Estimate

Rocket glider cost estimates were developed; however, a preliminary analysis showed this architecture is far too costly when compared to other systems. An initial estimate for the cost of the rockets was made using the cost per kilogram-payload of existing rocket systems. Both sounding rockets and orbital rockets were examined. Orbital rocket costs per kilogram are scaled down by 1/7 to account for the reduced complexity and energy required to achieve high altitude instead of orbit. Similarly, suborbital rock- ets costs were scaled to equalize costs based on a constant altitude and payload capa- bility (Figure 34). Seven sounding rockets and seven orbital rockets costs were com- pared.

The average cost computed from the 1/7 orbital rocket cost is $2,086 / kg-payload. This is in line with several published values that price a suborbital rocket launch at about $2,000 / kg-payload40. Based on this, our notional 5,000 kg-payload rocket-glider has a fly-away cost of $10M each. At this rate, launching 1M tonnes a year to altitude requires 200,000 vehicles a year and would cost $2,000B per year. It is important to note that these values assume a signal use rocket.

Due to the high acquisition cost of rockets, refurbishing and reusing them is cost effec- tive. Assuming a 1 month turnaround time, reusing the rockets reduces the required fleet to 16,000 bringing total yearly costs down from $2,000B per year to $390B per year. If 10 full time technicians are required to refurbish each rocket, an army of 160,000 technicians is required costing $30B in labor each year.

Rocket motors and engines produce extremely large amounts of energy through con- trolled combustion of highly volatile chemicals. For this reason, a typical rocket has a failure rate of several percent. The top 10 most utilized rockets have a failure rate of 7%, with 1,973 launches between them.41 The Delta 2 rocket has a realized failure rate of 1.35% with 93 consecutive successful launches, the most of any orbital rocket. Be- cause the chemical propellants and oxidizers are carried with the rocket, payload frac- tions are small and a large number of launches would be required to achieve geoengi- neering up-masses. With a 5,000 kg payload, 200,000 launches a year would be re- quired. If rockets can be refueled and refurbished in 1 month, each rocket can fly 12 sorties a year. If no failures occur, a fleet of about 16,000 vehicles is required. If a fail- ure rate of 5% is assumed (note, this is equivalent to retiring a rocket after 20 success- ful launches), a staggering 10,000 rockets will be lost or retired per year. Replacing these rockets dominates acquisition costs requiring a total fleet size of over 216,000 rockets with almost all lost or retired.
Content from External Source
AuroraGeoReport.pdf (page 62 of 87) 2014-06-07 12-06-30 2014-06-07 12-06-32.jpg
So in your expert opinion Mick, if geoengineering were to become a dire need in the future to help mitigate global warming, what would be the most likely scenarios for such a venture.
 
Back
Top